The commodities affected in the Order are set out in the explanatory memorandum, a copy of which has been circulated to members, and what happened in respect of each of the Orders is also set out in that memorandum. I do not believe it is necessary for me to enlarge on the contents of that.
Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1956 ( Certified Money Bill ) —Second and Subsequent Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I should like to ask a number of questions arising out of this Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill. I notice that Order No. 359 dealing with glucose alters the duty from 15s. 5d. per cwt. to 37½ per cent., with a 25 per cent. preference for the United Kingdom and Canada. What order of magnitude of difference is that? It is a change from a sum of money to a percentage, but does that represent a big change?
I notice in item 3, No. 360, which refers to the duty on tableware, that there is to be a reduction of the duty on certain articles. I think that is to be welcomed and that every time the Minister does that, his action should be welcomed in this House. He does not tell us what kind of articles are involved. I think we might have some kind of interest in knowing what kind of pottery has been reduced in price. I remember a point made by Senator McGuire on the last occasion when some of these Orders were before the House, when he said that he found that the fairly easy entry of competitive articles from elsewhere, far from taking from the sale of the home-produced product, helped it, by giving to the users a less limited range of choice in what they have to buy. On those grounds, too, we can heartily welcome the reduction of this duty.
I am a little puzzled by Order No. 4, which refers to woven and artificial textiles, because, as I read the Order, the exemption of certain cloths from duty is limited to cloths valued over 2/6 per sq. yard. That means that the exemption would apply to the dearer materials. I am not quite sure what the basis for that might be. I do not know what the implications are, and perhaps the Minister would clarify the matter a little. I should like to know, also, the exact meaning to be attached to the word "value". Is that the import wholesale price or just how is the "value" to be calculated?
Again, in Order 362, I notice that there is to be an amending of the Bill, changing it from a sum of money to a percentage. The duty is to be 75 per cent. on varnishes. That is a very high duty and I should like to ask if these varnishes are being manufactured here and what were the considerations that led the Minister to consider a duty of 75 per cent. necessary, and also why he found it necessary to extend the scope of the Order to cellulose varnish and to lacquers, etc.
Item 7, Order No. 364, refers to blockboard and a duty of 37½ per cent. is imposed on blockboard. I should like to have some clarification of the reasons for that rate. I should like also to have some kind of comment on that. I take it the raw materials there are entirely or almost entirely imported and I would be inclined to think that the raw materials used by the British manufacturers of blockboard are probably also largely imported. I do not imagine that they use British soft woods in this kind of thing. I should like to know why a 37½ per cent. protective duty is necessary for manufacturers here who are competing perhaps with the British manufacturers who also have to import the raw materials. It seems to me that they might be able to compete on rather more level terms, and I wonder if such a high duty was necessary in that particular case?
Another point is related to item No. 10, Order No. 367 on which I think we could have some more information as to what is meant by "certain printed matter".
The last matter I should like to know more about is item No. 12 where I notice that in Order No. 369 a duty which was already 100 per cent. full, and nil in the U.K. and Canada in the case of linen ply yarn, is in future to be the present 100 per cent. full and 40 per cent. in the case of U.K. and Canada. That appears to be a big jump from nil to 40 per cent., and I should like to know on what considerations the Minister decided that this high percentage was necessary?
Senator Sheehy Skeffington has raised questions on more than half the Orders set out in these Orders, and I will endeavour to supply the information on the points which he has raised.
On the question of glucose, the lower rate of duty was a revenue duty, purely and simply, but the new rate of duty is a protective duty imposed in order to protect the production of glucose here by Ceimicí Teoranta. The ad valorem duty of 37½ per cent. is about the same as the present price level. The position is that glucose was being dumped into this country at prices substantially less than the same glucose was being sold in the home market. Countries producing a surplus of glucose were dumping it here, with the result that Ceimicí, Teoranta, could not sell Irish-produced glucose. The purpose of the duty was to protect the Irish products against the dumped products coming in from other countries. This duty is purely a protective duty.
May I ask a question arising out of that? I understand the Minister to say that the figure of 15/5 originally mentioned would be roughly the same as 37½ per cent. I do not understand, if there is no real new change, how it is going to give increased protection.
The position is if you want to import glucose now you will have to pay an ad valorem rate of duty of 37½ per cent. on the current price in this country. I think that 37½ per cent. will be sufficient protection against imported glucose being dumped here in competition with Irish produced glucose. That is the whole purpose of this duty.
It does not make any effective difference on the present price? I understood the Minister to suggest that on present prices, it would not make any significant difference.
This is clearly a protective duty. It is true that the duty was a revenue duty, but this is one which has a new protective element in it. I am quite clear on the protective duty, but probably not so clear on the other type of duty or what effect the revenue duty had. This is not a revenue duty, but a protective duty and the protection is given in the form of an ad valorem rate of duty on the imported article.
On the question of blockboard, it was necessary to protect blockboard in order to give Irish industrialists an opportunity to get under way. An Irish firm has undertaken the manufacture of blockboard in this country and is producing an excellent product. The duty was imposed in order to enable that industry to get on its feet. The Senator will be interested to know that the raw material being used in this blockboard is being secured from Irish sources.
On the question of tableware, I asked the Industrial Development Authority to investigate the position, with a view to ascertaining what use was being made of available tariffs from the standpoint of efficient production, supplying the home market and getting the optimum measure of employment. As a result of the investigations which the I.D.A. made, it was decided to reduce the rates from 1/6 full rate to 9d, and from 1/- preferential to 6d. preferential.
On the question of artificial textiles, this is a problem which we had to deal with, arising out of the importations from European and Near and Far Eastern Countries. I can explain the position this way. There was an ad valorem rate of duty imposed in January, 1949 and in July, 1955, it was necessary to impose the minimum specialised rates against importations from Japan, Poland and Czechoslovakia, of certain lining materials which were coming in in competition wth the Irish lining industry. These cheap materials, particularly the Japanese materials, were able to gain an exemption from duty by the incorporation of certain threads which qualified them under the description of specialised cloth. These types of specialised cloth were being imported as low as 1/7 a yard. They would not be bought for the purpose for which specialised cloths are usually purchased, but they were being used as linings and were injuring the home manufacturers of lining materials. We decided to raise the price at which these specialised materials might be exempted to 2/6 per yard. Cloths designed to sell under that price would no longer be within the exemption limits as specialised cloths.
In respect of the duty on thread, the thread was being imported as ply yarn, and the amendment which we made here was to prevent the evasion of the duty by importing thread as ply yarn.
On the question of varnish, there was a duty on varnish away back in 1932. It was suspended in 1943 on account of the supply position, and this is the restoration of the duty for the purpose of protecting the Irish manufacturers—there are two—who are engaged in the manufacture of varnish and who put on the market here a very satisfactory product, but were, of course, up against the difficulty of having to compete with probably much more widely advertised British products.
On the question of the duty on printed matter, what we did in this case was to re-define, the duty on religious publications to cover books produced here, such as prayer books, missals, hymn-books and small gospels. The duty on printed matter is the duty imposed for the protection of the printing industry generally.
I think that covers all the questions raised.
On the last point, I think that perhaps the Minister confused items 10 and 11. No. 11 is quite clear, but No. 10 just rays: "certain printed matter." I am still not clear what that is.
The general duty which is imposed on all kinds of printing coming in here, to protect the Irish printing industry.
Every kind of printed matter?
Every kind referred to in the Order.
It just says "a certain kind."
"Certain" to the extent that it is caught by the provisions of the Order which defines the books and so on. I am sorry that I have not a copy of the Order here to explain the matter, but if it will satisfy the Senator, I will let him have a letter on the subject.
That will satisfy me. It is not a major point. It is just for clarification. I should like to be certain about a thing that is called "certain". There are just two supplementary questions I should now like to ask. The Minister is exempting the dearer cloths from the duty and restoring it on the cheaper ones. Have we his assurance that, in deciding the rate of duty to be imposed on something that would otherwise be sold cheaply, these cloths or the glucose mentioned, he has full regard to the fact that a host of consumers in this country like to be able to buy things Cheaply?
I am not so sure that the importation of these cheap articles would necessarily confer a benefit on the consumer. What frequently happens in those cases is that some artful and enterprising importer will import some of this cloth, specially designed to get through our customs duties, and, having got it, will then say: "I have got that in through the duty, but it will be sold to those who use it at the same price as if I had paid duty on it, or as if I had bought the cloth in the legitimate market". We have trapped various devices of that kind, and prevented people from making quite substantial sums as the result of little plots they had hatched out to get through our customs and to sell what they imported, perhaps from the Far East, at a price as if they had bought it from Britain and paid duty on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Bill passed through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.