Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1952

Vol. 41 No. 2

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) (No. 2) Bill, 1952—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. Lynch)

As Senators know, under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, Orders made in relation to increasing or decreasing duties on imported goods have to be confirmed by subsequent legislation. This Bill is to confirm 22 Orders that were made under the 1932 Act. The Bill relates to 22 Orders made by the Government under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, and the commodities covered by these Orders are as follows: razor blades, drinking glasses, crystal glassware, knitted woollen fabric, venetian blinds, woven labels, certain plastic lamp-shades, artificial silk piece goods, component parts of dolls and dolls' clothing, glue gelatine and size, abrasives, certain hack-saw blades, leather, certain tanks, cisterns, etc., plaster statues under ten inches in height, adhesive gums, malt extract and preparations of malt extract and fish liver oil, cotton wool and wadding made partly of cotton and certain manufactures thereof, component parts of braces made of elastic, iron and steel wheelbarrows, hand-carts, etc., etc.

The customs duties imposed on crystal glassware, venetian blinds, adhesive gums and iron and steel wheelbarrows, handcarts, etc. are new protective duties. The Orders relating to razor blades, drinking glasses, knitted woollen fabric, glue gelatine and size, tanks and cisterns, leather, malt extract and fish liver oil increased the existing customs duties on these commodities. In the Orders relating to lamp shades, artificial silk piece goods, brace elastic, woven labels, dolls' clothing and component parts of dolls, hacksaw blades, statues and cotton wool the scope of the existing duties of these commodities was extended to cover additional lines or to prevent evasions of duty which had occurred. The duty on abrasive materials has been reduced.

I do not know whether or not it has been the practice of the Minister to explain in detail at this stage the effect of each of these Orders but I think it might be well for me to refer to the purpose of at least some of the Orders that have been made.

Possibly one of the most interesting is the duty in relation to drinking glasses. Possibly Senators know that it has been decided to go into production again of the famous Waterford glass. Naturally, that will mean a certain period when, in the course of training workers and getting over other initial difficulties, the company would have to meet certain difficulties in the overcoming of which they would require certain assistance. In order to mark time while workers are being trained in the manufacture of crystal glasses, which is a highly skilled process, the company has gone into the manufacture of ordinary soda glass tumblers of the usual half pint size. It has been possible to purchase imported glasses of this type at considerably less than the Waterford factory can make them but the imported tumblers are of much lower quality than the Waterford company is making. The Waterford company's glasses are dearer for two reasons: first, they are of a better quality and secondly, they are hand made.

The purpose of the Order is to increase the duty on imported glasses in order that the Waterford factory's goods, which, up to quite recently, were incapable of being disposed of, can be disposed of so that this very desirable line of production can be gone into. The primary object of the crystal cut-glass manufacture is for export.

I think Senators will agree that, in the short time that it is expected the company will require to get on its feet —possibly one to two years—the duty is highly desirable.

Some of the Orders refer to certain evasions of duties that have taken place, for example, the duty on plaster statues and statuettes. The duty imposed heretofore related only to statues of 12 inches in height and over. For some time there had been an increasing import of statues and statuettes of ten inches and thereabouts. The Order now made relates to imported statues of ten inches and over.

Another notable case of that type is the duty on hacksaw blades. That was one of the duties which was contained in the Bill that I had the honour to pilot through the Seanad on the last occasion. The duty referred to hacksaw blades of half-inch width. The new duty proposes to catch hack-saw blades of ?-inch width and over. After the duty on half-inch width blades was imposed last year it was found that blades of 7-16ths of an inch width were being imported freely. Naturally, they were affecting the output of the home manufacturers. It was found on investigation that blades of 7-16th inch width were being made for the first time, obviously to avoid the duty on the half-inch width blades that was imposed last year.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the details of each of the other Orders, but if Senators would like further explanation or elucidation of any of the Orders I will be glad to let them have it.

Mr. O'Donnell

Those of us who are interested in the industrial progress of this country will welcome the Orders that it is proposed to make in this Bill. Apart from any selfish motives that might be attributed to myself, they are welcome because they are a guarantee of increased employment of our own people in our own country in the production of goods. That aspect is very often forgotten. The purpose of the protective policy implemented by this Government and its predecessors is, in the main, seen in the continuous and growing employment in industry which has been in operation here for many years, though I understand there has recently been a fall, due to extraordinary circumstances.

I think these Orders are good, from the broadest national viewpoint. At the same time, I would address myself to the Parlimentary Secretary and ask that, where secondary industries are affected by the protection of an article which is made by a primary industry, and where the labour content is higher in the secondary industry, facilities should be given for the secondary industry to import any primary commodity needed which could not be supplied by Irish industries already in being. I mention that because I notice included in it are certain items of spun rayon under the heading of artificial silk piece goods liable to preferential duty or full duty at 50 per cent. I must pay a tribute to the Irish mills for the manufacture of spun rayon cloth, as in the course of trade I have been able to inspect the products of a mill which has only some years ago gone into the production of this type of cloth. Great credit is due, not only to the directors but to the workers, who in such a short period have conquered the difficulties of manufacturing such a substitute for cotton. At the same time, there are many types of that spun rayon cloth which that mill and other mills cannot produce and which our secondary industries need.

While I assume there is a licensing clause applicable to all the Orders, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the departmental officials to interpret that clause in the broadest possible sense, in concurrence with representatives of the Irish mills. Where there is anything that an Irish manufacturer in a secondary industry can buy at home, I agree he should and must buy it at home, but I am sure there are primary manufacturers in Irish mills here manufacturing this cloth who would not want to see a secondary manufacturer suffer by reason of the fact that they cannot produce the particular type of goods he requires.

I am all in agreement with the principle underlying the Orders, but as one associated with industry and knowing the labour content in secondary industries, I feel that we can do good service to such industries by not interpreting in the strictest sense any licence attached to these Orders.

Professor Johnston

I find myself not entirely in sympathy with the point of view expressed by the Senator who has just sat down and somewhat critical of the general procedure as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary in recommending this Bill.

The Bill is an example of what might be called piecemeal legislation. It proceeds on the unconscious assumption that if, in the case of 20 or even 100 industries, you can prove that you have increased employment, you are thereby making a net addition to employment in industry as a whole. What I want to suggest is that, in our efforts to deal with specific economic problems, we should always advert to the general effect on the economy as a whole and not concentrate solely on the benefits to be derived from the industry that is protected. That is the most insidious danger to our national economy.

If you can show that you are preserving or creating employment in a particular industry for 20 or 30 more people, the evidence that those 20 are working at that occupation is available. The benefit to the few is concentrated and evident. If, at the same time, you are doing damage to the rest of the economy, the damage is spread so evenly and so thinly over the rest of the community that no one is acutely conscious of the damage in his own personal experience and therefore it requires a very close analysis to ascertain its total amount. We should, therefore, be careful to see that we are not doing greater damage to the economy as a whole than is compensated by the benefit derived from employment in the protected industry.

I have considerable sympathy with the tax that concerns the Waterford glass industry, because this is an industry which has certain historic associations with Ireland and there is every reason to encourage and protect it. We hope the Waterford glass industry of the future will be as famous as the Waterford glass industry of the past. There is a case for protecting infant industries which are considered suitable as permanent elements in the economy of the country, but I deprecate any attempt to get away with 20 new taxes and have them carried by propaganda appropriate only to Waterford glass. I should wish to illustrate my view by references to one or two industries to which the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference. It is, of course, a cliché to say that agriculture is our dominant industry and most people would agree that it is in the highest degree desirable that those aspects of our agricultural production which have been most laggard in recent years should considerably expand their productive efforts. Two of those aspects are the production of poultry and the production of pigs.

I am going to relate these things to one of the new taxes. One of the limiting factors in the production of pigs and poultry is the weight of pig feed or other feed that the woman of the house can carry out in a bucket to feed the pigs or the poultry. That may seem rather laughable, but anybody with experience of economic life in the country will realise that there is something in it. The minute the poultry population on a farmstead exceeds 20, 50 or 100—where one is concerntrating on poultry or pig production—it assumes a different aspect entirely. No matter how strong or willing the housewife may be to carry out the feed, she feels that she cannot do it without a handcart or donkey cart. In a modern large scale poultry farm you find considerable use for handcarts and other things like that as a means of saving human labour.

One of the effects of these taxes will certainly be that handcarts or trollies will not be cheaper but probably dearer. If that tax has the slightest effect in discouraging an increase in the production of pigs and poultry, I say that that particular tax is doing more harm to the national economy as a whole than would compensate for the employment of a few more people making handcarts in another part of the country. I would like to emphasise again the extreme desirability of relating this kind of piecemeal legislation to some general economic policy which has in view the general interests of the nation as a whole.

Professor Stanford

As one who is neither an employer nor an employee in a protected industry, I would not like the Parliamentary Secretary to get the impression that all members of the House welcome this Bill.

The plain fact is that to most of us it means somewhat higher prices in most things. Frankly, I regard these Bills with a spirit of mournful acquiescence. I do not think we can do much to prevent it, but I do not want the impression to be given to anybody that there is a feeling of joy throughout the country that these tariffs are going up all around as they are.

I suppose I could not confess to being an old-fashioned free trader without incurring some scorn, but the fact of the matter is that I am. I do not think that anyone can deny but that from the point of view of the consumer this protection simply means higher prices on the whole. I do not want Senator O'Donnell to give the impression that all is joyful in the House on that account. It is, perhaps, to a great section of the community a joyful matter, but some of us people who are on fixed salaries, if you like, simply have to pay more for what they will buy. There is the danger—I see it round me—of these tariff walls allowing people to make excessive profits and I would urge, as the one practical suggestion in these remarks of mine, the Parliamentary Secretary to keep the eye of a lynx on the possibility that some of these tariffs are higher than is necessary.

The right thing is that our industrialists should have a fair chance to sell their goods at a fair price. When they are making an unfair margin of profit, as they sometimes do, it is bad for the country as a whole and bad for morale, because one gets the impression that there is not free competition if the industries of this country are really doing well. They must pit themselves against the best that every country can produce. If they are cushioned against competition by excessive tariff protection, it will only do harm to the quality. I am afraid that is happening in some circumstances. However, I can only repeat that, despite our satisfaction at a policy which ensures the employment of as many men as possible, I accept this Bill personally in a spirit of mournful acquiescence.

Mr. Summerfield

I was surprised that, at this late stage, we heard more than one speaker throw out again the hoary old cliché: "As good and as cheap." Many of us engaged in industry would be the first to declare that many of the goods made either from the fundamentals or processed here were to a degree uneconomic, but I would like to take the House back to the period of acute shortage of various manufactured goods during the war when the community was very glad to have available to it the goods produced either in their entirety or partially by those much-criticised people, the Irish manufacturers.

Those who are not in industry forget one important thing. Were it not for the protection afforded by successive Governments to our infant industries this country of ours would still be as it was, the dumping-ground for our big cross-Channel industrial neighbour. Many of the goods thrown up to us as being cheaper than the Irish-made article are not cheaper when compared with similar conditions. Those foreign goods are cheaper in many instances because they have been dumped here out of excess or out of goods that could not be sold by the British manufacturer in other markets throughout the world. These things should be known.

I wonder if the previous speaker studied the reports from the E.C.A. experts that appear from day to day in the columns of the Irish Press. Surely those reports have already blown sky high the suggestion that the Irish manufacturer or those engaged in any form of industrial enterprise are making excessive profits. Not in any one case is the Irish manufacturer getting more than a fraction of the profits shown to the standard in the United States. I am not going to delay the House. I do not say that every industry, judged merely as an economic unit, can be fully justified. It can be justified if we are ever going to get out of the position in which we were before the industrial revival, when we were merely the dumping-ground for foreign goods.

The Undeveloped Areas Act is to ensure that we will have factories dotting the country to make more goods for our own people to consume and use. If our products cannot in some cases be sold as cheaply as the products of manufacturers across the water this is due to the fact that they have 1,000 units of production while there is only one available to the Irish manufacturer. I do hope that we are going to see an end to this carping criticism of our Irish manufacturers.

Mr. Burke

I would like to congratulate the Minister on the duty which he has brought in to protect and help the re-established Waterford glass industry. I am very closely associated with Waterford in many respects. I believe that the action taken by the Minister and the sympathy which has been shown from all sides of the House to the re-establishment of that industry will be much appreciated by the City of Waterford. I was glad to know that when they asked for a tariff in Waterford they said that this high tariff would be only required for a period of one to two years.

There was a great deal of interest in regard to the remarks made by Senator Stanford. Early this year the Australasian countries got into monetary difficulties, and they were unable to pay for large quantities of manufactured goods that were ready for despatch to Australia and New Zealand. These goods were dumped in this country, in many cases over 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. tariff walls. They were sold below production costs in this country. Because the British manufacturers had these goods and could not bring them home and use them as ornaments in their houses, they had to sell them in the nearest market at whatever price they could.

It is necessary that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would be very vigilant in cases like that. I believe that where things like that happen the Minister should be able to put on an embargo. Many of our industries suffered considerably financially from that dumping. I believe its repercussions will be felt in the returns from the State revenue for the year ending 5th April next.

All Parties in this country agree that the vast majority of industrialists are doing a good job. If there are one or two who offend occasionally it is not fair to blame the rest. I do not want to start a debate on protection of free trade. I understand that the House has sufficient business to keep it going for two days, and were I to open up a debate on protection or free trade the House would want to keep going for some weeks.

There are a couple of suggestions I should like to make to the Minister. I am aware of at least one article which is not now made in the country on which there is an import duty. What is happening is that the manufacturers and traders who require that product have to apply to the Department of Industry and Commerce for a licence. The granting of that licence is recommended by the Department of Industry and Commerce to the Revenue Commissioners and the licence is granted. The licence is granted in all cases but the importer, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Revenue Commissioners have to go through that formality in order that goods may be imported. There is no known case where the licence has been refused. There may be cases; if there are I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have them investigated and the import duty removed. It is only a waste of public money and it is interfering with business.

Another matter I would ask him to be vigilant about is the quality of some of the goods manufactured here. For example, he did mention hacksaw blades and I would like him to see that the quality of these is as good as the imported article. There are many things manufactured here which are of higher quality than the imported article; I believe the specification for cement here is higher than in any country in the world. The specification for hacksaw blades should be on the same basis.

I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary of a little incident in an industry in which I am interested. We require specialised saw blades for certain purposes—they are not hacksaw blades—and we found that they could not be sharpened and tempered here because the people here did not know the type of steel they were made from. When manufacturers send steel to a person who manufactures saws he gives them specifications of the steel and the method of tempering required. If these blades are sent to somebody who does not know the specification or the method of tempering that person will not be able to do a good job upon them. That illustrates difficulty of putting an embargo on specialised items like that because you may hold up an industrial process through want of equipment costing a few pounds, and you have to go through interminable regulations when only a few shillings' worth would be involved.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the removal of duty on articles which were once made by industries that have ceased to operate in this country, because it causes great difficulties to traders and manufacturers and last, but not least, to civil servants.

Mr. Colgan

I have for a long time been doing Senator Stanford an injustice. I always thought he was a dyed-in-the-wool Tory. I remember an election being fought in 1906 when the Tories' battle-cry was "tariff reform" and the Liberals were all for free trade, so I should have thought of Senator Stanford as a Liberal rather than a Tory.

It is all right being a free trader in a country like England, but you cannot be a free trader in Ireland because, beside you, there is a country with 48,000,000 people, highly industrialised, and if free trade were operated, there would be injustice here. Free trade is all very well provided everybody else is happy. When you look around the world you see that practically every country protects its own products.

I believe in the policy of Arthur Griffith, the Sinn Féin policy, that one should have a strong agricultural community and a strong industrial arm. Griffith also preached another policy, a policy of passive resistance, and like the story of free trade, passive resistance was all right when every person remained passive.

I happen to be a representative of the workers and I noticed in Senator O'Donnell's speech, and to a large extent in Senator Burke's, that both are protectionists when it concerns their own particular industry. I hope I am not doing an injustice to Senator Burke, but when he spoke I felt he might have some interest in the Waterford Glass Company.

Mr. Burke

I have not.

Mr. Colgan

I am glad you have not. What is the prime purpose of a protective duty? It is to create employment for our people. I remember attending a lecture by an old Tory, the late Major Crean, a very great protectionist, and he told the story that in America they imported tinplate from Wales and the Government there put a tariff of 100 per cent. on tinplate, but it did not affect employment in the United States, and so they put on another 100 per cent. Then somebody realised that it would not be a bad idea to make tinplate in America and they finished up by making all the tinplate they wanted and, in addition, established an export market.

Senator Burke mentioned that certain things were not manufactured in this country. If people cannot get these things in here, they will have to be manufactured, and it is up to somebody to manufacture them and if there is a duty high enough they will be manufactured here.

If an industry is not established or has failed, let us increase tariffs and not issue licences for the importation of things which we manufacture. Senator O'Donnell is primarily concerned with his own end and talks about primary and secondary industry, but he does not care what happens secondary industry so long as his particular industry is all right.

In dealing with Irish manufacturers we find some of them of a difficult type and more difficult than manufacturers with British connections, whom we find more sympathetic in dealing with schemes for the workers than we found some of the new manufacturers attacked in the Dáil a few weeks ago. One particular man who made a lot of money—he is dead now—was most reluctant to pay anybody, and paid the lowest wages he could get away with, and he left a huge fortune. The man who will not pay a fair week's wages is no use to the country, especially when he wants to make profit behind tariffs. We are all opposed to such men, and an eye should be kept, a friendly one, and not an eye which would be always looking for something which was not there, to see that these people who are protected will give service to the community both in relation to the quality and the price they charge.

Human nature being what it is—none of us is a saint, though he may think he is—there is always that tendency in every one of us to get rich quick, if we can, and the quickest way to get rich quick is to shove up the price of an article of which you have a monopoly, and so the community suffers. The prime motive in the imposition of tariffs is and should be to create employment for our own people, and I suggest that there is no use in talking about free trade or of opening the ports and letting everything in, if our people are flying out. We are bringing in the things we want and exporting the people who should be making them here.

Mr. Douglas

I emphatically disagree with the last speaker when he says the best way to get rich quick is to shove up the price of an article. The best way, from a manufacturer's point of view, is to get the largest possible production at a price which the people will buy a quantity, so that you thereby get a reasonable profit. Senator Summerfield is an optimist if he thinks that any report, American or otherwise, will blow sky-high the idea that everybody except me is making too much profit. It is popular at the moment and no report, however impartial, will get it out of the heads of the people that the other people are making too much profit. Personally, I think it has got to the stage of being somewhat unhealthy. I mention it only because I should like to remind the House that, so far as manufacture is concerned, there is still the prices branch, which is active, in the Department of Industry and Commerce. Every manufacturer has to submit his accounts annually and satisfy them that he is keeping within a particular margin of profit. That has been the law for a very considerable time. Everybody in this House ought to know it, but it is surprising how few people advert to it when they begin to talk about profits and prices.

Senator Johnston rather puzzled me. He made a general statement with which, I think, everybody will agree— I certainly do—that, in considering protection, one must advert to the general economy as a whole. Then he objected to piecemeal legislation and to Bills being brought which varied tariffs or brought in new tariffs. I think he objected to 20 at a time. I have become convinced that, in dealing with protection, there is no other method than an immediate Order made by a Minister. Let it be investigated and discussed after, as we can do now on these Bills, but I am satisfied that, in a country of this size, any public examination of a proposed tariff, in advance of the making of that tariff, would defeat its purpose for probably four or five years. I should like it to be the other way, but I am pretty well satisfied that that is impossible. That should not prevent an examination of all tariffs, having regard to the economy of the county as a whole, and I should be the first to say—I think the Minister would agree, if he were here —that if it can be shown that a particular tariff would have a really adverse effect on agriculture, it should not be introduced.

Professor Johnston

Would a private inquiry not meet the case? It need not necessarily be public.

Mr. Douglas

The position at the moment is that you have a Civil Service inquiry, and any of us who have had anything to do with tariffs know that that generally takes from six to nine months from the time the idea is first mooted. It is the publicity I am referring to, and I have reluctantly—because I would like to have these things examined publicly—come to the conclusion that there is not any better way. At any rate, nobody has produced a better method. The method at the moment is that, within nine months, an Order must be confirmed by legislation, which gives an opportunity for public discussion.

It is extremely difficult, publicly or privately, to judge fairly and accurately the merits of a particular tariff, unless you have a great deal of information, and it must also be remembered that one may affect another. If, as a result of manufacture here, the price of an article is higher, it may affect another industry, because that article may be the raw material of that industry, and all these things have to be considered as to their possible effects. I do not think that, in considering any form of tariff, it is practicable to relate the size of the tariff to a price differential. The only real object of a protective tariff, as distinct from a revenue tariff, is to prevent, or practically to prevent, the entry of goods so as to provide for home production.

The word "dumping" was used by Senator Summerfield, and it is used a good deal by manufacturers. I think they would be well advised not to use it. because it is now misunderstood. It is very often thought by the public to mean that something wicked is happening in another country and, therefore, that that other country is behaving unfairly. What we know as dumping simply means that, as a result of over-production or a particular set of circumstances in another country, goods are sent out at a price which is uneconomic and which would be economic in any country. To that extent and where that happens, one can say that every commodity is liable at some time or other to be dearer here, because it may not be possible to import it when it is available as a clearing line at a cheap price from outside; but I am not prepared to accept the assumption of Senator Stanford that prices for the same quality here are by any means always higher, or, even to any great extent, higher.

Professor Stanford

Did I say "always"?

Mr. Douglas

Generally. I was not attacking the Senator and I do not wish to misrepresent him. One of the problems which most manufacturers have to face is the importation of a very inferior article at a low price. Many of us are at our wits' end to know whether we ought to produce what we know to be a bad article at a low price in order to meet this competition. On the whole, I think we are better without it, but that is a detail on which there will be one decision in one industry and another decision in another.

I was pleased to find that Senator Johnston can look with a favourable eye on a tariff if there is some historical connection with the industry. I am sure he will be pleased to know that I have at home a leatherbound book which gives the wages about a century ago of the silk weavers in Dublin. The same factory is now producing spun rayon yarn. It is, strictly speaking, not the same as real silk, but it is produced in the same factory, so possibly Senator Johnston will be inclined to make a special exception on historical grounds in that case.

I should like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary—it is probably not necessary—that he should not pay too much attention to Senator O'Donnell, or, for the matter of that, to Senator Burke. My experience is that, as soon as it becomes perfectly clear that goods have been tariffed which are not manufactured here and which —this is the point—are clearly distinguishable from goods which are manufactured here, both Governments here have been perfectly ready to take off the tariff and, in fact, have been only too glad to do so. Nearly all the difficulty, however, in my experience—and I have had a considerable experience— is that care must be taken not to license goods which would have the virtual effect of defeating the tariff by, admitting substitute goods simply because, in the strictest sense of the word, they are not the same as those manufactured here. It may be a good or a bad thing but I think a country of 3,000,000 cannot get the variety of the larger country. Whilst I do not admit that we should have inferior or dearer goods, we should realise that if you have tariffs there will have to be less variety. That is one of the prices you have to pay for tariffs and licences.

So far as silk rayon goods are concerned, there is a licencing provision, and I think I can say that there has been general agreement on the part of the manufacturers and co-operation with the Department in regard to licences for such goods. It is true that there is some uneasiness on the part of manufacturers in this regard; because there are a number of varieties of these goods and because they are different in design or texture, it might be possible for some people to get a licence to import these products on the plea that they are not produced here. There must be a limit to the amount of variety when there are tariffs and protection.

I know there are a lot of difficulties in this matter of licences and, though not a supporter of the Government, I would like to say that as far as the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned they go to great pains to understand the complexities which industry has to face in dealing with all applications for licences.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

As a person who can hardly be described as an old Tory or an old Liberal, I would like to say that I agree with the remarks of Senator Stanford. I think it is proper that we should have here a sense of concern in the passing of this Bill which enables the Minister to impose duties and to increase duties on articles which the consumer must purchase.

In the matter of the protected industries it seems to be the case generally that anyone who protests too much about protection is severely criticised. Usually such protests are very fiercely resented by the owners or proprietors of the protected mills or factories or those with the slightest interest in the protected industry.

It all comes to the point that one needs a great deal of courage to say a single word in regard to tariffs and their application to goods. The interested parties will tell you, if you do so, about the amount of public capital in the business and their employees, and they will say: "You must not hit me because if you do so my employees will be hurt".

Senator Stanford is right in indicating that we should be concerned here, perhaps mournfully so, with the ease with which a measure of this type goes through the House. Every day the imposition of a tariff seems to be followed by an increase in price of the particular commodity. The imposition of a tariff should not immediately precede a rise in prices. When people seek tariffs they should not have in their minds that it is a licence to increase the prices of the commodities they are producing, but the fact is that inevitably when a tariff is imposed the price of the goods to the consumer goes up. In many cases protection has become synonymous with increased prices.

We are told that effective steps are taken in the Department to see that only a proper and fair margin of profit is earned by the producer and factory proprietor. I do not want to say that the industries here are making increased and outlandish profits because I do not know whether they are or not. Certainly the efforts of the Department might be directed towards seeing how it is that immediately a tariff is imposed the price to the consumer goes up. There is no reason, in my opinion, why that should be so.

One of the most successful industries in the country is agriculture and that has been built up and carried on without any protection at all. Our farmers are making a fair job of agriculture without any assistance and if even 100th part of the efforts of the Department of Industry and Commerce were devoted to helping agriculture, then we would have a really thriving agricultural industry. It is to the credit of the farmers that they have been able to build up their industry without protection.

I am rather disappointed that I did not hear from the Minister more details of the various goods which it is proposed to protect and the duties to be imposed. In the Schedule the first provision is an amendment of the duty on razor blades. I would like to be told the quantities of blades that are being produced here and how the prices of razor blades manufactured in the country compare with the prices of those imported. In the same way I am concerned with the imposition of a duty on venetian blinds. So far as I know, we have had here for many years a thriving blind factory. They were able to carry on for a very long time without protection. I should like to know what quantities of blinds are produced now and what, in fact, will be the result to the industry of the imposition of these duties.

I suggest that this Bill should not be let through as a matter of course. It must not be taken for granted that everybody must say: "This is a Bill to give the right to the Minister to impose duties and protection. Therefore, it must be allowed through because, otherwise, it will upset all our economy." We will not be upsetting our economy by criticising a measure of this kind. It is our duty to criticise it. I have criticised it in a reasonable way and in a way that will suggest to people concerned that it is time they took stock of things and went out of their way to see that one of the results of the impositions of a tariff would not be an immediate increase in price.

A Senator has told us that we have a small population, a small number of consumers and that, therefore, we must increase prices. Why not develop the export trade? If people are to run their business satisfactorily they ought to be able to develop not only an internal trade but an external trade. Numbers of industries in this country have done that. I cannot accept that we must have an increase in price because we cannot develop an export market. There should be an export market available for most Irish industries.

As far as the Minister has power to do so, he should see to it that the quality of the articles produced in this country which are afforded protection would reach a proper standard. I do not suggest that a very high standard does not exist in most of the protected industries. We can be quite pleased that articles of a proper standard are being produced in most of our industries. Where the standard is not sufficiently high to satisfy the purchasing public the Minister should take steps to improve the standard.

We should be very concerned here about a Bill of this kind because, in the main, a Bill of this kind means increased prices to the consumer. We should demonstrate that we do not allow a Bill of this kind to pass without its being made clear that those to whom privileges are given have particular obligations to fulfil.

Mr. McGuire

The ground has been so widely covered that it would be no harm to fill up any gaps that remain to be dealt with. A matter that needs to be referred to is that there are more people concerned with the benefits of protection than the industrialist. In connection with a Bill of this kind everybody seems to think that the main beneficiary of protection is the industrialist, the owner, the management, and so on. Although we are all against unreasonable profits being taken by the owners of industries in Ireland, it is also important that there should not be unreasonable wages demanded by the workers because the main object of our whole protection programme is to develop employment. We all agree that our policy has been very successful in providing a very large measure of employment. This Bill raises further barriers against the competition with home factories, thereby making the jobs of our workers so much more secure.

We all know that we are in a very difficult situation at present in business. Business is definitely not good in either manufacture or distribution. Prior to the last Budget, the Congress of Irish Unions came together with the Federated Union of Employers to examine the whole economic situation. All concerned realised that we were facing a very difficult time and that it was very important in the circumstances that the main object should be to preserve employment rather than to increase anybody's standard of living. The main objective was to hold our employment as high as possible and to see that nothing was done in the way of wage demands that would interfere with that object.

As a result of those discussions it was agreed that a 12/6 ceiling—a formula as it was called—would be the highest increase that workers should reasonably expect to be paid to meet the new cost-of-living figures, having regard to the general situation. That figure was to be a maximum figure and was to be given only in cases where industries were prosperous and had not been affected by the general slump.

Now what do we find? Most of those industries were protected. We find that in protected industries a lot of settlements were made within that 12/6 formula but everybody went for the maximum and for the most part, indeed, got the maximum. But, there are workers in certain cases at present——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not discussing wages in this Bill.

Mr. McGuire

I am.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Bill does not.

Mr. McGuire

As profits have been mentioned as being one of the things that must be considered when protection is given to an industry, I submit that there must also be considered the standard of wages claimed by the workers because that relates to the cost of the goods ultimately. In fact, wages are the biggest factor in the price of goods. Therefore I submit that it is relevant. I do not intend to pursue it except to say that I fully agree that the owners of protected industries should not look for any unreasonable profits but I also submit the corollary, that no unreasonable demands should be made by workers behind these tariff walls.

I am not making this case as an employer. The case I am making on this particular question of wages is one on which I have the co-operation and acquiescence of the Congress of Irish Unions sitting in council with the employers of Ireland. Therefore, anybody looking for more than 12/6 increase in wages in these particular circumstances and behind these particular tariff walls is doing something which is against the national economy.

There is one other point that I should like to make. Senator Douglas suggested that if we are going to have protected industries, we must sacrifice variety. We all realise that but one of the factors that will have to be taken into consideration by the Department of Industry and Commerce when issuing licences to import goods is variety. Variety is not only the spice of life; it is the spice of trade. It is short-sighted to imagine that merely by stopping goods coming in you will get an equal number of sales in the home market for home producers. I have already spoken on this matter but it bears repetition. Anybody in the distributive trades knows that if we cannot have variety of, say, materials to sell in the shops, sales drop alarmingly.

It is absolutely necessary to maintain variety. Therefore, I suggest that, when giving licences to distributors, emphasis should be placed on the fact that the licences are given subject to a large variety of designs in the articles being imported. A variety of designs should be brought in under licence and emphasis should be put on variety and not on quantity. Enough material should be imported to give a wide variety on a rather small yardage which will not interfere with the sale of the Irish product.

Mr. Kissane

I do not propose to say very much, as I do not consider myself as competent to speak on this as other members here. One thing that emerges from this discussion and also from the discussion in the other House is that the protectionist policy of this Government and of the Government that preceded it has been accepted as the best policy for the country. There may be a few dissentient voices, those of people who express concern that they are not given enough information as to the employment possibility and so on that the manufacture of the articles concerned would entail. It would be unwise if the businesses of various industrialists were to be made the subject of discussion here in detail.

I do not know if Senator O'Reilly was correct when he said that imposition of a duty here is synonymous with an increase in the price of the article involved. I do not think that is correct. There is one aspect of the position that should not be lost sight of, that if we do not give sufficient protection here to the industries that have been started, it would pay industrialists outside the country to put goods on the market here at a greatly reduced price, a price below the economic price for them, even for the time being, so as to capture the market; and, having captured the market and having squeezed the native industry, they could then after a period raise the price of the article concerned. That is an aspect of the case that should not be missed. When I hear people now and again questioning the quality of the goods produced here, I say to myself that sometimes that question arises out of prejudice. Everyone knows that when it was decided to start an industrial policy in this country, a mountain of prejudice had to be overcome. There were people then, and I am afraid there still are people, who, if they were presented with two articles of exactly the same kind and of the same quality, one manufactured abroad and the other at home, out of that very prejudice that I have referred to would accept the article that came from outside. It is strange that we seldom hear people questioning the quality of the imported article. We hear people say that if we afford protection to these industries we must make sure that the quality of the articles produced here is of the very best. There is no question raised at all about the quality of the goods that are imported.

There is one Order in which I have a special interest, No. 9, which concerns the manufacture of dolls and the component parts of dolls in the Gaeltacht. This is an industry that was set up under the auspices of Gaeltacht Services, Seirbhísí na Gaeltachta. From what I can gather, this industry is making good progress. I have been informed that the articles produced in these factories in the Gaeltacht, dolls and toys, are second to none and that they can hold their own with any imported articles of the same kind. I would like to inquire of the Parliamentary Secretary or of the Minister whether there is not a possibility of the expansion of that industry. It appears to be an industry that is particularly suited to the Gaeltacht.

As far as I am aware, there are two factories, one in Spiddal, County Galway, and the other in Crolly, County Donegal. I would like to know to what extent those Gaeltacht factories supply our national requirements in these articles and, if they fall short of supplying the home market, whether there is a possibility of having similar factories established in other parts of the Gaeltacht. Of course, protection is required for them and will be required. I submit that in the case of industries started in the Gaeltacht a case can be made for a high measure of protection, much greater than would be, perhaps, justifiable for a similar industry started in the Galltacht or non-native-speaking districts. Also in the course of time it may be possible to produce sufficient of these articles for export. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into those particular points.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I think we can all rest satisfied that neither the Government nor the Parliamentary Secretary is asking for this Bill without feeling the necessity for it. Yet I cannot, with Senator Burke, congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for having brought in this Bill. I rather feel more like sympathising with the consumer who has to face the necessity of paying higher prices for certain necessaries that are affected as a result of the imposition of the extra duties which this Bill asks for.

We all know that employers and employees are very well organised. Employers can, and I believe do, satisfy the Government as to the necessity for any extra protection they need for the industries that they control. The employees are also well able, because of their organisation, to look after their own interests in the matter of repayment for work done. The consumer, however, is not so well organised and a feeling in many quarters is that he is getting a tight squeeze between the employers and the employees. It is only on such occasions as this and in such places that something can be said in the interests of the consumer.

I am quite satisfied that the majority of industrialists in this country are actuated by very honest motives and the best motives in looking for the protection that in many cases they are entitled to get. It has been alleged, however, that there is a small section of industrialists who are taking advantage of the desire on the part of different Governments to increase employment by encouraging the development of industries in the country and that these people are putting on the market protected articles—and very heavily protected—that certainly are not value for the money charged for them.

I have heard people say from time to time that it would pay them to pay twice the price for the imported article rather than buy something similar of home production. I would not like that to be so, nor that there was any truth in such statements.

My mind can go back to a time when we had not a native Government in this country and when we had very few industries. I recollect at that time the interest that was manifested in many areas in purchasing only Irish manufacture and refusing any substitute. I knew youngsters who when brought into shops by their parents to be provided with confirmation outfits refusing to take the clothes purchased by their parents until they were assured they were of Irish manufacture. They were very hard to please in that matter. That interest to-day when we have so many industries, is sadly lacking, or there must be some reason for it.

No one can deny that every Government we have had since the advent of the State has been very considerate and benevolent in the matter of protection for young industries. With Senator O'Reilly I am in thorough agreement that the time has come when most of these industries should be able to stand on their feet and compete with any foreign production. I sincerely hope that if that time is not with us now it will not be long until it is.

It has been stated that certain employers and industrialists have used their employees from time to time to force the hand of the Government in the matter of securing extra protective duties. I would not like to think that any Government would submit to that form of intimidation. I believe that this Bill is necessary, but I hope that the time is not far distant when there will be no need to provide such protective remedies.

Mr. Lynch

I am grateful to Senators for the wide range they embraced in the course of this debate. Possibly I should have spoken at more length when opening the debate but I felt that since most of these tariffs had already been in operation for several months perhaps Senators, as well as I, realised the full import of them and that it would not be necessary for me to go into more detail than I did. I also realised that the Seanad has a lot of business to do.

I do not want to detain the House unduly. Nevertheless, questions have been asked by several Senators which I think it is my duty to answer in so far as I can. First of all, there was the broad question in relation to protection which was raised by different Senators on both sides of the House.

I think it is well established here that if we are to advance industrially as a nation, protection is necessary. We realise that our agricultural arm is not strong enough to bear up the whole nation and to maintain as many people in gainful employment in the country as we would hope to see. Consequently we must try to develop our industrial arm to cater for the balance who are unable to find work on the farm or in the different professions.

We are a young nation in the industrial field. For that reason alone protection, or a certain amount of it, is necessary. If we look around the world we will see that even in the case of many of those nations that have what is known in trade and industry as an historical start it will be found that protection is in operation in respect of many of their industries. I think that to revert to a policy here of free trade would be suicidal as far as our industry is concerned. I do not think anybody seriously suggested that. In many respects the policy of protection has been forced upon us by the differentials on the cost of our raw materials on which some of our industries are based.

I refer in particular to the cost of steel and iron imports from Great Britain. I think I can refer to them with more detail in dealing with the remarks of some Senators. Senator Johnston said that the Order imposing a duty on wheelbarrows and trucks, etc., may have the effect of reducing the use of these articles on the farm. The fact is that the raw materials, the iron or steel, that go to make up this particular article, have to be imported from England and in England they maintain the differential in price to the detriment, naturally, of our people.

For the iron that is sold to the British manufacturer at £40 per ton we pay £65 per ton and in the case of other material of a different texture sold in England at £45 we pay in Ireland £85. Therefore, it is obvious that manufacturers of iron wheelbarrows and trucks in this country could not possibly expect to compete with the imported article. For that reason it was found desirable to impose that duty. The fact is that the over-all value of the market in this country is only £30,000 a year in any case.

I do not think there would be any justification for putting the people engaged in the manufacture of these articles out of employment for the sake of accepting the imported article at the much lower price that the English would hope to put it on the market. The fact is that our prices, even with the big differential in the cost of the article, would reduce competition.

I think it would be well for me to refer to some of the points raised by individual Senators. Senator O'Donnell referred to the possibility of giving more assistance to secondary industries in the way of granting licences and I think that that Senator, and every Senator, knows that in cases where secondary industries give a reasonable amount of employment and where it is found impossible to get the basic material used in these industries in Ireland, every consideration is given, and has been given, by the Department of Industry and Commerce to all reasonable applications for the import of goods necessary to maintain that employment. But he will agree with me that secondary industries in which a very limited amount of operation in the manufacture of any article is carried out, are not good for the economy of any country, and by resisting these applications we can encourage our own manufacturers to make the basic material so that secondary industries can get supplies from home resources.

Senator Johnston suggested that this was an example of piecemeal legislation, but Senator Douglas, who showed better appreciation of the problem than he did, must have had some practical experience of the negotiations that preceded the making of many of these Orders in this year and in previous years.

I am inclined to agree with Senator Douglas that it is difficult to devise a more realistic method of dealing with imports which tend to depress employment and output in our country. These situations have to be dealt with quickly, or as quickly as circumstances allow, when they arrive. It would be impossible to draft piecemeal legislation that would deal once and for all with situations. Therefore, it is only through the operation of this legislation, forming as it does, Orders made from time to time in relation to particular circumstances, that these situations can be dealt with. I do not agree with Senator Douglas when he suggests that it takes six to nine months for any particular case to be dealt with.

Mr. Douglas

I said I understood that the Bill had to be introduced within six to nine months when such an Order was made.

Mr. Lynch

That is so. The Senator is quite right and I am sorry if I misunderstood him. It is better if we do not have too many of these Bills in a particular year and it is only reasonable that the Bill must be and should be introduced at a time when the effect of the Order can be appreciated and before any maladministration, which the operation of the Order might disclose. In the meantime, if there is any malpractice it will be examined in the Department by the Minister himself.

I would like to mention at this stage that the imposition of duties does not automatically mean an increase in price to any degree. Senator Johnston suggested that I was using the Waterford glass as a means of sugar-coating certain increases in tax which this Bill would effect. I did not bring in Waterford glass in order that Senators might look through it benevolently at these impositions of duties, but the fact is that in almost every one of these cases there has been no increase in price as a result of the imposition of the duties.

As Senator O'Reilly and some of the other Senators who made that case were speaking I looked casually through the brief supplied which is flagged with the different articles mentioned in the Orders. I find in the case of statues there has been no increase and in the case of cotton wool it is being sold by the manufacturers 2½d. cheaper since the Order was imposed, and cellulose cotton wool is about 4d. a pound cheaper than the imported article. The company manufacturing this commodity notified the Department that they hoped to reduce it further by 2d. or 3d. In the case of dolls there has been no change in price but there has been a slight increase in the selling price of gums. As regards leather, four firms indicated that there is no change in price since the Order was made, and the same applies to glue and razor blades.

Senator O'Reilly asked me about the quantity of razor blades that are manufactured here and the amount at which they are sold. In the last 12 months our manufacturers made 105,178 gross, representing £56,148, and the total home market was estimated at about 200,000 gross per annum. It will be realised, therefore, that there was a big gap which, with protection, can be made up by our own manufacturers. With regard to price, I am happy to tell Senators that our own manufacturers can sell razor blades from as low as 1d. per blade, which is a good indication that the imposition of tariff or duty was not synonymous with or tantamount to an increase in price.

I might take an outstanding example in the matter of Venetian blinds, to which Senator O'Reilly referred, and I could do no better than to read from the brief supplied to me. Under Venetian blinds and the heading of price it is disclosed that the manufacturers have made no change in the price of blinds since the duty was imposed. The Irish price is 5/9 per square foot and imported 7/- per square foot, and manufacturers intend to produce a new and superior type of blind at the old price which will sell at £5 3s. 6d. for six feet by three as compared with £6 1s. 2d. for a somewhat similar but inferior type of blind. That is an outstanding case where an Order has been made. I hope I have established fairly clearly that the mere getting of protection under one of these Orders is not tantamount to an increase in price. The cases I have quoted prove the contrary, if anything.

Senator Kissane asked about the manufacture of dolls in the Gaeltacht areas and I am glad to support him in the claim he made that the quality and standard of manufacture of these dolls is as high as we can see in any imported dolls. This Order, however, relates to doll parts and not to complete dolls. I understand that the import of complete dolls is small and that the market from one year to another is difficult to gauge, but it is satisfactory to know that the manufacture of dolls in the Gaeltacht areas is increasing somewhat and still more satisfactory to note that the dolls are finding a good market in dollar countries.

Senator Burke referred to the fact that Orders were in existence in respect of goods which we had ceased to manufacture in this country. Senator Douglas rather disbelieved that statement, but perhaps there are some cases Deputy Burke is aware of. I think he ought to give details of these cases to the Minister so that they can be looked into. He referred also to the special type of hacksaw blades which we found it difficult to do without in certain industries and which we were not making here. I think there would be a case there for a special licence, if the facts of the situation merited it, and the Senator, in this matter, too, ought to make the facts known to the Department.

We ought to remember, in this review of certain duties imposed, that the policy of protection has been adopted by every Government and is being carefully administered having regard to the amount of employment which the policy can provide in the country and, at the same time, bearing in mind the interests of the consuming public. I do not think it is fair to level criticism at manufacturers that their profits have been unduly high. Senator Summerfield referred to the report of some of the E.C.A. missions, in which it was observed that the profits of Irish manufacturers, far from being high, were, in their opinion, on the low side. I have no particular knowledge of that myself, but I remember reading that observation in one of the E.C.A. reports.

I think we can safely assume that Irish industry is progressing well, that gaps in our supply in relation to demand are being filled by enterprising Irish industrialists and being filled by the production of a quality of goods which is comparable with the best we can import and, as I think I have demonstrated, in many cases at least, at comparable prices, and in other cases at lower prices. In those cases in which they are higher, they are not so much higher as to warrant the abandonment of the protection policy. Personally—I have expressed this view elsewhere—if I were called upon to choose between two articles, one, an Irish article and the other, an imported article, I would not mind—possibly because I can afford it—the little extra for the Irish article of similar quality. The same applies, I think, to people who find it difficult to make ends meet in their weekly budgets, but, generally speaking, the policy of protection as applied by the Department has the full support of the entire country or of as substantial a part of the country as justifies the policy. There is still lingering not only amongst the general public but amongst some of our shop assistants the unfortunate idea that the imported article is better than the Irish article.

I think that, by now, we should have dispelled any ideas of that type which some of our people have, but by our industrialists co-operating with their employers and the trade unions, they will eventually impress on the consumer that their article is as good as the imported article and that the price they charge is in most cases as low as and, in some cases, lower than, that of the imported article. Whether the Seanad will find it necessary to consider whether they should table amendments is a matter for the Seanad, but, as Senator Douglas has pointed out, the Bill must be passed within a certain time and I should be glad to get the Bill this evening, if I may.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed, to take the remaining stages to-day.

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