I am sorry that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not able to find time to be here. I need hardly say that I mean to cast no reflection on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. But I know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been dealing with a great many of the matters which are involved in this Bill—matters which will require very considerable consideration by this House in Committee, with a view to seeing whether it will not be possible to make recommendations which will be carefully considered and, I am not without hope, accepted by the Government. In introducing the Bill, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs gave various reasons briefly for each of the duties. He did not give the reasons— I do not blame him—why these duties were put on. This Bill covers not the duties imposed under the Finance Bill, which I think number 45, and which have not yet reached us, but the duties imposed under the Anti-Dumping Act passed towards the end of last year. The Minister did not give us any reason as to why either dumping or abnormal importation was expected in regard to these articles. I should like to point out to the House that that was the reason why each of these duties was imposed, according to the Order signed by the Minister. Be that as it may, this Bill will make them permanent so far as any Act of Parliament can make duties permanent. Under previous Orders it was possible for the Minister to alter the duties. He did so in a great many cases and in a great many details. When this Bill becomes an Act, I think I am correct in saying it will not be possible for the Minister to make alterations in the details of these duties without another Act. I think the Minister would be the first to admit that he found it necessary to make a considerable number of emendations in the original Orders. I venture to say that he will find it necessary during the next few months to make certain other changes. Frankly, I do not see how one can do what I should like to do by recommendations. But I should like to see inserted in this Bill a power enabling the Minister for Industry and Commerce, for a period of six or nine months—subject, perhaps, to laying a paper on the Table of the House—to make alterations in the details of these duties, because I am quite certain that experience will prove that it is still necessary to make some changes. I do not know whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce was correctly reported as stating that in some cases this was trial and error. At any rate, the method adopted by the Government has been to abolish the Tariff Commission, with the necessary inquiries and to substitute tariffs by Order—tariffs which were, in some cases within a week, and in other cases within a fortnight, considerably amended. The result was a considerable amount of inconvenience in the trade. And while I would say without hesitancy that officials of the Revenue Commissioners did their best to cause as little dislocation as possible, the fact remains that it was many weeks before it was known—in fact even yet one cannot say with certainly—exactly what is dutiable.
The Minister said in general terms that we did know what these duties are, but I tell him quite sincerely I do not yet know. Only yesterday I was asked with regard to the details of a small item. I will give you an illustration. I have here a small button. I was at a factory which I am connected with and which makes up certain kinds of underwear and overalls. These buttons are required for those garments. They were always imported free of duty. They are not manufactured in the Free State. They have attached to them a small metal connection, one portion of which is said by some Customs officials to be brass, and by other officials not to be brass. The firm are unable to say definitely whether they are or are not brass, and although these are required for manufacturing purposes here, they are obliged to pay a duty on the whole thing. I do not place much importance on that, but I want to give an illustration of the extreme difficulty that you have when you go in for general tariffs, without any previous inquiry. The Tariff Commission might have been, and probably was, far too slow, but I do think that the Government ought to try speeding up that Commission or some other Commission, so that there would be some inquiry before duties are imposed, and so that people who are likely to be interested would have an opportunity of putting their case—so that manufacturers and others who are obliged to import goods that are absolutely necessary for their products would be able to give details. I have little doubt that neither this Government nor the late Government would put duties on goods not manufactured here which are required for other manufacture in this country.
The general method has been to put tariffs on almost all goods in the hope that they would be manufactured here. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, admitted that in the case of boots and shoes the estimates were that generally only a very small percentage of the needs of this country are manufactured here. But he said he hoped that the time would come when almost all the needs of this country could be supplied inside the Free State. The method adopted was to put almost as high as 30 per cent. all-round on goods which were being made here and the goods which are not being made here —including in the latter goods which are not likely to be made, and including those which are being made only in small quantities. That method must inevitably hit the consumer very hard. I am not speaking on behalf of the distributor, because frankly it does not hit the distributor. The people have to pay the price. If they cannot get the goods here they must pay the duty. The distributor is affected by dislocation through certain duties, but not substantially by the imposition of duties. If the Government were wise they would utilise the Commission; or if not, then by inquiry of the Minister himself, would see that the distributors or people with knowledge of distribution were asked their opinion in regard to the proposed duties. They could tell what the Irish manufacturer can and cannot supply. They understand the difficulties of supply. I give you a case of my own knowledge. A comparatively small manufacturer was asked as to certain goods which could be manufactured here. He said: "Certainly, they could all be manufactured." When pressed he admitted he could not do it, but he knew that another firm could. When the other firm were asked they quite frankly said: "Yes, we can make them, but the quantity is so small that we would have to do it at a prohibitive price, and that we do not want to do. It would not be worth our while." The distributor could have told that immediately. I say definitely that whereas there may have been great disadvantages under the Tariff Commission method, more particularly in regard to time, that there was publicity, and the interest of such as the distributor or the consumer or the manufacturer was considered. And the reason why there was a considerable number of modifications of tariff proposals, and the reason why there may be many more even under this Bill is because the duties were not in full detail gone into.
With regard to details I hope to put down one or two recommendations in Committee but those I need not go into now. I will refer to one or two of the remarks made by Senator Connolly. He referred to the increased duty on boots and shoes. There is no doubt that a very large proportion of the requirements of men's and boys boots and shoes can be made here. I think also a considerable and greatly increased proportion of women's and possibly children's may be made here. But the fact remains that at the present moment the factories which are operating can only produce approximately one-sixth of the demand. I suggest to the Government that if they wished to increase the manufacture of boots and shoes in the country and at the same time to hit the consumer as little as they can, they ought to have gone carefully into the whole matter to see what exemptions could have been made from the increased duty if only for a period. The duty was put wholesale on all articles. The Minister, to do him justice, soon recognised that this was going to be unfair, particularly in the case of children's shoes, and in some little time a reduction was made back to the old 15 per cent. on children's shoes from size 7 to size 1, and exemption altogether was made in the case of very small kiddies' shoes, sizes 4 to 6. I would like to recommend that for a period of one or two years that the Government should exempt women's and girls' shoes costing below say 6/-. They cannot be obtained here and as far as I can find out there is no likelihood of their being obtained here at a very early date. That will not prevent a considerable increase in the work in existing factories, but it will ease the situation very much indeed as far as working-class girls are concerned who are undoubtedly hit by the fact that the cheapest shoes here are something like 7/9 cost price, not retail price.
Then again, Senator Connolly is doubtful as to whether some of the cheap hosiery is worth while importing. As far as Japanese products are concerned, I agree that they are exceedingly cheap and no matter what the price is I think they are a bad purchase. I do not mean that all Japanese products are so, but the very cheap socks and stockings are. But it is quite wrong to take from this that there are not good articles in considerable quantities from abroad which are got by the working-class here at considerably lower prices than can be made here. It may be, as I think was attributed to a friend of mine in the other Party, who said that his grandmother did not wear silk stockings and there was no reason why working-class girls should wear them. But they will wear them and buy them as cheaply as they can. For a considerable time they will not be able to obtain a cheap cotton or artificial silk stocking of a kind that can be imported from 12/- to 15/- per dozen cost price. I am sorry I am talking in trade terms. You cannot get anything at all under 18/11 per dozen manufactured here at present, and they are made in much less quantities than are required.
These are matters on which modification could be made for a period. That will not prevent the Minister, if he is satisfied with the machinery equipment and capacity for the making of these goods here, from putting on a duty to protect this industry when the goods are made. And it will be a certain amount of check on the Irish manufacturers who will still have a big demand to satisfy. Everybody is not satisfied with hosiery at that price and there is no reason why in the better class goods the Irish goods should not have a substantial preference, but a considerable quantity in the better class will have to be imported because there is not the quantity made here. In the lower-priced article the Government ought to make some concession for twelve months. It can be revised later on.
Then again you have very cheap-knitted underwear which is worn here. It can be bought at the wholesale price of 12/6 to 15/- per dozen. It is very considerably in demand by the working-class and there is no likelihood of its being substituted here. That line has no hope of being invoiced here at 1/6. The buyer may be satisfied if it is Irish, but if his wages are limited I don't think he will be satisfied, with one at 2/6. The increased duty of 30 per cent. will be at the expense of the poor person.
There is still a considerable quantity of children's socks and hosiery made from cotton and cashmere, and there is nothing like the capacity here to supply the demand. I think something should be made here in the way of a concession for children's hosiery. Between this and next week I shall do my best to put these recommendations in a form that I hope will be acceptable. I have confined myself to the trade of which I know something, and have said nothing about other trades on which other Senators are more competent to speak. But now I will speak on motor bodies. The section in the Bill which imposes duties on motor bodies was very fully discussed in the other House and at very considerable length and I do not propose to make a long speech on the subject. I have good reason to believe that the Minister knows a great deal more about the difficulties than he knew when the Order was first made. And I further believe, and I am satisfied, that he is very anxious indeed to meet these difficulties if he possibly can. He has shown a certain amount of readiness at any rate to recognise that even if bodies are to be made here, that even if they are, a very considerable transition period must take place and he has to some extent met the trade in regard to that. I think that something further will have to be done, and I intend to put down one or two recommendations which I can go into on the Committee Stage. I should like to point out, however—and I do not think that this will be disputed seriously by any section—that if motor car bodies are to be made here they can only be made either in small quantities for each make of car at prohibitive prices or be restricted to one or two makes in which there will be a somewhat larger consumption. If the latter is achieved—and I think we are a considerable distance yet from its achievement—it will mean simply a monopoly for one or two firms at the outside, who will be able to fix their own prices for cars, and it will mean the going out of existence of a considerable number of distributors of cars and a very considerable increase in unemployment. I am satisfied that it will be inevitable if you confine the consumption to cars of, say, one or two makes, and I cannot see how it will be possible to manufacture bodies at a reasonable price for more than two makes—possibly, only one.
I do not know, but possibly the Minister for Industry and Commerce will regard the closing down of these firms of distributors as amongst the inevitable casualties necessary to the policy of the Government, and to which he once referred in the other House, but he should not blame those who are interested in the distribution field if they do their best to put before him proposals and methods which may lead to their being able to continue in business. I would like to ask Senator Connolly here if he really believes that it would be a good thing for this country to have a monopoly of the supply of motor cars in the hands of one or two firms at the outside and if he believes that this country would really gain a benefit by it. I do not know anything definitely about it but it has been rumoured pretty widely and persistently that Messrs. Ford are likely to bring over and set up a body making plant, both passenger and commercial, in Cork. If they decide to do so, it may have a rather curious effect and one possibly that I do not think has been fully thought out by the Government. At the present time, the coach-building firms in existence get a very large proportion, and they ought to get a very large percentage, of the commercial bodies which are required for the Free State. If Messrs. Ford do come into Cork you may take it that it will only be worth their while to bring over plant if they manufacture both commercial and passenger car bodies. If they make a large production the result will be that it will be practically impossible for a trader to buy anything but a Ford can for commercial purposes and the present coach-builders, whom you intended to benefit, may suffer a serious loss of the trade which they have at the present time, namely, the manufacture of commercial bodies. I suggest that that aspect should be carefully considered and that it should be borne in mind that that is quite a possibility.
Very soon after this prohibitive duty of 75 per cent. on motor bodies was imposed, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of an official of the Ministry for Industry and Commerce, which was attended by all the leading representatives of motor distributors in the Free State and representatives of firms who had stated that they were in a position to undertake the manufacture of motor bodies. At this conference the motor trade representatives suggested that the coach-builders should make sample bodies for two of the most popular makes of cars in use in the Free State, and the distributors of these cars offered to supply the chassis. The coach-builders claimed that it was not reasonable to ask them to provide samples; that they must have orders in advance for a substantial number of bodies before they could make any. They also declined to quote any prices in advance. The representatives of the motor trade replied that it was impossible for them to anticipate the number of bodies required, and that at any rate they would want to see whether the specimens would suit the trade and the chassis for which they were required. I may say that there are very few indeed of the motor distributors who would be in a financial position at the present time to buy a large number of motors even if they thought it wise to do so without seeing one sample body. The position, as I understand it, is that the motor trade have asked, through their representatives, for sample bodies for two of the most popular cars, and that the coach building trade have declined to supply these or to take any step even to arrange for plant or to make the bodies. I do not know if that is the exact position. I am not in touch with any of the coach builders, but that is my information as supplied from representatives of the motor trade, and I would be very glad if, either at this stage or the next stage, Senator Connolly would be able to tell us whether he knows of any coach-building firm who have got in plant necessary for making the bodies suitable for the modern car, or has purchased a chassis for the purpose of experimenting. This being the position, I would urge very strongly on the Government—there is no use urging on them, as Senator Connolly has stated, that they should recognise that this thing is not workable —but, assuming that they mean to go on with it and force, at any cost, the manufacture of passenger motor bodies in this country, I would strongly urge on them that they should extend the period of this kind of interregnum later than August 7th. I would suggest that that date of August 7th should be altered and that instead of it he should put in the words "until the appointed day." That would also necessitate alterations in the Finance Bill, as this particular duty is covered by the two Bills. If that were done the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be in a position to fix the date himself, and if he is going to use pressure on the motor distributors he should also use pressure on the coach-builders in order to show that they are prepared to do their part and spend some little money in getting this benefit. If he had the power to fix the day, instead of as it is done here, the Minister would be in a position to find out the facts and to satisfy himself that if he goes on with this duty and decides to continue the prohibitive duty on motor bodies, at any rate the coach-building trade are being forced to take reasonable steps to provide samples and make bodies. I am perfectly certain that neither the Minister for Industry and Commerce nor Senator Connolly himself would buy a large quantity of goods of any kind in advance without seeking a sample, and it is not reasonable to suggest to motor car distributors here that they should give orders in advance without any sample or without any guarantee that it would suit the trade or without even an approximate price in advance. That is the position as I am informed, and I suggest to the Minister that he should enquire for himself, and if, on enquiry, he finds that that is the position, then it is the duty of the Government to extend the period at any rate by which cars may be imported. With a reasonable date, I think he would be able to get the two sides together and satisfy himself as to what the true position is and how it can be met.