I do not propose to dwell in detail on this subject, except to point out the necessity for such a measure and the continuation of such a protection measure at a time when boot factories are, in fact, closing in this country and men and women being disemployed. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Minister will give special attention to this problem and do all he can to ensure that production recommences at the Birr factory, or that he will strive to find some alternative means of employment for those unfortunate boot and shoe operatives who have lost their livelihood in Carlow.
It is a matter of some wonder to us why we should be so anxious to rush into free trade with Britain or the Common Market because the balance of trade between ourselves and the Common Market in particular is completely adverse. We bought some £40 million worth from the countries of the EEC in one year, and we sold to them in return only £8 million worth of goods. In other words, for every £5 worth we bought from the countries of the EEC they bought only £1 worth from us in return. We cannot see what advantages are to be gained by such a movement towards freer trade. In respect of the British economy, let me reiterate that the gigantic forces in Britain, when the barriers are lowered, are capable of wreaking disaster on our economy.
If we are to commit ourselves to this exercise, the Minister should deal in his reply with the problem of dumping. This is one of the ingrained fears of industry. Without an adequate system of protection against dumping, it is quite evident to us that the highly efficient manufacturers in Britain, with whom we are now embarking upon free trade, are quite capable of overcoming, not the quota system because it is limited to a certain number of goods, but the tariff system. Irrespective of how high the tariffs may be fixed, these manufacturers will be quite able to overcome them, and by dumping hundreds of thousands of pairs of footwear here, they could dislocate the native industry. It is a well-known truism that it is too late to apply antidumping regulations when dumping has, in fact, taken place. The damage is done at that stage, and it is difficult to retrieve the industries that have fallen by the wayside. Effective antidumping legislation is required to ensure adequate protection for the home trade.
In this measure it is proposed that the quota system which the boot and shoe industry has enjoyed over a long number of years will be discontinued. Instead of having a quota system, a duty will be applied. That duty will be 36 per cent ad valorem, or 6/- per pair of imported footwear. To my mind, that is excessively low. At present there is evidence of British manufacturers selling off dated lines of footwear at virtually give-away prices. It strikes us in the industry that 6/-duty per pair is something that they could easily get over. Some of the more unscrupulous of them may be prepared to get over this duty, however high it is put, even at a loss, in order to get a foothold in this market of ours.
This duty of 36 per cent ad valorem, or 6/- a pair, which is to come into operation in July, 1968, will be reduced by 4½ per cent per annum, and by 8/- per pair of footwear between 1968 and 1975, when the duty will have disappeared altogether, and we will then have completely and utterly unfettered free trade between this country and the United Kingdom. While I am pleased to see the quota system being continued for another two years, I am concerned about what will happen after that when the duty replaces the quota.
At present the quota is very high and it makes for competitiveness amongst Irish manufacturers. The quota for imported footwear for 1964 and 1965 was 165,000 pairs. Now, 82,500 pairs is fixed as the quota for the half-year to June, 1966. It would seem then that the quota for 1966 will be the same as it was for last year, and for 1964, when it stood at 165,000 pairs. This does not take into account the very many thousands of pairs of footwear which are brought into this country by way of licence granted by the Minister to traders and wholesalers who may require particular types and standards of shoes which allegedly are not manufactured here.
I want to ask the Minister to have regard to the increasing quantities of footwear imported by way of licence. It seems to us that many of these licences are secured on a pretence and that the footwear which many allege cannot be made here can and should be made here. Our manufacturers are quite capable of making shoes of the standard and style required by anyone in this country. There should be no grounds for the issue of licences of this kind at all.
I have said that we are concerned about the advent of free trade for our boot and shoe industry. The Committee on Industrial Organisation have investigated this industry, and have indicated in no uncertain terms that in the event of freer trading circumstances, and this most assuredly takes in Great Britain, no fewer than 1,000 operatives in the boot and shoe industry will lose their jobs, and, if the adaptation measures which the CIO recommended were not adopted, a further 1,000 operatives would lose their jobs. This then comprises one-third of the whole labour force in the boot and shoe industry. The boot and shoe industry comprises some 6,000 persons. It is true to say that it produces 97 per cent of the home requirements and that it distributes £3,500,000 in wages here every year. Last year it exported 30 per cent of its products.
The industry is one which has proved itself to be both competent and efficient. It is a great national industry which is surely worthy of protection and of being afforded every opportunity of equipping itself and readapting itself for the sterner competition with which it will have to contend in the years ahead.
In case I might be regarded as expressing a biased viewpoint with regard to the attitude of the industry towards free trade, I would like to quote from the Report of the Footwear Adaptation Association, Third Annual Report, 1965, page 15 under the heading "Free Trade with Britain". I quote from that Report:
The leather footwear industry gained nothing from the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain; on the contrary, we stand to lose a substantial and growing share of our home market to imports over the next 10 to 15 years.
This is the considered opinion of the Adaptation Council of the Boot and Shoe Industry. I feel, lest I might be unfair to them, that I should complete the paragraph. I quote again from this Report:
Nevertheless, from the beginning of the negotiations, the Council supported, in principle, the idea of a trade agreement. We did this on the assumption that the Irish Government would succeed in negotiating reasonable terms for the protection of the Irish footwear industry during the transition period, and that there would be adequate protection against dumping.
This measure also breaks with the principle of the quota as far as the industry is concerned. It concedes the principle of the duty and tariff system to the rubber and plastic footwear section. I accept the Minister's statement that it was at the request of the manufacturers of those particular types of footwear but I must advert again to a comment in this Report:
In view of the increased use of plastic and other man-made materials, in footwear uppers, the Council considers that it would be more logical and more satisfactory that the footwear industry (with the exception of the sector making wellingtons and over-shoes) should be treated as a single industry for the purposes of protection.
The industry desires one method of protection, if at all possible. It states further:
In the years ahead, it is probable that the footwear ranges produced by all Irish footwear factories will contain footwear of both leather and man-made materials.
My wish then is to express our pleasure that the quota system will continue for another two years and the hope that the Minister is not fully committed to the abolition of the quota at the end of that period but rather that the situation will remain fluid and flexible so that we may have a closer look at the industry and satisfy ourselves that it is ready for dismantling of the quota system and its replacement by a duty.
I have already expressed our ingrained fears at the abolition of the quota and the imposition of the duty because a duty is relatively easy to overcome. It may well precipitate an avalanche of dumping here and the quick dislocation and virtual annihilation of many of our industries. We should then have increased unemployment in the boot and shoe industry and wholesale redundancy. There is evidence of that at present in Carlow and Birr, and this is happening in circumstances in which as yet there is no system of adequate compensation for those redundant operatives and no recognition by the employers or the State of services rendered over a life-time.
It is a particularly unchristian approach that workers should be discarded as mere items of refuse. That is why it is so important that the much-lauded proposals in the manpower policy in respect of training, compensation and re-absorption in alternative employment, should be implemented as soon as possible. I again appeal to the Minister to do everything in his power to resolve the sad situation of Birr while there is still hope and not to allow the highly skilled craftsmen and craftswomen of this particular town to be lost to this great industry.
The Minister should find some ways and means of rehabilitating the industry, helping it on its feet, and giving it a new lease of life. While Carlow is more difficult, in the sense that the machinery has been taken away, the Minister should do everything possible to bring to Carlow some new enterprise which will absorb the unfortunate men and women who have lost their employment through the closure of this long-established factory.
I hope the Minister will give us his views on pending legislation involving proposals he may have for dealing with the colossal problem of dumping. I hope he will also tell us whether we are finally committed to the complete abandonment of the quota system in 1968, after which we must move on in trepidation to 1969 when duty will replace the otherwise adequate safeguard to this most important industry.