Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Jul 1966

Vol. 61 No. 17

Imports (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1966: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

The Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain contains certain provisions relating to duty free licensing and rules of origin which make it necessary to amend the powers conferred by existing legislation in this matter. Certain provisions are also required in connection with the tariff concessions which are being given on goods of Northern Ireland origin. The purpose of this Bill is to provide the powers required in these respects.

The Agreement provides for the continuance at reducing rates, and for a limited period, of the 10 per cent preference given under the 1938 Agreement to British goods when licences are issued for the importation of goods at a reduced rate of duty. This was provided for in the Finance (Agreement with the United Kingdom) Act, 1938 and the relevant provision ceased to have effect on 1st July, 1966. The Bill, therefore, gives power to issue licences in which different rates of duty may be specified for goods originating in different countries.

In pursuance of the policy of closer co-operation with Northern Ireland, the Government have given tariff concessions on Northern Ireland goods with certain specified exceptions. The duty on these goods was reduced by 20 per cent on 1st July, 1966, compared with 10 per cent in the case of British goods, and will be reduced by 10 per cent annually after that— the position to be reviewed in 1971. The initial concessions are provided for in the Government order which has been made to fix the new rates of duty on British goods under the trade agreement. However, the procedure for making such orders is unduly cumbersome for the normal administration of the concessions and the provision now proposed, which will enable me to vary them with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by a more informal process will greatly facilitate the operation of the scheme.

Under present Irish rules, manufactured goods imported from Britain are regarded as being of British origin if they were manufactured there, and if a specified percentage of the cost of production was the result of work done in Britain or in Ireland. The specified percentage is 25 per cent for most goods but in some cases it is 50 per cent or 75 per cent.

As a result of discussions with Irish industry, provision was made in the Free Trade Area Agreement for certain changes in the Irish rules, in order to protect Irish industry more effectively against unfair competition from goods produced in third countries which receive insufficient processing in Britain. The changes are to raise the specified percentage from 25 per cent to 50 per cent for footwear, paint and furniture, and, for jute goods, to lay down a rule that the goods should be fully manufactured from the raw fibre either in Britain or in Ireland.

I already have power, under the Finance (Agreement with the United Kingdom) Act, 1938, to make regulations prescribing the proportion of the value of an article which must be the result of labour within a particular country, in order that the goods may be treated as manufactured in that country. That Act does not, however, empower me to prescribe rules of the type decided upon for jute goods, and it will be necessary to obtain new powers for this purpose. The Bill provides, therefore, that I shall have power to make regulations prescribing the conditions which must be satisfied in any country before goods can be regarded for Customs purposes as originating in that country. The provision in the Bill is in general terms in case it should become necessary in the future, as a result of developments in international trade, to prescribe rules of origin for goods from other countries.

I commend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the Seanad.

I want to compliment the Minister on three fronts but before I do so may I tender my congratulations on his promotion, if that is the appropriate word, to the Ministry of Labour and wish him well in his new post and assure him that from the trade unions he will have every co-operation in making a success of the new Ministry?

I want to compliment the Minister on three fronts. The first is on his attitude towards promoting closer relations and developing trade between the two parts of our country, which is something the trade union and labour movements have been advocating for very many years. We are glad to see that progress has been made on this front. I want to make that clear because in view of what I have been saying on another matter and of what I will say later, this may be in some doubt. It is not in any doubt. We are greatly in favour of promoting trade and closer and more harmonious relations between the two parts of our country. The Minister has been engaged on that and I compliment him on it.

The second compliment I want to pay to him is that he has been behaving and ordering his affairs in accordance with legislation, and anything he has done has been in accordance with orders he has been empowered to make and for which he has legislative authority. He is now coming along with this Bill and getting more permanent authority, as I understand it, to do those things. This is in sharp contrast to one of his colleagues who disregards completely legislative authority, who does things with no regard as to whether he is empowered to do them or not. That is by way of compliment to the Minister in contrast to one of his colleagues, who has done this in relation to Northern Ireland lorries and I think earlier in relation to Northern Ireland trawlers, inviting them to fish in our territorial waters, without legislative authority to do so and to the detriment of our citizens.

The third compliment I should like to pay to the Minister relates to his very sensible and down to earth attitude. He said very sensibly in answer to a question in Dáil Éireann last week, when he was asked to comment upon the disappointment expressed by the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce in regard to the tax, that the Government's policy was to try to put the Six County industrialist in an advantageous position vis-a-vis the British industrialist. That is what we have been saying all the time, that where this is possible it should be done. The Minister came down to rock bottom and very sensibly and having regard to his duty as a Minister of State says: “Well, our first concern must be our own industries”. I commend him for that; that is sensible, practical, and shows that the Minister has his feet on the ground, he knows what he is about and that his duty is to protect, in the first instance, his own people. This was in sharp contrast, again, to another Minister of the Government and I am puzzled sometimes as to what Government policy is because——

Perhaps the Senator would keep to the Bill and the Ministry in question.

I hope what the Minister for Industry and Commerce—I take it he is still here as Minister for Industry and Commerce—was saying in the Dáil last week is, in fact, Government policy. If it is Government policy, then we shall be very happy to support it. I support this Bill, and, as I said at the outset, I wish the Minister every success in his new post.

This Bill is part of the pattern which is emerging as a result of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Great Britain. The proposal here is very commendable and, before I go any further, I Should like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Ministry of Labour. I know he will have a gigantic task there. From his record, I am quite sure he is equal to that task and I wish him every success in it.

This Bill is designed to make regulations in relation to new rates of duty which will apply to goods imported from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, giving preference, of course, to goods from Northern Ireland. That is as it should be and I suspect, although the Minister did not say so, that this Bill is the result of his discussion with the Northern Ireland Minister who visited us some weeks ago. The Northern Ireland Minister, when he arrived back in Northern Ireland, stated that he was disappointed with the number of concessions he had secured as a result of the interview here with the Government. However, I am quite sure this is one of the matters which came up for discussion between the Northern Ireland Minister and our own Government here. It is very commendable to give concessions to the Irish people residing in the Six Counties engaged in business and in the export of goods. It will certainly steady the situation in Northern Ireland regarding the maintenance of employment there. Any concessions, such as these—where Northern Ireland is concerned—are bound to improve the employment position there. On the other hand, the preference is being given to Northern Ireland, as against the exporters from Great Britain, who will also be exporting similar goods, but who will not have the same measure of advantage in relation to the tariffs which will apply to the goods imported from Northern Ireland.

I notice the Minister mentioned particularly an increase in the measure of protection for our footwear against footwear from Great Britain. I know that is a very important concession so far as the Irish manufacturers are concerned because they are capable of producing vast quantities of footwear in this country and we appear to be expanding our trade in footwear outside this country, particularly in America. This measure of protection will give the manufacturers a chance to continue consolidating their position so that they can engage in further exports of footwear.

It is an industry, apparently, which is very sensitive to economic conditions outside this country. Of course, we had one of our footwear factories closing because of the difficulty in relation to competition and probably, too, by reason of the fact that in these modern times different materials are used in the making of footwear. When you have different materials, particularly in the more advanced industrialised countries, you have a situation in which the original product is unable to compete with the synthetic material used particularly in footwear. Therefore, I see that as a result of that situation, the Minister has decided to step up the measure of protection for footwear to 50 per cent as far as imports from Great Britain are concerned.

This is all part of the freeing of trade as a result of the Agreement with Great Britain which will be spaced over a period of ten years and which, of course, will be subject to review after five years of progressive reduction in the measure of protection being afforded to our own industries. I feel it is necessary to watch carefully the manner in which that protection will enable our manufacturers to become more efficient and ready to compete in the open market, which is the position with which they will be faced at the end of ten years, when this progressive reduction of tariffs takes place.

At that stage, of course, we will find ourselves on a common basis within the United Kingdom so far as prices and competition in trade are concerned. I am glad to see that this benefit is being made available only to Northern Ireland, first of all, and, secondly, takes into consideration the United Kingdom because our economic sphere comes within the UK area and should have a different scale of import duties from the countries outside that area. It is possible that when we have joined the Common Market another adjustment of our import duties and trade protection will have to be considered, that we will be obliged by the EEC countries to make adjustments. However, that question does not arise at present and the main purpose of the Bill is to legalise the advantages which will be made available now to exporters from Northern Ireland.

I should like to avail of this opportunity to add my congratulations to the Minister on his new portfolio. The highest compliment that could be paid to him was that he was the unanimous choice of everyone I heard commenting on it, and everyone within the Houses, ever since this new Ministry was mooted. We had the most happy and cordial relations with him in the office he previously occupied, and we look forward to a continuance of those relations in future. While the Minister is breaking new ground in a new Ministry, would he please break the ground of giving us a Seanad committee that might be of some help to him?

That matter does not arise on this Bill.

Having said that, I also welcome the Bill which extends an advantage to exporters from Northern Ireland. That is as it should be, and is indicative of the policy of co-operation that has developed in the past couple of years. I welcome it, and I expect that the Minister will extend it in future.

Having quickly discovered what subject was under discussion, which I did not expect to be taken at this time, I should like briefly to welcome the Bill. For many years past I have held the view that we ought to have done more than we were doing in relation to Northern Ireland in this matter, and that we should do all in our power to reduce some of the barriers we ourselves created between north and south in regard to tariffs. I have often been struck by the extent of the reaction of people who have vested interests when there is a proposal to remove these barriers, whether they were industrialists or fishermen. The reaction to any proposal to treat the north as part of our country is very often a negative one, and an adverse one.

What about equal treatment? Our fishermen get no concession in the north.

It is we who are trying to reunite the country and it is up to us to make the gestures, and I am sure we will meet with a favourable response. I also welcome the fact that in this Bill that part of the country is referred to by its proper name. I heard rumours that behind the scenes there were pressures that the words "Six Counties" should be used. I am delighted to note that those pressures have been resisted, and that, in fact, we are referring to Northern Ireland by the name which the people in that part of the country chose for themselves, just as we expect other people to refer to us by the proper name of our country and not try to impose false names on us.

We are one country still.

That is the point I am trying to make but it is very hard to get it to sink in.

Perhaps the Senator would come to the Bill.

I am talking about the use of the words "Northern Ireland" in the Long Title of the Bill and in section 3. I think it is entirely appropriate to congratulate the Government for having at last come down firmly on the side of sanity in that matter.

I do not know if I have anything to answer except the question Senator Rooney raised about the protection of the shoe industry. I should perhaps make clear that what is provided for here is raising the value of the labour in the cost of the shoes so as to ensure that shoes from a third country will not, without adequate processing in Britain, get into the market here. The normal protection on shoes by quota will change. The quota on rubber footwear has gone, and in two years time the leather footwear quota will go and will be replaced by a duty arrived at by the Industrial Development Authority after an examination of all the relevant factors. This will give adequate protection during the transitional period until the quotas are replaced.

Our footwear industry is already exporting footwear of a substantial value. It has done everything to adapt itself to free trade conditions. The fact that the market both here and in Britain has been having difficulties recently does not mean that I am not confident in the future of the footwear industry. Its performance in the export market, the positive way in which it went about adaptation, and the transitional period during which it will be protected in order to get ready for the Free Trade Area will ensure its continual expansion.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed : "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I wonder if the Minister would say something about the purpose of this section. I read it several times and I am still not clear as to what is intended to be done by it, or how the powers given are intended to be exercised by the Minister.

Duty-free licences.

I can see that it relates to duty-free licences but it is not clear why the section is necessary and how the Minister proposes to use it.

I explained that before the Senator came in.

The 1938 Agreement and the Finance (Agreement with the United Kingdom) Act, 1938, provided for the issue of duty-free or reduced duty licences, that such licences issued should be free to British manufacturers and that third countries would have at least 10 per cent ad valorem to pay. Article 22 of the Free Trade Area Agreement continues that preference for British goods when such licences are issued. A licence is issued when the goods are not available in this country. When goods are not available from our manufacturers such a licence would give preference to a British manufacturer under free trade in the case of materials for manufacture here or for further processing. The preference, which was 10 per cent, has been reduced to 8 per cent from 1st July, to five per cent on 1st July, 1967 and it will disappear on 1st July, 1969. In the case of other countries, it has been reduced to eight per cent; it will come down to five per cent on 1st July, 1969 and will be eliminated on 1st July, 1974.

I did not understand why the section was necessary to give effect to that situation. I had thought existing legislation provided that power. Clearly, I was wrong. It did not seem clear to me that this section was necessary for this purpose but I am sure now it would not be there unless it was. I understand now how it is intended to use it. I am glad some provision is being made for the speedy abolition of duty on materials for further process here because the obligation to pay the duty on raw materials and other intermediate goods would create difficulties for our producers.

The powers to issue licences expired on 1st July and it will be necessary for me to provide alternative rates of duty for different countries. In the case of consignments which are all from the one country, a licence can be issued to allow duty of 8 per cent or 5 per cent, as the case may be. A firm might import goods over a long term from several countries in respect of which different duties would be chargeable. It may be that in the event of our joining a European trade group we would need wide powers and the section provides them.

Will the Minister make orders?

The Minister will issue licences.

So that the action the Minister may take will not come before the Dáil or Seanad in any shape or form?

A firm will seek a licence and if a duty is chargeable the licence would give a nil rate to British goods, and 8 per cent or 5 per cent according to the origin of the other goods.

Subsection (8) is related to the possibility of our joining the EEC, when we might be involved in a wider regime.

Or some of the developing countries, according to a United Nations Charter.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".

The Northern Ireland Government are apparently making arrangements satisfactory to the Minister in the matter of certifying the origin of goods. Is this being done by the Northern Ireland Government and what is the procedure?

I discussed this with the Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland and we intend to make further administrative arrangements to be able to certify that the goods are of Northern Ireland origin.

How, in fact, will certification be given? Do the Northern Ireland Government play any part or is it simply a question of the firm in Northern Ireland certifying that the goods came from them?

The Northern Ireland Government intend to participate but the detailed participation will be through chambers of commerce or some such bodies. However, the Northern Ireland Government intend to give their weight to this.

I was anxious to establish that. At an earlier stage, the Government and the Minister of Commerce seemed to suggest that the Northern Ireland Government had no function in this, that it was a matter for the British Board of Trade. I was anxious to find out if the Northern Ireland Government have departed from this piece of disingenuity which made them suggest, obviously from political motives, that they had no power.

This is one of the things I discussed with the Minister of Commerce. As far as they can come into the picture, they will give us a list of persons producing and the items produced. After that, the certificate will be given by a chamber of commerce.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Barr
Roinn