Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1949

Vol. 36 No. 7

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1949 (Certified Money Bill ) —Second and subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Cosgrave)

The purpose of this Bill is to continue, with the approval of the Oireachtas, certain protective duties which were imposed by Orders made under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932. Section 1 (2) of that Act provides that unless an Order made under the Act is confirmed by the Oireachtas within eight months after the making of the Order, such Order shall cease to have statutory effect at the expiration of the period. Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 233) Order of 1948, which is referred to at reference 1 in the Schedule to the Bill before the House, imposes a duty on malt extract and preparations of malt extract and fish liver oil, and was made on the 6th July, 1948. The eight months' period will end on the 5th March, and if the duty is not to lapse the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas must be obtained before that date.

Senators may like to have some particulars of the purposes of the duty and of the industries which are covered by the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act. The production of malt extract was undertaken by one firm in 1944 and by another in 1946. Malt extract is used, not only in the bakery and confectionery trade, but also as a pharmaceutical preparation. Either of the two firms engaged in the production are capable of meeting the total home market, which is estimated at 300 tons per annum.

Prior to the imposition of the duty, the home manufactured supply was meeting approximately half the market, the other half being met by imported supplies. Direct employment in the industry is afforded to approximately 40 persons and it is hoped, with a greater supply of barley in the coming season that increased employment may be available. The prices of the home products are approximately the same as those of the imported, but it is difficult for these firms which are only recently established to compete with firms who have a long tradition in this trade, and who have the benefit of world-wide markets and the added benefit of world-wide advertising— which, as Senators may know, is of considerable benefit to anything in the nature of a pharmaceutical preparation.

The other duties are imposed on glass jars and were first imposed as far back as 1924 for the protection of the Irish Glass Bottle Company. As the company's range increased, the duties were gradually extended to cover the entire home production of bottles; and in 1939 the duty on beer bottles was 75 per cent. ad valorem, 50 per cent. preferential, with a minimum duty of 8/- per gross, 5/4 preferential; and in the case of other glass bottles and jars, 90 per cent. ad valorem, 60 per cent. preferential. In 1947, the Irish Glass Bottle Company installed new plant and production increased by approximately 20 per cent. Further additional plant was provided early last year and production has increased by a further 16 per cent. This eliminated some of the shortages which existed here and enabled the company to meet the entire home demand for the types of jars and bottles which come within the scope of the duty. In order to assist the company to use to the fullest extent the new plant, and to expand the range of bottles manufactured, it is desirable to continue this protection.

The other duty imposed under Emergency Order No. 235 of 1948 continues the duties on battery plates and accumulators. The manufacture of lead acid battery plates was begun in 1936 and the firm provides the various types of battery plates which are used here and gives employment to a fairly large number of people. It is difficult again for the home manufacturer to meet competition from outside, particularly in view of the fact that the outside manufacturers have the advantage of the motor-car industry elsewhere, which, of course, has a much bigger market than it has here.

The remaining duty which is covered by this Bill is the customs duty on footballs of 37½ per cent. ad valorem and 25 per cent. preferential. That duty was increased to 40 per cent. ad valorem and it is still 25 per cent. preferential. The problem here is that our manufacturers have to compete with footballs made in India, where labour costs and the costs of raw materials are very much lower than they are here. It is impossible for our manufacturers to compete with footballs of Indian origin. The standard quality of Indian footballs were available last year at 10/- each. The cost of similar footballs manufactured here is over 13/-, so that it is difficult, in view of the lower labour costs and cheaper raw materials in India, for the Irish manufacturer to compete on anything like an equitable basis. Accordingly, I ask the Seanad to confirm the duties which are imposed under the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Bill.

Mr. Duffy

Would footballs suitable for Gaelic games be made in India?

Mr. M. Hayes

Of course.

Liam Ó Buachalla

D'iarr an Rúnaí Pairliminte orainn an Bille seo a thabhairt dó agus, chomh fada agus bhaineas linne ar an taobh seo den tSeanad, bheirimid dó é agus céad míle fáilte. Is maith liom gur cheap an Rúnaí Pairliminte go mba cheart dó míniú éigin a thabhairt dúinn ar bhrí an Bhille seo. Thairis sin, is maith liom go bhfacthas dó go mba cheart tagairt a dhéanamh don phrionsabail atá i gceist sa mBille. Isé an prionsabail é sin aon áit ar féidir linne in Éirinn rud sásúil a dhéanamh, aon áit ar féidir dúinn in Eirinn deis mhaireachtála do thabhairt do mhuintir na hÉireann i dtionscal ar bith go ndéanfaimid ár ndicheall an tionscal a chur chun cinn d'ainneoin gur féidir earraí den tsaghas céanna d'fháil ón gcoigrích níos saoire. Isé an locht atá agam ar an mBille a laghad agus atá sé. Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh i bhfad níos mó abhar le feiceál ar an Sceideal ach b'fhéidir go bhfuighmis a thuille díobh fós.

Is maith liom freisin gur cheap an Rúnaí Pairliminte go mba cheart dó tagairt a dhéanamh do na deacrachta atá le sárú ag déantóirí Éireannacha i gcásanna áirithe. Mhínigh sé dhúinn nach féidir dóibh an fód a sheasamh mar atá an saol i gcoinne coimhlint ón gcoigrígh. B'fhéidir gurb shin é an fáth atá tionscal na hÉireann mórán fré chéile—ní hé amháin na rudaí atá i gceist sa mBille ach gach tionscal a bunaíodh le sé bliana déag anuas go gcaithfidh sé seasamh suas i gcoinne ionsaithe foscailte agus ionsaithe rúnda ón taobh amuigh.

Má tá an ceart agam agus a rá ón méid adúirt an Rúnaí Pairliméide go dtuigeann an Rúnaí Pairliminte agus an Rialtas go labhrann sé ar a shon deacrachta na ndéantóirí Éireannacha, tá súil agam ón méid cainte a rinne sé inniu gur comhartha é ar an athrú meoine atá ar lucht an Rialtais i dtaobh tionscal na hÉireann agus go gciallaíonn sé athrú iompair chomh maith ó thaobh na ndaoine sin maidir le lucht ceannais na dtionscal atá curtha ar bun sa tír le sé bliána déag anuas.

Micheál Ó hAodha

Tá siad ar bun nios sia ná sé bliana déag.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Is beag é.

Micheál Ó hAodha

Ní beag, mais.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Deir an Seanadóir Ó hAodha go raibh an obair seo ag dul ar aghaidh níos fuide siar ná sé bliana déag.

Micheál Ó hAodha

Agus tá.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Níl aon amhras faoi sin, ach ní fiú caint ar an méid tionscal a bhí ar bun roimh an ócáid atá i gceist agamsa.

Mícheál Ó hAodha

Leath an méíd a bhí ag teacht isteach sa tír, bhí cánacha orthú roimh 1932. Tá sé sin fíor agus ní féidir a bhréagnú.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Má Tá a fhios ag an Seanadóir Ó hAodha go raibh cánacha ar leath an méid earraí a bhí ag teacht isteach sa tír níl mé ag dul ag cur in a choinne, ach tá mé ag rá an méid seo agus tá mé ag rá an méid seo leis: Le sé bliana déag tá céad tionscail bunaithe san tír agus tá naoi gcéad monarcha curtha ar bun sa tír; le sé bliana déag tá obair nua faighthe ag breis agus céad míle duine sa tír. Nuair a bhíos Airí an Rialtais atá anois ann ag ionsaí tionscal agus ag ionsaí lucht ceannais tionscal, is iad na tionscail agus na daoine atá ar intinn acu na tionscail a cuireadh ar bun sa ré atá mé ag rá agus na daoine a chur ar bun iad; is iad sin atá mar thairgéid acu.

An Cathaoirleach

Ní bhaineann sé sin leis an mBille atá os ár gcomhair.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ní bhaineann, ach—

An Cathaoirleach

Lean leis an méid atá sa mBille.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Tá me lántsásta, ach má cuirtear ceist orm, má tá sé de cheart ag duine eile ceist a chur orm, ba chóir go mbeadh sé de cheart agamsa freagra a thabhairt air. Níl i gceist agamsa ach an méid a bhí le rá ag an Rúnaí Pairliminte. Is maith liom go n-admhaíonn sé an prionsabal gur cheart go mbeadh seans ag muinntir na hÉireann tionscail a bhunú agus a choinneáil ar bun d'ainneoin go bhféadfaí earraí a fháil ón gcoigrích níos saoire ná earraí a déantar sa mbaile—go sealadach ar aon chuma. Prionsabal an-tábhachtach é sin, agus tá súil agam go raibh an Rúnaí Pairliminte, agus é gá lua, ag labhairt ar son mhuintir an Rialtais nua.

Is dóigh liom nach bhfuil tada eile le rá agam ach a rá arís, le do cheadsa a Chathaoirligh, go bhfuil súil agam go gciallaíonn an méid adúirt an Rúnaí Pairliminte, agus é ag caint ar dheacrachtaí lucht na dtionscal, athrú meoine ó taobh an Rialtais agus athrú iompair i dtaobh lucht bunaithe tionscal.

Is maith liom an Bille atá os ár gcomhair agus, chomh fada linne, gheobhaidh an tAire an Bille agus céad míle fáilte.

Mr. Douglas

I have very little knowledge of the particular articles which are covered by the Orders which this Bill confirms, but as far as I know, little if any exception has been taken to them. I cannot remember any case where a duty was put on and where there were very strong grounds for opposition that somebody did not come after me with, at any rate, plausible reasons. My first reason for rising was to support this Bill and secondly because this House has almost for gotten the existence of measures of this kind. We used to have them every two or three months up to 1939-40. Since then we have had very few indeed. I do not know how many, but the number was very small because circumstances had completely changed and in many cases where goods were protected either by quota or by tariff, the previous Government—and I think rightly—removed or suspended the protection several years ago without any objection on the part of manufacturers. There was no use in their being dogs in the manger because when they could not get raw materials to produce goods at home, if anything was to be obtained abroad no one wanted to prevent the people from obtaining it. In the emergency period there was a changed situation during which protection was unnecessary. There may have been one or two tariffs but at the moment I cannot think of any. Now the position is changing again although it has not changed completely, and it will be necessary for the Government to watch the situation very carefully. While in certain trades there is still an element of scarcity, in others there are grave dangers of excessive imports seriously upsetting the home market and home employment. It is all by no means simple.

I understand that Senator Buckley thinks that there should be more Orders in this list, but I do not think he mentioned any particular one. If he had, it is possible that I might or might not have agreed with him. I can see no virtue in having a tariff for the sake of having a tariff, but there is an absolute necessity for wise protection so as to maintain employment here. No rigid rule, as far as I can discover, can apply to every case. None of us wants to have protection to bolster up something which is grossly inefficient, nor do we want to destroy industries which are quickly becoming highly efficient by requiring too rigid a standard. That is equally bad. There is need for commonsense and wisdom, and I hope that the question of protecting Irish industries will not become a Party issue, but that it will be judged on its merits and in a sympathetic way and that the Government will get the best possible advice from all sides.

I have no rigid rule, as I say, but I would prefer, where it is practicable, that, in the present state of the world, protection should be by means of quota rather than tariff. If it is protection for an industry which is able to supply 95 per cent. or 100 per cent. of the home demand, then I think a tariff is the simplest and best method, because, in fact, you are not going to import anything other than a few articles and you are not adding to the price by the tariff. If, however, you want to deal with an industry where the home supply is 50 or 60 per cent., and where, of necessity, there must be a substantial import, then the quota system is very much wiser. It is sometimes said, with very little justification, though it could happen, that if you apply a quota the people who import the article at possibly a cheaper price will add to the price and get extra profit. My own experience is that that only applies where the quota is very small; where the quota is substantial with, therefore, an element of competition, it is unlikely that it would occur.

From my experience—and I have fair experience—I do not think that Irish prices in many industries at the present time are substantially higher— if they are higher at all—than import prices. There are glaring exceptions to this, but there are other cases where Irish prices are actually cheaper.

Generally speaking, I do not think it will be necessary to protect because of higher price here. But that price, if it is to be a reasonable one, can only be maintained by an Irish manufacturer if the industry is able to get substantially the whole of the home market. Nothing will raise prices more than a reduction of output. A substantial reduction of output by a manufacturer will mean that he is running at a loss, which he cannot do for any length of time without raising his price. Therefore, in regard to protective measures, whether by quota or by tariff—and, personally, I prefer the quota system—we must try to ensure that there will be a maximum of production in the industry concerned.

I support this Bill. I think these measures are proper measures, and I hope that we will have a number of others similar to them in a short time.

Mr. Summerfield

In considering a simple Bill of this kind we should remember that not all of the industries we have at the present time can be regarded as 100 per cent. efficient, judging by world standards. A point which I think should be stressed is that it is one thing for an industry to be 100 per cent. efficient but that it is more important, in the case of an industry which is not 100 per cent. efficient, if it fills a niche in our national economy. That situation was well demonstrated during the war years. Many of our industries very considerably assisted in the maintenance of a standard of life which would otherwise not have been possible during those years without them.

Naturally, in the case of a simple little Bill like this, we are not going to debate in full the subject of protection. I support what Senator Douglas has said. It is well that we have an occasion each year on which we can discuss in some small measure these particular statutes and that we can examine the industries which are actually being protected. So far, like Senator Douglas, I have not heard of anyone whose interests might be affected by these duties making a complaint and I therefore support the measure.

I want to stress, however, now that there is so much talk about Irish industries and the prices of Irish goods and so forth, that it is all too easily forgotten how very vital a part some of these industries played in the recent years of emergency. If we are to have an economy which will make us less dependent on outside sources of supply than has been the case heretofore, we shall have to continue certain industries which might not be regarded as being at the moment 100 per cent. efficient.

Professor Fearon

Taking advantage of this opportunity to reconsider the articles that have been subject to duty, I should like to raise a point about malt extract and malt extract plus liver oil. From my experience of analysis, I know that this country can produce malt which is equal to any we have come across. We have first-rate malt and we have good chemists and we can produce a first-rate product. I am not so happy, however, about malt extract and fish liver oil. Malt is a material which is used in confectionery and in many other ways, and it is used for medicinal purposes too. But malt extract with fish liver oil is used as a medicine alone. It is of no use in confectionery and so forth. Its particular purpose is to give the necessary vitamins to the people who take it. We can get the malt and prepare the malt extract, but we have not got the halibut oil, the cod or the fish liver oil. That has to be imported and blended.

It is quite possible to get a malt cod liver oil here which, although very good as regards the malt, may not be quite so good as regards the fish liver oil. The foreign manufacturers are very careful about that point and in the products which they market they specify the vitamins and so forth in the particular product. I think we should, where there is a duty on the mixture —on the malt and the fish liver oil— make it necessary for the local manufacturer to specify the strength of his product. It should be remembered that he is producing a product and in competition with the products of American and British laboratories. A watch should be kept to ensure that an inferior cod liver oil mixture does not appear here masquerading under a nice coloured label and so forth. We want a guarantee as regards this fish liver oil. The malt may be all right.

I would, therefore, much sooner see "fish liver oil" left out altogether and leave in "malt extract" alone, because I think that would be much safer.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

I would not have intervened were it not for the remarks of Senator Professor Fearon. If the Parliamentary Secretary and the members of the Seanad follow his advice and confine the tariff only to malt extract they may put the makers of malt extract in this country completely out of business. The malt extract is used for medicinal purposes with halibut oil or with cod liver oil but it is used for other purposes, too, and if it is made more difficult to produce in this country or if the protection from the foreign article which the industry gets is removed it may mean that this market will be flooded in that respect. I should like to know if Senator Professor Fearon has any reason to suppose that the article produced in this country is inferior to the foreign article and, if it is not, why it should be removed from this tariff protection which is given. I have no reason to assume that the cod liver oil and malt extract produced here is inferior to that produced in America and Britain although that would seem to be the inference to be taken from the Senator's speech.

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned footballs. He may think that my day for footballing is over but he mentioned, I think, that the Irish-made footballs cannot be produced because those coming from India are 13/-each cheaper.

Mr. Cosgrave

Not as much as that —3/-.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

How many people are employed in this country in the making of footballs and what are the wages paid? Footballs can be made from leather which is tanned in this country. They can be cut out, in various patterns or sections, with a shaped knife. Then it is only a matter of stitching the various sections together either by hand or by machine. That work is probably done by girl labour and, for all I know, in some back lane by underpaid labour. I wonder whether an industry which probably employs only a few girls or, at most, only a few men ought to be protected. If you reduce protection to that level you make a complete farce of it. If anybody in a back lane is entitled to protection for some little commodity which he makes I think protection— with the principle of which I am in favour and which, I think, is important—will become farcical. Take, for example, somebody making razor strops or something like that.

Mr. McGuire

Whilst being fully in support of this Bill and agreeing with the necessity for protection in Irish industry there are one or two points to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. I think we would welcome a more scientific approach to this whole subject. At the present time, we are very much concerned with the cost of living. Tariffs have in the past been used ostensibly, and probably quite honestly, to protect a certain industry. But in doing so, by the wording of the particular Bill under which the commodity or product is tariffed, we get a whole lot of commodities brought into the net.

The result is merely an increase in the taxation gathered from these duties and a consequent raising of the cost of living. There should be much greater latitude in the system of issuing licences. In the past, it has not been possible to get a licence for the import of goods to which I refer, namely, those which it was never intended should be protected and which are not made here. There is the greatest difficulty in getting a duty-free licence issued. One of the conditions attaching to the issue of such a licence has been that you must get a written letter from the manufacturer stating that he cannot make the goods which you wish to buy, before a licence is issued, and anybody who is in business will know that to get a letter on these lines from a manufacturer has been extremely difficult. I suggest that the whole system of issuing licences should be gone into, so that, while fully protecting the Irish manufacturer, the cost of living will be kept down.

There seems to be a campaign in progress at present for the imposition of more tariffs, on the plea that there is dumping. That may be so in certain cases, but, as a distributor, I should like to point out that not only in this country, but in America and England —and, according to last Sunday's papers, in Western Germany—there is a definite—I will not call it a slump, because that is a horrible word to send around — deflationary movement. That is to say that there now are available more goods than there is money to buy them. That being so, if manufacturers at present are feeling a slight breeze and are not fully booked up with orders, it does not necessarily mean that there is dumping. I know that, in the distributive trades, we have had to pull in in the matter of ordering from all manufacturers, both home and abroad, and to impose a tariff because of a plea of dumping will merely put up the price of goods still further. Surely if the manufacturer wants to sell his goods, the way to do it is not to put up the price of the retailers' goods still further. I want to point out to those who claim that there is dumping that that in fact is not the case. There is definitely a world recession at the moment and we have all to bear with it here. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. J.T. O'Farrell

The general question of the principle of tariffs will, I understand, be one of the responsibilities of the new industrial development authority which is to be set up.

An Cathaoirleach

And will not come in under this.

Mr. J.T. O'Farrell

I was about to suggest that it is not therefore necessary for us to debate the general question of tariffs. I was about to refer only to this imposition of duty on malt extracts and preparations of malt extracts and fish oil, to the extent that it affects the price of medicines. I had a very extraordinary experience some years ago with regard to the difference in the cost of medicine here and in Great Britain. A middle-aged lady living near me was suffering from serious heart trouble. Certain tablets, which cost a tremendously high amount, were prescribed for her, and she asked me, when I was going to London on one occasion, if I would see whether these tablets could be got there and what the price was. I made the necessary inquiries and found that the Dublin price was exactly three and a half times the price at which they could be obtained in London. I had numerous other similar experiences after that, because I made special inquiries and I found that the prices ranged very often from two to four times the London price. Much of that seemingly was due to the fact that certain medicines had anything from 50 to 80 per cent. tariff imposed on them. They were brought in here in bulk and simply repacked by a few little girls for very low wages and then retailed to the public at two and three times the price at which they could be obtained elsewhere.

A tariff on medicine is one of the meanest of all forms of tariffs, if it has the result of driving up the price. It is simply putting a premium on illness and it puts on rich and poor alike an intolerable embargo in the fight for health. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary's Department should make inquiries to see to what extent there is an unjustifiable difference between the price of medicine here and elsewhere and to what extent even that intolerable state of affairs has resulted in increasing employment here. We hear a lot of talk about this particular matter of extract of malt and so on, and we are told that it gives employment to 40 people or so. No doubt, some of these are juniors, working for very low wages—some may be little girls—and the total effect on the economy of the country must in any case be negligible. The principal problem is the extent to which that sort of tariff is allowed to operate against the effective war on disease and illness, and I hope sincerely that any development in the future will tend towards making available to the people at prices they can pay the medicines necessary to keep them in proper health and well-being.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is scarcely any topic on which there is so much misinformed criticism and talk as the whole question of protection. It is because of that fact and because of the difficulties which this Government, and, for that matter, any Government, has in getting accurate information and deciding on the right measure, as well as the right form of protection, that the decision to set up an industrial development authority was taken. I need not at this stage embark on a discussion of that subject, but it is well to remember, when people talk of protection, that the degree of protection for one industry may be totally inadequate for another and vice versa. The protection, or the form in which assistance is given, may be sufficient to keep one industry going while far less protection, a much smaller tariff or a quota of narrower dimensions, might equally sustain another industry, so that, when discussions on protection take place, it is well to realise that the extent of protection varies from industry to industry and that one cannot generalise freely without falling into serious errors. For that reason, I think that some of Senator Ó Buachalla's remarks were extremely wide of the mark. The protection on one of the industries covered was first given as far back as 1924, so that there is no recent development in this country of providing protection. Protection was given and has been given in varying degrees, possibly in different forms, but given and given over a wide range of industries, by three Governments. The future of protected industries in this country will depend, and many of them will succeed, on the understanding that they will get protection both from this Government and, I have no doubt, from any Government that may succeed it.

Senators have mentioned individual points on these particular duties and I would like to deal with them. Senator Fearon mentioned the question of the duty on fish liver oil and the effect it may have on the price of medicines, as did Senator J.T. O'Farrell. It is true that there is a draw-back to some slight extent, in having protection on fish liver oil, particularly as it is used in pharmaceutical preparations, but unless the firm manufacturing the malt extract and fish liver oil got protection on both commodities they would not be able to continue in production. As I announced at the outset, the price of the home-manufactured product is approximately the same as the imported one and the Minister for Health had to be satisfied before this duty was imposed.

It is quite true, as Senator O'Farrell says, that any protection which would put up on our people the cost of necessary medicines or the cost of any of these tonics would be not only undesirable but entirely unjustified. That differentiates the protection that is given in the case of footballs, because footballs, while they are in wide use, are not entirely necessary and it is reasonable to give a measure of protection in order to keep an industry of that kind going. The number of people employed in it is quite small, but for the small increase in the cost of footballs here as compared with footballs which are available from India, it is reasonable that we should assist the industry, particularly as the firms engaged in it are not entirely or exclusively devoted to the production of footballs.

The only other matter raised was the question of a recession, which Senator McGuire mentioned. As Senators are aware, when different duties have to be confirmed they will come before both Houses, and if any particular duty has been affected by conditions elsewhere it will be possible for Senators to discuss it when it comes up. I think it is well to make these observations on protection and on the loose talk that sometimes is associated with it. In one recent case, where protection was given in order to assist an industry and to enable it to continue in production and consequently to keep people employed, it was found that while the protection enabled the industry to continue, it put up the cost of the raw materials which that factory was making on other users. The danger of consequent unemployment as a result of increased costs of raw materials is one which few people who criticise either the delay or the failure to give protection in a particular case ever take into consideration. It is on a matter of that kind that accurate information and the experience of people who have available to them the effect of protection can be of benefit to the Government. It is because of that, as well as the other matters that I have mentioned, that it is essential that any Government or any Minister should have available to him every aspect of protection, not alone the effect on the particular industry protected but also the effect which that protection may have either on the cost of the finished product or, more especially in cases where a protective industry is supplying raw materials, on the cost of the raw materials for other industries.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages to-day.

Bill passed through Committee without amendment, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.