I move:
That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of:
Control of Imports (Quota No. 51) (Miscellaneous Textiles) Order, 1964.
There are two resolutions made under the same Act and if the House will allow me, I will explain them both together.
Control of Imports (Quota No. 51) (Miscellaneous Textiles) Order, 1964.
Are we going to discuss them now?
Yes; they are resolutions.
What is on the Order Paper? A notice of motion?
It is a motion.
Is the Minister going to move it?
He has moved it.
Has he?
He has moved No. 3, "That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 51) (Miscellaneous Textiles) Order, 1964". The Minister is in the process of explaining the motion.
The Minister is taking the two together, Quota No. 51 and Quota No. 52?
There are two motions but the same explanation applies to both. An explanatory memorandum has been circulated explaining the main provisions.
On a point of order, I should like an explanation. I believe there is always value in knowing what we are doing. The procedure for No 2 on the Order Paper is that the Minister gives the House notice that he intends to move certain Supplementary
Estimates and they are taken on the next convenient day.
We have passed from No. 2.
I am well aware of that.
This is not a Supplementary Estimate.
I am well aware of that. In regard to Nos. 3 and 4, we have notice that the Minister intends to move a motion.
That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of——
I want to ask for some information to which I am entitled. Is there a difference in our procedure in regard to a motion relating to a Supplementary and Additional Estimate and the procedure regarding a motion for a Control of Imports Order? I understood that notice had to be given to the House of the Minister's intention to move them at the next convenient date but, perhaps, I am wrong. If I am wrong, now is the time to inform me. Is there a difference in procedures? I thought notice was given today and the Minister asked leave to introduce a motion tomorrow or the next convenient day.
The procedure is that once four days' notice has been given, the motion may be moved. The notice has been given.
Is this the first time it has been on the Order Paper?
No; it was on the Order Paper last week.
I understood that the Minister notified the House. Am I right in saying that the procedure in regard to Estimates——
That has been done.
The procedure regarding the Estimates today was "I give notice that I wish to move", and then a date was asked for on which to move them. Today we have a notice of motion dealing with a Control of Imports (Quota No. 51) Miscellaneous Textiles) Order and a Control of Imports (Miscellaneous Textile Piece Goods) Order to be moved. Is it customary for the Minister to move these on the same day on which he gives notice of his intention?
He has not given notice of intention; he has given the four days notice in respect of a motion. He has complied with Standing Orders in respect of Nos. 2 and 3.
Then there is a difference between Estimates and Control of Imports Orders?
In respect of Estimates, there is a formal motion of leave to introduce and that the Minister intends to introduce an Estimate.
This is not a formal notice. Was previous notice given?
Yes; it was on the Order Paper last Tuesday.
I only wanted to know. Was it moved in the House?
No, it was not.
Then there is a different procedure. I have been 30 years here and I have always understood that on a Tuesday a Minister gave notice of his intention to move and then we gave leave to introduce on the Wednesday, or even on the Tuesday, but he had to ask the permission of the House.
No notice has to be given in respect of a motion. The motion was on the Order Paper last Tuesday.
There is a difference between the procedure for an Estimate and a Control of Imports Order?
There is quite a difference.
That is all I wanted to know. I do not think the Chair or anybody else knew until I asked.
I think it is perfectly clear that they are in order.
I have been 30 years here and it certainly was not clear to me.
This does not need legislation? Is it different from an Imposition of Duties Order?
It is.
This then is a different procedure from the procedure in respect of an Imposition of Duties Order?
Yes, that is done by legislation.
It is just as well that Deputies should know how they are going about their business. I doubt if anybody knows.
The Minister.
What I am asking the Dáil to do is to approve of two Control of Imports Quota Orders. An explanatory memorandum has been circulated which explains the main provisions of these measures. Competition from low cost goods coming from certain countries became a matter of concern in 1963, consequent on the Government's decision to reduce industrial protection by progressive reductions in tariffs and increases in import quotas. The countries concerned are those where production costs are low in comparison with western European standards or where export prices are artificially low because of State-trading practices. When the Control of Imports (Amendment) Bill, 1964, was in the Dáil, my predecessor explained to the House that the purpose of the Bill was to permit selective action to be taken in relation to imports from such low cost countries, particularly in the textile field. The present two orders have been made under this Act.
Since it would not be feasible to distribute the quota appointed under the first of these orders, (Quota Order No. 51), owing to the wide variety of goods involved, the quota is being administered by the Revenue Commissioners on the basis that goods are charged against the quota as they are imported until the total quota is exhausted. It is not proposed to issue licences for made-up articles subject to restrictions under this Quota Order when the appointed quota has been exhausted. It may, however, be necessary to license certain types of yarn.
The Quota appointed under the second Order (Quota Order No. 52) is being distributed in the normal way to registered importers in relation to their over-all imports from the specified countries.
These two Orders are designed to maintain imports of the selected commodities from the sixteen specified countries at their present over-all level, and are purely of a precautionary nature.
We on this side of the House have no objection to these motions. Individual Deputies may wish to comment on their implementation and the problems this might give rise to. In a general way, these Orders bring into line with other European countries our system of import controls on certain goods. It is obvious that even if we agree that freer trade is necessary, we cannot have dumping here by countries who are not prepared to abide by international rules. There are low-cost countries where wages and conditions of labour are so very much below ours that we must take steps to preserve our own employment and our production. It appears to me there will be no great difference between the approach of the Republic of Ireland to this situation and the approach of other European countries.
As we come more into line with other European countries, we shall incidentally be preparing ourselves for conditions of freer trade, and the operation of these Orders indicates that the Common Market itself, while it is a free trade area within itself, is a restricted area as far as imports from outside are concerned. The world is a very big place and the best we can hope for is that in western Europe conditions of trade will emerge which will allow a decent standard of living for workers and a reasonable margin for those who provide the work. These Orders are an inevitable result of facts which had to be dealt with by the Government.
I want to raise only one matter with the Minister. I notice that in relation to Quota No. 51, in the first Schedule, certain provision is made for made-up textiles, including bed-linen, towels and blankets. Some time ago I had discussions with the Minister's predecessor on a problem affecting an industry in my constituency. I understand there are two industries in the country faced with this problem—one in Dún Laoghaire and the other in the north of Dublin, in Finglas, I think. As a result of tariff reductions and the problems arising from these reductions, quite a substantial quantity of low-cost imports—possibly because of different costs of production which operate in places like Japan, Hong Kong and other low-cost producing areas—imports of part of the raw materials, or the base manufacturing commodities, were introduced here and both of the firms I have mentioned, who are operating in a similar way of business, whose quality of workmanship is of the highest standard, who gave good employment and who had not merely a satisfactory home trade but also depended to a considerable extent on a growing export trade, were adversely affected.
I understand, both from discussions I had with the Minister's predecessor and from correspondence I had with the Minister, that certain remedial action was proposed in order to alleviate the problems created for those firms. I was approached on behalf of one of them but I understand the viewpoint expressed by that firm represents the views of both and that similar representations were made on behalf of the second firm. I should be obliged if the Minister would let us know whether the proposed quota application in respect of a number of firms is applicable to these commodities and will operate to ease the problem. I should like to know also if any other action is contemplated in that respect.
The Minister in his very brief statement did not give us an indication as to what low-cost countries are, but I take it they are emergent countries, possibly the Afro-Asian States. There is an agreement among the OECD countries as far as possible to buy from these States, to permit these States to export to OECD member countries in order to bring up the economy of these emergent States and to create a greater equilibrium of trade between the developed countries, such as those in Europe, and the Afro-Asian States. We are a member of OECD and I wonder if we have entered into an agreement on those lines—whether we are to permit greater exports by these countries. If the Minister has introduced this legislation —it is more a protective power than legislation—merely to control imports, he would perhaps elucidate the point.
On one or two occasions at international conferences, I have heard this question discussed. In the first instance, the OECD removed all duties on raw materials in order to enable those developing countries to build up their economies. There was also a request to member countries to allow all permissible imports to help these emergent countries. Perhaps the Minister would give some further information on this subject.
In answer to the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave, I am having the matter considered and am not in a position to answer him at this time. The explanatory memorandum has a list of the 16 countries covered by the legislation. If Deputy Esmonde would look at it, he will see they could hardly be described as emergent countries. The goods concerned are low-cost because very low productive costs or artificially low costs have obtained as a result of State trading practices. I do not think the point raised by the Deputy comes into consideration on these Orders. Under the 1964 Act, selective action will be taken in relation to imports from such low-cost countries, particularly in the textile field.
(South Tipperary): Are these the first Orders made under it?
It is the first Order I have proposed to the Dáil. I have no record of any previous Order. This is the first Order made under 1963 Act.
Can the Minister further clarify the position for me? Am I to understand that this imposition is to prevent any manufactured material at all from coming in from those low-cost countries because naturally they are producing at a cheaper rate than we can? Otherwise, this imposition of duties seems entirely meaningless. These countries are obviously low-cost countries and are producing at a cheaper rate than we are producing, for reasons of lower wages, lower costs of production in every way and perhaps less taxation than we have here. Am I to understand that this imposition of duties prevents anything from coming in from those countries or are we to allow them, as I mentioned in my short speech a few minutes ago, the benefits decided among the OECD countries because of their being developing countries?
What countries are involved?
They are to be found in the explanatory memorandum. They are: Japan, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, USSR, Hong Kong, China (Nationalist), Bulgaria, Poland, Macao, Peoples' Republic of China, Hungary, East Germany. These Orders are to protect us from competition from low-cost goods, the low cost being due to low production costs or State trading practices which produce artificially low export costs from those countries. They give us a specific protection in named goods from named countries and permit the decision to reduce tariffs made in 1963 to be implemented.
Is there not a quota?
Yes, there is a quota.
There is his question answered for him.
Are we giving any benefits to those countries such as the other OECD countries decided to give? I know they are not OECD countries. I understand there was an agreement among the OECD countries to permit a certain margin of exports to come in from those countries to enable them to build up their economy. Are we a party to that agreement?
I think that is a separate consideration. I do not think the Deputy would seriously contend that many of the countries here named are emergent countries. What point is the Deputy trying to make? These Orders are for our protection against competition from low-cost goods.
The Deputy's point is that in OECD there was agreement that a certain latitude would be given to emerging countries.
Like Malaysia.
A certain quota is allowed in.
That is the answer.
Is that interfered with here?
This Order limits it to what is coming in. It is a precautionary measure to prevent expansion.
But the Minister has a right to give a quota?
There is a quota there. One of them cannot be administered by dividing it up but rather on the basis of exhausting it.
Are the wages in all of those countries depressed wages?
Yes, in most cases.
Is the USSR an emergent country?
Deputy Esmonde included that.
I did not mention any country at all, only emergent countries.
If Deputies will refer to the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated, they will get the list.
Question put and agreed to.