Vol. 62 No. 7
I move amendment No. 27:—
To delete reference No. 27 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This Resolution purports to put a duty of 50 per cent. on the articles set out. I would like to know from the Minister if this is a new duty—it does not seem to be—or what exactly the effect of it is. Is it a fact that previously there was power to import these articles under licence? I would be glad if the Minister would explain the effect of the entry in the Schedule.
A duty of 50 per cent. on articles manufactured of bakelite, of the descriptions set out, was imposed by an Emergency Order in December of last year. The duty has been in force since then. The Emergency Order was repealed, following the introduction of the Budget, and the duty has been made permanent by this Resolution. Bakelite articles are being produced here by two firms, one at Nenagh in the County Tipperary, and the other at Bray in the County Wicklow. Not all classes of bakelite articles are being manufactured here, and only those which are set out under the various headings are being made subject to the duty. They are mostly household appliances of one kind or another, and are being produced mainly by the Nenagh firm.
This is the first occasion that the Dáil has had the opportunity of discussing a 50 per cent. duty on articles which are in fairly common domestic use.
This duty applies to articles which are made from bakelite only.
But they are types of articles that are becoming increasingly common in certain houses, particularly in view of the high cost of ordinary china. In view of the fact that the Minister purports to put a tariff of 50 per cent. on these articles, we would expect to get some information from him as to the number of persons employed in the factory that has been set up here to manufacture them, and as to why he thinks that a 50 per cent. tariff is required in order to give it protection.
I understood the Minister to say that all these articles are now being manufactured here. I take his statement to mean that the market is already being supplied because he is not taking power to license the import of the goods described here. I would like to know if that is the position—that the company is now in a position to manufacture on a commercial scale and to give deliveries. It seems to me that a duty of 50 per cent. will add unnecessarily to the cost of these articles.
There is another matter that I would like to bring to the Minister's attention. In connection with articles dealt with in an earlier Resolution, he said that he was watching quality and price —the price at which those particular articles were being sold to retailers. I would also like the Minister to take into account the question of design. I am not thinking now as to whether some of these articles would have a lion or a Mickey Mouse on them for deceration purposes. What I mean is this: take, for instance, a milk jug. I am anxious to see that it will pour through the spout, because at times we have seen articles put on the market which, instead of pouring through the spout, poured through the sides. I hope we are not going to be in for a spate of bakelite or clay articles of that nature. Design is a very important question and the Minister ought to pay particular attention to it. While people pay attention to the price at which an article is sold, if they find that the cloth on the table has to be washed every time something is poured out of one of the jugs, the price will become a secondary consideration, and a duty of 50 per cent. will not be prohibitive unless every phase of the market is studied. I ask the Minister, when he is practically granting a monopoly to two firms, to see that the designs and quality are up to the standard before the goods are put on the market for the consideration of the public.
Has the Minister any information to give about the screw caps referred to in reference No. 27? If he has, I should be glad to hear it.
All the articles set out in the Resolution are being manufactured here in a variety of designs. I do not think that there should be any difficulty in producing bakelite goods here of quality and design as good as can be produced anywhere. The industry is one which is conducted largely by means of machinery and the equipment of the factories operating here is, I am sure, as good as the equipment of factories operating anywhere. Because the industry is one which is operated by machinery, the amount of employment given in it is not very large. I understand that to supply the requirements of the country in the classes of goods made subject to duty by this Resolution the services of about 40 workers would be needed.
Men or women?
Both classes are, I think, employed, but a high percentage would be female workers. A very large range of goods manufactured from bakelite and on sale here are not being made subject to duty at the present time. The duty imposed is at the rate of 50 per cent. but Deputy Mulcahy will notice that, in the fourth column, there is a reference to the Finance Act of 1919, which means that the duty on these articles when imported from Great Britain is only 33? per cent. The price at which the Saorstát-produced articles are sold is slightly higher than that at which the British articles can be sold here, due to the fact that the smaller production makes costs slightly higher. In so far as the demand for articles of bakelite is increasing, there is no reason why the expansion of the industry should not permit, at some stage, of a reduction in price. The articles I have seen produced by the companies concerned appear to me to be excellent. They were well finished and some of them were of quite useful design.
There is no licensing provision in respect of this duty. As Deputies are aware, these articles are of very low value and it is not necessary to have a licensing provision, because the actual payment of duty by people who desire to import these articles or the use of substitute articles of this description would involve no hardship. There is no difficulty in securing adequate supplies of these goods in the Saorstát.
What about the screw caps?
Screw caps of all designs can be manufactured by the Saorstát concerns. They are in a position to meet all demands in that regard.
But most of these screw caps are of metal.
These are not the caps referred to.
I cannot at the moment think of what screw caps are referred to.
Screw caps of bakelite for cosmetics.
There is a blue stopper which is usually made of bakelite but which has no screw cap. There may be a cosmetic trade for these caps of which I know nothing.
I move amendment No. 28:—
To delete reference No. 28 and all relevant references thereto, in columns 2, 3 and 4.
It is sought by this reference to place a duty of 33? per cent. on preparations consisting wholly or mainly of acid calcium phosphate to be used as a flour improver. The price of flour is sufficiently high already as a result of the tariff on imported wheat and as a result of the fact that the Government are, by their policy, collecting the taxation necessary to keep their wheat policy going across the shop counters rather than by the ordinary revenue machinery. I do not think that an additional burden should be placed on the people who are at present obliged to bear these high costs and I should like to know from the Minister what the object of this proposal is—whether it is a revenue proposition or whether there is any prospect of employment being given as a result of the imposition of the duty.
This duty was also imposed by Emergency Order last December and it is being made permanent by this Resolution. Deputy Mulcahy need have no apprehension that the imposition of this duty will have any effect on the price of flour. The flour improver produced in the Saorstát will be sold at the same price, ex-factory, as flour improver is sold ex-factory in Great Britain. The import of flour improver averages in value about £45,000 per year and it is expected that employment will be given to some 30 persons in its production here. A factory is being built at Dun Laoghaire by the firm which is proposing to engage in this industry and it will be sufficiently equipped to supply all the requirements of the Saorstát. It is not an industry of the first importance but it is one worth having in so far as it means additional employment here without any increase in the cost of the manufactured commodity.
What is the average price per ton?
About £3. There were 15,000 or 16,000 tons imported of a value of about £45,000.
I move amendment No. 29:—
To delete reference No. 29 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
There is a very substantial tariff on tea sets and breakfast sets which raises appreciably the cost of these absolutely necessary household articles. The duty here, so far as we can understand the effect of it, is intended to catch the higher priced tea sets. I should like to get some information from the Minister as to what is the position of the industry with regard to the manufacture of these higher priced tea sets, and as to whether there is any fall in the cost of the Irish manufactured tea sets.
Perhaps the Minister would say also how many firms are engaged in the production of these articles in the Saorstát?
There is only one firm engaged in the production of pottery ware in the Saorstát. That is the company at Arklow.
What about Carrigaline?
They are undoubtedly producing some of the goods, but they engage only in specialised lines, like teapots and things of that kind. The ordinary run of commercial pottery ware is produced mainly at Arklow. The duty was first imposed at the rate of 30/- per cwt., and it was realised that that duty would only prove effective upon the cheaper classes of goods in the production of which these firms are engaged. We were satisfied with that position because it was anticipated that, during the period when they were coming into production, and training workers, it would be these cheaper classes of goods only they would be producing. The firm, however, are now well in production and are proceeding to engage in the production of the finer classes of goods of this description and, consequently, the 30/- per cwt. duty, which works out at 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. ad valorem, on the main range of tea sets and breakfast sets and so forth is being increased by the imposition of a 50 per cent. ad valorem duty.
There are from 300 to 400 people employed in the production of these goods in the Saorstát, and that number represents an increase of 120 or so between September, 1935, and April, 1936. I think that, generally speaking, the public have been satisfied with the quality of the goods produced. There may have been some reason to complain heretofore about the variety, but Deputies will appreciate that in the establishment of a new industry, which involves a considerable amount of manual skill on the part of the workers, difficulty will be experienced in the initial period which will become less as time progresses, and it will be possible for the firm to increase its varieties and generally to supply a range of products which will enable all tastes to be catered for. The classes of goods which are being made subject to this 50 per cent. ad valorem duty represent only a proportion of the classes produced by the concern, but it is in respect of these classes that the demand is most substantial and that the additional protection necessary to transfer that demand to the home concern was required.
I am sure Deputies will appreciate that in respect of products of this kind, there is naturally a temptation to traders to seek exclusiveness of design. On that account, they are slow to place orders with the concern here when they feel that their competitors may have goods of the same design, and, therefore, there is a stronger temptation to import, even at the higher price and pay duty, than there would be in the case of certain other classes of goods; but that situation will be only a temporary one, and in fact there will, we anticipate, be a sufficient variety of designs and qualities to enable a certain amount of individuality to be maintained in the trade of particular firms.
Two questions arise on this duty, on one of which at least I ask the Minister to make a comprehensive statement. I take it that the object of the Government's policy is, while protecting Irish industry from external competition which in the judgment of the Government is too rigorous to enable home industrialists to compete, that legitimate competition shall continue to operate within the tariff barrier between the various firms engaging in the protected industries. I should like the Minister in that connection to state now if the Executive Council approves of trade rings being formed behind tariff barriers, with the object of maintaining prices at the highest possible level at which they can be maintained, without allowing any foreign merchandise over the tariff barrier provided by the Government.
I ask the Minister to inquire into the arrangements or agreements that may have been entered into by the earthenware and china producers in this State. It does not matter in the very least what Party or political affiliations the promoters of these companies have. It is the duty of a Deputy in this House to ventilate any legitimate grievance he believes the consuming public are under. I believe there are trade agreements being entered into between the producers of earthenware and china in this country with a view to maintaining prices and eliminating competition, by undertaking to divide up the types of pottery and allowing one company to produce one type exclusively on consideration that the other company is allowed to produce all the other types, and, on foot of that arrangement, eliminating all competition and allowing both firms to charge whatever they please for their products, always provided they do not raise their prices more than 50 per cent. above the price at which merchandise is offered from Great Britain.
Now, that does not apply only in the case of china. It applies in the case of druggists' sundries, and it applies in the case of a number of other sub-heads which may arise on this schedule of tariffs, and I think the Minister ought to make a statement now as to whether he is prepared to assent to rings of that kind being formed and whether he is prepared to say that, in the event of his Department being satisfied that the tariffs are being made use of for the purpose of establishing rings of that kind, he will take such steps as may be necessary to break the rings, and, if needs be, to withdraw the protection which is being used for the purpose of exploiting the consuming public.
The other point I want to make is an administrative point. The Minister has proposals to vest the Revenue Commissioners with a licensing power under this head and I want to ask him if he will recommend, as a matter of routine, the issue of a licence for the importation of any single piece of china which is required to replace a broken piece from an existing set which was imported prior to the imposition of the duty. The Minister will understand that in paragraph (b) of reference No. 29, he attaches a duty of 50 per cent. or 30/- per cwt. on all cups, saucers, sugar basins, slop basins, jugs, teapots and coffee pots. These frequently are replacements of dinner sets or tea sets which have been in use for some time, and it does not seem reasonable to levy duty on those goods when it is manifestly impossible to get them from either of the firms which are manufacturing that class of merchandise in Saorstát Eireann, and it would be of very great assistance if the Minister indicated his readiness to give a routine recommendation to the Revenue Commissioners for the issue of a licence in any case in which he was satisfied that a person was genuinely replacing a broken piece.
I will deal with the second point raised by Deputy Dillon first. It is, I think, the practice at present to give licences for the import free of duty of parts of sets required for replacement where the quantities imported are not unreasonable.
I know a case where the Revenue Commissioners refused to grant a licence for the importation of one tea cup.
I do not know of that case, but I have stated the general practice. In the case the Deputy has mentioned the circumstances may be such that the general rule could not apply. As to the general question of arrangements to which the Deputy referred, I do not think the matter arises in this case in relation to this industry. I think Deputies will find that there will not be a sufficient number of producers within the country to make a ring necessary by those who want to exploit the market. Consequently, we cannot rely upon competition between producers in this industry in order to keep down prices. I think it would be a very foolish thing to do. But the position is that arrangements and understandings have been made with the firms concerned as to the prices they will charge. If it should come to our knowledge that prices in excess of those agreed on are charged, then action of one kind or another will be necessary to deal with the position. So far as the general question of principle is concerned, we have power under the Control of Prices Act to get a report from the Prices Commission as to whether such rings exist, and whether they are influencing prices unduly. We propose to amend that Act, to increase the powers of the Prices Commission and to give them whatever powers are necessary in order to make price fixing organisations inoperative, where their activities are harmful to the public interest; whatever powers are necessary in addition to the existing powers will be sought. That is a matter which we will perhaps discuss more effectively when the proposals for the amendment of the Control of Prices Act are brought before the House. That will depend upon the pressure of business in the draftsman's office and in the Department of Industry and Commerce. In any event, we will have legislation to deal with the matter this year.
Is the Minister aware in connection with this tariff that these two companies, one at Arklow and another at Carrigaline, have agreed that one of them will produce brown teapots on the undertaking and consideration that the other will not? The Minister is, I am sure, aware that the brown teapot is universally used, and that in parts of the country nothing else is used. This tariff of 6d. or a shilling on a teapot means a good deal to the poorer country house. Does the Minister think that that agreement to which I have referred is a desirable agreement to be arrived at? With the tariff that these companies have already got, I should think there is nothing to prevent them producing in each firm a brown teapot. This would result in both concerns being keyed up to such a standard of efficiency, both constrained to charge the lowest penny they could charge. They should be fairly competitive.
Can Deputy Dillon say if Carrigaline is producing by machinery?
I could not tell you. But I know that Carrigaline is producing a most excellent teapot, and I have no reason to believe that they are charging too much for teapots at the present moment. The idea of arguing in favour of brown teapots seems to many Deputies absurd, but if the Chair will allow me——
The length of the Deputy's speech does not worry the Chair, but the Chair observes that the Deputy is speaking twice on the Report Stage. However, I shall permit him to conclude his point.
I would urge the Minister to remember that competition is the most effective control we have in this country. I think it is entirely against the public interest to permit agreements of the kind I have referred to between firms getting the advantage of these tariffs.
When both concerns between them are not yet supplying the requirements of the country, I think it is a good thing that they should not both concentrate upon similar lines of goods, but should endeavour to ensure that the requirements of the market should be met first. When both concerns have reached the point that any new trade that they can get is to be obtained in competition with one another, then I have no doubt that competition will develop. But at present the two firms are not producing enough to supply the requirements of the country, and, consequently, we are allowing imports in free of duty. In any event, Arklow is possibly one of the most up-to-date potteries in Europe. Deputies are aware that it is one of the most recently constructed. They have there all the latest devices for the making of new varieties of pottery ware, whereas Carrigaline is an old firm. Mechanical methods are adopted in Arklow wherever possible, and in that way there is no comparison between it and Carrigaline. There is a rather substantial difference between the methods of working in each concern. The production of other classes as well as white teapots is carried on in Arklow. They produce in Arklow things that are to be seen in the Gaeltacht as well as in other parts of the country. In addition, they have a very big market to supply in the matter of those other classes of goods which they have not yet been able to supply in full.
Is amendment No. 29 being withdrawn?
No, Sir.
I move amendment No. 30:—
To delete reference No. 30 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
The entry in reference No. 30 proposes to put a duty of 50 per cent. or 1/- the article on "toys which exceed nine-pence in value, and are, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, completely or substantially manufactured, and either are made wholly or mainly of wood... and soft toys not made wholly or mainly of rubber." This 50 per cent. tariff is one of the standard rates that the Minister seems to have concentrated on for a wide range of articles very often affecting the poorer classes of the people. The type of toys here are found more in use among the poorer classes of the people than amongst the better-off classes. The House should require a very substantial case to be made by the Minister that a definite amount of employment is being given here, and that it is employment of a kind that would root the toy industry here and would develop a very definite craft. In my opinion, before the House agrees to a tariff of 50 per cent. or 1/- the article on toys which exceed nine-pence in value, it should be well satisfied that a definite amount of employment will be given.
Toys of various descriptions are been made to some extent in Galway and in Gorey but the principal industry has been established at Tralee, in the County Kerry. There is, it seems to me, no reason why all these soft toys and all wooden toys other than the very cheap wooden toys which are imported at low prices, should not be made here. I have been encouraging firms to engage in this industry because the value of the goods imported is quite considerable. The total value of the toys imported during 1934 exceeded £30,000 in value. I am not sure that the existing concerns will be capable of supplying in full the demand for this class of goods, but I think they should be given a chance of doing so. We imposed the duty, as Deputies may remember, by an Emergency Order after the conclusion of the Christmas season. The greater part of this trade is, of course, seasonal. These goods are sold in very large quantities in or about the period of Christmas and the imposition of the duty at the commencement of the year gave the firms an adequate opportunity of producing in sufficient quantity and variety to enable the demands of the Christmas season of this year to be supplied. We hope that that will be done.
I am not sure to what extent employment in the trade can be regarded as seasonal employment, but the numbers employed at present are not high. Whether that is due to the fact that employment is seasonal or that the firms concerned have not succeeded in getting over their initial difficulties yet, I cannot say, but I know that various projects are under consideration for an extension of operations and an improvement of the technical direction of the firms engaged in this industry and I would like to see them given a chance. I do not think it will involve very great hardship on anybody to have particular classes of toys, such as those described in the Resolution, made subject to duty at this time of the year because I am sure the existing concerns can supply the present demand, whatever may be their position concerning the demands that will arise in the weeks preceding Christmas. I am quite certain they are capable of meeting the demand at the present time in full and on that account they should be given an opportunity to develop so as to enable the full trade to be supplied from Saorstát sources.
In connection with the duty imposed on toys, the Minister says that one of the principal centres of manufacture is in Kerry. I think I am right in saying that the promoters of the industry in Kerry were recently constrained to communicate to the public Press to the following effect, that admittedly a tariff was put on to protect their products, but immediately afterwards a series of other tariffs were put on which raised the cost of the raw materials to such a point that the first tariff ceased to have any material benefit for them and the net result was that the wooden toys and other toys they were making were a little dearer than they had been before, and the toy factory in Tralee was back very much to where it had begun. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comment on that communication to the Press and how far it is true to say that all the raw materials of the industry were tariffed after the imposition of the protective tariff on toys.
I recollect the letter to which the Deputy is referring and I may say I had some difficulty in understanding what they were getting at. It would be entirely incorrect to say that all the raw materials were subject to duty. When I went into the matter it came down to the point that a certain class of fleecy cloth, used for teddy bears and pussy cats and soft toys of that description, was involved. So far as that class of cloth is concerned, at the present moment licences are being issued for its importation to anybody who requires it for the purposes of toy manufacture, and it is not required for any other purpose, so that any difficulty which the Tralee concern may have on that account is nil. So far as I am aware, they are getting all the materials they need to import, free of duty.
Did the Minister not advert to the use of thread in the manufacture of soft toys? Is he aware that it is virtually impossible to get coloured thread in this country? Have any cases been brought under his notice—they have been brought under mine—of where 24 colours in thread were ordered from the Westport Thread Factory and they were in a position to supply only seven? Surely he has had representations from the concerns affected——
Not on the subject of thread.
The Minister says that the only thing he can find in the way of raw materials which had been tariffed was fleecy cloth for making teddy bears and kittens. I am sure he also recognises that there was a tariff in connection with thread which is also used in making kittens and teddy bears. I do not know whether the wood used for the purpose of manufacturing toys has also been tariffed. It amazes me to discover that a firm, which I happen to know is largely promoted by enthusiastic admirers of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, should irresponsibly address a letter to the public Press stating that the costs imposed by way of tariffs on the raw materials had largely negatived the original tariff. I invite those admirers of the Minister, who are now told coram populo that their contentions were rubbish, that they were wrong and their information was incorrect, to bear in mind when they next hear the Minister telling me that I am wrong that there is as much foundation for the Minister's insolent replies to me as there is for the insolent manner in which he purports to dispose of a letter addressed to the public Press by his enthusiastic admirers in Tralee.
I move amendment No. 31:
To delete reference No. 31 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This is another of the 50 per centers and it is imposed in this instance on tennis balls. There has been a general kind of revenue tariff on tennis balls and other sports goods of 15 per cent., with a 10 per cent. preference. It is now proposed to bring the tariff within the 50 per cent. range. The Minister, no doubt, will tell us that there is a firm in this country going to manufacture, or manufacturing, these tennis balls and that he has an agreement with them that the price will not be more than the price which is being charged in England, or at least very little more, for similar articles. I would like to know from the Minister whether he has any such agreement, and if he has—he has already referred to agreements in connection with others of these reference numbers and indicated that he may have something to say about them when he is introducing amending legislation to his Control of Prices Act—will he take the step of issuing as a White Paper, to be laid on the Table of the House, copies of such agreements that he may have entered into or may enter into in the future? The public want the protection and the assistance of public information and public knowledge in order to check the rise in prices of articles coming under this 50 per cent. tariff. I would like to know from the Minister whether he will issue to the public in future copies of such agreements. I would like to hear from him why this tariff is being raised to 50 per cent.
The tariff is being raised because tennis balls are now being manufactured in the Saorstát. The duty of 15 per cent. with a 10 per cent. preferential rate was imposed for revenue purposes only. This duty is intended to be protective. These goods are being made by the Dunlop Company in Cork in sufficient quantities to supply all the requirements of the market here, which is estimated at about 10,000 dozen per year. The general understanding in respect of price is the same in regard to these balls as it is in regard to other products of the firm; that is, the price is not to exceed the British price by more than 15 per cent. It is, I think, possible that the full increase may not be effected. A duty at the rate of 50 per cent. is considered necessary because any lower duty might not be effective to prevent the importation of certain classes of tennis balls where a small addition to the price could not be regarded as an effective deterrent. Anything—even second quality balls—could be imported and continued to be sold if a lower duty were in operation. A duty of 50 per cent. on articles of this kind is not unduly high. At any rate, the duty has no relation to the price, and the price they are sold at must not exceed 15 per cent. above the price in Great Britain.
Why should Dunlop's charge 15 per cent. here more than the price in Great Britain? The price of tennis balls is already outrageous. Tennis is a healthy game and it is a bad thing to handicap it by adding to the expense of already abominably expensive balls. I do not see why Dunlop's could not sell their tennis balls here as cheaply as in Great Britain. I am sure the profit is already very great without this additional cost.
If that is true we may find it necessary to examine into the position again. However, from the examination we made, which was very detailed, we were satisfied that the cost of manufacturing here would be higher than the corresponding cost in Great Britain by 15 per cent.
Will any substantial employment be given here because of the manufacture of these balls in this country?
It is difficult to say the numbers additional that might be employed by a concern as large, and as fully engaged producing a variety of articles, as Dunlop's. It is difficult to pick out a particular number and relate that to the manufacture of tennis balls.
I suggest that this concern is so large that they will not employ a single additional person and the only effect will be to increase the price.
What is the labour content in producing 10,000 dozen tennis balls?
I cannot say that.
Surely there is a definite figure? If we got that figure we could see what the relation is between the £1,000 the firm will get compared with the amount of wages that will be paid to these workers.
What is to prevent the Minister going to Dunlop's and saying: "We are giving you a complete monopoly of the Irish market and, surely, it is possible, with the resources at your command, to produce a tennis ball here at the same price as in Great Britain"? That is all that is suggested. The Minister is undertaking to make a stipulation as to price. Why is he willing, on behalf of the consumers of this country, to pay Dunlop's £1,000 to make tennis balls in Cork when there is no reason to believe that any one will benefit except Dunlop's?
The Deputy has no reason to assume that Dunlop's is making a higher profit in Cork than elsewhere on these manufactured articles.
But the Minister has stipulated that they are to charge 15 per cent. more than they would sell for in Great Britain. Has the Minister any grounds for assuming that the expense of manufacture is higher here? Has he any reason to believe that Dunlop's are not already making a sufficient profit on tennis balls generally to finance whatever the increase of cost is in consideration of getting a monopoly of the tennis trade in this country?
I suggest that Dunlop's could afford to take a somewhat lower price in view of the monopoly they are getting. I am a shareholder in Dunlop's myself so I may be arguing against my own interests. But it seems outrageous that people should have to pay more for these tennis balls than the price in England.
Is this a second case where the Minister has fixed a price which he admits is higher than if there was a free market?
I do not admit that. I said 15 per cent. more than in Britain was fixed but tennis balls were always subject to duty.
The Minister was arguing as to a price of 15 per cent. more than in Great Britain. He objected to Deputy Dillon's argument because there was the assumption that the cost here was the same as in Great Britain. Whenever the argument is put up that costs here are higher than in Great Britain it is always being scoffed at by the Minister. Still, in the last two discussions the Minister intervened in order to defend the 15 per cent. But who is to decide the question of quality of the article produced or whether the quality is the same as that of tennis balls sold at 15 per cent. less in Great Britain? Will the Minister, or the Minister's Department, decide this question? Will the balls have the same bounce as the Minister has when he comes in here? I understand that is a very important quality so far as tennis balls are concerned. Will the position of the tennis associations here be taken into account? Will the views of the mere consumer be ruled out altogether? Will this question of quality be decided by the officials of the Minister's Department? The Minister says that tennis balls are to be of the same quality but 15 per cent. above the British price. Again, I ask who is to decide the quality? Surely, the Minister can answer that?
Certainly, we will have to be satisfied upon that.
But is it the officials that are to decide if it is a good ball, and will give a good tennis performance? Who will analyse the ball?
Whom does the Deputy suggest?
It is a question of practice. The consumer must decide. It is not merely a question of pulling the wool asunder. It takes practice to decide. I am interested in the fact that again he fixed 50 per cent. for prohibitive purposes, but when certain cases are put before him he admits that owing to the condition of manufacture in this country a higher price will have to be charged. That is the case made against some of his tariffs. If that holds good in such cases then, a fortiori, it holds good in this case.
The Minister says there is always a difference of 15 per cent. in this matter. At any rate, since 1932.
Year one of the Republic.
I move amendment No. 32:—
To delete reference No. 32 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This is only a tariff of 40 per cent., but it covers a whole series of articles, from pavement gutters and component parts to sewer pipe ventilators, stands, frames, kitchen sinks and similar articles down to fire-grates, ranges stoves and safes and strong boxes. Although this is only a 40 per cent. tariff, it is as bad or worse than some 50 per cent. tariffs we had before us. Quite a large number of these articles have been subject to a tariff of 25 per cent. Here we have articles that enter into every home and into a lot of constructional work in the permanent fabric of every home, such as firegrates and ranges, as well as utensils such as pots and pans.
I should like to ask the Minister what has happened in the industry that has been manufacturing these things that forces him now to bring in a proposal to raise the tariff on these articles from something like 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that, according to the figures disclosed in the census of production for 1933-34, the industry to which most of these articles apply is an industry in which there has been a substantial reduction in the average wages paid to workers. So that I think that in the case of this reference here there is occasion for the Minister to tell the House what is the necessity for this tariff and what exactly are the conditions, or have been the conditions during the last few years in the industries which are manufacturing these items.
There is no reason why any cast-iron products should be imported except products of very special use and design. It is our hope to secure that all the cast-iron goods required in the Saorstát will be produced in Saorstát foundries. We proceeded to encourage the establishment of new foundries and the development of existing foundries for that purpose, first of all by requiring, through the Housing Board, that in houses subsidised from State funds Irish-made cast-iron goods should be used, such as down-pipes, grates, ranges and articles of that kind, to the extent that they were available. For a considerable period Irish foundries were not in a position to supply all the cast-iron goods required in such houses, and no duty was in fact imposed on such articles as grates and ranges on that account; because, apart from the market for these goods which existed in the ordinary course, even the special market in subsidised houses could not be supplied by the Irish foundries. They have got to that point now, and we consider it is time to proceed further and endeavour to have produced here some part, if not all, of the substantial requirements of the country in cast-iron goods of the kinds described in the Resolution.
The imports of these goods in the year 1935 were valued approximately at £300,000, and that is a very substantial sum to pay out for goods we could produce here. We are, therefore, making subject to the duty which is applied upon certain classes of cast-iron goods, cast-iron goods of the descriptions set out in the Resolution. It is contemplated that arrangements which have been made for increasing the production of these goods will result in their manufacture here in the course of the coming 12 months. We are taking power to license imports free of duty for the present, and that power will be utilised to ensure that any person not able to have his requirements met from Saorstát foundries will not have to pay duty; he will be allowed to import free of duty until such time as the production of the Saorstát foundries is sufficient to enable the requirements to be met.
There are three or four main classes of goods covered by the Resolution, such as gas pipes, smoke pipes, water pipes, and gutters. The importation of these last year was valued at £47,000. Other pipes and fittings were imported to the value of £82,000. The imports of domestic stoves, grates, and ranges were valued at £152,000. Deputies noting that figure will bear in mind what I have stated, that in a house subsidised from central funds only Irish-made grates and stoves could be used, or else the subsidy had to be sacrificed. The importation of cast-iron hollow-ware, for the manufacture of which at Waterford a new industry is about to be established, reached in 1935 £31,000 in value.
It is contemplated that in the production of these goods some 500 additional workers will be employed. We consider that that is employment of a kind worth having, as it is adult male employment in the main; that, in so far as there is no technical difficulty about doing this work here, it should be done, and that the imposition of a duty of 40 per cent. will be justified by the results. On the question of prices, which I know Deputies will refer to, I would point to the fact that there are a substantial number of foundries operating in the country, and that it is to be anticipated that the competition between them which, judging by recent Press reports has in certain cases been very keen, will be sufficient to enable prices to be kept down.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce is certainly a caution, because any argument can be used both ways, upside down and inside out, according as he wishes to use it. We are now assured that competition has set his mind at rest, and that that is an assurance that prices will be kept down. Ten minutes ago we were told that he was getting an assurance that prices would be kept down, and that was quite adequate to meet the situation. That is not all, because the Minister quite blandly says that Deputies need have no anxiety in this case, as there are several foundries in the country, and we all know this, although the Minister is himself engaged in wiping out all the independent iron founders in the country at present. He has sponsored a plan for the introduction of Allied Iron Founders into Waterford. He has been asked to receive a deputation from the independent iron founders, but, so far as I am aware, has refused to speak to them. He may have mended his hand since I heard last.
Allied Iron Founders will establish an absolute monopoly in all castings required, and any independent iron founder, engaged in work similar to that which Allied Iron Founders propose to undertake, will be put out of existence. Allied Iron Founders is an off-shoot of the British association which controls the vast majority of the moulds of the British iron founding industry. So far as I am aware, Allied Iron Founders will have an agreement with Allied Iron Founders of Great Britain which will make available to them all the moulds which Allied Iron Founders of Great Britain control. That means that any independent firm endeavouring to compete with them here is faced with destruction, and the Minister knows it.
I am glad to see the Minister for Finance here for a moment, because he will, perhaps, give us a little information on one aspect of this Resolution. This Resolution refers to pots, pans, sewer pipes, drain pipes, and rain pipes. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has just told us that the market for those commodities was secured for Irish producers by a proviso which was made by the Department of Local Government and Public Health requiring anybody who was building a subsidised house to use Irish-made ranges, down pipes and gutters if they were to get the grant. That all sounds very nice and benevolent, but perhaps the Minister has noticed that one of the firms engaged in the production of ranges, down pipes and gutters has, since its inception, and since those tariffs and inducements were brought into operation by the Government, paid its shareholders two capital bonuses—not dividends, but capital bonuses; has paid a substantial dividend on the twice watered capital; has paid to its directors a handsome fee at the conclusion of its last year's operations, and paid them a large bonus into the bargain. Most of those ranges, down pipes and gutters are being used in the houses of persons who have got a grant and are, therefore, persons of small valuation; or, alternatively, have been incorporated in the fabric of labourers' cottages, thereby raising the rent by so many pence per week on labourers who are not able to pay the rent at all in many cases. The Minister assures us that competition is going to keep prices down. If competition kept prices down, how was it that one firm was able to make two capital bonuses for its shareholders, handsome dividends for every year, and a large monetary bonus for its directors after its last year's operations?
Is this one of the firms that is going to be put out of business by the new concern at Waterford?
Not at all.
Why was the Deputy talking about a monopoly then?
The sad part is that the Minister does not know "B" from a bull's foot about the industries with which he is dealing. He does not understand the difference between the foundries that are scattered all over this country, the class of work the Allied Iron Founders will do, and the class of work represented by the manufacture of galvanised goods, down pipes, rain water goods, etc.—the class of work which the firm I am referring to was engaged upon. The Minister knows very well the firm I am referring to.
The Deputy has made two contentions, and I want to know which one he is standing on. He said that this new concern at Waterford was going to put other concerns out of business and have a monopoly?
All the independent concerns down the country.
And he does not include other foundries which are making large profits as well.
I do not believe that the particular firm to which I am referring will be affected by the competition of Allied Founders, and I do not believe it for the same reason which I ventilated on an earlier resolution—that there will be a policy of "scratch me and I will scratch you." The gentlemen making the capital bonuses will undertake not to chip in on what Allied Founders want to make; Allied Founders will give a quid pro quo, and will not chip in on what those gentlemen want to make. Between the two of them they will wipe out all the small foundries scattered through the country who, as the Minister knows, sought an interview with him but did not succeed in getting it. I want to ask the Minister does he think that the profits which have been made in the production of the cast-iron goods referred to in this schedule are legitimate? Does he think that this tariff has been fairly taken advantage of in so far as it has operated heretofore? Does he think that the firms engaged to-day in the production of rain-water goods and sewers have given the consuming public of this country fair value? I shall be glad to hear the Minister on those questions.
In regard to paragraph (k) of this sub-head, a 40 per cent. duty is going to be levied on firegrates, ranges and stoves. What will the position be in regard to anthracite-burning stoves? The Minister is aware that there are one or two firms in Great Britain, one firm in Sweden, I think, and one firm in Germany which specialise in a certain type of anthracite-burning stove and range. Those ranges are peculiarly suitable to the consumption of Castlecomer coal. Is the Minister in a position to say if there will be any alternative provided by Allied Iron Founders or any other foundry in the country now or intended to be set up in the country for the Esse anthracite stove or the Swedish anthracite stove which has been available heretofore? If no alternatives are going to be afforded, is it the Minister's intention to recommend the issue of licences for the importation of those stoves? Under paragraph (p), safes and strong boxes are to be made liable to this duty. Does the Minister seriously intend to require a duty of 40 per cent. to be paid on all safes being imported into this country?
All cast iron safes.
If steel enters into their composition will they be exempt? The duty applies to articles (whether completely or partly manufactured) made wholly or mainly of cast iron. If the outside shell of a safe is made of cast iron, and the lining and door are made of steel, will that exempt the safe from this duty? Perhaps the Minister would give us some indication of what class of safes he has in mind, because so far as I am aware few safes, if any, are now made exclusively or mainly of cast iron, and, if a reference of this kind is introduced into the schedule, surely the Revenue Commissioners will interpret it as meaning that any safe, the exterior casing of which is mainly of cast iron, is liable to the duty.
I want to raise a slightly different point on paragraph (k). I take it, of course, that the Minister is aware that the number and type of fire-grates, ranges and stoves installed in this country is legion. There are hundreds of them. I think the Minister is quite right in giving protection for what is going to be manufactured in this country, but I notice that he has put a duty on component parts of such articles. As between the person who is bringing in component parts, intending to assemble them in competition with the foundries here, and the person who is bringing in component parts as replacements for parts which have become worn out, I think the Minister should surely be able to draw a line of demarcation. I know that the life of a fire-grate or range is a debatable point; in fact, many controversies have arisen as to how long one ought to last. It will be many years before the cessation of a certain amount of trade in replaceable parts for a whole lot of types that are not going to be manufactured in this country, and never were manufactured in this country. A maker in some other part of the world, who has either the patent or the patterns, can provide the article more quickly and more cheaply than any person in this country who has to make a pattern for the precise part wanted. I would ask the Minister to consider that point.
There is also another point which Deputy Dillon was touching upon. I take it that safes that are made of steel, with steel linings and filled with fire-resisting materials between the walls, would not be affected by this particular duty. I should like the Minister to deal with those few remarks when he is replying.
With regard to this particular duty, we have some of the manufacturers, who have been manufacturing some of these articles for years, making a huge profit, as Deputy Dillon pointed out, both as a result of dividends and capital reductions, and we also have the fact that the existing production, whatever that happens to be, has not been able to provide all the needs of the country in connection with some of these articles, according to what the Minister says. In other words, their output was limited; but if they were able to make huge profits under such circumstances, I think it is evident that, with an increased output, they will make bigger profits. This will, of necessity, tend to raise the price of the various articles concerned. The Minister pointed out the amount we spent last year on imports of stoves, pipes and other articles. Now, if the firms referred to, which were able to make these huge profits, had reduced somewhat the prices of some of these articles, perhaps there would not have been such an extensive importation of these particular articles into this country; or even if they had devoted some of their profits to producing articles which they had not hitherto produced, perhaps those imports could have been decreased without the use of this increased tariff. Let us take the case of pots, pans and kettles. They are used in every house—even the poorest house—in the country. Of course, the Minister will probably say that he has an agreement with these firms that they will not increase their prices by more than 5 per cent., or 10 per cent. at the outside. Well, if so, why give them this 40 per cent. protection? Although I am not keen on protective duties—in fact, less keen than some people, except in approved industries—I will not cavil with the Minister in putting on a duty of 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. if, in the particular industry concerned, it can be proved that the duty, whatever it may be, is purely protective, and that it will not mean an increase in the price of the articles to the extent of the duty imposed. What I do protest against is giving these manufacturers a chance to charge 40 per cent. extra—which they will charge—on articles which are in every-day use. For instance, in the last paragraph of this item, you have smoothing-irons of every description. They are used in every household, and they may be taxed also. I protest against the price of such an article, which is in every-day use in every household, being put up as a result of the tariff. The most significant item, however, is at the end, and that has reference to glue-pots. I do not know whether the Minister intends to tax glue-pots to this extent, but if it means such an increase in price as I have suggested, I think it will mean that the Minister and his Party will find themselves in the glue-pot.
With regard to paragraph (m), I should like to know from the Minister whether the articles described therein are to be made in one factory here.
I propose to deal with all the points together when I am replying.
Well, can the Minister tell us anything about the prices of these pots, pans and kettles? Has he any guarantee about the price of these articles?
The Minister said that the price would be raised.
The Minister said that there would be 50 per cent. of an increase in price, I understand.
I did not say one word about a 50 per cent. increase.
Well, take the case of the Nenagh factory for the manufacture of aluminium goods of this description. What is the position there? The wholesale price there is exactly 40 per cent. over the world price, plus the cost of carriage and packing, which brings the price up to practically 50 per cent. above the world price. Yet the Minister says that the price is not increased. I hold that the same thing will happen in regard to the articles mentioned here.
How are they going to put all the other firms out of business, if that is so?
I do not know.
Well, Deputy Dillon says that they are going to put all the existing firms out of business. They cannot do both.
Now, the Minister is not going to escape in that way at all. I am talking about the consumers. They are going to be put out of business. It is their fate. The manufacturers can look after themselves, as is instanced in this case. However, does the Minister deny that the Nenagh factory is charging 40 per cent. over the world price, plus the cost of package and freight, and that when these articles were coming from England they were delivered here in Dublin free of the cost of packing and freight, whereas now they will not be delivered from Nenagh here except with that increase in price, plus the cost of packing and freight? I think that the Minister had better stop telling this House and telling the people outside this House that this kind of thing is not taking place. It is taking place, and it is a scandal that it should be allowed to take place. I am not concerned with the case of any particular manufacturer. As I have said, the manufacturers can look after themselves.
When this matter was being discussed here the other evening, I understood that one of the reasons given by the Minister for a high protective tariff of 50 per cent. was to protect the ordinary manufacturer here against the power of a combine or combines. I think the argument was that, although a 10 per cent. tariff—I think that was the actual figure mentioned by the Minister—would enable a manufacturer here to manufacture the particular article concerned in an economic manner, still it would be necessary, in order to protect such home manufacturers against combines, to introduce the 40 per cent. additional protection. Now, Sir, my difficulty in following the Minister is this: he asked Deputy Dillon as to what leg he was standing on. We find it difficult to know, from night to morning, what leg the Minister stands on in a case like this. As I have heard the case, the representation of certain existing manufacturers is that there is a great danger that the introduction of a big combine, disguised in whatever manner it may be disguised, will have the effect of crushing a number of existing manufacturers in this country out of existence. Perhaps the Minister has not heard that. I do not know whether there is now any truth in the suggestion that the Minister refused to receive a deputation from these people. Deputy Dillon could not say whether it was true up to date or whether quite recently the Minister has changed his mind on this matter. It is possible that he has not heard this, but I understand that it is the representation of certain existing manufacturers in this country that that will be the effect so far as 12 or 13 of them are concerned.
Now, on the last occasion when we debated these matters, one night last week, the Minister was particularly alive to the dangers that might accrue from combines. It appears now, however, that his sight seems to have been clouded suddenly and that, in connection with that particular matter, that danger, apparently, no longer exists, although undoubtedly, the fear which now seems to have passed away from the Minister, seems to have passed into the breasts of the manufacturers already engaged in these foundries throughout the country. I quite admit that the Minister may say that it is the business of these manufacturers to look after themselves, and that, if they cannot do that, it is not his business. He may hold that, even though they may be crushed out of existence, his business is to see that, if certain articles now manufactured abroad can be manufactured here, they shall be manufactured here, no matter what happens to the existing industries. Let us suppose that the fears of these manufacturers are justified, and that they are crushed out of existence. That means that you will have a monopoly here. We are in a difficulty with the Minister on that matter, and perhaps he will grasp our difficulty. The Minister, of course, will probably tell us that he will intervene if such a monopoly leads to increased prices. We do not know the number of cases in which he has intervened, but it will be noticed that, up to the present, whenever he came to deal with the question of prices, he took up the line that he had entered into an agreement in the case of a number of firms to be established—whether large concerns or small concerns—on this matter of prices. He has not said that in the present instance, however. Not merely did he not say that, but I think he implied the contrary in his interruption of Deputy McMenamin. There was no question here of a guarantee of only a 10 per cent. or a 15 per cent. increase in price. All he relied upon was the competition of a number of existing firms. The fear is that as a result of the steps taken many of them are going to be crushed out. Competition was what the Minister relied upon to keep down prices to a reasonable extent. The Minister is giving 40 per cent. We are told there is no fear that that will mean an increase of 40 per cent. because there is no agreement between the foundries. He says it will be only 12 or 15 per cent., because there will be competition between the powerful combine and the ordinary manufacturers here. It will be noticed that the Minister took up the line in connection with tennis balls, that an increase in price was necessary owing to conditions of manufacture here not being as favourable, apparently, from the manufacturers' point of view, as in Great Britain. There is no indication that the same will not happen in this case. The market is smaller here than in Great Britain and the argument the Minister used with regard to tennis balls applies here. He gave no indication of the rate that he expects prices to go to, as he has made no agreement, as far as I can judge, with the firms to which reference was made. The Minister said that the prices will not go up at all, that articles as good could be produced here, and that consumers will not suffer. That is a remarkable contrast with the line he took up in connection with the manufacture of tennis balls. It is impossible to find any principle as a basis of the Minister's activities. The reference concerns a number of articles, and the one person never thought of in all the tariffs and taxes we are putting on is the consumer. He is the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is his sole function, and if ultimately he is killed it does not matter. As far as the Minister is concerned, there is no danger of that. He is quite convinced that the consumer can go on interminably laying golden eggs when tariff after tariff is put on, and when he has been mulcted and exploited. but never has there been any advertence by the Minister to the position of the consumer.
Whom is the Deputy concerned about? Is it the number of firms that are to be wiped out or the consumer? Which is his chief concern?
I want to know that from the Minister.
How are they going to be wiped out? The only way by which they could be wiped out would be as a result of the development of unnecessary competition and if prices were reduced.
That is all you said was to happen.
The Deputy cannot have his heart bleeding for both people at the same time.
Under this it is necessary.
If consumers are going to suffer they will suffer because prices go up, and if prices go up the smaller concerns that the Deputy is concerned about will not be in any worse position. If prices go down because of competition, then they may have a difficulty in keeping going. Under such circumstances consumers will have nothing to complain of.
They will not have so much difficulty but the consumers will be gone.
I wish Deputies opposite would make up their minds what they want before they make speeches. Deputy Bennett is in that position. His speech was incomprehensible.
I will be able to explain it in ten words.
The second half of the Deputy's speech contradicted the first half. We are told that the new concern at Waterford is the product of a combine. It happens to be a Saorstát company in which two-thirds of the shares are held by Saorstát nationals. It is a company established under the provisions of the Control of Manufactures Act. I have no power to stop that company engaging in that industry in Waterford. Why is it suggested that I have? That company is entitled to engage in that business or in any business without leave or licence from the Department of Industry and Commerce or any Government Department. It is so constituted that it has that right. Anyone can engage in the manufacture of these goods in the Saorstát and is entitled to do so without a licence under the Control of Manufactures Act. If a half-dozen new foundries were started by Saorstát companies there is no power given the Minister for Industry and Commerce by the Oireachtas to prevent that development taking place. Anyone engaging in any one of these industries has to do so in the knowledge of the fact that other people have the same right to do so that they have, and that they may be faced with competition. Provided that competition comes from a Saorstát company, it is entitled to engage in manufacture here without licence under the Control of Manufactures Act. I have been told that I refused to receive a deputation from the Saorstát Iron Founders' Association. I have no recollection of having been asked to receive a deputation.
Were they not consulted by the Minister?
They were consulted by officers of my Department. I was not asked to receive a deputation. I received representations from some Deputies and the association was in fact consulted by officers of my Department, but the statement that I refused to receive a deputation from them is not correct.
Did they put their views before the Minister?
I am aware that all manufacturers dislike competition.
I want to know what the Minister did.
If I was arranging to establish a new industry in which there would be no competition, that would be denounced as something monstrous. Here the competition is active and is likely to develop. Those engaged in the industry at present do not like that. Of course they do not. No manufacturers like competition, but it is not our business to stop that competition developing when it is done in accordance with the law. What does the Deputy want? I am at a loss to understand his position. Apparently he does not want competition to develop and, at the same time, wants to pretend that the absence of competition is detrimental to the interests of consumers. I do not believe that existing Saorstát foundries are going to be wiped out. In any event, if they were wiped out, they have to face that possibility. It is three years since I met the manufacturers and pointed out that there were cast-iron goods, not produced here, imported to a value exceeding £300,000 per annum. I urged and encouraged them to extend their activities so as to produce these goods. Time and time again during the past three years they were pressed to reduce the imports of the items that appear in the shipping statistics. If they have not taken advantage of the market that is there waiting for them, they have no reason to complain when another Saorstát firm comes along. Even this other Saorstát firm is going to have a very big task before it if it is going to produce here the greater part of the goods imported without infringing on the market already supplied by existing firms. The value of cast-iron products of the kind mentioned in the resolution imported last year was £300,000. If the new concern at Waterford produces cast-iron goods of that value, it is going to be a very big concern indeed, and it would certainly take more than 12 months to get into a position in which there would be such production. When it has got to the stage, if it ever does get there, in which all that £300,000 worth of goods will be produced and sold by it, then the existing Saorstát foundries will be in no worse position than now, and the existing markets which they are supplying will not be impinged upon in the least.
In any event, I state here and now, that except in relation to industries for which there has been special legislation, like the cement industry, or except where a reserved commodity Order under the Control of Manufactures Act has been made, there is no power in the Government to prevent any Saorstát firm engaging in any manufacturing process here, and anybody who goes into any industry has got to do so in the knowledge that any other Saorstát firm has the same right to engage in that industry that he has. In so far as the foundry industry is concerned, I have been perturbed by the fact that its development has been slow, and that, despite the assistance given to it, there was not recorded the same increase in production and the same increase in employment that other industries can show, that there was still a very substantial importation of cast-iron goods. I am glad to say that plans have been made which will result in that increase in employment and that reduction in imports which we desire. It is of course ridiculous to talk about this firm getting into a position in which it will have a monopoly. There is at least one existing foundry in the country which is as large, if not substantially larger, in relation to the capital invested in it and its total productive capacity, as the Waterford concern ever will be.
So far as component parts are concerned, it is proposed to grant a licence for those where they are not of standard design and are required for replacement. I do not think any difficulty will be experienced in that connection. All the classes of goods which are being made subject to duty at this reference were not dutiable heretofore, and the statements made by speakers to the effect that firms engaged in these industries had already exploited the protective position therefore are proved to be groundless. These goods were not previously dutiable.
All the more reason why you should not make the duty 40 per cent. now.
The Deputy was talking about big profits being made without any duty.
Yes, even without any duty. I was under the impression that there was some small duty.
What is the Deputy's grievance?
Why not make it 20 per cent.?
If goods can come in free of duty, the price is determined by competition, and it will be determined by competition in the future. These pots, pans and kettles of cast iron will be manufactured here by the Waterford concern for the first time. Other classes of pots, pans and kettles are already being manufactured here.
I move amendment No. 33:—
To delete reference No. 33, and all relevant references thereto, in columns 2, 3 and 4.
Would the Minister explain this reference?
This is only an extension of the duty which we discussed in connection with reference No. 22. It refers to articles of the same description.
Perhaps the Minister will explain the procedure he adopts in regard to consulting people interested when he decides to put on tariffs. I cannot make out what the procedure is. There are a number of manufacturers in the State, according to the Minister, in the foundry industry. He saw them in 1933. Apparently since then he has not personally heard their views. He is dissatisfied with them, and he puts on a tariff of 40 per cent., obviously without consulting either the consumer or the manufacturer. Up to the present I thought it was only the consumer that was neglected, so far as consultation was concerned, but now, apparently, existing manufacturers, according to what I can gather from the Minister's statement, are equally neglected. He saw them in 1933. Here is a radical change in his programme and they have not been given an opportunity or have not been called by the Minister to put their case, whatever it is, before him. He referred to the assistance that he had already given them in 1933. What precisely was the time that the Minister gave assistance to the foundries?
The regulation requiring the use of Saorstát manufactured goods in subsidised houses has been in operation since the Housing Board came into existence.
That was the only assistance given the foundries in this country?
They were not able to supply that part.
Will the Minister kindly note that one of the purposes for which we are here is to get information as to what the Government procedure is?
This is not the only assistance. There is a long list of cast-iron goods subject to duty already.
He did give considerable assistance—that is the phrase he himself used—and they did not avail of it, and now with a strong company in he proposes to jump——
I did not say they had not availed of it.
Well, not to the extent he expected. Is it worth while cavilling over these matters? The Minister expresses discontent at the method by which they utilised the opportunities which he provided for them. Apparently he considered these opportunities of such a nature that they should have utilised them to a much greater extent; they did not utilise them to the extent that the Minister expected. That is the statement he has just made to the House. Now he proposes to put a tariff of 40 per cent., under reference No. 33, as he has done under reference No. 32. He could give the new company an opportunity to see whether it would avail of them under existing conditions and would be prepared to work under existing conditions. Has the new company indicated to the Minister that this is the tariff it would expect? We have had in this House occasions on which the Minister has told the House that manufacturers had come to him and told him of the tariff that they thought would be necessary to help them to operate successfully. We have heard many instances of that in the past. Was the new company that is being set up in this case consulted as to the range of the tariff? Perhaps the Minister would answer that, "yes" or "no."
Nobody is informed of the intentions of the Government in respect to the terms and scope of a duty. The classes of goods to which this duty applies were determined after consultation not merely with the representatives of the new company, but with the representatives of the existing foundries.
Candidly, I am in a difficulty in trying to follow the Minister's statement. I think he will admit that the difficulty is not altogether on my side. I did not ask whether the Minister said: "I will give you a 40 per cent. tariff." What I want to know is, did the Minister get the views of the new company on the kind and height of tariff that they would be looking for. Was that put before the Minister? According to statements that we have heard from him in the last couple of years, it has been put before him on many occasions. The procedure of the Minister used to be quite simple. Manufacturers came to him and said that if they got a 25 per cent., a 30 per cent. or a 40 per cent. tariff, they could manufacture a certain thing, and the Minister simply said to them: "You can have your tariff if you can manufacture this thing." That used to be the procedure of the Minister in his earlier years. What I want to know is, has he been in consultation with any of these companies or not? I gather that he has been in consultation with the new company as to the types of articles that were to be manufactured, and, I presume, as to the height of the tariff. I am not saying that he indicated to them that he was going to give them a 30 per cent., a 40 per cent. or a 50 per cent. tariff. I gather that he consulted them.
Yes.
And the Minister has not seen them since 1933.
I have not seen them. Is the Deputy now talking about me in the personal sense or the corporate sense? Personally, I have not seen them since 1933.
I am speaking of the Minister and of the Department as a whole. Have these Irish manufacturers put their views directly or indirectly before the Minister?
Yes.
I mean the existing manufacturers.
They have been in regular contact with the Department.
And they have indicated to the Department their fear of being wiped out?
I have had that complaint.
The Minister has had that complaint officially.
I have had that conveyed to me from the representatives of the Irish Foundries' Association.
Officially?
Officially, as well as through Deputies, in writing and otherwise, that they were apprehensive as to what the effects would be.
I am leaving Deputies out of it.
Most of the communications I have got personally were addressed through Deputies.
Were any of them put before the Department? I take it that they were, but what an amount of trouble it has taken to get that information out of the Minister. It has been almost impossible to get any information out of him.
Any indirect communications that I had were addressed through Deputies.
Will the Minister say that the only touch he had with the new company was through Deputies?
No. As to the consequences of the existing foundries, on the general question as to the position of the foundry industry and of the desire of the Government to have production expanded and so forth, there was direct contact with the representatives of the new foundry and with all the members of the association on many occasions since 1933.
It is really very hard to get information out of the Minister.
I do not know what information the Deputy is seeking.
The Minister takes very good care not to give me any information.
I have been giving it to the Deputy for the best part of my life as a Minister.
We have it now that the Minister and his Department—I am not making any distinctions—were in consultation with the new firm. To what extent the Minister was in consultation with the existing firms I leave it to Deputies who have been listening to the debate to make up their minds to see if they can make any sort of definite story out of it. To me it seems an exceedingly difficult thing to do. The Minister complained about the existing firms that they had not utilised their opportunities. A new firm is going to be established, and without waiting for an opportunity to see how it will utilise its opportunities, the Minister immediately gives it a 40 per cent. tariff. Did the old firms ask for a 40 per cent. tariff?
On what?
On the bulk of the articles here.
On a number of them.
On the bulk so far as value is concerned?
On the articles they were making. Each foundry makes different articles. They do not all cover the same range.
Take the existing firms with which I am dealing. Did they ask for an increase of a 40 per cent. duty on all these articles?
Yes, on the classes of articles that they were making. Take, for example, cast-iron hollow-ware. None of them makes this at all and do not propose to make it. I want to explain this. I did not say that the existing foundries took no advantage——
I did not suggest that.
——of the opportunities created for them. I was referring to the fact that a situation was created in which the demand for their goods exceeded the supply. I think they could have taken greater advantage of the situation, but advantage was taken of the situation because practically every foundry increased its production. A number of new foundries were established, at least three or four, apart from the expansion in production in the case of existing concerns. I never contemplated that the whole of our imports of cast-iron goods was going to be wiped out without the establishment of new foundries, and I am astonished that any person engaged in the business should contemplate that the importation of all cast-iron goods could be wiped out without the establishment of a new foundry. Now that there is a new foundry being established, I cannot see why they should be getting so apprehensive as to the possible effects upon their own business in view of the fact that there is a market here to be supplied which nobody is supplying. That market is worth £300,000 a year, and the whole of it can be supplied without taking one pennyworth of trade from the existing concerns. If the new concern, to which reference has been made and which has established a foundry at Waterford, gets up to a production of £300,000 a year, then I think it will be doing more than its promoters contemplate.
When we were dealing with reference No. 32, I referred to one other point in connection with this industry, and that was the effect on wages as between 1931 and 1933-34. The information published by the Minister's Department indicates that the average wage income of the wage-earner in the metal industry has substantially decreased between these years. In respect of the year 1933, the information published by the Minister's Department showed that the average income of the wage-earner in the metal industry was £10 18s. 0d. less per annum in 1933 as compared with 1931, and that in 1934 it was £8 8s. 0d. less as compared with 1931. I take it that the industry we are dealing with comes under what is classified as "metals," and excludes engineering. But if those in engineering employment are to be included with those in the metal industry, then we find that the wages fall in the case of the average wage-earner has been greater than the wage fall of the metal worker when taken separately.
Where did the Deputy get his information?
From the census of production published by the Minister.
And by the same process that the Deputy employed previously?
By the same process, taking each year the total wage pool in the industry and the number of persons, as indicated by the Minister, as having been in occupation each year in October.
Exactly. The Deputy takes the sum paid out in wages each year, divides that by the number employed on a particular day, and by doing that he thinks the results mean something.
Owing to the way in which the Minister operates, there is no other way left to me of finding out the average wages paid to wage-earners in industry in the country. If the Minister has any information as to the trend of wages in the metal trades, he ought, when he is putting these substantial tariffs on metal manufactures, to be able to tell us something about them. The only way people have of watching the trend of wages over the 22 industries which are dealt with in the census of production is to take the total wages pool in the industry in a year, take the figures of employment for October, and consider the relation of the number of persons employed in October of each year to the total wages pool of that year. In both the engineering and metal industries there has been a substantial fall in wages. There has been a more substantial fall in the engineering trade than in the metal trade. The figures the Minister has given us show that there have been reductions, as I pointed out, of £10 18s. 0d. and £8 8s. 0d. respectively between 1931 and 1933 and 1931 and 1934. I do not think that the Minister can deny that the average wage in the metal industry has fallen.
I am not aware that it has.
The Minister comes before the House and seeks to put a 40 per cent. tariff on these items. A very substantial part of that tariff, so far as reflected in the price, will be paid by the ordinary middle-class and working people who keep up homes here. I suggest that the Minister ought to direct his mind to the tendency revealed by his own figures.
The figures published by me show no such tendency.
The only interpretation that can be put upon what the Minister says is that he has not examined the situation. The Minister cannot but look at things in the ordinary way. Taking the Minister's figures for October of each year as representing a rise or a fall, the Minister cannot but have been curious enough to relate that to the wages pool. If he has not done that, it is a very peculiar thing. Perhaps he thinks that that is not the right way of dealing with the matter. May we ask him what the right way is, and what way the Minister has selected to show the trend of wages? The trend of wages, as shown by the method I have adopted, is substantially down. We have no indication as to what is causing that— whether it is the difficulties the small foundries are finding themselves in in relation to the large foundries or not. If that be the position, the question arises whether the tendency will not be more in that direction in the future as regards the smaller foundries unless the Minister examines the situation and brings it under review. Apparently, the Minister knows nothing about the matter.
I merely asked Deputy Mulcahy not to misuse official figures. To divide the wages figures for a year by the number employed on a particular day proves nothing.
Does the Minister realise that this is Report Stage?
Does Deputy Mulcahy realise that?
I spoke for the first time on resolution No. 3. If my remarks appear to have been divided into a number of speeches, then that is because the Minister could not sit quietly in his place and listen.
On the next reference I shall tell Deputy Mulcahy where he is wrong.
Will the Minister tell us where he, himself, is right? Will he give us the proper figures showing, as he says, the upper trend of wages, and on what that is based?
I shall be glad to do that.
I should like to support Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy O'Sullivan in their request to the Minister to interpret his figures in such a way as would make them plain to the ordinary person. The Minister thinks that the effect of this tariff will be to increase employment.
I submit that we are supposed to be discussing a resolution dealing with the lids of pots and kettles.
I do not understand what the Minister's point is.
If the Chair wants to know what the Minister is at, here it is: the Minister does not like to have a question dealing with the wages trend raised, and he is trying to introduce a red herring.
The Chair prefers to interpret the remarks of members on its own responsibility.
Sometimes it is not easy to understand the Minister.
That is not my fault.
He is waving a red herring now. When he is in a difficulty he introduces a red herring, but I propose to continue. The Minister proposes to impose a tariff for the purpose of increasing employment at a level of wages satisfactory to the community as a whole. Our submission is that the Minister's machinations heretofore have resulted in a fall in the standard of wages of persons employed in the metal industry.
Not in the manufacture of lids of pots and kettles.
Deputy Mulcahy has adduced figures showing how we have arrived at our conclusion. The Minister repudiates Deputy Mulcahy's calculation. He says that the calculation as made by Deputy Mulcahy is likely to produce a false impression, and is a misrepresentation of the official figures. This question has been debated on this resolution and on many other resolutions in the past. On each occasion the Minister for Industry and Commerce has maintained that he is being libelled by the interpretation put upon his figures. We now ask him how he wants the figures to be interpreted. When he has done that, we shall be in a position to tell him where and for what reason we have been misled by the figures which, he alleges, are at present misleading us. The second question that arises on this reference is in regard to the 40 per cent. which is being placed on covers of pots, pans and kettles. The metal cover of a pot made of cast iron or one of the other materials mentioned in this resolution, and carrying a duty of 40 per cent., may become more expensive than a similar cover made from blocked tin. Has the Minister considered that aspect of the question? Most pots can be used with a metal cover which has been tinned or with a cover made out of blocked tin. The terms of this resolution——
Have nothing to do with tin.
They exclude tin. If a situation arises in which the metal cover, carrying 40 per cent. tariff, is more expensive than the blocked tin cover, the effect of this tariff will be to make people pay far more for the cover of a pot than they paid heretofore, without conferring any benefit whatever on the foundries which are supposed to be producing these articles in Saorstát Eireann. Of course, the Minister has not thought of that question, and, of course, he knows nothing about it. But he ought to think about it now.
I now come to the third question with which I want to deal. I raised the question of the Allied Iron Founders on the last reference. The Minister replied that, if the Allied Iron Founders could capture all this trade, the ordinary rules of competition would have to apply. I want to know from the Minister if there is to be a catch-as-catch-can agreement between the Hammond Lane Foundry, in Dublin, and the Allied Iron Founders, in Waterford, to smash all the independent foundries and then divide up the market for cast-iron goods in this country between them on their own terms. The Minister has said, in connection with the pottery industry, that he approves of an arrangement of that kind——
I said quite the reverse.
——that he feels that, when firms are gradually spreading themselves to capacity to cover all the requirements of the country in a given line of merchandise, it is prudent that any two firms in the trade should divide up the trade between them and specialise in several branches, so that eventually the position may be reached in which firm A will be producing the country's requirements in five or six commodities belonging to a certain category, and firm B will be producing all the country's requirements in the other six commodities included in that category. The Minister says that when that stage is arrived at these firms can proceed to overlap one another and to compete against one another in all the other products, but is there any probability that that will happen? I would ask Deputies to remember that the smaller foundries in the country largely produce by manual labour. They do not use modern machinery; they have never been designed to replace manpower by machines and have always preferred craftsmanship. The new foundries, as the Minister explained to us, are equipped with the most modern machinery and are designed to produce everything with the least possible expenditure on labour. Are we going to be confronted with a situation in two or three years in which all the independent foundries are wiped out of existence—the foundries in Sligo, in which, no doubt, Deputy Frazer Browne is interested, and the foundries in Cork, on which perhaps Deputy T. J. Murphy will have a word to say— by a combination of the Hammond Lane Foundry and Allied Iron Founders, and the consumers of this country being left to the tender mercies of these two combines?
We have some experience of the proceedings of the Prices Commission in regard to these classes of goods. A situation developed in which the Prices Commission was moved by the Minister. They had the representatives of the Hammond Lane Foundry before them, and some pretty strong comments were passed at a public session of the Commission. I think that at one juncture a prominent official of the Hammond Lane Foundry was asked by Senator Johnson, who was a member of the Commission, if he did not think that £1,500 a year was adequate remuneration for his services, to which that official replied: "How do you expect me to live on £1,500 a year?" If the people of this country are going to provide capital bonuses, bonuses for the directors and salaries of £1,500 a year for somebody who thinks that is a very poor wage for him out of the pots and kettles and covers, I think the House should sit up and take notice, because I do not think the people who use cast-iron pots and covers for such commodities ought to be asked to provide profits and salaries on these scales and, mind you, to bear a tariff of 40 per cent. in order to provide such profits and salaries. No one in the House will pretend that a tariff of 40 per cent. is necessary unless the producers of these goods are going to ask 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. more than these goods would cost if they were imported.
If an industry can be set up in this country which is going to provide employment for men who would otherwise be idle, at fair wages and at reasonable cost to the community, no Party in this House will make any difficulty about taking such steps as may be necessary to establish it; but if we are asked to put on 40 per cent. with a view to handing over the consuming public of this country to the tender mercies of the Hammond Lane Foundry and Allied Iron Founders, I think we ought to pause, and Deputies who represent those constituencies in which independent iron founders are going to be put out of existence ought to have the courage to say what they think of the proposals at present before them. I have no doubt that Deputy Frazer Browne was approached by some of the iron founders in his constituency. Would he not tell us now what their view was? Deputy T.J. Murphy must have heard something from the representatives of the Cork iron foundries who came to this House seeking an interview with the Minister. He will be better able than any of us to tell the House what their representations were, but surely, when we come to consider these tariffs, we ought at least to hear what these independent employers, who built up their businesses without any tariff at all, have to say and how their interests are likely to be affected by the proposals which the Minister has put before us now. Perhaps the Minister would tell us if he ever saw that deputation.
If the Deputy had remained here, he would have heard.
He said they never asked him to receive them.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce can say the most astonishing things.
I take my hat off to the Deputy in that respect.
Whether a request for an interview ever reached him, the request was certainly made to his Department, and, whoever turned it down, that request was rejected. Perhaps the Minister would make further inquiry in his Department?
I do not propose to make any further inquiries. I know the Deputy is wrong, as usual.
The Minister may impress the less sophisticated members of his own Party, but he will not impress the iron founders whom he is at present planning to wipe out of existence. They are the people for whom I am asking consideration. Perhaps the Minister, in order to assuage their ruffled feelings, would condescend to inquire from his officials as to whether any such approach was made, but unless and until he does so, he cannot expect them to get much consolation from his rather hectic assertions.
I move amendment No. 34:—
To delete reference No. 34 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This is another of the 50 per centers. I should like to hear from the Minister if it is a revenue tariff or what the intention of it is.
I take it the protection afforded here is on behalf of the company now being set up. I should like to ask the Minister if it is intended to manufacture all the items mentioned in this reference; how long will it be before the company comes into manufacture; and if the Minister intends to exercise the licensing provision up to that time. There is another matter on which I am not quite clear. Under the heading "Special Provisions" there is this note: "The duty mentioned at this reference number shall not be charged or levied on any article which is made from paper chargeable with the said duty." I do not understand what that applies to or what is the exact meaning of it.
This reference imposes a duty upon packing and wrapping papers. There are certain classes of wrapping papers manufactured in the Saorstát at present, particularly the class of paper known as common brown wrapping paper, which is manufactured by two or three mills all situated in the County of Dublin. The main development, however, which is responsible for the imposition of this duty, is the formation of a company for the reopening of the Clondalkin paper mills, where classes of packing and wrapping paper of the kinds to which the duty applies will be made, including kraft paper and imitation krafts. The development of the industry at Clondalkin will give substantial employment. It is contemplated that the price at which the paper will be sold will not exceed the British prices for similar papers by more than 10 per cent. That is the outside limit beyond which the price cannot rise. In fact it is contemplated that the cost of production here will not exceed the cost of production in Great Britain, and that the price here will be similar to the price in Great Britain. There are certain costs here which may prove to be higher. The enterprise on which the company is engaged is a big one, involving substantial capital investment, and it will be some time before the necessary work will be finished to enable production to begin. In the meantime, where necessary, licences will be issued.
The paragraph in the fourth column of the schedule to which Deputy Dockrell referred is designed to show that the duty will not be charged on "any article which is made from paper chargeable with the said duty, nor on any paper which is at importation used as packing or wrapping for another article." Articles will not be dutiable merely because they are made from such a class of paper. That provision in the schedule excludes from the scope of the duty paper used for wrapping other articles. The items (a), (b), (c), (d), etc., in column 2, are classes of paper which are exempted from the duty.
What is the meaning of the succeeding paragraph?
There is a duty already applying.
So that the effective duty will be 50 per cent.?
There was a 5 per cent. duty imposed last year. The intention is that, before the production here is commenced, licences for the importation of these goods free of the 50 per cent. duty will be issued.
When this duty becomes effective will it be 50 per cent. or 55 per cent.?
It will be 50 per cent. The intention is to repeal the existing duty.
I am surprised that the Minister did not touch on one aspect of this duty which he tells us is primarily designed to facilitate the opening of the Clondalkin paper mills. I think it was the Irish Press, when this matter was first mooted, which spoke of the duty of 5 per cent. on newsprint. It was at first proposed to bring the newsprint within the ambit of 50 per cent. and then it was discovered that it was not intended to produce newsprint in the Clondalkin paper mills.
I do not think that was said.
Was it because it would be more expensive? Is that the reason why it is not going to be produced here?
I have no proposals for its manufacture here.
Did the Clondalkin paper mills ever at any time contemplate making newsprint here?
The people who are now starting the Clondalkin paper mills never contemplated making newsprint.
The question of the newsprint never arose? It did appear in the press and from that an inference might be drawn—that newsprint would be more expensive to manufacture here than if it were imported from countries where it can be manufactured close to the natural forests.
That is quite true.
It did strike me as remarkable that when an influential body of persons like the newspaper owners found that an additional expense was going to be put upon their shoulders by a tariff on newsprint that that tariff was dropped, but when the humble housewife finds that her weekly budget is going to be inflated by a tariff on teacups, tin lids or teapots, the answer given by the Government is that if she does not like it she can lump it. I think there is a moral to be drawn from that.
What is the moral?
Deputy Moore is not running a newspaper. The Deputy should go down to the Library and borrow Drapier's Letters and there read about an individual who said that he would prefer to go down to the grave where his bosom would not be rent by the actions of unscrupulous governments and their taxation.
If Deputy Dillon went down and read it himself it would be better.
At any rate, Deputy Moore will never see a duty on newspapers. His grandson may.
That is the worst bloomer yet.
Not necessarily. What I meant to convey was that there will never be a duty on newsprint.
I move amendment No. 35:—
To delete reference No. 35 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This is a proposal to put a tariff of 33? per cent. on woven piece goods, that is to say, linen piece goods, cotton piece goods, union piece goods, composed of two or more fibres and union piece goods which consist wholly or mainly of cotton and wool. This is one of the most oppressive tariffs that has been put on for a long time by this Government. I have already directed the attention of the House to the reaction which this or an analogous duty has had on the price of flannelette. I have reason to believe that licences were given to certain persons to import free of duty flannelette, while these licences were refused to other persons. The Minister says that the only persons given licences to import flannelette were boot manufacturers who wanted it for the purpose of lining boots. Can the Minister remember the figure he named as the value of these flannelette goods?
It was quite small, £435.
The flannelette which would be used for lining boots would cost 7d. per yard. That is the advertised figure. Flannelette to the value of £435 was admitted to this country nominally for the purpose of lining boots in the first three months of this year. How many boots would be lined by £435 worth of flannelette at 7d. per yard? Surely that would line a good many boots. I wonder how many flannelette-lined boots are sold in this country?
How many flannelette-soled boots?
I have yet to hear that the manufacturers who are enjoying the Minister's protection can sole their boots with flannelette. We may hope to reach that stage yet, but I believe, however, that a scandal of that kind would stir up the country as to the value the Irish people are getting in this matter of flannelette-soled boots.
Paper soles.
There is no law against the making of paper-soled boots. That is a wider story. Let us not discuss it at this stage, lest we trespass on the indulgence of the Chair. I am principally concerned to direct the attention of the House to the repercussions of the duty on cotton piece goods. First, it is sought to reconcile the country to this duty by announcing that we are going to establish a factory at Athlone, to be known as Cotton Textiles, Limited. This factory is to cover so many acres of ground, and the impression has been circulated that it will employ almost half the population of Westmeath. We are told it will produce cotton goods which will rival the most luxurious products of America and other countries where cotton piece goods are manufactured.
The Deputy is apparently under some misapprehension. This is not a new duty; it is merely the old one recast for the purpose of improving and extending the definitions.
I cannot bring myself to believe that the Minister is trying deliberately to mislead the House. This duty was put on nominally in order to protect the manufacture of calico and sheetings in this country.
The duty was put on long before the Athlone factory was contemplated.
It was imposed nominally to protect these items. It was then extended to operate on shirtings for revenue purposes. Later the operation of this tariff was extended to flannelette. Now every cotton textile, except a cotton textile with a pattern printed on it, is liable to the duty. So far as I can find out, this reference No. 35 now includes printed goods, and it is rather difficult to elucidate the exact meaning of the tariff, because there are one and a half columns of qualifications. Perhaps the Minister could help us by saying whether this now extends to cotton goods with a pattern printed on them?
No.
They are still excepted. I say that to impose this duty on flannelette is to put a very unjustifiable burden on the poor. By the poor I do not mean those who do not want to work, the fellow who is not working and who will not work. When I refer to the poor, I mean the people who want to work, but who are not able to get a job, or the poor who are working night and day and who are poor all the same. They are the people who have my sympathy, and they are the people who buy flannelette. Flannelette is sold at 6d., 8d., 10d. or 1/- a yard. These are, I suppose, trade secrets, but it is no harm to let the House know that 6d. flannelette costs 4?d.; 8d. flannelette would cost 5?d. to 6d.; 10d. flannelette would cost 7¼d. to 7?d. and 1/- flannelette costs anything from 8?d. to 9¾d. You are going to put on a duty of 33?per cent. In those circumstances the flannelette that used to cost 4?d. is now going to cost 6¼d., and when it costs that to the shopkeeper, it is going to cost the consumer 8d. That means you are going to increase the price of a garment such as the ordinary country-woman buys by about 7d. The usual requirements for the manufacture of a garment made out of this material is 3½ yards, and that means that the average country-woman who buys material for garments for herself or her children is going to pay the Government 7d. on each article of clothing, the material for which she purchases. I say that it is a very unjustifiable burden to put upon the people. The country woman may avoid that by putting her children or herself in an inferior cloth as compared with that which she was in the habit of using. She therefore buys the cheapest flannelette, and she gives 7d. per garment to the State.
The same applies to longcloth, union and sheeting. Sheeting is being made in this country, and the position is extremely difficult, because the interest of the consuming public conflicts with the legitimate interest of a perfectly honourable firm. So far as I am aware, there is only one firm making sheeting in this country. I do not think they want to make it. I think they would be much better pleased if their looms were left free to manufacture something else. They have a long industrial tradition in this country, a tradition for making good stuff, not only for consumption here, but they have captured a very considerable foreign market by giving good value in everything they have produced. It is perfectly true to say they can produce sheeting at 8?d., but it is equally true to say that if you compare the sheeting they are able to produce with what can be produced from the enormous mills in America and in Great Britain, it is quite impossible for the Irish enterprise to compete in value at all, with the result that the country-woman who buys 5 yds. of sheeting to make a pair of sheets for the bed has now to be content with a pair of sheets that you can read the Irish Independent through. She is not able to afford to pay for a better quality. Heretofore she got a Manchester or American twill calico in her sheets. Now she is restricted to the product of the one firm producing in this country. The result is that, while she is paying out more money, she is getting an article not in any way comparable for value with what she got before.
I say that the tariffs which bear upon the poor in this country in that way are not sound tariffs from the community point of view and cannot be justified in this House. That disposes of three principal types of cotton cloth which are normally bought by the consumer. I want to refer now to a cotton cloth normally purchased and used by manufacturers, and that is the cotton webbing used in the manufacture of semi-stiff collars. Sometimes one feels it is perfectly useless to ventilate these matters here, because a great many Deputies do not take any interest and a great many others do not know what one is talking about. There are about ten Deputies here considering this problem. I think I will draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that there is not a quorum, and perhaps we will get some of the Fianna Fáil T.D.'s in to listen to us.
Why torture them?
Attention called to the fact that a quorum was not present. House counted, and 20 Deputies being found present.
I think it is useful that members of the Fianna Fáil Party should come in here to hear a little of the ineptitude of the Minister, representing them. The Minister has put on a duty on this fabric designed for the manufacture of semi-stiff collars. It is, also, designed for the lining of poplin shirts and collars which represent a very considerable part of the export trade of Irish manufactures. The result of the duty is that the cost of these poplin shirts has been so raised that Irish manufacturers are rapidly losing the trade they had abroad for these commodities. There is no prospect of this fabric being manufactured in this country; nobody proposes to make it. The only result of the tariff is to destroy the existing industry and to increase the cost of collars and shirts to the consuming public.
I directed the attention of the House before to the fact that it is the common practice of the Government, at present, by the Emergency Imposition of Duties Order, to impose a heavy penalty on a number of products nominally with the intention of forwarding their manufacture in this country. Included in the imposition of those duties are raw materials. Slingsby's ladders were brought in with one tariff and chased out with another. Numbers of manufacturers are induced to invest their money in business here. Some of these manufacturers believed that it was a good thing to make their contribution towards reducing the adverse trade balance against this country. Their contribution was very badly needed when the adverse trade balance was greater than the amount of our export trade. They developed their home trade. They did not come in to scramble for an economic price because they captured a very good market in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in competition with other manufacturers there. Now these men who concentrated on the foreign market, and made a market for Irish export trade, find that they have been knocked out of that competition, not by anything they encountered in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but simply by the tariffs imposed on raw material coming in here. We all know that the Minister, who is a glib but incompetent man, says he would be prepared to consider applications for a refund of any duty paid on cotton web which he was satisfied had been subsequently exported. But how are we to satisfy the Revenue Commissioners of the exact square of cotton webbing hidden in a 56½ gross of silk cotton lining. Any practical person in the trade knows perfectly well it cannot be done. How are you to satisfy the Revenue Commissioners of the proportion of cotton web that is used in facing and put into collars and shirts? In practice the collar manufacturer knows it cannot be done, with the result that the concession is perfectly worthless, and factories are closing down so far as their export business is concerned.
There is no difficulty whatever about exempting cotton webbing from this duty. The Minister had, admittedly, a difficulty in regard to certain other fabrics which can be converted from the purpose for which they were primarily imported. For instance, he did license a shirt manufacturer to bring in shirting free of duty. Before very long it became clear that the shirting was being sold to retail traders. So that concession was withdrawn. Cotton webbing, however, is a material which cannot be sold retail because it cannot be used, or made up, except by special machines, and these special machines are in the hands only of collar manufacturers and shirt manufacturers. So that even if the shirt manufacturer did import webbing nominally for the purpose of manufacture, and then sought to sell it, he would not find anyone who would buy it because it would not be any use to him.
I have, by letter, asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give a general licence to shirt manufacturers to import this commodity free of duty. Instead of examining that, the Minister made it the occasion of an attempt to hang round my neck an application for a special concession for an individual manufacturer at the cost of his rival. I was obliged to repudiate that suggestion, and to remind the Minister that the methods of political blackmail do not pay. I now wish to renew the suggestion that the manufacturers of collars and shirts, who built up this useful export trade, should be relieved of these burdens. I urge upon the Minister that this duty of 33 1/3rd per cent. is going to be a very unfair burden upon those people, and that this is the time to give some indication of what he expects General Textiles to do in the town of Athlone.
The resources of the State have been mustered, and great publicity has been given to the very formidable enterprise in Athlone. I would like to ask what is this enterprise designed to supply the community with, and what burden will the community have to bear in order to maintain that enterprise? `This duty is intended, no doubt, to subsidise something in connection with the future General Textiles. In view of that, the Minister ought to tell us the full extent which he can see that that something was growing into.
I have explained that this duty is not a new duty. It is in operation since the beginning of 1934. The re-enactment of the duty in this form was necessary because of the successful evasion of the earlier duty. The definitions that we used in the Resolution passed in 1934 were used for the purpose of defeating it. In fact, as Deputies are well aware, in certain English trade journals instructions were published as to how the Saorstát duty could be evaded. The sole effect of this duty is to recast the definition of the articles which it is intended should be liable to duty for the purpose of preventing these methods of evasion. Having said that, I have said all.
The initial duty never applied to flannelette.
So far as flannelette is concerned, the greater portion of it imported is not subject to this duty at all. Certain classes are subject to duty. The only question that arose in connection with that flannelette was whether we should issue licences for its import prior to manufacture here. It was decided for administrative reasons not to do that. It was thought that it would be difficult to administer any system of licences fairly, and, as I informed the Deputy some weeks ago, it is contemplated that flannelette of Irish manufacture will be available in the very near future. In the meantime licences are not being issued except to one restricted class of persons who require very small quantities of that class of cloth for boot manufacture.
So far as sheetings are concerned, the type of sheeting through which you can read the Irish Independent or, more profitably, the Irish Press is not subject to duty. Cloth which is less than four and a half ounces per square yard in weight is exempted. The sheeting made subject to duty is manufactured here in excellent qualities. The Deputy reminded the House that a not inconsiderable export trade in that cloth is done by that firm.
Never a yard is exported by that firm.
Not merely do they manufacture and export cotton sheeting, but they manufacture and export the head-dresses worn by certain classes of Indians.
I should like the Minister to go to bed in an Indian's headdress and see how he would like it. It is very different from cotton sheeting.
A number of these Indian Brahmins are walking around in head-dresses manufactured in the Saorstát. As far as webbing is concerned, I am not prepared to issue licences for the importation of webbing where it is intended to be used for the manufacture of goods for home consumption. I have informed the Deputy and made it known that I was prepared to consider the issuing of licences for the importation of quantities of that cloth wherever evidence was produced that orders for export had been received and that the cloth was required for the purpose of fulfilling these orders. But the difficulty of administering a general licence provision would be so great that it could not be considered.
On the final question which the Deputy asked, namely, the intentions of the company establishing a cotton mill in Athlone, I can say that they propose to manufacture, in the main, classes of cotton cloth which are not liable to this duty. This resolution only relates to certain definitions of cotton cloth, and other classes of cloth, such as linen and union cloth, which are manufactured here by other concerns. The classes of cloth which will be manufactured, in the main, at Athlone are those which are exempt from this duty.
Will the Minister give us a little clearer definition of what they are?
Printed cloths, shirting cloths, and cloths of that description.
Shirting is liable to this duty.
Certain classes of shirting. Where it is printed, it is not liable to duty; where it is under the weight exemption, it is not liable to duty; where it comes under any of these exemptions, it is not liable to duty. The classes of cloth not manufactured by the concerns making these cloths will, in due course, be manufactured at Athlone. I think the intention of the firm is to spin the yarn from which the cloth will be made.
The Minister referred to the type of flannelette being exempt which is in far the greater use in the country. Is not striped flannelette liable to duty?
I am talking about the weight exemption, and from inquiries I have made I find that a large proportion of the flannelette imported is exempted because of the weight exemption.
Has the Minister asked this question: what trade is supplied by flannelette which is under four and a-half ounces, and what trade is supplied by flannelette which is over four and a-half ounces?
I could not answer.
The poor exclusively by the heavy one, and the rich exclusively by the fine one. Surely the Minister will look further into the question of flannelette with a view to making this available.
The Deputy is fully aware of the circumstances under which the duty was imposed. Cloth, which it was intended should be subject to duty, was brought in free of duty by the process of raising the nap and describing it as flannelette. Therefore, we had to make flannelette liable to duty earlier than we would have done so. We would not have imposed a duty on flannelette until we were satisfied that production had commenced here and that supplies of Irish-made flannelette were made available. In order, however, to defeat the evasion of the main duty, it had to be extended to cover flannelette. On the question of whether licences should be issued for the free importation of flannelette we have decided against it on the ground that we are up to the stage at which the Irish-made article will be available.
When?
In the course of a week or so, I understand. In the very near future, at any rate.
There is no difficulty in defining flannelette to prevent that, if the Minister would consult any expert in the textile trade. If you define it as double-warp flannelette, you stop all the evasion which bothered the Minister in the past. However, I am interested to know who is going to supply the flannelette, or where applications should be made for samples.
I presume it is the same firm that is making the other classes.
The Greenmount Linen Company?
Yes.
If we apply for samples they will be forthcoming?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 36:—
To delete reference No. 36 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us what miracles he hopes to achieve with rabbit-skins.
We hope to have them dressed and dyed so that they will be mistaken for furs of much greater value. The business in dressing and dyeing rabbit-skins in imitation of more expensive classes of furs is quite considerable, and arrangements have been made for the dressing and dyeing of the skins here. It is for that reason that the duty is being imposed. It is rather difficult to say to what extent those goods are imported at the present time, because they are not classified separately, but the total value of dressed skins and furs imported in 1935 was £61,000. Some substantial part of that sum is represented by dressed and dyed rabbit-skins. A company is being formed, I understand, and arrangements are being made for the dressing and dyeing of the skins here. Possibly other people will also engage in the business in due course. The duty of 1/6 per skin which is being imposed will, I think, be sufficient to encourage people to engage in the business and to protect them in it. The one firm to which I have referred hopes to use Saorstát rabbit-skins for some part of the business. I understand that Saorstát rabbit-skins are not altogether suitable for the production of certain classes of imitation furs, but they can be used for other classes. To the extent to which they can be used they will be used, and the intention is to ensure, if necessary, that they will be used. The amount of employment which will be given in the actual dressing and dyeing of skins will be between 30 and 40, but if the curing of Saorstát skins is undertaken, a large number will be employed. I cannot give a precise figure for the additional employment which will be given.
The first consideration which arises in this regard is, has the Minister made any estimate of what this will represent in additional cost on the raw materials of ready-made clothes and gloves? Those rabbit-skins are principally used for fur-trimming—largely for the trimming of women's moderate-priced coats. The Minister will also remember that it has been a cause of innumerable actions in London, Paris, New York, and many continental centres, where dermatitis has arisen from irritation caused by badly dyed rabbit-skins on ladies' coats. Those two matters require attention. Then the Minister, no doubt, is aware that Messrs. J. and N. Phillips, of Manchester, have established a little glove factory in Tipperary. Before this business was established in Tipperary, a glove retailer in this country searched the markets of Czecho-Slovakia, Italy, Germany, the United States and Great Britain, and he bought the cheapest gloves he could get in these markets and passed the benefit of his purchases on to the consuming public in Ireland. Now one manufacturer from Great Britain comes into Ireland and sets up a small glove factory in Tipperary.
There is more than one glove factory engaged in this country.
Well, that may be so, but not that I am aware of. In any case, however, one firm from Great Britain sets up a small glove factory in Tipperary, whereupon it becomes the patriotic duty of every glove vendor in this country to stop searching the markets of the world for the best and cheapest products of this particular branch of manufacture, and it becomes his patriotic duty to deal with one Manchester firm because they have established a branch factory in Tipperary. That is bad enough, even as it is, but I should like to know whether the Minister has asked manufacturers whether this rabbit business will interfere with their business and whether these rabbit-skins are extensively used in fur manufacturing. A third point to be considered is that these skins are largely the product of special types of rabbits. The rabbit which one catches in the hedgerows of this country is not of much use for the imitation fur business. The type of rabbit used in that business is primarily a cultivated rabbit—certain breeds of rabbits that have long coats. It is quite true that the breeding of these rabbits could be stimulated in this country, but if all the rabbit-skins which are required are not being produced in this country, this duty of 6d. will have to be paid on every rabbit skin, no matter whether it is processed in this country or not, because the sub-head refers to any rabbit-skin which has been, before importation, dressed or cured and dyed. Well, you cannot shift rabbit-skins about without dressing them. If you did not dress them to a greater or less degree, they would walk away out of the bay. They must be cured to a certain point before the final processes are applied. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the Revenue Commissioners will be bound to interpret "dressing," when it is not further defined, as any curing process. Of course, mind you, it may be that an attempt will be made at this stage to differentiate between curing and dressing, but in practice what will happen is that the Revenue Commissioners will inform the Minister that it is administratively impossible to draw the line between these two processes, and that rabbit-skins which have been cured at all have been dressed.
My last point is this: Suppose that this duty is developed for the purpose of developing the production of rabbits with suitable skins in this country. There is always the danger that, where you have a restricted market, such as we have here, for imitation fur, fur may go out of fashion for two or three years. If you had access to markets all over the world, then if the market failed owing to a change of fashion in, say, London, you might be able to sell your products in Berlin; or if the market failed in Berlin, you could sell in Vienna and so on. If, however, you are trading in only one country and producing rabbits for that trade, and if fur goes out of fashion for two or three years, you are "busted." I suggest that the Minister ought to take that aspect of the situation into consideration before determining on developing the production of these rabbits upon any large scale in this country. Perhaps the most important point, however, is the question of what effect this imposition will have on the ready-made clothing business and on the glove business in this country.
It is not anticipated that the imposition of this duty will have any effect whatever upon the glove manufacturing concern in Tipperary or any other glove manufacturing concern in this country. Neither is it anticipated that it will increase the cost of ready-made clothing. Rabbit-skins or any class of skin which are shaped and constitute part of a manufactured garment are already subject to a duty of 60 per cent.
And have been for some considerable time.
If Saorstát rabbit-skins are used, and cured, dressed and dyed here, there will possibly be some increase in price. These rabbit-skins are produced and sold from some countries at the present time at very low prices, and, occasionally, advantageous purchases can be made. The increase in price, however, will be of no consequence in relation to the cost of the garment in which these skins are used. Cured rabbit-skins will not be liable to duty, and there will be no difficulty in distinguishing between a skin that has been merely dried and cured and one which has been dressed. In that connection, I think Deputy Dillon is a bit foolish to attempt to prognosticate the actions of the Revenue Commissioners in such matters.
Unfortunately, I have come under the waggon of the Revenue Commissioners so often that I know them pretty well by this time.
It is true that Saorstát rabbit-skins cannot be used for the purpose of producing all classes of imitation furs, but there are many classes for which these skins can be used. However, some classes of imitation furs, such as seal coney and beaver coney, will always require to be made from imported skins.
Before the question is put, Sir, I should like to call the Minister's attention to the fact that I raised one question as to whether the Minister has made any inquiries as to the resources at the disposal of the potential dyers here in connection with precautions to be taken to avoid outbreaks of certain diseases arising from irritation caused by some of these skins.
The company to which I referred have associated with them, on the technical side, a company of very high repute.
On behalf of Deputy Mulcahy I move:—
To delete reference No. 37, and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
I should be glad to know what form this duty takes.
The effect of this Resolution is to impose a minimum duty of 1/6 a gross. All classes of buttons defined in the Resolution are subject to a duty of 75 per cent. but we found that the ad valorem duty on articles of low value was not altogether effective. It is necessary to supplement the duty on buttons of this description by the minimum duty now proposed. There are at present two firms manufacturing buttons in the Saorstát and others are likely to be established in the near future. In respect to these classes of buttons there is no reason why they cannot be supplied satisfactorily from home sources.
Has the Minister any idea of how many buttons he has on him at present?
I have not.
They would be liable to about 3d. in duty.
The Minister excludes "buttons made wholly or mainly of wood, glass, stone, metal, leather, mother of pearl or an imitation of mother of pearl." That leaves bone buttons or composition buttons. Has the Minister any idea of the advance that has taken place in the price of composition buttons since the duty of 75 per cent. was put on? Composition buttons are selling here at least 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. over the price at which they were selling before the duty. The ingredients here are laughable, and that the Minister could be deluded into telling this House that a duty of 1/6 per gross was designed to remove the inadequacy of the 75 per cent. tariff on composition buttons astonishes me. The average fancy buttons brought in here for women's wear are in three sizes. The very small ones are used for trimming clothes, the medium ones are ordinarily used on short coats, and the large ones on ladies' full-length coats. What astonishes me is that the Minister, who was in the drapery trade for years, should evince such extraordinary ignorance of facts of which he must have been aware during his commercial career. Whether it is by design or for the purpose of fooling the House or diffidence I do not know. The average price of composition buttons is from 18/- to 24/- a gross and a 75 per cent. tariff would add about 15/- to the cost. How does the Minister suggest that a duty of 1/6 a gross is a more adequate protection than a duty of 75 per cent.?
Not on that class of button. The 1/6 will not apply there.
To what class?
To cheaper buttons.
On what composition buttons coming in will a tariff of 1/6 a gross be greater than the 75 per cent. duty, except on very small ones?
Ordinary buttons for clothes.
Composition buttons are made of bone.
Bone buttons and substitutes.
This 1/6 proviso is meant to protect bone buttons.
And nut buttons.
What are nut buttons?
Most buttons are made from nuts. I am surprised the Deputy did not know that. The great majority of them are made from nuts grown in Italy, and there has been a difficulty owing to sanctions.
Who put that over on the Minister: that buttons are made from nuts?
90 per cent. of the ordinary buttons.
It is ludicrous. Would the Minister examine his apparel and ask himself on what part of his apparel does he wear buttons made from nuts?
The name of the nut is the corozo nut.
The Minister will find on his clothes some buttons made from composition, some from metal, and some from bone. I have yet to know of any buttons made from nuts.
The Deputy has a lot to learn.
There may be fancy nuts.
There are many buttons made from nuts.
The Minister says that 90 per cent. of the ordinary buttons are made from nuts.
Apart from the fancy buttons.
I think many of them are made from casein and composition. I put it to the Minister that to suggest that a duty of 1/6 is more effective than the 75 per cent. is ludicrous. I put it to him also that the tariff has meant increased prices that are absolutely ridiculous, and that it is either absolutely impossible to make buttons here or else that those who are making them are making profits out of all proportion to what they are justly entitled.
Is it proposed to start the growing of these nuts here?
Whether the buttons are made from nuts or from bone, I am opposed to this tariff. The great majority of the people will be opposed to it when they realise that 1/6 a gross represents about one-eighth of a penny on each button. As there are from 20 to 24 buttons used in a suit of clothes the average man would be paying about 3d. for them, and it is as well that that should be realised.
What effect will this duty have on the ready-made clothing trade? Will it be 75 per cent.?
Practically none. Buttons are being manufactured here.
At very much greater expense.
Less than 75 per cent.
Has the Minister made any enquiries?
Yes.
As far as fancy buttons are concerned, is the Minister aware of the repercussions on women's ready-made wear? Is he aware that fancy buttons are costing from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. more than before the tariff was imposed, and that the selection available is hopelessly restricted.
I move:
To delete reference No. 38 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
The paper circulated by the Minister suggests that this tariff has been on for some time, and the very fact that the tariff is now 50 per cent. on boxes, cartons and similar articles makes it more objectionable. I would like to hear what is the reason for putting this duty in this Schedule in this way, and whether there is any tendency for a fall in the prices of these articles, and to what extent employment in the industry has been increased.
The only change effected is a change in definition. The existing duty on cardboard containers could have been interpreted to include such articles as cardboard photograph frames and things of that kind. The change is to make it clear that the duty applies only to cardboard containers used for the packing and the transportation of goods.
What increase in employment has there been?
As the Deputy is aware, a number of new concerns were established, some of which have opened large factories here. I could not say what the total employment amounts to, but it has been substantially increased, and these concerns are in a position to supply all requirements here, at least, so they contend. In fact, I think there has been every satisfaction given by the quality of their products. I heard certain classes of their cardboard boxes very favourably described when compared with those of other countries.
They are not producing cylindrical containers, and as there is no intention of doing so, I take it that licences will continue to issue.
Cylindrical containers are not included in this, and licences are being issued under the original duty.
I move amendment No. 39:—
To delete reference No. 39 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
I should like to ask the Minister what is the necessity for a tariff of 1/6 on certain sizes of cases and of 1/- on other sizes, such as attaché cases, hat-boxes, etc.?
The manufacture of attaché cases made of cardboard, and of similar materials covered with cloth, known generally in the trade as soft-top cases, has been commenced in the Saorstát. A factory has been established at Portarlington which is engaged in the manufacture of these goods—travel goods generally and fibre cases. The effect of the duty is to give protection to that concern and any other concern engaged in the same business. There is another concern started in another Midland town which is also engaged in the same line. The amount of the duty is 33? per cent. ad valorem, with a minimum duty of 1/6 on the larger cases and 1/- on the smaller cases. The articles which are being produced here are being sold at competitive prices, are of good quality and, I think, are produced in sufficient variety to meet all the requirements of the trade.
Could the Minister relate the duty of 1/6 to the price?
The prices are about from 1/6 to 3/6 per article.
And the tariff of 1/6 goes on that?
On the larger sizes. The 1/- tariff goes on the smaller size.
Why is the tariff necessary?
The tariff was considered necessary because of the circumstances of the industry abroad, where very strong organisations have been established. In fact, rather considerable opposition on behalf of these organisations towards the idea of manufacturing these articles at all in the Saorstát became apparent, and it was considered that without effective protection serious efforts would be made to put any concern engaging in the industry here out of business. Consequently it was considered desirable to impose a substantial duty while at the same time assuring consumers by alternative methods of price regulation.
The facts of the case are that there is some kind of cartel in control of the manufacture of fibre cases. There are only one or two sources of supply from which fibre can be obtained, and the cartel approached the producers of fibre and said: "If you supply fibre to the factory at Portarlington we shall refuse to take any fibre from you." Evidently, they succeeded in their efforts because eventually the Portarlington firm joined the cartel and, having joined the cartel, the cartel drew off its dogs and allowed them to get a supply of fibre. The Portarlington firm is now a member of the cartel.
I do not know that.
The Minister ought to know these things. It is his job to know. There was apparently strong opposition to the establishment of this factory but I do not see why, in order to meet that opposition, it is necessary to push the tariff up above what it has been in the past. After all, there are only one or two firms engaged in producing these goods. If they cannot produce these goods at a tariff of less than 50 per cent.——
The duty on fibre suit cases has been in operation for some time.
I know that.
This extends that duty to cover the soft-top cases to which I referred.
Thirty-three one-third per cent. is the nominal duty, but then it goes on to provide for a duty of 1/- and 1/6 on cases of a certain size. The Minister admits that the duty of 1/- may represent anything from 33? to 50 per cent. on certain cases, and that the duty of 1/6 may represent anything from 50 per cent. to 70 per cent. ad valorem. What is the necessity for a duty of that kind? Any duty that operates as a protection is adequate, because there is not going to be any dumping in this case. Dumping goods at less than the cost of production could be met by a total prohibition of imports. Dumping has gone out of fashion. It is no longer a menace, because it is recognised and met by every Government in the world. A fair protective tariff may be justified in certain circumstances, but to withdraw the element of competition altogether seems to me to be inviting exploitation. In that connection, it may be as well to face the facts, and I am going to say something now which may not be popular. It is not only the manufacturer who tries to exploit consumers; it is very often the workers who are getting fair wages and enjoying fair conditions in an industry. If there is an absolute prohibition of imports imposed, the workers will naturally go to the employer and say: “Look here, we want our wages doubled. Sock it on the consumer; he has no alternative but to pay.” As the Minister knows, that actually happened in the flour milling industry. When the flour millers came up to the Minister and asked him what they should do in face of a demand of that kind, he said to them: “Sock it on to the consumer.”
I said it?
Is that not so?
The Deputy is drawing on his imagination.
The Minister does not deny it.
I do deny it. I deny that I ever discussed with the flour millers, the question of wages.
The Minister does not remember when there was a question of a strike?
Not while I was Minister.
No case in which there was a threatened strike?
Where was it?
Let us not name firms, because that is not desirable, as the Chair has pointed out on more than one occasion. If the Minister will ask his advisers they will remind him about these strikes.
During my period of office?
Yes.
I must have been away or asleep.
When the flour millers came to discuss the question of the wages of their employees they were told by the Minister: "Sock it on to the consumer," which they promptly did, and the wages were raised to a point much beyond that enjoyed by labourers in any other branch of industry.
Where was the strike?
I am not going to mention the name of any firm.
What part of Ireland?
The West of Ireland.
A strike in a flour mill? That is a new one to me.
There are such things going on in the industrial activities of this country as would amaze the Minister, and will amaze him when he has learned of them all. He is put upon pretty grievously by some of the gentlemen for whom he is providing tariffs here, but unhappily he is not paying for his futility. It is the consumers of the country who are paying. I suggest that no case can be made for putting a prohibitive tariff on fibre suit cases, because supplies of the raw material are now available to the producers, and the only effect of the tariff will be to eliminate all competition and to leave consumers at the mercy of the producers of this particular article.
This is a duty on soft top cases, and not on fibre cases.
Does it not apply to fibre cases?
Fibre cases have been subject to a duty for some time past.
Surely they have not been subject to this specific duty?
They have.
Have they been subject to the duty of 1/- and 1/6 on certain sizes?
Yes. The Deputy can look it up for himself. The Deputy does not expect me to remember the details of every protective tariff that is imposed.
I suppose the Minister does not know that some of them are imposed. Does the Minister remember whether this was imposed under the terms of an Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Order?
It was not an Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Order. The duty on fibre cases was imposed by the Finance Act last year.
Last year?
Yes, under reference No. 18 of the Finance Act last year.
Was it put on in the form of 1/- and 1/6 on certain sizes?
I do not know. The Deputy can look it up for himself. It has nothing to do with this.
If it was not put on by the Finance Act of 1935, then this Resolution is amending the existing law. If it was put on by the Finance Act of 1935, this Resolution is simply re-enacting the law made last year.
This imposes a new duty on soft-top cases made of cardboard and covered with cloth.
It also imposes a duty of a substantial amount on cases of the nature of trunks, suit-cases, hat-boxes or attaché cases for personal use.
"Which are, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, wholly or mainly coated or covered externally with cloth or leather-cloth." In any case, the duty upon fibre suit-cases was 33? per cent. or whichever of the following rates was applicable: on cases not less than 20 inches in length 1/- a case, or on cases less than 20 inches in length, 6d. the case.
And now these are to be increased to 1/- and 1/6.
No. This duty applies only to soft-top cases.
The reference states that the rates on cases which are not less than 14 inches in length is to be 1/6 the case, or on cases which are less than 14 inches in length, 1/- the case.
The other duty applies to fibre suit-cases.
In any event, what is the reason for this prohibitive duty? The Minister has made no attempt to justify it.
The Deputy may not speak twice on Report.
I should like to have an explanation from the Minister as to why he is putting a prohibitive duty on these cases.
I move amendment No. 40:—
To delete reference No. 40 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
In this case it is sought to put a duty of 30 per cent. on articles and appliances intended to supply heat by means of the combustion of gas. There was a duty of 15 per cent., with 10 per cent. preference, on gas meters. The effective duty, I suppose, would be 10 per cent. on gas meters and appliances imported from Great Britain. Here it is sought to increase the duty from 10 per cent. preference to 30 per cent. I see in the latest issue of the Customs official import list a reference to 15 per cent. on gas meters and 10 per cent.
This refers to heaters and cookers. A duty at this rate was imposed on gas heaters and burners in 1933. Subsequently, however, a point was raised about it. It was contended, from the definition which was used on that occasion, that the duty actually applied only to the burner, and not to the cooker or heater in which it was installed. Consequently, we are changing the definition so as to make it clear that the duty applies to these heaters and cookers in toto when imported assembled.
Am I to understand that the point made by the Minister is, that because the 30 per cent. tariff has not, in fact, affected heaters and cookers since then, this is an attempt to make effective for the first time a tariff of 30 per cent. on gas meters and heaters, and on the parts that go to make them up?
The duty was effective. These articles are assembled here by a number of concerns, but the contention was brought forward that the duty should apply only to the actual gas burner, and not to the apparatus in which the burner was installed. It is because there is some doubt as to whether the existing definition is really adequate to give effect to the intention which existed in 1933, that the duty then imposed is being repealed and re-enacted here with a definition which indicates precisely the scope of the duty.
Will the Minister say if the heaters and burners that came in in the meantime have had to pay the 30 per cent. duty?
Yes.
Can the Minister tell us what has been the result of that in the matter of employment on the one hand and in raising the price of gas fires and cookers on the other hand?
There has been no increase in price. These articles are being assembled here quite satisfactorily. There has been no increase in price. In fact, there has been a reduction in price, but that is not due to the fact that they are being assembled here, but to other causes. The question of the manufacture of these articles is one that might be considered at some time in the future.
I move amendment No. 41:—
To delete Reference No. 41 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This deals with the tariff on laces. It is proposed to put a tax of 2/- a gross on laces imported in bulk, and on laces imported together with an article of personal clothing or wearing apparel, the tax is to be 3d. the lace. I would like to hear from the Minister what has been the development in the manufacture of laces in this country. Will he tell us why there should be this extraordinary provision of a tax of 3d. a lace on laces imported on a pair of boots?
By an Emergency Order, a duty of 100 per cent., or 2/- per gross, was imposed on certain classes of laces imported in bulk in November of last year. The reason why a change was effected was because it became evident during the year that laces were being imported from certain countries at an extremely low price, with the result that the production of laces here was being impaired. The import figures show that for the first nine months of 1935 dutiable laces amounting to 53,000 gross were so imported.
Would the Minister say from where?
Mainly from Japan. The prices at which laces are being produced here is, I think satisfactory. A peculiarity about the business is this, that almost irrespective of the price at which laces are purchased they are sold at the same retail price. At least, apart from a very obvious difference in quality, there is not much difference in the retail price. The ordinary pair of laces is sold at the same price, whether purchased wholesale at one figure or another. The partial manufacture of laces, as Deputies are aware, is proceeding at Ennis, and a fairly substantial amount of employment is being given in that town. I think the number of persons employed there at present is between 70 and 80.
Making boot-laces?
Well, there are certain other processes carried on by the firm, but their principal line is the production of boot-laces. They are still importing the braid of which the boot-laces are manufactured. The production of the braid is the second stage of the development of the industry and it cannot be attempted until the total production has been brought up to the point at which installation of the necessary machinery and expenditure of capital for the purpose would be justified. We are getting near that stage now. In the situation existing in this trade, it was considered that a prohibitive duty should be imposed and this duty is intended to be prohibitive.
Is the Minister aware that there has been an increase by the Ennis firm of from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. for these goods during the course of the past few months?
I am not aware of that.
There has certainly been that increase in regard to particular numbers which they offer for sale. The Minister says that there are from 60 to 70 persons engaged in putting tags on boot-laces in Ennis. That is very difficult to believe. What the firm of L.J. Jordan and Co. are chiefly engaged in doing is putting tags on the boot-laces. They take in the braid, cut it into suitable lengths, and put tags on it. That is "lace manufacture." They also finish elastic. They take in elastic in considerable quantities in a semi-finished condition and, probably, bleach it. I find it hard to believe that there are 70 or 80 persons employed at that. Are they men?
I think they are mostly girls.
I think the Minister ought to look into these employment figures and satisfy himself that he is not being put upon. I have no objection to this firm. They seem to be enterprising people, but the price they are charging for their boot laces ought to be gone into before a tariff is put on.
This tariff has been in operation for some time. All we are doing now by this Resolution is, in a sense, codifying a series of tariffs imposed by Order over a considerable period. They are being made permanent duties by this Order. We are not, in fact, making any change in the tariff by this Resolution.
You are proposing it to the House for the first time.
No.
Is not this proposal brought before the House for the first time?
I agree that this proposal is somewhat different from that which the House discussed previously, but the question of imposing a tariff upon boot laces was previously considered here.
A tariff.
A lower tariff, I agree. We have increased the tariff because of the very substantial imports of last year. These would seem to indicate that what we would regard as a prohibitive duty would be necessary.
And immediately the price goes up.
What is the significance of paragraph (b)?
That imposes a duty upon the braid from which the laces are manufactured. As Deputies are aware, we have indicated that we are prepared to give licences for the importation of braid free of duty to any concern making laces.
That means one firm— L.J. Jordan & Co. The only manufacturing process they engage in is bringing in the braid, cutting it into suitable lengths and putting tags on it.
I agree that the braid is not manufactured here.
Is it not an astonishing thing that a boot manufacturer who sells laces will not be allowed to bring in braid without paying 100 per cent. tariff, when another establishment which never handled boot laces can import braid free of duty, cut it up, put tags on either end and sell it?
The Deputy could make little of any enterprise on that basis.
Do I exaggerate?
I grant you that we cannot say we manufacture boot laces until we get the braid manufactured here. But we cannot get the braid manufactured here until we get the industry established. When we have the industry established and the preliminary work done, including the training of workers, this firm will be required to make the braid. That is the arrangement we have made. The importation of braid is merely a temporary arrangement.
It has been going on for 18 months.
Since February, 1935.
Have they given any similar undertaking in regard to elastic?
So far as the same position applies, the undertaking relates to certain other classes of goods as well.
I move amendment No. 42:—
To delete reference No. 42 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This reference proposes to impose a 60 per cent. tariff—we have now got beyond the 50 per cent. stage—on knitted fabric of all descriptions imported in the piece. I should like to know what the necessity is for this tariff?
As the Deputy is aware, the existing duty on knitted fabric is 45 per cent., which was first imposed by the Finance Act of 1932 to encourage the manufacture of knitted fabric in the Saorstát. Most of the larger hosiery firms produce their own requirements of cotton fabric and, in addition, a number of firms are engaged in the making-up of garments from knitted fabric purchased by them. This fabric was imported but certain firms are now making fabric for sale to the making-up firms and it has been represented to the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the Department is, apparently, satisfied, that the existing rate of duty is not sufficient to afford protection against foreign competition.
Why?
For the reason that it is not. Even though Saorstát fabric is purchased at competitive prices, as the cost of the commodity is comparatively small, it necessitates a fairly substantial duty to induce home firms to purchase their materials from the home manufacturers. It is believed that the chief competition in cheap fabrics is from continental sources. It is stated that these continental firms are prepared to cut prices in order to get over the tariff. To safeguard the newly established industry against this undercutting, a fairly stiff tariff on the lines of that set out in the schedule to the Bill was necessary.
It is necessary but, of course, the Minister for Finance is frantically trying to read from his brief while not having the faintest notion of what he is talking about. There was some kind of factory started at the North Wall by people associated with the home-spun industry and the knitting business in Donegal for production of this cotton fabric which was principally made into men's cheap underwear and women's cheap underwear. I am not sure whether or not that factory ever came to fruition, but I think it did. The knitted fabric referred to in this reference is clearly knitted fabric used in the manufacture of fleecy underwear and cheap cotton underwear, the average retail price of which used to be from 1/- to 2/6 and is now from 2/- to 3/6. Personally, I think it is a very bad tariff. I think that tariffs which make the clothing of the poor very much more expensive than it was are bad tariffs. The market for knitted fabric here is never going to be a considerable market, and it is only being purchased at very great expense to that section of the community least able to bear it. There was one shop in this city which actually used to bring in up to 5,000 dozen of men's vests and under-drawers made of this knitted fabric. They sold to the people in Gloucester Street, Gardiner Street and the slums of this city for 1/- a garment. That same garment to-day costs 2/-.
Must we take that as being true, Sir?
It is no concern of the Chair.
The Minister could not and does not know anything about it and he would be much better advised to keep a dignified silence.
Dignified in contrast to the Deputy's undignified volubility?
Whether dignified or undignified, it is irritating to hear a man who knows absolutely nothing about a subject talking about that subject. The House should consider that this duty helps to operate as a burden of about 2/- on the average street flower-seller's weekly budget, if she is a married woman and goes down to buy a suit of underwear for her husband.
Once a week?
If you take into consideration the fact that the poor purchase socks, cotton stockings and cotton underwear, you will find that this tariff imposes a burden of extraordinary dimensions upon their annual budget. What often amazes me is that Deputies will cheerfully trot into the Lobby and vote for a tariff of this kind without ever weighing in their minds for a single moment who are going to pay.
This business originally arose from the fact that we put a duty on for the purpose of excluding Japanese competition. This 1/- garment to which I have referred was, of course, a Japanese garment, so we put a duty on all cotton underwear to prevent Japanese competition. A great deal of this cotton underwear, in fact, came from Holland. Most of the stuff sold at about 2/- or 2/6 came from Holland; most of the stuff sold for 1/- came from Japan; and most of the stuff sold between 1/- and 2/- came from Great Britain. When we put on these duties it was discovered that Irish manufacturers were importing this knitted fabric and sewing it up on machines. Then this firm undertook to make the fabric at the North Wall, so far as I am aware, and now we have a duty of 60 per cent. on the knitted fabric, so that not only are we to have the duty which originally excluded Japanese underwear, but we are going to have a duty on the raw materials of the industry which is being set up here. What the cumulative effect of that is going to be on the purse of the poor, I do not know, but, in my personal experience, the garment which used to be available to the poor for 1/- is now retailing from 1/9 to 2/-, according to where it is sold. The garment that used to sell for 2/- is selling for 3/-, and the garment that used to sell for 2/6 is selling for 3/6. I do not think a tariff of that kind is defensible, but I am aware the Fianna Fáil Party does, and that is just the fundamental difference between us. There is no use asking the Minister any question as to why they fixed on 60 per cent., or why it is necessary. He does not know, and we might as well face it, but it is right that the House should know what it is doing.
The Minister need not pretend that he knows something but cannot say it. He was attempting to be vocal while Deputy Dillon was speaking. Now he has a chance of speaking.
Is amendment No. 42 being withdrawn?
Why should opposition to a 60 per cent. tariff on knitted fabric be withdrawn when the Minister will not give us any information about it?
I move amendment No. 43:—
To delete reference No. 43 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This reference proposes to impose a duty of 25 per cent. on yarns (other than white yarns) wholly or partly of wool or worsted or a combination of wool or worsted which are imported otherwise than on bobbins, cheeses, cones or cops. It seems to me that this is imposing a substantial tariff on the raw material of a number of industries here and I should like to have an explanation from the Minister.
Of course, I shall be told that I am reading from a brief, but the fact is that these raw materials for these industries are being manufactured now at home.
Tell us where?
Knitting yarns are being manufactured at Blarney, Athlone and one or two other places.
What was the duty before?
In addition, yarns for the manufacture of rugs are being made at Lucan. I suppose I do not have to tell Deputy Dillon where Blarney, Athlone and Lucan are situated, but I have no doubt that if Deputy Dillon gets up to display to the House the extensive range of his knowledge, he will proceed to tell us where they are.
Could the Minister tell us what this duty applies to?
Yarns (other than white yarns) wholly or partly of wool or worsted or a combination of wool or worsted, which are imported otherwise than on bobbins, cheeses, cones or cops.
What is such wool principally used for?
I do not profess to be an expert textile technician, but they are knitted yarns which apparently, we have been told, are the raw materials of an Irish industry. These materials are now being manufactured here. I presume that a person of the encyclopaedic brain of Deputy Dillon would be able to tell the House what they are for and I have no doubt that whether he could or not, he would try to. As a not inexpert spinner of flimsy yarns himself, he ought to welcome this protection, but these yarns are for knitting purposes and they are yarns which are already being manufactured at various places in the Saorstát.
Deputy Moore is to be congratulated.
This tariff is imposed for the purpose of protecting these particular articles, and Deputy Dillon can either make up his mind not to afford this protection or agree with the Government in this matter. I understand that his Party has now become strongly protectionist. Apparently, they protect everything the Government has not protected so far and remove the protection which the Government has up to this afforded to certain industries. They do not seem to have any other principle behind their new protectionist policy than that.
The new protectionist policy is a little wide of this amendment.
It may be, Sir, but I have told the House what the purpose is. I have told the House that there is a new industry established and I know that Deputy Dillon will get up and say that this industry is not worth protecting. He has said it already. He will start to prove, as he did in the case of the last item, that an extensive raw material upon which a comparatively small protective duty has been imposed will increase the cost of the article by over 100 per cent. As I carefully pointed out on the last item this fabric is comparatively inexpensive in cost.
The Minister is an exponent of Irish industry and he described the knitting yarn industry as a new industry that has been established in this country. They were making knitting yarn in Blarney before the Minister was born. Deputy Miss Pearse could tell him that. There was no one who ever held a needle in his or her hands who does not know the difference between good and bad wool. If the Minister thinks that the manufacture of knitting yarns in Blarney is a feather in the Fianna Fáil cap it is time he woke up. They were making knitting yarns in Blarney before the name of de Valera was heard of in this country and they will be making it there long after that name is forgotten. The important thing at the moment is what exactly does reference No. 43 do? Does it raise the tariff or does it lower it or alter it in any way? Why are we asked to pass this item at all? I should like to hear from the Minister is it his purpose to increase the tariff or to reduce it? It is rather difficult to discuss the resolution when we do not know what its terms are.
This item is to confirm an Emergency Order which the Deputy has apparently not yet read. Emergency Order 84 of 1935 was circulated to the Deputy at the end of last year.
It is a new tariff which the House is discussing for the first time and that is all we heard about the industry which it is supposed to help.
It was imposed last year. It is not a new tariff.
I desire to ask the Minister a question. This is a duty which was put on "for the purpose of stimulating the manufacture of better grade yarn"——
If it is only a question, well and good; the Deputy has already spoken, but he may speak only once on the Report Stage.
Very well. I just want to ask the Minister if this duty is designed to stimulate the manufacture of better grade yarn? Is it not a fact that it has failed to do so and is not the net result that knitting yarns are imported in similar quantities to that in which they were imported before the tariffs were put on? But the consumer is paying 25 per cent. more.
I would have to have notice of that question.
Reference No. 43 put and agreed to.
I beg to move amendment No. 44:—
To delete reference No. 44 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
I would like to ask the Minister what the intention of the proposal is?
The resolution, reference No. 44 imposes a duty of 2/6 a lb. on certain classes of rubber compounds, that is substances consisting partly of rubber. The purpose of the duty is to protect the new tyre manufacturing industry which has been established in Cork.
To protect it?
Yes.
But there are no tyres imported into the country now. That has been stopped by legislation.
Ah well,——
That is a bagatelle.
I was saying that the purpose of the duty is to safeguard the new tyre manufacturing industry which has been established in Cork from an undesirable form of competition which has recently sprung up in the re-manufacture and retreading of second hand tyres. When the new manufacturing licence under the Control of Imports Act was granted to the Irish Dunlop Company for the manufacture and repair of tyres there was an understanding that so far as possible the full market for tyres in the Saorstát would be reserved to the firm of Dunlop. It was recognised at the time that the Saorstát was not sufficiently large to accommodate more than one tyre manufacturing company. Since then there has sprung up a practice which unless dealt with early might have led to a development rendering the manufacture of tyres in the new factory uneconomic. Until at least such time as the industry is firmly established and our market capable of supporting that firm, it is considered that nothing should be allowed which would jeopardise the success of that undertaking. I think most people have been gratified that the Dunlop tyre has come back to the country in which it was first invented. Our job is to make sure that the new industry will be allowed to develop and expand until it will be able to disregard such competition as would otherwise have arisen if this tariff were not imposed.
The latest principle laid down by the Government is that in order to promote the manufacture of boots in Ireland, you must wear out your boots and there must be no attempt at mending or repairing them; and when the tread wears off your tyres you must buy new ones—not attempt to retread the tyres—in order to keep the rubber factory operating in Cork. We have now come to that position that you cannot get your tyre repaired. This is the astonishing extravagance into which this country has been driven by the folly of the Government in their economic policy. The Minister suggests to-day that the repairing and the retreading business has assumed such immense proportions that it is necessary to prohibit it. I take it, if that principle is admitted, we come to the position that if the ready-made clothing manufacturers warn the Government that they find the spinsters are retreading and repairing the ready-made clothes when they become partly worn, the Minister will prohibit that. The Minister has warned us that the Dunlop Company is in jeopardy owing to the practice which he tells us has grown up of retreading and repairing tyres. I have had placed in my hands correspondence which was conducted in the last few weeks by a citizen with the Department. That citizen asked the Department for permission to send his partly-worn tyres to England to have them retyred and reimported. He expressed his readiness to get the work done in Cork if the Dunlop Company would undertake it. Failing that he asked leave to send his tyres for rethreading to Great Britain. He was informed by the Minister that there was no machinery by which a citizen of the State could send his tyres out of the country for repair and have them brought back. The position now is that a citizen cannot get his tyres retreaded. How then does it happen that the Minister tells us that the practice of sending tyres out of the country for the purpose of having them retreaded is assuming such proportions that it was jeopardising the success of the Dunlop Company, while at the same time we have the fact that an individual citizen cannot get leave to have even four tyres retreaded? There seems to be some inconsistency there. I think the Minister ought to explain to us how that arises. Secondly, I would like the Minister for Industry and Commerce to explain the reason underlying the decision which prevents a set of tyres being retyred. Is that to be elaborated in due course into a rule that you cannot get a sole put on your shoe or a patch on your coat?
The Deputy mentioned that at least three times.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce was not then present, and I merely wish to bring it personally to his notice. Does it mean that one cannot get a patch on one's coat or a sole on one's shoe, and in order to encourage Irish industry one must wear out these articles completely and replace them with new articles—all in order to keep the wheels of industry moving in the Saorstát? If that is the intention, then the Minister had better send for the emigrants whom he promised to bring back, because I think they will be the only people who will be able to afford to live in this country.
There is no difficulty about getting tyres repaired.
Except that the Dunlop Company will not do it.
The Deputy is obviously confusing two matters as regards the repairing of tyres——
The retreading of tyres.
The taking of an old tyre, remoulding it, and putting on a new strip around the tyre is a new development, an entirely new development, which has taken place in the course of the last 12 months in all countries. The position is that there has been no duty at all upon the strip which is used for that purpose. The manufacture of that strip is about to be undertaken by the Dunlop Company, and a service for the remoulding of tyres will be provided by that company. There was no duty on the strip heretofore, and from this onwards it will be manufactured in Cork.
That is quite another story from what the Minister told us.
Oh, no.
The Dunlop enterprise in Cork is not in jeopardy at present, but it might be jeopardised, its economic working might be upset, if this practice of remoulding tyres was to extend very considerably. A very small capital investment, and a very small amount of employment in a small enterprise would effect a substantial remoulding of old tyres by this new process, and it was feared that if that development were allowed to take place indiscriminately over the country, not merely would it be detrimental to the employment position, but it might jeopardise the economic working of the Cork plant, the plans of which are based on a certain output of tyres per year. We are desirous that this service should be available to the people here, and the arrangement is that it will be made available by the Dunlop Company. We have intimated to the Dunlop Company that this duty which is imposed on the strip will be reconsidered at the end of a short period in the light of the actual service they are giving to the people of the country, both from the point of view of the facilities available and the cost entailed. Nothing has happened yet which would justify us in saying that the Dunlop enterprise in Cork has been jeopardised; but there was a danger that this particular development might take place upon a large scale to the detriment of that enterprise.
Am I to understand that the Minister is going to require the Dunlop Company to make this service available for the Irish people?
Exactly.
Does the Minister foresee that if it is very widely availed of by Irish tyre users sending their tyres to Cork, it will have any serious effect on the tyre industry?
No doubt there will be some effect in so far as new tyres might be purchased if this service were not available, but it will not be as serious as it might have been if this work were allowed to be done all over the country by a large number of small firms, apart altogether from the administrative difficulty which might be involved in the collection of Excise duty. The Cork tyres have to pay Excise duty.
I would like to ask whether, in an industry in connection with which we are already committed to paying 15 per cent. more than the price charged in Great Britain, tyre users are now going to be prevented from getting their tyres repaired locally by a reconditioning process, and are to be forced to send them to Cork to be reconditioned there?
The mere sending of them to Cork does not make any difference; they may as well send them to Cork as to Dublin. This particular remoulding process is an entirely new one; it has never previously been practised here.
A very large part of our motoring population lives around Dublin, and if the carriage of tyres from here to Cork and back has to be paid for the purpose of having the tyres reconditioned, it will add substantially to the cost of reconditioning.
Not very much, I should think.
To that has to be added the additional cost of 15 per cent.
It will be very slight.
If I send tyres to Great Britain and get them reconditioned there——
They cannot be reimported.
Why?
Because the importation of tyres is prohibited. A registered importer using his licence could bring in secondhand tyres on that licence. He would be foolish to do it, but he could do it. But any person not registered could not do so.
And no concession will be made in the case of any citizen who wants to get his tyres reconditioned—he will not be permitted to bring them in?
It is not possible to arrange for that. This reconditioning service will be made available here.
Is it not possible to arrange it very easily by getting a certificate from the Revenue Commissioners when the stuff is going out and using that certificate in order to get the stuff back?
It would involve an amendment of the Control of Imports Act.
Could not that be done?
No doubt it could.
Why should it not be done? This thing is causing a great deal of inconvenience.
The inconvenience will disappear as soon as the reconditioning service is established.
When will that be?
Forthwith.
When the Minister says forthwith, does that mean that I can assure anybody who may be interested that the Dunlop Company will be in a position to undertake the work within the next month or so?
There are a couple of people already engaged in this business to some small extent.
They will have to pay more now for the raw material.
They will get the raw material from Cork. The primary concern is that this particular process does not develop to the extent that the manufacture of tyres here will be jeopardised. That is the primary concern. This thing might be done on a large scale by a large number of small concerns and employment given in the process is practically nil.
You do not want to encourage the extension of this process?
We have no objection to the process being engaged in, but our main concern is that it will not jeopardise the manufacture of tyres.
Do I understand that there will be a limited service of this kind—that the Government will not permit a very considerable amount of reconditioning that might possibly be looked for?
The service that will be given will be less than might otherwise be available if a large number of firms were allowed to engage in the business. The question is whether we prefer to encourage that service as against the manufacture of new tyres. The difficulty is that the manufacture of new tyres might stop or, alternatively, that the economics of the scheme might be upset to such a degree that an increase in the price of new tyres might be necessitated.
So that the Cork monopoly is now asking to be put in the position that then can dictate that certain work cannot be done in the country, and can select the part of the work themselves that they will do and the people for whom they will do it.
That is what I mean when I say that the Cork Company is being notified that in our opinion the service must be adequate and must be afforded at a reasonable price.
And to a reasonable extent.
We have told them that after a certain period this duty will be reconsidered.
Could a boot manufacturer come to the Minister and protest against the interference by cobblers or could a clothing manufacturer come and protest that too many people were making their own clothes?
I gathered from what the Minister said that more small firms would be required.
They are not.
What the Minister said was that there would likely be better service or more competitive service.
I am not saying the service would be cheaper or better. It might conceivably be worse. There might be efforts on the part of those firms to get business put on a larger scale than would develop in the ordinary course, merely by the provision of services.
What I suggest is that removing the element of competition would not be an incentive to the firm to have reconditioning done at competitive prices.
If that is done the duty will be removed.
It is a problem whether it is worth while or not. If one firm has a monopoly would it not tend to keep on like that?
So far as the rubber tyre industry, and other industries associated with the Cork tyre industry, are concerned we have committed ourselves to encourage these various processes here, even though we realise there is no room in the Saorstát market for more than one enterprise on that scale. We have done that because we believe the safeguard of price and quality is sufficient to protect the consumer here and the same applies to this process. We are encouraging the manufacture of this strip and we notified the Cork company when the duty was imposed that if the service provided was not adequate and reasonable in price this duty would be removed again.
Will the service only operate in Cork?
I cannot answer that.
It is very material because assuming a man in Donegal wants this work done——
He would be able to have it done.
Yes, but he would have to pay carriage to Cork and back.
He might send it to Dublin.
I move amendment No. 45:—
In the Schedule, Part I, in columns 2 and 4, to delete the figures "18s. 8d." in each case in which they occur, and substitute therefor the figures "11s. 8d." and to make consequential amendments elsewhere in Part I of the Schedule.
This amendment proposes to reduce by ¾d. the duty upon sugar. When dealing with the question of the taxation of sugar we are dealing with a tax that has already been very strongly dealt with by the Minister for Finance. In June, 1931, when £750,000 had to be provided for the relief of rates on agricultural land, an increase of a ½d. was put on sugar. The Minister for Finance who was then in Opposition here, dealt with that situation. His speech upon the subject will be found in volume 39, column 996, of the Official Debates. In that speech he proposed to consider the matter in the case of the small farmer and agricultural labourer, and indicated how a ½d. per pound tax on sugar would hit households of people like them. He said:
"I propose to take the average income of the small farmer or agricultural labourer as ranging from 27/- to 30/- per week. I know that there are a large number of agricultural labourers getting nothing like 27/- a week. Some of them are getting as low as 18/- a week. I think 25/- a week is the figure in many districts."
The present Government has brought about the situation here which shows that the wages of agricultural labourers are far below 27/- and 30/- or even 25/- a week. In these circumstances he considered that the imposition of a ½d. on a pound of sugar in these households is equivalent to a tax of 2¼d. per week, or 9/9 per year. He dilated very strongly upon the position which would be created for people like small farmers and agricultural labourers paying this tax of a ½d.
Since that time the Minister himself has added ¾d. to the high taxation, which he considered was then imposed on sugar. He proposes, in his Financial Resolutions this year, to take off one of these farthings, but he leaves the ½d. on. I want to point out to the Minister, and the House, the mess the Government has made of this sugar business, from the point of view of the consumer of sugar throughout the country and the taxpayer. The ½d. that is left on as compared with what the situation was in 1931 is reflected in the price charged for sugar to-day and the price charged then. The increase to the purchasers of a ½d. on the pound of sugar means an expenditure over the counter, by those buying sugar, to the extent of £555,000, assuming that the consumption is 104,000 tons per year. But between 1931 and 1935 the official figures indicate to us that the import price of sugar into the country had fallen from 9/8 to 7/6 per cwt. That is equivalent to a fall of one-fifth of a penny. So that in fact if the taxation situation was relieved to the extent of the additional ½d. that the Government are now leaving on sugar, even at 1931 prices, people would be getting their 104,000 tons worth of sugar at £225,000 less than they are having to pay, relative to the import price of sugar. So that between the extra ½d. and the one-fifth of a penny that they would expect to save on their expenditure on sugar, when they take into consideration the value of world prices of sugar, there is paid £780,000 more for sugar than they would have to pay if the 1931 position obtained. But not only are the people paying £780,000 unnecessarily more for sugar, but the taxpayer is called upon to pay nearly £700,000 additional.
Additional! Will the Deputy show how he works that out?
Because in 1931-32 putting it at the rate the taxpayer had to pay the revenue got £1,426,000. The revenue got in £1,426,000 when the Customs duty on sugar was a ½d. less than people are asked to pay to-day. Now, when they are paying a substantial increase, because of the extra ½d., as well as losing £225,000, because they are denied the advantage of the world fall in the price of sugar, the Minister is only expecting to get £712,000 into the revenue, and the additional £714,000 fall to the revenue from sugar, at the rate that was paid in 1931, has now to be found from the taxpayers' pockets. So that one aspect of the Minister's mess is that the people have to pay £1,450,000, when we take into consideration the assistance given to the sugar beet industry in the past and make allowance for that, additional over the counter to meet the additional tax, because they are denied the advantage of the world fall in the price of sugar, and something like £700,000 in additional taxation found by other means.
Then we have the position that farmers are getting substantially less per acre for the beet they are growing than in 1931. Nationally we have the position that in Leinster, out of 18,079 acres of beet grown, 13,357 is the acreage substituted for turnips and mangolds; and in Connacht out of 13,427 acres of beet, 12,178 is the acreage substituted for potatoes, turnips and mangolds. That is why I say that the Government by their policy have made a mess of the sugar business, and why the House should not tolerate the imposition of a customs duty on sugar to the extent that the Minister is asking, when we take into consideration the unnecessary amount of money that is being paid by the people over the counter and in additional taxation, even if additional benefits over the 1931 period were being spread through the country to the farmers. As I say, in Leinster farmers are getting substantially less for their beet than in 1931, when the people were paying less in sugar taxation than they are to-day, and the Exchequer was getting substantially more.
The question is: That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Financial Resolution No. 5.
Has the Minister nothing to say?
If I am concluding, yes.
I submit that we are moving a resolution on the Report Stage and it is very difficult to conduct a discussion of this kind on the Report Stage, as has been indicated by the various types of discussion we have had. We are doing it in order to save time, and if we cannot hear the Minister on the subject, we will have to deal with the matter in another way.
The Minister is quite entitled, as the mover of the main motion, to conclude the debate on his motion.
I thought we were discussing the amendment.
The mover of the amendment is not entitled to reply.
He is not asking to reply. We are asking to hear the Minister.
The position is that the Minister has moved a resolution, to which an amendment has been moved. The Minister is entitled, as mover of the main motion, to reply and to wind up the debate on the main motion.
Let him talk about his white elephants now.
I refuse to enter into a discussion on those terms.
I am not surprised, because you have some sense of shame left. Get up and speak on any terms you like.
I am not the unlucky owner of the white elephant. We did buy it and we set it to work. It was kept by our predecessors for the purpose, if one may judge by the amount which it cost to feed it, of imposing a penitential burden on the taxpayers. The Carlow factory in 1931-'32 received in direct and indirect subsidies something like £390,000.
Is the Minister distinguishing between direct and indirect?
I think that a factory, which existed merely as an exhibit of the limitations which our predecessors were prepared to impose upon agricultural and industrial development in the country, and which cost the taxpayers £390,000 per year, could scarcely be described as anything else except a white elephant. It became quite a different proposition when we purchased it as a going concern, lock, stock and barrel, for a trifle over what the subsidy amounted to in the year 1931-'32, and when we reorganised it in conjunction with the other factories upon a basis that, at any rate, has resulted in giving to our farmers, to their sons, and to the inhabitants of the smaller towns in the country a very useful and profitable industry.
I was anxious to hear what really was behind the motion moved by Deputy Mulcahy. Apparently, he put it down in order that the Minister might talk about sugar. I examined the sugar position very fully in my Budget statement. If the Deputy really intended that there should be a serious discussion on this matter, he would at least have endeavoured to refute the arguments which I put forward in that statement in justification of the step which we took in purchasing that factory, reorganising it, and running it in conjunction with three other new factories, in order, as far as we possibly could, to meet all our needs for sugar. Of course, the Deputy in this, as in other matters, like all his colleagues in the Opposition, likes to have it both ways.
I took the precaution to bring with me Volume 49 of the Dáil Debates, and there, between columns 378 and 1,251, any Deputy or person interested can read the whole history of the Sugar Manufacture Bill, 1933. If he has been at all impressed by anything which Deputy Mulcahy said here this evening, and does consult this volume, I am sure that as well as being impressed he will also be astonished. He will find there that, with the exception of one division which was taken upon a purely obstructive amendment on the Committee Stage, the then Opposition, including Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon, did not once divide on this proposal to extend the sugar manufacturing industry in the Saorstát. The Second Stage of the Bill went through without a division, as did also the Report Stage and the Fifth Stage. In the course of the discussion the House was informed that if this project was undertaken, an increase in the price of sugar was inevitable. It was pointed out that that was the price we would have to pay in order to retain in this country the £800,000 which we were sending out each year to purchase foreign manufactured sugar.
How much is it costing to keep it here?
The Deputy can look up the figures for himself.
It is costing £1,372,000.
The Deputy can look up the figures for himself. The point is that we are now manufacturing in this country a commodity for which we used to send out £800,000 each year. It is being manufactured from beet grown here in Irish fields, and it is being manufactured by Irishmen who would otherwise be idle.
Surely it is not good economics to keep £800,000 in the country if you spend £1,372,000 to do so.
The Deputy surely has a more mature knowledge of political economy than to trot out that old argument. After all, we have got to consider this State as one community, and expenditure which takes place within that community is not lost to the community.
Of course it is.
Of course it is not.
If you misuse your land, is it not a loss to the community?
If the Deputy is going to argue that this is misuse of land, if he is going to argue that there was alternative work for those people who are now being employed in the sugar factories, that puts the matter on another plane, but I think the general concensus of opinion is——
That it is relief work.
We know that temperamentally Deputy Dillon is always to be found with the thick headed minority. If the Deputy is going, as it were, to get out of step with the rest of public opinion, and to believe that there always was work for the people who are now being employed in the sugar factories—although, according to Deputy Morrissey's speech on the general resolution, even in the year 1926 there were at least 76,000 persons unemployed in this country—if he, contrary to what again is the popular belief, thinks that in the past Irish fields were employed in the way which was most beneficial to the community, even though the fact that in the past they had been allowed to remain in pasture had manifested its ill consequences in a declining population over three generations, then as I say, we would have to argue the matter on a different plane. That is a plane upon which I do not propose to place myself, because it is an entirely irrational one. I do not think Deputy Dillon will find a supporter for his side of the controversy outside the walls of bedlam.
Does the Minister describe this as relief work?
No. I say it is useful work. I say that when our fields would otherwise be uneconomically cultivated——
With turnips, mangolds, potatoes, and so on?
——when the inhabitants of our small towns, Thurles, Tuam, Mallow and Carlow, would be unemployed if those factories were not there, when by erecting those factories and encouraging our farmers to grow sugar beet we saved £800,000 for this community, then the proposition is an economically sound one. Those are the facts which underlie this undertaking, and in the year 1933, when the Bill to give the Government power to establish those new factories was before the Dáil, it was because even Deputy Dillon could not close his eyes to those facts that this Bill went through the Dáil without a division being challenged on any stage of it, except as I said, on an entirely unimportant and wholly obstructive amendment which was put down by Deputy MacDermot on the Committee Stage. Of course, the Bill having gone through, the Opposition were able to go through the country and say: "Oh yes; we were in accord with Government policy in that regard. We agreed with them that the factories ought to be established." Does Deputy Dillon deny that he agreed? Deputy Dillon, in the year 1933, did not talk about this being misuse of Irish fields. He was quite in favour of it.
That is certainly not true. I was never in favour of it.
But surely to goodness Deputy Dillon has the courage of his convictions. If he was not in favour of it, he must have been opposed to it.
I was.
If he was opposed to it, why did he not vote against it?
I cannot imagine. What was this amendment by Deputy MacDermot which the Minister describes as insignificant?
Does the Deputy want me to look it up?
Is it particularly relevant?
It is not important anyway, Sir.
The Minister seems to make it important.
What was it?
In the meantime, on the subject of not voting against it, the Minister appears to me to be like the person who did not want the milk with the mouse in it nor the milk with the mouse out of it.
The sole amendment put down by the Opposition was to the Schedule of the Bill:—
After paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (f), to add a new paragraph (g) as follows:
That except under licence from the Minister, all fuel used in the company's factories shall be of Irish origin.
Apparently, when Deputy MacDermot was putting down that amendment, he did not know that it would take three days to get the Money Resolution in regard to the Peat Development Bill through the Dáil against the opposition of Deputy Dillon, Deputy Mulcahy and the rest. In short, in order to obstruct the passage of the Sugar Manufacture Bill, although they had not the courage to oppose it on principle, and although they had not the courage to vote against it on the Second Reading, the Opposition——
Do not get carried away now.
——were then proposing to compel the sugar factories to use peat or some other Irish fuel. If they had carried that Resolution, and if the Government had adopted it, we would have Deputy Mulcahy coming into the House to-day to tell us how very much dearer sugar was because the Government had compelled the sugar factories to use turf entirely in the generation of steam. That would have been the argument if that had been the case.
These are some of the yarns that ought to be taxed.
Yes, there are some yarns that ought to be taxed, and there are some very big ones. We have just listened to a few from Deputy Mulcahy, and I am showing that they are so thin that one can see through them, because the Deputy who has been complaining about the price of sugar to-day is the Deputy who, with full knowledge that sugar would be dearer if we established these three new factories, did not vote against the increase in the cost of sugar. However, as I have said, they do like to have it both ways in the Opposition, and so the Deputy comes in here to-day and complains about the price. The Deputy referred to the price the farmers were getting for their beet. When this Bill was going through, on the Second Stage, I made it clear that the figures for the cost of production which I gave to the Dáil were based upon a price of 35/- per ton for beet with a sugar content of 17½ per cent. The price which is now being paid for beet is 37/6 per ton —a flat rate, without any advertence to the sugar content. In other words, the price is up by 2/6 a ton.
What is the average sugar content?
It is less than what we calculated upon for the past two years. It has been slightly less than the figure which was taken as the basis of our calculation. In any event, the position is that in 1933 Deputy Mulcahy was willing to submit to an increase in the price of sugar of ½d. or ¾d. per lb., concomitant with a price of 35/- a ton for beet with a sugar content of 17½ per cent., whereas the price which is being paid by the factories for beet now is 2/6 more than that per ton —37/6—and the difference in the price of sugar is approximately ¾d. per lb. more, which was the increase we indicated when the Bill was going through the House.
I move:
That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 7.
This is a remarkable Resolution in many ways, and I am surprised that it has not been given heavier type, because it is the biggest duty that has ever been imposed by this Assembly. Several remarkable things struck me about this duty. The first is that nobody ever heard of glass being sold by weight. We have all heard of a pound of butter and a pound of tea but I do not think any of us ever heard of a pound of glass. That does not figure on the manufacturers' invoice. I am interested to know why there was recourse to this method of regulating the duty. I was wrong in saying that glass is never sold by weight as, when it is broken, it is sold by the ton as "cullet." I do not think any Deputy ever heard of an invoice for 2 lbs. weight of glass for a window. In fact, if he did, he might also hear that the 2 lbs. did not reach to the top to keep out the draught. The size of the duties by percentage increase range from 39.83 per cent. to 500.75 per cent. What is the meaning of putting a percentage increase of 500 per cent. on glass? The Minister may say: "We have only put these duties on; we do not intend that they shall be ever collected. A company is going to manufacture all sorts and sizes of glass here, and until then licences will be issued." In any case, I contend that duties of this size should not be put on, even if there was not the slightest intention of ever collecting them, or that the public will ever have to pay them, because they have a disturbing effect on the public mind.
I should like also to bring to the Minister's attention that not only is the company supposed to be going to make polished glass, plate glass, silvered glass, rolled glass, and figured glass, but they are also going to engage in various other operations. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is true that they are also going to silver, bevel and work the glass. It seems an extraordinary proceeding, if that be true, that the company that has the fixing of the price at which that glass is to be sold to people who are going to work or silver that glass, are also going to engage in that work themselves. We have heard a lot of talk about people being put out of business in certain industries, but if this company does not want other people to continue in business it would not be very hard to prevent their continuing any kind of business that the company does not desire. I hope the Minister will be able to answer that question. It has been customary in this House to act on the principle that persons who are engaged in manufacture, or what is equivalent to manufacture, namely the subjecting of materials to any process, should get their raw materials at the cheapest price and that the heaviest duties should be reserved for the finished article, in this case wrought or silvered glass.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the example of ¼ inch silvered and bevelled polished plate on which the percentage increase is 119.72 per cent., whereas the rolled and rough cast stock sizes, which are absolutely raw materials, come in at the following percentage charges for duty, as compared with the glass charges—309.31, 354.51, 487.03, and 500.75 per cent. I submit to the Minister that there is absolutely no justification for imposing these duties, even though he never intends to collect them. Further, I should like to point out to him that the heaviest duties should be put on the finished articles and the lightest on those commodities which are raw materials which will be worked in this country. I should also like the Minister in his reply to deal with the question of the company's engaging in silvering and working glass when they are in turn fixing the price of the raw material for people who are also doing that work and who are going to sell the finished article to the public. I would ask the Minister to deal with these matters as fully as he can in his reply.
The company which is engaging in the production of this glass will manufacture all the classes of glass which are being made subject to the duty. I think the Deputy misread the resolution, because if he looks at it again, he will note that in paragraph (a) certain classes of glass defined there, are excluded from the scope of the paragraph.
That is the way I read it.
In paragraph (c) they are subject to the rate of 60/- per cwt.
In paragraph (a) any sheet or plate glass not subjected to any processes of working is subject to a rate of 20/-.
Yes, excluding the classes of glass mentioned there as being excluded.
And on sheet or plate glass, which has been silvered or metalised, the duty is 120/-?
Quite. On other classes of glass the duty is 60/-, including glass which is coloured or figured. That is a higher rate of duty than in the case of the plain glass.
That is the rate which will apply to any glass which is ribbed, fluted, figured, foliated, decorated, reinforced, coloured or opal?
Quite. The intention is that these rates of duty should not be paid. In so far as this glass is not available from within the country, licences for its free importation will be issued. It is contemplated that all these classes of glass will be available from home sources as and from some date in the month of July. This industry is being established by the Irish Glass Bottle Company at Ringsend, the capital of the company having been increased for the purpose of enabling them to extend their operations in this way. They are putting up a factory at Ringsend which will have a capacity in excess of the requirements of the country. The company have hopes of developing an export trade in certain classes of plate and sheet glass, and they are building a factory the capacity of which will be roughly 50 per cent. in excess of the total requirements of the country. The factory will, of course, be a very modern factory, equipped on the most up-to-date lines and will be able to produce glass very efficiently, but it is necessary nevertheless to have substantial rates of duty because of the manner in which this industry is carried on or may be carried on by certain concerns in Continental countries. So far as these concerns may desire to retain an export market here for themselves, they are in a position to quote substantially lower prices for their export trade than would be remunerative on their own home markets. There is a prospect that that might happen in relation to the market here. It is however contemplated that glass will be available at or about the price at which it is available at the moment. Under no circumstances would the increase in price be more than 10 per cent. It is in fact anticipated that no increase in price will be occasioned unless it should happen that there are charges or costs here which are in excess of those experienced in other countries, but I do not think that is likely to happen.
The rate of the duty is not, of course, any indication of the price that will be charged as, in relation to an enterprise of this kind, where there is only one firm actually engaged in the business, it is necessary to have a definite understanding regarding the price to be charged here. If the price should rise over and above what we would consider reasonable in the circumstances, then the question of the imposition of the duty would have to be reconsidered. The industry is an important one. It is one well worth developing and it has been undertaken by a company who have made a success of their existing enterprise and have shown that they are possessed of a very high degree of technical skill in the glass-working industry. I have no doubt that this new enterprise of theirs will be as successful as their glass bottle enterprise. I have mentioned that they have hopes of developing an export trade in sheet and plate glass. I am sure all Deputies will join with me in hoping that their anticipations in that regard will be realised. The development of an export trade in highly manufactured goods of this description would be of considerable benefit. In so far as no Irish made plate or sheet glass will be available for some weeks to come, we are at the present time issuing licences to all firms engaged in the importation of this commodity to bring in their ordinary requirements free of these duties. As it will probably be some time after the factory gets into production before a full range of products in adequate quantities will be available, licences for importation will continue to be issued when it is evident that supplies from the Saorstát company cannot be secured. The number of workers which may be engaged in this industry will be somewhere between 80 and 100. It will, of course, give very suitable employment to male workers of a fairly highly paid character, and that number will be increased if the anticipations of the company concerning an export trade are realised.
Would the Minister reply to the question I put to him as regards the company starting in silvering and bevelling before they have started to produce glass? Might they not leave the silvering and bevelling to the local people to see how they would behave?
The intention of the company is to do all the processes of manufacture. It will be in no sense a partial manufacturing industry. They propose to do all the processes of manufacture from the raw materials up. No doubt they will make arrangements to supply firms doing any other process of manufacture in the country with whatever materials they require, in whatever state they require them. It is to be anticipated that there will be no interference with those other concerns that may be doing partial manufacturing processes in the case of glass at the present time.
Would not the Minister consider that it would be just as well for the new company to concentrate on producing the raw materials and to leave the subsidiary processes to those other firms that are at present engaged in them? It seems rather extraordinary that the first thing that this company should start on are those operations which are at present carried on by local firms.
I think the Deputy can rely upon it that they will concentrate on the production of sheet and plate glass in the first instance.
On this matter, I think the Minister was more indefinite than he usually is. The Minister spoke of an agreement with this company as regards price. He spoke of the products of this company, but his statement as regards price was much less definite than that which he made earlier in the case of tennis balls. He spoke of the price that he would think reasonable, and of other countries which produced glass in large quantities for their internal use. The gist of his argument was that that enabled them to put a quantity of glass on what is to them a foreign market at a lower price than the cost of production. Is that happening here as regards plate glass at present?
I would not say so, but it might happen.
Why does the Minister anticipate that it might happen? Why does he put on such a high duty if he does not anticipate such a thing happening?
Because it might happen.
It is strange, because the firms, such as the Central European firms which have been in this for a long time, have not done that up to the present.
Why should they?
If they can do it why should they not do it?
They have the market now.
And they can charge us the price.
The highest price they can get.
They are mainly the people who have the market and there is no competition.
I have no doubt that, as regards the glass coming here from other countries, the bulk of it comes from Belgium.
The Minister says that the price of the product in the future will be the same as now, conditions remaining the same.
It is impossible to say in advance what the cost of production will be, but it is anticipated by the firms engaged in the industry that no increase in price will be necessary. The arrangement that we have made involves this: that if the increase should rise above say 10 per cent. of present prices, then definitely the matter is open for review.
There is this other point that I am not quite clear on. I understand that this company will now have virtually a monopoly in supplying glass.
It will be the only firm engaged in the production of glass.
It will have a monopoly as there will be no glass coming in from outside. This company, we have been told, is going to do all the processes. It will not merely manufacture ordinary plate glass, but it will also do the silvering, bevelling and so on. As Deputy Dockrell has pointed out, there are other firms in the country engaged in that particular business. They will now have to get their plate glass from this firm. The question is, will they be in a position to compete with this firm in view of the fact that they will have to get their raw materials from it? They will have to compete with this firm in this market for a finished class of work—bevelling and silvering—but as this is the only firm that can supply them with the raw materials what chance will they have of carrying on under such conditions?
I would ask the Minister if he could see his way to accept this principle, that the local people will not find themselves, when sold glass at a price, that when they have bevelled it that it will then be below the cost of production to them—in other words, that the firm that has the fixing of the price of the glass should not leave the work of those local firms an uneconomic proposition.
I agree as to the desirability of what the Deputy says.
The Minister has indicated that a factory is being set up here, the productive capacity of which will be 50 per cent. above the requirements of the country.
Roughly, about that. Our requirements are in or about 5,000,000 square feet. This factory will have a capacity of about 7,000,000 square feet.
And it is all Irish capital that is being put into it. But the Government are taking extraordinary steps in their attempt to preserve and secure, as they say, Irish capital. I would like to know from the Minister if any company has discussed with the Ministry any action that may be necessary later on as to whether the Government would give bounties to assist the export of the products of this company in case they were attacked—a thing which as I gathered from the Minister's remarks is not unlikely—in an outside market by the kind of competition which the Minister suggests they would be attacked by here if the tariff barrier was not raised as high as 300 per cent. or 400 per cent.
We have no commitments at all with regard to exports.
So that Irish capital is being put into this concern entirely at the risk of people doing so? The Minister has taken no steps to advise or protect investors although he thinks a very serious position in the world market may prevent them getting an outside market.
They will act on their own responsibility.
I should like to know if the Schedules to this Resolution will be dealt with item by item.
On Report Stage, they cannot be dealt with item by item but if Deputies desire to put a brief question on any particular item, the Chair will not object. It would not, however, be in order to have Committee discussion on Report Stage.
Reference No. 2 of Part 2 deals with surgical dressings of textile material or of cotton wool. I should like to know if the Minister had any contact with the surgical profession with regard to this proposal or if any difficulty arises?
We merely desire to extend the package tax to these dressings. Packing is being done quite satisfactorily by firms here, and there is no difficulty about the matter.
The Minister is aware that the vast majority of packages used in this connection are supplied free of charge. Chemists and hospitals supply these things free of charge, and if any additional imposition were put upon them it would create a difficulty. If the prices are to be the same, that difficulty will not arise.
The purpose of the duty is to have the work done here. It is being done here almost entirely.
Does that increase the price?
No.
Will Part 1 of the Schedule apply to pills of every type?
It applies to lozenges and pastilles.
What is the distinction?
I do not think that a pill could be described as a pastille. A pastille is a sweet. We are extending the sugar-confectionery duty to cover lozenges and pastilles.
Will it cover cough lozenges?
Yes.
A lozenge is not necessarily a sweet.
The duty on sugar confectionery is being extended to cover medicated lozenges.
Is every lozenge to be liable to duty or is it only a lozenge containing sugar which will be liable to duty?
This is a sugar-confectionery duty and the lozenge must contain sugar, if it is to be liable to duty.
We shall now deal with amendments to Part III.
I move amendment No. 46:—
To delete reference No. 4 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
The effect of the provision in reference No. 4 is to increase from 33? per cent. to 75 per cent. the rate of duty on flock which, I take it, is a raw material for a number of industries. I should like to ascertain from the Minister what industries will be affected in this particular way, and what is the idea behind the increase in duty?
The increase in duty is intended to turn the demand more definitely to Irish-produced flock. Flock is used almost exclusively in the manufacture of mattresses and upholstery. It is produced by teasing wool cloths, and it is produced in this country. It is only used in certain classes of mattresses and upholstery work, the principal material used for that purpose being fibre. There is no reason why we should import flock, and, now that the production of flock has developed here, it is thought that we should shut out imports altogether. I think that the flock produced here has been found quite satisfactory in quality and price.
Can the Minister say what amount of employment will be provided, and why, if this industry has operated since 1932 under a 33½ per cent. effective tariff, it is now necessary to add 42??
About 20 or 30 persons are employed in the production of flock at present. The lower rate of duty was imposed because we were, perhaps, somewhat apprehensive as to the suitability of the home-produced flock for the purpose which I have described. These apprehensions have now disappeared. The material is, of course, of very low value, and although an ad valorem duty may look high on paper, it means very little in practice. The increase is not so considerable as it might appear at first sight. In any event, there will be no increase in the price of flock produced here.
The Minister's statement implied that his fears as to the quality of flock produced here were, to a large extent, unfounded. In those circumstances, would not a duty of 33? per cent. be sufficient? What is the necessity for the additional amount? If the quality is good, that in itself ought to appeal to the people using this material for mattresses. I think it is also used for upholstery. What is the necessity for the increased tax now, if the quality is good and the prices are reasonable, as the Minister says?
There has been an importation of flock, not a very substantial importation in value, but substantial in relation to the total output of the industry, and it is desired to stop that. We have agreed to increase the duty, but, in doing so we have secured undertakings that the prices of the Saorstát-produced flock will not be increased. Therefore, the increase in the duty is designed to stop importation and to turn the whole of the demand for flock to Saorstát sources. The use of flock in upholstery work, in any event, is declining, and it is rapidly being replaced by fibre.
There has been an importation, notwithstanding the good quality of the flock and the fact that it costs one-third more? People still buy the other flock?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 47:—
To delete reference No. 5 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
Here we have again the doubling up of a duty. It is proposed to delete the Imperial preference rate on certain classes of jute piece goods and thereby, together with the change in the rate of duty, to increase the effective rate on certain piece goods from 25 to 50 per cent. I notice also that in reference No. 8, to which I have another amendment, it is proposed to do the same thing in respect of empty jute sacks and bags—to increase the effective rate to 50 per cent. These are items which, since 1932, have had a duty of 25 per cent. The Minister, after four years, now proposes to increase that to 50 per cent. I should like the Minister to tell us what are the conditions of production and employment in an industry which has this protection since 1932, which, in his opinion, now make it necessary to double that protection.
A fairly substantial extension of the jute industry is in contemplation and classes of jute cloth which are at present imported will, we trust, shortly be manufactured here. The old jute mill at Waterford has been acquired by the company which operates the Clara Mill, and is being rebuilt and reconditioned and equipped with modern up-to-date machinery with a view to a substantial expansion of jute production. Deputies who have been reading the papers will have noted that conditions in the jute industry are very disturbed at present, and it was considered probable that the existing rate of duty, which is 37½ per cent., would not be adequate to secure the continuation of production here without perhaps some reduction of costs. No doubt, the only result of leaving the duty unchanged would have been the lowering of production costs here in some way, and the only way available would be at the expense of the workers employed in the industry. It is possible that the conditions in the jute industry will be restored to normal again, in which case the higher duty might not be required, but, at present, the higher duty is, I think, necessary and, in consequence of the protection, the conditions in the industry will be maintained. There will be no increase in prices, but there will be a substantial increase in total production and in employment in the industry.
The Minister says the present duty is 37½ per cent.?
It is 37½ per cent. upon probably a large proportion of the jute that comes in. Undoubtedly, some comes from Great Britain and it is dutiable at 25 per cent.
So that, in effect, it is an increase from 25 to 50 per cent.
With regard to reference No. 6, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in relation to this duty. Paragraph (b) of reference No. 6 says:
"the duty ... shall be paid at whichever of the following rates produces in each particular case the greater amount of duty, that is to say:—The rate of an amount equal to 33? per cent. of the value of the article or the rate of 3d. the article."
Crackers are sold by the box, and I doubt if you went into a retail shop and asked for a cracker, you would get it. I presume it refers to the box, and I should be glad if the Minister would say that is so. There is another point to which I wish to draw his attention. It is not the week before Christmas, when crackers are consumed, that delivery is made, and my information is that at the moment there are no crackers being manufactured in the Free State. Orders are at present being taken for immediate delivery, and, in a very short time, stocks will have to be delivered. The contention of my informant is that there is no machinery available at present for manufacturing crackers. If that is so, there will either be no crackers or they will cost more. The Minister has not taken any powers to license importation, and I think it would reduce the thing to an absurdity if a duty of 3d. per cracker was imposed. It would mean a 400 per cent. increase. I should like the Minister to clear up these points.
This duty on Christmas crackers is an extension of the duty in existence upon certain similar classes of goods—Christmas stockings, Easter eggs, and articles of that kind. It applies to each article. Each individual cracker is liable to duty.
A duty of 3d. each?
A duty of 3/- per box of a dozen, or 3d. per article. There is no licensing provision at the moment, but we are contemplating introducing a licensing provision, by way of amendment, to meet particularly the case of very cheap and small articles used for decoration purposes, which may not be produced here. There are, of course, a number of firms engaged in the production of crackers and there is no reason to anticipate that an adequate supply to meet all requirements will not be available.
I move amendment No. 48:—
To delete reference No. 7 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
I understand that the effect of this reference is to increase from 1/- to 1/6 the tariff on sparking plugs. The Minister must be aware of the great increase in cost to the transport companies that the duty on sparking plugs imposes. I would like to hear from him what is his idea in increasing that duty?
The increase in duty has been decided on because despite the existing duty the import of sparking plugs is still very considerable. In 1934 the total quantity imported was 70,000; in 1935 the total quantity imported was 129,000. These goods are produced by two concerns in this country, one in Drogheda, and one in Dublin. The prices at which they are sold are similar to the prices at which the imported plugs are sold. There is a very substantial profit allowed by the manufacturing firms to retailers of these articles. Plugs which may be sold ex-factory at anything from 4d. to 2/- are all retailed at on or about the some price. In consequence of that the existing duty of 1/- per article was not fully effective. What we are proposing to do is to abolish the preferential rate, so that there will be a flat rate of 1/6 an article and we think that would be sufficient to enable the two firms in the Free State to secure the whole market or to encourage other firms to go into the business here so that there would be a full supply of sparking plugs. As far as I am aware there has been no complaint about the quality of the sparking plugs. They have been found satisfactory.
Do I understand from the Minister that he has had no representations made to him from the transport companies on the question of sparking plugs and the tariffs thereon?
No, none whatever.
What is the present ad valorem working out at? What does 1/- work out at?
It varies. There are plugs retailed at 5/- and some at 6/-. That is not the price at which they are imported. They are imported at a very much less price than that.
What is the ad valorem duty?
It is hard to say.
There is roughly a flat 100 per cent. put on. There is an ad valorem of 100 per cent.?
What is on at present is a flat rate of duty.
It may work out in some cases at 50 per cent. and in others at 150 per cent., but it averages say 100 per cent. The Minister now proposes 150 instead of the present duty. He is increasing the duty from 1/- to 1/6 roughly. That is how it will work out. I gather also from the statement that the Minister makes that at present both the imported and the homemade article are retailed at the same price?
Yes.
This duty then goes on to the cost of the home article, just the same as to the imported article.
I would put it this way: there has been no increase in the price because of the duty even of the imported article.
There is a duty of 100 per cent. on the imported article?
It has not resulted in increasing the price.
That may be because of the fact that the price of the article in the world market has gone down.
It is because the price is fixed by the producer; a very substantial margin of profit is allowed to the retailer.
The Minister has told us that articles imported at from 4d. to 1/6 are sold here at 5/-; that the people who make the sparking plugs demand that, or that some ring here demands it. He is now demanding the same thing in respect of sparking plugs made here, that the firm that makes the sparking plug or the retailer selling it, will get 5/- for an article the cost of production of which is anything from 4d. to 1/6, and he invites us to increase the tariff in order that that machinery may last.
It is not for me to go into the whole economy of the motor industry. Perhaps it is necessary for the motor traders to get a substantial profit on articles of this kind, so as to enable them to carry on. The profits in these things have always been considerable. Sparking plugs are imported at prices as low as 4d. or 5d., but they are not imported at that price by the individual retailer. That would be the figure for large contracts of sparking plugs to large importers.
This is a proposal to keep up here artificially the price for the retailer. The Minister admits that the retail price may be five times the imported price, and this still seeks to continue to keep up these prices.
Why does not the Deputy get indignant at the price at which the imported articles are sold?
I am indignant. I am frightfully indignant now, when I hear it, but what makes me ten times more indignant is that not only does the Minister tolerate that, but he asks the House, under the guise of this Resolution, to contemplate the same thing continuing.
The position is that there has been a difficulty in getting the retailers to push the sale of Irish sparking plugs, because they get a smaller profit on these than they do on the imported plugs.
The Minister has put before us to-day prohibitive tariffs. He put on tariffs of 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. He put them at a prohibitive figure in order to prevent people buying stuff for which they might have a greater preference when home manufactured stuff could be got here. In this matter the Minister tells us that we can produce plugs here at a price which would enable them to be sold at a substantial profit—at half the price at which they are being sold at present. He takes no steps to put on a prohibitive duty. This is a toleration duty.
There is just one point which the Minister might clear up. At present there is a tariff of 1/-, and we equate that roughly at 100 per cent. He tells us that makes no difference in the price of the article that is sold here. That is to say, if 5/- were charged before, 5/- will be charged after this imposition, and that will be continued. I understand that the retailers here are in this position, that they have an opportunity—unless the Irish articles cost 100 per cent. more, which is against all the Minister's contentions—of making a very substantial profit by retailing not the imported article but the home-manufactured article. Is not that so?
I would like it to be clear that the cost of production here is undoubtedly higher than outside, because the total production is smaller. For that reason, there is nothing like the same amount of profit to the manufacturer.
I am making all allowances for that. Is the cost of production 100 per cent. higher here?
In respect of some classes of plugs it would be. The Deputy will understand that the sparking plug will come at a higher price to the individual purchaser than to the large firm that buys big quantities.
That applies to the home-manufactured plug as well as to the imported sparking plugs. That does not affect the argument one way or another. But if what the Minister says is true, and if that 50 per cent. is going to make a difference, the imported plug will still be sold at the same price to the retailer. If the home manufacturers and the wholesalers have not pushed through with the advantages they have at present, surely they are not likely to do it now. There must be something extraordinarily peculiar in the whole situation.
I move amend ment No. 50:—
To delete reference No. 10 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
A duty was put on varnish three years ago of 7/6 per gallon (full) if imported in liquid form, or 5/- per gallon preferential; if imported in paste or powder form the duty was 3/- per lb. (full) or 2/- per lb. preferential. After three years' experience of that duty the Minister is asking for power to admit varnish on licence. I would like to ask the Minister what has happened in the varnish-making industry during the last three years to justify him asking the House now for permission to allow varnish in on licence.
This is due to the fact that certain new industries have been established which require a very special kind of varnish which is not made here. The existing duty has been completely effective and, in respect of ordinary classes of varnish, there is a very substantial production here. Certain types of varnish required in industrial processes are not produced here. I might instance the case of lead pencils and there are other cases where special varnish for industrial purposes in small quantities is required by particular firms. It was not considered practicable to make that varnish here because of the smallness of the quantities required and therefore we consider it necessary to issue licences in that connection.
It has reference to certain types of varnish?
Certain peculiar types of varnish.
I move amendment No. 51:—
To delete reference No. 11 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
It is proposed to increase the effective duty on yeast from 18/- to 36/- per cwt. Three years ago there was a Customs duty imposed at the rate of 18/- per cwt. (full) or 12/- per cwt. preferential on yeast. There is no provision now being made for a preferential rate. What are the circumstances that make the Minister increase the duty now?
The increase has been proposed for the purpose of prohibiting imports of yeast. Yeast was still being imported, notwithstanding the first duty, and in fact there was substantial evidence that the existing duty was being paid by the importing firms. There was no increase in the price of imported yeast following the imposition of the duty and it is considered necessary to effect the change. Arrangements were made to secure assurances from the Saorstát producers that their prices would remain unaltered. These assurances have been received and it is on that basis that the increase has been effected. There is no question of the ability of the Saorstát firms to produce all the yeast that is required in the country. The change over was effected in a manner which caused no inconvenience to the firms using this material.
In view of the fact that outside firms have been able to sell yeast here at the same price, completely ignoring the tariff of 12/- per cwt., preferential, I would like to know from the Minister whether the question arose between himself and the yeast-manufacturing company of reducing the price here behind the bigger tariff barrier?
That question may arise. The Saorstát yeast was always sold at the standard price. The duty was imposed when there was evidence that certain Continental brands were being sold at much below the standard price. These Continental brands have disappeared off the market. They had to increase their price and they have now disappeared.
What is a standard price?
How is it arrived at?
I do not mean the actual figure—what is the defininition of it?
The price at which British yeast was sold here—I suppose this is as good a definition as any I could give. Prices were more or less standardised for a long period of time. As regards Irish yeast, it does not cost any more to produce it here. There was a temporary invasion of certain Continental products which have now disappeared. Importers of British yeast paid the duty and the price of their products was not increased and the protection which it was intended to afford to the Saorstát yeast producers was not effective. We are. therefore, increasing the rate on the understanding that the prices will remain the same.
How many firms are concerned?
There is only one at the moment, the Cork Yeast Company, but there may be others.
I move amendment No. 52:—
To delete reference No. 12 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This is another proposal that requires explanation. This provision amends the Customs duty at the rate of 30 per cent. on inside soles for boots and shoes and other footwear, by altering the rate of duty to 50 per cent. Why is this?
There are two firms engaged in the production of these articles and they made representations to the effect that the existing duty did not afford them sufficient protection. They examined the situation with some care. It is not a very important industry and the amount of employment is not considerable. We imported inside soles, in 1935, to the value of £2,300 and we felt it was desirable to raise the duty in order to stop that importation. There need be no increase on that account in the price of the Saorstát products. I think either of the two firms engaged in the business would be quite capable of supplying the whole of the market. No very considerable hardship is likely to be occasioned by the increase.
I move amendment No. 53:—
To delete reference No. 14 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
I put this down in order to get the Minister's opinion on the matter. The general principle involved was discussed on the previous amendment.
As a matter of fact, there are not many articles subject to the duty imposed here. The duty upon cast-iron articles generally is 40 per cent. For administrative and other purposes it is necessary to have the same rate all round and so we are bringing this duty up to the 40 per cent. tariff.
Amendment negatived.
I move amendment No. 54:
To delete reference No. 16 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
In 1934, the tariff in this instance was 33? per cent. on shotgun cartridges. Now the Minister proposes to raise it to 50 per cent. A duty of 33? was certainly ample protection for an industry of that kind, and, as was pointed out, at the time it was imposed, was greater than it ought to be. I ask what are the circumstances that tempted the Minister to raise the duty to 50 per cent. now?
This duty applies to shotgun cartridges which are now being manufactured in Galway. Prior to the imposition of duty the whole of the market here was practically supplied by certain English concerns. Imperial Chemicals supplied the bulk of it. Since the duty was imposed competition has developed from an American company and practically 1,000,000 were imported from the United States.
Can the Minister give us the quantities of the different kinds of cartridges imported?
The number was about 1,000,000 altogether. It was considered desirable to increase the duty so as to shut out that 1,000,000, and to shut out all such imports hereafter. Again, the duty was imposed on the understanding that prices will not be increased and there will be some increased employment.
Were not the American cartridges a cheaper class that could be used by farmers to fire at crows and other vermin that injured their crops? It was a cheap line. I know the cartridges to which the Minister has referred. They are only used for sporting purposes. They were not used for firing at crows. The Galway firm has a monopoly and produced fairly high-class and middle-class sporting ammunition. If they turned out a cheap cartridge it could be used by farmers for firing at vermin.
The Galway firm are not confining themselves to one class of cartridges.
But the American cartridge was a cheap line?
The Galway firm are not confining themselves to one particular class. They are turning out cartridges used by farmers.
I know that they are rather expensive.
Can the Minister explain why the previous duty was not sufficient?
The cartridges were consigned at a price that permitted of the payment of the duty and competed with cartridges manufactured here. A possible explanation is that people thought that these cartridges were better than the local ones and wanted something different. They were not superior to the Galway cartridges.
But the importing firm paid 33? per cent. more for the American cartridge than the home one though the home one was as good.
Rabbits are becoming a nuisance. But a farmer's son will not use a 4d. cartridge to shoot a rabbit for which he only gets 3d.
He would have to kill two rabbits with one cartridge.
If the Minister lost a foal or some other animal because it had broken its leg in a rabbit hole he would think differently.
I am not denying that the rabbit question is a serious one, but it would require different means of treatment.
Why not relate one to the other? I know a man who lost a valuable foal the other day in the manner I have indicated.
This same concern in Galway is producing certain chemical materials and apparatus for the purpose of destroying rabbits.
Will the Minister give us an idea of how much employment is given by this firm in connection with cartridges alone?
And the extra employment the increased duty is likely to bring about?
I am not prepared to say what extra employment the manufacture of cartridges does give. The employees of this firm are engaged in other work as well. The production of cartridges would, I suppose, involve the employment of 30 people.
Has the Minister an assurance from the Galway people that the increased duty would not lead to an increase in the price of cartridges?
Yes.
Amendment negatived.
I move amendment No. 55:—
To delete reference No. 17 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
I asked the Minister what is the intention of this duty.
The object is to extend the existing duty to clock cases and faces made of marble. These are turned out by the Irish Marble Industry of Galway. It is an industry with the prospect of considerable extension. I am sure most Deputies would agree that the marble industry should be encouraged as it may be an important industry in Galway. There is a duty on clock cases made of wood, and the object of this Resolution is to extend the duty to clock cases and faces of marble.
Has the Minister made any inquiry as to whether marble clocks answer so well as clocks made of wood?
They are mainly intended for wedding presents. They are not intended to go.
The Minister has only one thing in mind and that is to get people into employment. He does not make any allowance for the fact that while he may put five or six people into employment he may throw a great many more out of employment.
I am interested in the development of marble work of all kinds. Clock cases and faces of marble are used in not inconsiderable numbers, and we hope to develop a new industry of that kind, whether the clocks go or not.
I move amendment No. 56:—
To delete reference No. 18 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
Here it is proposed to increase the duty on certain refrigerating apparatus from 25 to 50 per cent. The duty of 25 per cent. was imposed in the early part of last year and, as the Minister is aware, at least four firms, for a very long time established in the country as agents for refrigerating apparatus manufacturers, began under the tariff of 25 per cent., and in co-operation with the Government's expressed policy at that particular time, to assemble refrigerators here. Fifty per cent. of the work of installing refrigerators was done in this country even before that in connection with the building of the cold rooms and other matters. These firms have a fairly long established connection with creameries and other industries of that kind throughout the country. Some of them have been here for 40 years.
With this tariff of 50 per cent. imposed at a time when another firm has got a State guarantee in connection with a trade loan, they regard the increased duty as being specially intended to assist the new firm, which has not been connected with the installing of refrigerating apparatus in the country in the same way as the older firms have been in the past. Under the 25 per cent. tariff a considerable amount of work done was in assembling the refrigerating apparatus here, and additions had to be made to the engineering staffs for that assembly work. There was already a fair engineering staff connected with these firms that did the work of installation and putting in of the refrigerators throughout the country. Now these firms find themselves in the position, with the arrangements that have been made and with the new company apparently being specially favoured by this particular tariff, that they will not be able to carry on; that the plant which it would be necessary for them to instal here to carry on in a competitive way under the 50 per cent. tariff with a new industry set up on more modern lines will force them to dispense with the staff they have.
The position requires explanation from the Minister in asking us to increase the duty. We would like an explanation of his attitude towards the companies that have already been here, that have already been doing assembly work and have established commercial relations with many industries throughout the country over a period extending in some cases, as I say, to over 40 years. If these firms are closed down, then their connection from the point of view of the maintenance of a considerable amount of refrigerating fabric in the country will be completely cut off and the fairly widespread refrigerating plants put up by these firms will be dependent upon a new firm with a different type of apparatus and different technique for their maintenance. They, at any rate, seem to be of the opinion that a certain number of industries in the country will suffer through being deprived, in the new circumstances, of services that these firms have been able to render in the past and were continuing to render as well as carrying out an increasing assembly business under the 25 per cent. tariff.
I would be surprised if any such development, as Deputy Mulcahy has pictured should result from the imposition of the duty. In fact, as a result of the duty we have had approaches from certain concerns which propose to do work in this refrigerating line which has not hitherto been done here. I anticipate an extension rather than a contraction of the number of firms engaged in the industry. We are increasing the duty from 25 to 50 per cent. and extending the scope to include refrigerators other than those used for commercial purposes and compressors not exceeding ten horsepower for use with refrigerating apparatus. A substantial industry has been built up in Dublin in which ice-cream cabinets are manufactured and other commercial refrigerating units are assembled. The industry is giving employment at present to some 60 persons.
Mainly assembly?
So far as ice-cream cabinets are concerned, it is manufacture; so far as refrigerating apparatus is concerned, it is mainly assembly up to this. The work is of a highly skilled nature and the bulk of the persons employed are skilled adult workers. Arrangements have been made for the extension of the scope of the industry. Because of this duty we propose that household refrigerators should also be assembled from the complete knock-down condition and, in addition, a wide range of compressor units will also be assembled that heretofore were imported completely assembled. The use of domestic refrigerators is on the increase and their assembly here will provide an appreciable amount of additional employment of a good type. So far as the increase in the duty is concerned, there will be no increase in price on that account.
Will there be a reduction, which is more important?
That will depend upon a number of factors. One of the factors is the matter to which I referred already, the extent to which manufacture can be increased so as to reduce overhead costs per unit. The development of the industry—a development due to the changing habits of the people as much as to any other cause—and the extended demand for this equipment should, in due course, lead to a reduction in price, a reduction which may be accentuated if the number of additional concerns which have made approaches to my Department engage in the business of manufacturing and assembling this equipment. It was felt that the existing duty of 25 per cent. was not sufficient to secure the interest of all the firms that were concerned with the sale of ice equipment in this market in the assembling and manufacturing of them here and that the increase in the duty would be justified by results. We appear to have reason now for that conclusion because, not merely will there be a substantial extension of operations on the part of those at present engaged in the manufacture or assembly of these units, but it seems likely that we will have new firms entering into the business as well.
We are retaining the licensing provision, because certain classes of equipment used in industrial and other processes may have to be imported for some time to come. Whether that will be so or not will depend upon circumstances. So far as we are concerned, we are anxious to secure that all this apparatus should be assembled and, to whatever extent practicable, manufactured here. That is the purpose of the duty.
When the Minister spoke about having been approached by a number of firms, did he mean firms at present existing and working in the Saorstát?
No. I meant representatives of outside concerns whose equipment is sold here.
English firms?
Not all of them.
English and Continental firms?
Yes.
Would their equipment come in under the 25 per cent. duty?
I am talking about those concerns which made approaches with a view to having their apparatus manufactured here. The conditions under which they would have their apparatus manufactured is going to be a matter that they will have to consider, because the law here relating to that is known. What form they will take I do not know, but their apparatus will be subject to the same duty as other apparatus.
The Minister spoke about the 25 per cent. not being sufficient to induce them to come?
Quite. They did not come.
What firms had the Minister in mind? Is it those outside firms?
The whole lot of them. The more we get the merrier.
Did he not mean existing firms which are engaged in assembling?
No.
At one time during his statement I was under the impression that the Minister was conferring a benefit on those people already engaged in assembling as a result of his previous operations. I gathered that by increasing the duty from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. he was not merely not interfering with that particular industry which was set up here, but was actually almost conferring a benefit on those assemblers and would help to extend their business.
Undoubtedly, because the scope of the duty has been extended to cover domestic refrigerators.
Are the parts as well as the complete article subject to duty?
The compressors are now being made subject to duty.
And he still will not interfere with the assembling industry. It is a help to the assembling industry here, according to the Minister?
Possibly the firms which are assembling the refrigerators would prefer to import them assembled, but there is no difficulty about assembling them here. The compressors defined in the Resolution are being made subject to duty.
Will the Minister say with how many of the companies working here he discussed, before this duty was put on, the question as to whether compressors could be brought in here for assembling?
I cannot say.
The Minister must be aware that there is very considerable criticism of the fact that the old-established firms that were here were not consulted in connection with this matter; whereas another firm which got a State guarantee in respect of a trade loan was actually in possession of information, before the tariff was put on, that the tariff was going to be put on.
That is not true.
The Minister must have his ears stuffed and his eyes shut.
To the Kilkenny People and the Kilkenny journalists?
I am not talking of that. The Minister is as well able to read that as anyone else, and must have been aware of the complaints that have been made there. Is he not aware that among the older firms here some complaint does exist that they were not consulted as to whether it was possible to increase the amount of assembling that is done here, whereas a newer firm which had nothing to do with assembling in the past, and has not the connections with the industry here that they have, was apparently in consultation with the Minister and was able to say, before the tariff was put on, that this tariff was going to be put on? I should like to ask the Minister if it was with that firm he discussed the question as to whether compressors could be assembled here?
I may say straight away that nobody knew the tariff was going to be put on.
How did the Minister find out that compressors could be assembled here?
In all those assembling industries the Deputy may take it that pressure to increase the degree of assembling must come from the Department. The same applies to the motor car industry.
Did the Minister discuss it with those firms, in order to bring pressure on them through discussion?
Certainly. The representatives of the Department would go to a concern engaged in this industry. as in the motor car industry or other assembling industry, to consider and discuss what additional items of equipment could be assembled or manufactured here. In the case of the compressors we satisfied ourselves that the work could be done; we saw it done. We discussed it with interested parties and got certain technical officers of the Department to report upon the work that was involved. We were quite satisfied that this work could be done, and we decided that it should be done. I do not think any firm engaged in this business seriously will have any difficulty about getting it done; it is not a very difficult operation. Any firm entering into this business upon any worth-while scale would be able easily to provide itself with whatever equipment is necessary for the purpose. I want to deal with the reference which the Deputy made to certain people having information that this duty was going to be imposed.
That is an important point.
There is no truth at all in that statement. Nobody had any information that the duty was going to be imposed. Undoubtedly, we had from interested parties applications for extension of the duty, and the inclusion of new articles within the scope of it, all of which we discussed with the people who made the applications. The only information which was given to them was that if action was taken on their representations it would be taken in the ordinary course in connection with the Finance Act. What action was likely to be taken, if any, was not communicated to anybody.
The Minister's information to the House is not exactly in accordance with what was conveyed to me. In the first place, there has been considerable extension of the sale of what are known as domestic refrigerators during the last few years.
That is so.
Previous to the introduction of that particular instrument there had been considerable activity on the part of three or four firms in connection with cold rooms, cold storage, and other equipment of that sort for creameries, big commercial establishments, and so on. Each one of those firms employed a certain number of men—engineers, office staff, and so on. As far as I am aware, they did give very satisfactory service to the public. A smaller institution came along here, and they have particularly good salesmen. It is quite possible that some members of this House have reason to appreciate that fact. They seem to be as hot on the scent as any foxhound which can be got in the country, and they do not lose the scent until they get their prey. They have sold those articles extensively through the country. There is a big market for them, and they are very expensive. I hope the Minister has taken steps, if they are going to be manufactured here, to ensure that a satisfactory staff will be employed at the work, and that the people will get value for their money.
But that is the smaller end of it. By reason of this imposition, the position of the other older firms engaged in the business has been rendered particularly precarious. Even the introduction of the 25 per cent. duty last year reduced the staffs, and possibly also reduced their remuneration. It reduced the numbers who were engaged here for a long time in the various establishments throughout the country which had paid rent, rates, and other charges of that sort. I am taking the Minister's figure of 60. Having regard to all the circumstances, it does not bear any exten sion, allowing for the necessary number of persons that would have to be employed in selling the smaller machines. The commercial machine is what is of particular importance. The smaller machine is only a relative individual loss, but you can imagine the position of a creamery or big commercial house when one of those plants which it had established goes out of order. It would require first class service, and that is one of the great advantages of those older firms here.
The Minister will certainly be well advised to take that side of the case into account because if they are going to be closed up and if the property of those people who have invested their money in those plants is in any way damaged, it will be a very serious matter. I should like to know if the Minister has made careful enquiries into the number of persons employed. The figures that he has given and the figures I have bear a certain relation to one another, but the figures I have with regard to salesmen have not been met by the Minister and they constitute very much the larger percentage of the employees. This is a new institution. People are finding it necessary and perhaps, in certain cases, where people have to keep meat for a few days, or to keep other items of that sort; or in cases where they wish to have ice at short notice for the manufacture of ice-cream or things of that sort, it is an advantage to have it, and while it is necessary to safeguard the interests of these people, it would be advisable to take every precaution to ensure that where creameries and concerns of the kind I have referred to have established plants for producing large quantities of ice, their interests will be safeguarded in connection with any arrangements that take place.
I should hope that all those who are engaged in this business will make all the usual arrangements with regard to service and distribution. It was practically the same in connection with motor cars. When the restriction on the importation of complete motor cars was first effected there were selling organisations that were very much perturbed, and, in fact, people did lose their employment in the beginning, but after a time all the firms concerned realised that it was necessary to conform to the new conditions and they engaged in assembling motor cars here. As a result, employment is considerably greater now than it was before the new conditions were imposed. I feel sure that the same thing will apply in connection with these goods. Certain firms will hesitate before taking the step of assembling here, but I imagine that the incentive of the extra 25 per cent. should be sufficient to encourage them, and there is evidence of that already.
I hope so.
I move amendment No. 57:
To delete reference No. 19 and all relevant references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.
According to this reference it is proposed to raise the duty on rice, rice flour and rice meal from 2/- a cwt. to 4/- a cwt.
Only on rice flour and rice meal.
On ground rice and rice flour? Very good. We had occasion to point out, when the whole series of tariffs were put on in connection with commodities used in the worker's home in the Budget last year, that the tax inspector could not leave his examination of the worker's home without feeling that the worker might have a rice pudding on a Sunday and, accordingly, a tax had to go down on the Sunday rice pudding. Now the Minister for Finance proposes to increase that tax from 2/- to 4/- a cwt. I do not know whether it is the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce that is responsible. It is the Minister for Industry and Commerce? Very good. Part of the promises we had long ago contained a statement that in the grain-milling industry 14,000 additional workers would be brought into the industry. As a matter of fact, there was some odd number. It was over 14,000.
14,000 into the grain-milling industry?
Yes.
The Minister is even surprised himself.
Not in grain milling exclusively. I challenge that.
It does not look as simple now as it did in 1932.
If the Deputy is referring to the number engaged in wheat production generally, it might be so, but not grain milling exclusively.
I say grain milling, and not only were there 14,000 promised, but 14,000 odd. I admit that in the meantime, up to 1934, 481 persons had been added in the grain-milling industry. Is this increase from 2/- to 4/- on ground rice an attempt to bolster up the Minister for Finance's Budget on the one hand, or is it an attempt to bridge the gap between the 481 people that have been put into the grain-milling industry and the 14,000 people that the Minister promised would be put into it?
This is a protective duty. The manufacture of ground rice and rice flour has been undertaken by some flour-millers in Dublin, and the materials are being sold here at prices similar to those charged for imported commodities. It is not a very big trade, and the whole of our requirements can be supplied from internal sources.
Can we take it from the Minister that this increase in the price of rice flour will not give rise to a further increase in the price of bread?
The Deputy may take it that this has no relation to bread. This commodity is mainly used for confectionery purposes and for home consumption, and the Deputy may take it that there will be no increase in prices in connection with this duty.
Surely it applies to rice flour used by bakers for baking ordinary bread?
Well, for certain classes of bread, but as a matter of fact none is being imported at the moment. It is being produced here.
We have heard this talk so often about getting these things at the same price that it is natural for us to be sceptical.
There is already 2/- on rice.
Oh, we know that.
We have got so many assurances from the Minister that prices would not rise as a result of these tariffs, and we so often found afterwards, notwithstanding what he told us here, that prices were increased, that I think we have every reason to be rather slow to do anything here that may lead to a further increase in the price of bread. We should get a definite statement from the Minister that he is satisfied that this will not lead to an increase in the price of bread.
Neither in the price of bread nor of rice flour.
The Minister is satisfied that it will not lead to an increase in price?
Yes.
