I move:
That Seanad Éireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Amendment of Quota No. 3 and Revocation of Quota No. 4) Order, 1965.
Private Business. - Control of Imports Order, 1965.
I have circulated an explanatory memorandum to Senators in relation to this to explain the background of the Order and the purpose of it. The Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain provides for the removal of a number of quotas, some on the 1st July, 1966 and others are being retained for varying periods of time after that. One of those being retained for two years is the quota on leather footwear and this quota is being retained to meet the wishes of the manufacturers here. The agreement also provides for the elimination of the quota restriction on rubber and plastic footwear. The rubber footwear quota up to now included slippers. The manufactures of slippers wished to retain protection by quota and, accordingly, this order enlarges the scope of the leather footwear quota to include slippers. Plastic footwear is being removed from the leather footwear quota and the quota on rubber footwear is being abolished.
I am glad the Minister circulated, even at the eleventh hour, an explanatory memorandum. I do think it is a practice which should be initiated, when an Order like this appears on the Agenda of the Seanad, that we should get copies of it; it is not merely sufficient to say that they can be obtained.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair is satisfied that, in this particular case, it is not any fault of the Minister's that the Memorandum was only in the hands of Senators immediately beforehand.
I am not talking about the Memorandum. I do think that, if we are asked to approve of a particular Order, that that Order should be circulated in the same way as a Bill.
I observe from what the Minister has said that it is intended to abolish the quota on leather footwear at the end of two years. I remember here at one time in the House, on the Institute of Standards Bill, complaining about the quality of Irish footwear. The Minister for Transport and Power was handling the Bill for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I complained—I thought I had a legitimate complaint—that before three weeks were out a pair of shoes were letting in water. When I made representations to the manufacturers, they said: "We do not guarantee them to be dry." I felt that was a reasonable kind of complaint to make, but I was told they were not guaranteed to be watertight. Some time later when the CIO were established, apparently it was discovered that there was great room for improvement in Irish industry. I hope the two year period which is being allowed will be used by the manufacturers for the purpose of getting themselves into proper shape. I know they realise the necessity for it, and I hope they will take the appropriate steps to prepare themselves for the competition they will have to meet when the quotas are abolished.
In the meantime, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that on the last occasion when I was looking for a pair of lady's slippers, in the company of my wife, I was told in O'Connell Street that you cannot get such slippers in June, July and August. Apparently women do not wear or need slippers in the summertime. It is an extraordinary commentary upon this business, that in the city of Dublin, in the heart of Ireland, in the summertime, you cannot get slippers, and that you are told they are only in line at Christmas. That is the kind of thing that brings Irish industry into disrepute, and the kind of situation that resulted from the fact that these people had protection, and knew that only a certain amount could be imported, and did not bother their heads to meet the needs of the market. I hope that situation has since cleared up.
I want also to refer to the kind of drafting we get. When I referred to this matter on the Patents Bill, the Minister took refuge in the advice of the parliamentary draftsman that this type of thing is necessary. The parliamentary draftsman is not the person who makes the laws. I hope we will be given an opportunity of expressing our views on these matters on a motion to amend this kind of nonsense and slovenely drafting. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to paragraph 3 of this order and I want to ask him whether it is fair to expect business people who cannot be running off to lawyers, and who want to get a short synopsis of what the position is at any time——
Surely they will not get a short synopsis from lawyers?
It depends on the lawyer. A leading Queen's Counsel in England got a fee of 500 guineas for saying: "This particular draft does not conform with the spirit or intention of the Hire Purchase Act". You can get very short opinions if you want them. Will the Minister attempt to justify this: "The Control of Imports bracket Quota No. 3 bracket Order, 1934 bracket S.R. & O., No. 242 of 1934 bracket, as amended by the Control of Imports bracket Quota No. 3 bracket bracket Amendment bracket Order, 1935 bracket S.R. & O., No. 18 of 1935 bracket, and by the Control of Imports bracket Quotas Nos. 1 to 32 bracket Amendment bracket Order, 1939—they forgot to close the bracket there—bracket S.R. & O., No. 402 of 1939 bracket, is hereby further amended by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 4."?
Will the Minister justify that kind of draftsmanship? Will he tell us that the parliamentary draftsman decrees that this is the way this should be done, or the only way it could be done? If that is his view, I should like to invite the parliamentary draftsman to meet me and I will give him a run-over what I think ought to be done.
There is an explanatory note at the end.
I am well aware that there is an explanatory memorandum which runs away and says that this is not a legal interpretation. It says it is not a part of the instrument and does not purport to be a legal interpretation. Surely in this day and age with the ingenuity of our parliamentary draftsmen, we should be able to turn out something better than that jumble of words.
The lawyer's meaning is down at the bottom.
I am all for good drafting and I am sometimes ashamed when my colleagues in the Library come to me with an Act that was passed during my time in the Seanad and say: "How did you ever let that go through and what does it mean?" If a student sitting for the Leaving Certificate produced a sentence like that, he would certainly get a nought for it. It is dreadful. The time has come when we should modernise, and instead of having all these amendments, state what the position is. There must be some way other than constantly looking at one after another.
We also find: "This Order may be cited as the Control of Imports bracket Amendment of Quota No. 3 and Revocation of Quota No. 4 bracket Order, 1965." That is absurd, and I do not expect that the Minister will begin to justify it. I do not think he ought to.
I am sorry Senator O'Quigley was unable to get slippers in August. I am concerned about this because I feel that the footwear industry is a very important one. I am concerned also because plastic footwear is of increasing importance, particularly for children. What has been produced in Ireland in recent years has been very good value, and of very good quality. The quota on plastic footwear has been removed and in the future it is to be replaced by a duty. In fact, the duty applies from 1st January, 1966. I should like to know whether this will in any way affect the employment prospects in that industry and whether the provision of a duty instead of a quota will prevent dumping of cheap material which is found in other countries, which would affect the employment here of the people engaged in this industry.
In another context, the Minister has been talking about doing something to protect industry generally from the ill effects of dumping. I wonder if he is satisfied that the quota restrictions being substituted by tariffs will properly protect the workers employed in the industry. I should like him to assure us there has been consultation with the unions representing these workers in regard to these changes— whether they are satisfied that the interests of their members are properly looked after and that they have no opposition to express to these changes.
The explanatory memorandum states that the leather footwear manufacturers wished that quota restrictions should apply rather than a duty and that the rubber and plastic footwear people wanted the levy. I am interested to know why there is this difference in this field. As far as the footwear industry is concerned, the Minister and his colleagues are so anxious for free trade that I imagine quota restrictions would suit the manufacturers and the unions better than the duty from the point of view of protection. How does it come that the plastic and rubber people feel that the other way is more advantageous to them?
Another matter is referred to in paragraph 3 of the explanatory memorandum which states that the order prohibits the importation, save under licence, of all footwear other than that made solely of rubber or plastic. This raises a very important question. Whether we like it or not, a large section of our people will pay any price for continental shoes, particularly Italian. They do not mind about the price so long as they can get the shoes. There is a fortune to be made by those people in the trade who have licences to import foreign footwear and I should like the Minister to tell us on what basis are the licences issued. Is there an annual review, are the licences issued on a first-come, first-served basis, or are the names of reputable people put into a hat and the lucky ones drawn, or is it a fact that a certain number of people in this city in particular, have a gold mine at their disposal for as long as they live in the form of licences for the importation of foreign shoes?
A number of years ago I was asked by various people interested why it was that there was this wall, this iron curtain to prevent them from getting an opportunity to import footwear from abroad. It is not that I favour the idea of foreign footwear but since it is allowed in, I submit that fair play should be given all round in the issuing of licences. I ask the Minister to tell us if licences are issued each year and the system under which they are issued. Will the Minister ensure that if a number of applications for licences come before him, they will all have equal opportunities?
The question raised by Senator McQuillan was raised recently in another place—the question of the anomaly arising in this industry. The licensing system is administered very rigorously but the base year was taken as 1956 and the licences have been issued on the basis of Irish purchases by individual people in that year. I intend to have that changed to a more recent year and I think this will get rid of the anomaly which existed because there was not an annual change. One year was accepted and was continued.
Protection is by quota and tariffs. In either case, quotas will be replaced by a tariff and in relation to footwear, the tariff will be high. The proposal of the leather footwear people to maintain the quota for two years is to suit their own needs. They feel this is a better form of protection for them. The rubber footwear people represented to me that the protection by quota resulted in better lines filling the quota and the Irish manufacturer was left with the less remunerative field and the quota was utilised to use up what demand there was for the more expensive lines. They thought, therefore, they would be better protected by tariff than by quota. In each case it was a decision of the industry, as it was in the case of the makers of slippers who wanted to be protected by a quota.
On the question of drafting, I think the lawyers may find it necessary to make certain, even if the paragraph might look obscure, that it covers the law. The note states that the instrument prohibits the importation, except under licence, of certain footwear— and it goes on to describe the type of footwear. It gives a very clear explanation to those in the trade and if any difficulty arises, the Revenue Commissioners are there.
The Minister forgot about the workers and dumping.
Anti-dumping legislation will be introduced soon. I might add that the tariffs now replacing quotas on footwear are so high that the industry will be protected for several years and I think they will use this period to prepare themselves for the competition they will face in free trade. There was consultation with the industry but I do not think the workers——
They are not important.
I do not think the Senator should take that attitude.
They are not important to the Senator.
I do not think the managements would take decisions to their own detriment. It is enough to consult the managements. I doubt if the workers in an industry would know which type of protection would suit them best.
Question put and agreed to.