asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that a firm (name supplied) in Dublin has been put out of business by a present duty on veneers entering this country and that the quality of veneers which it is desired to import is entirely different from that being made in the country; and if he will consider rectifying this situation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Duty on Veneers.
60.
I am not aware that the firm named has been put out of business by the duty on veneers although it has been represented to me that they were adversely affected by the control on the export of hardwood logs. This control was imposed in the interest of home manufacturers of veneers.
As I understand it, the firm was engaged in exporting home-grown hardwood logs to France for conversion into veneers. These veneers were then returned to the firm for sale in the home market. At no time did the firm claim that duty was being charged on the veneers returned in the manner described.
So far as I am aware this firm's business declined for reasons other than those suggested by the Deputy.
Is the Minister not aware that the firm were put out of business because they were refused permission to export the logs for processing but were told that they must have them processed at home? Is the Minister not aware also that as a result of the poor type of veneer produced by the one firm in this country who were doing that work, a High Court action was taken and judgement given against the firm processing the veneers and that, even then, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce who is now Taoiseach would not allow the firm concerned to export the logs to France for processing? Has it not been proved to the Minister's Department by every possible means that as a result of this the firm went out of business and why does he now insist on denying it?
I am not denying that the prohibition on the exportation of logs for processing did, to an extent, interfere with the man's business. However, there were a number of other factors involved and there is no point in suggesting that this man's business deteriorated to the extent it did because of this prohibition.
If that is so could the Minister express an opinion as to how a firm which was making a very substantial profit while using veneers processed in France should suddenly begin to sustain a substantial loss and, in fact, had to go out of business within a few years? Was not the reason for this that they were forced to use veneers processed in this country by a firm who did not know how to process them?
May I reply by saying that, unfortunately, there are a number of industrialists in the country who, at the present time, are finding it difficult to remain in business? This is not specifically because of some sort of prohibitive action on the part of the Government but because of a change in overall demand and world conditions. I would suggest to the Deputy that one of the major contributory reasons for the fading out of this particular industry was changing tastes. While accepting that the way in which the home industrialists processed the logs on behalf of this man did militate against the man's business, it was only partially to blame for the collapse of the business.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 61.
I appreciate that the Minister may not be fully aware of the background to this case but is it not a fact that this man who had shown himself to be extremely successful in business and who had the demand for the veneers——
He did not have the supplies.
——was put out of business because he was not allowed to have the logs processed outside the State? Many orders which he had executed were returned to him because the home firm were not capable of processing the logs properly. The changes referred to by the Minister were non-existent.
This business was originally a combined one. The particular side of the business on which this man finally concentrated was only a small part of a greater business in which he was originally involved. He transferred the old stable part of his business to somebody else.
To his son.
It was this part of the business on which he concentrated subsequently and which collapsed.
It collapsed for the reasons we have given.
I am calling Question No. 61. We cannot discuss this one question all evening.
I would ask the Minister to consider that this man who, on his own initiative, built up a very good business, was reduced to a state of poverty because of the Government's decision.
(Interruptions.)
We cannot have statements on these questions.
That is not quite true. The Government's decision was only partially the reason. In that regard, the man should look over his shoulder.