The note to item 2 states that this duty is in lieu of the duty imposed previously. What is this new duty in lieu of?

Which one?

Item 2, dealing with custard powder. What is the extent of the duty for which this is a substitute?

It is the same.

So we are re-enacting it.

This makes it permanent, instead of being by an emergency order. There is an emergency order in operation at present. This Resolution transfers the emergency duty into a permanent one.

The emergency order was made under what was commonly known as the anti-dumping order.

No, under the recent Act.

In other words, a duty on custard powder was part of the retort to the economic war with England.

It was designed to have custard powder procured here and the other kept out.

What we are putting on custard powder is a retort for the duties put on in England. It is good to know that. Does that apply to the next item?

No.

"Filled Christmas stockings, snowballs."

Of cotton wool.

The word "filled" does not apply there.

Yes.

Would the Minister give some indication as to why he brought in the last three words in this item, "and similar articles"?

It would be difficult. The object is to prevent the sending in of Christmas stockings instead of sending in the shapes, square or round. This is merely to ensure that that type of novelty, filled with cheap toys, will be filled here by the firms engaged in that business.

Are unfilled Christmas stockings still caught as "apparel"?

I cannot answer that.

Is it intended to have unfilled Christmas stockings subject to duty?

No.

Can we not make these things ourselves?

I cannot say.

We can bend corrugated iron but we cannot make Christmas stockings.

I think the machinery employed in the one case would hardly be suitable for the other.

No, but it is equally non-existent and applied in that hypothetical way which has been used in other cases.

Would the Minister give us any idea as to the increased number employed in the case of plaster of paris in sheets or slabs?

There was a duty upon these articles which did result in quite considerable increases in production here, but firms met that by cutting prices very substantially, and that position has been met by the increase in the duty. Probably the effect will be merely to preserve the employment given by the industry previously.

It will mean an extra cost of £10 on the building of a house.

I sincerely hope no one will bring in plaster of paris slabs.

Let us know something about the guarantee.

Will it be like the guarantee on galvanised iron to which the Minister referred?

If the Deputy will read the statement he will see that I said nothing about a guarantee as to galvanised iron.

Will the price per square yard remain the same as at present?

The price certainly will not be increased as a result of the duty. That definite guarantee is given.

Who has given the guarantee in this particular case?

The manufacturers of these slabs.

But who are they?

How many manufacturers of these slabs are there?

They are very simple to manufacture. There is nothing to prevent anyone manufacturing them, but some firms manufacture them only.

Will the Minister be able to guarantee that manufacturers will not put up the price by the nine-pence a yard?

So long as slabs are available from one firm at a price that is not increased, I take it that nobody is going to be foolish enough to pay the increased price.

Would the Minister define what is meant by sausage meal?

Sausage meal consists of breadcrumbs baked in a particular way, and used for the filling of sausages.

Yes, just like oatmeal. However, a good deal of sausage meal is imported in the form of baked rusks. They are not a meal. Would they be exempt?

I am not quite clear as to what the Deputy has in mind. Rusks ground up and used for filling sausages are precisely the thing this duty has reference to.

I would suggest to the Minister to amend this by calling it sausage filling in any form.

I will look into that, but I am afraid it might defeat the purpose of the duty.

There are several forms of rusks imported. One form is used for greyhound feeding.

On this general Resolution No. 2——

On the policy or on the general Resolution?

On a matter in which the Minister will join. He referred to this matter of prices being kept down with regard to these slabs of a particular composition, and we got the old reason trotted out that somebody has given him a guarantee that there will be no increase in price. In the end, as a result of the questions asked by Deputy Brodrick, it is discovered that the number of people who are giving a guarantee is limited. Certainly, whatever about the number of people who may engage in the manufacture of these compositions, the Minister accepts some guarantee given to him by a limited number of people, and his supreme test is that if somebody produces a slab of this type at a particular price nobody is going to pay any higher. Is there a guarantee that it is the same stuff or the same quality of stuff? That is where the price guarantee fails.

I notice—I do not know whether he was pretending to quote or not—that the particular phrase he used was that he had a guarantee that the price would not be raised by reason of this duty. That might mean that it will not be raised by the amount of the duty or it might mean that it will not be raised at all because of the duty. Nobody says that that will occur, but it may be raised because there is no competition against the home article. Has the Minister any guarantee that prices here will be kept as low as the prices of articles of this type manufactured on the other side and sold to people who want to buy them on the other side? Has he a guarantee of that type? If he has a guarantee of that type he can justify his tariffs. But if he has not such a guarantee, then there is no evidence at all that what Deputies Brodrick and Good fear is not going to take place—that the cost of building is going to be increased. Then, again, we come back to what was discussed here on a previous occasion. Nobody here will attempt to deny that if you stop certain articles from coming in here, and it is at all possible to manufacture them here, you can get people to manufacture them here. That does not finish it, however. If, by reason of the price of building materials going higher, certain buildings are not proceeded with, unemployment will result. The real question is, have you more people in employment than previously, and that is what he entirely leaves out of consideration in all this.

However, the question of the guarantee is the main thing on which I rose to speak. We have heard a lot about these guarantees and we know that there is going to be an attempt to control prices, but the Minister himself has not given us any statement as to what he means by the enforcing of these guarantees. The guarantee has varied from time to time. When we were talking about agricultural implements there were certain provisos as to various costs going up, and I think even freight was brought in. Anyway, we did not have it from the Minister, and I think he would not assent to the idea that you could get a guarantee that those articles would be made, and sold to the customer, at the same price as articles manufactured of the same type on the other side would be sold. Unless you get a guarantee of that sort it is not worth anything, and even if there was a guarantee there would be insurmountable difficulties in enforcing it.

I am not worrying about the question of guarantees because I do not think that that is the real difficulty at all. I want to know whether the Minister is in a position to tell us from whom he would get the guarantees, or whether he has any guarantees at all. I am quite satisfied that, as a result of the tariffs, the cost of the articles will go up.

You would be——

Does the Minister pretend that he is satisfied that the guarantees, or attempted guarantees obtained from some potential manufacturer would be worth anything? I am rather surprised that Deputy McGilligan, late Minister for Industry and Commerce, criticises the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the reply he made when he said that prices would not increase as a result of the tariffs. As far as my recollection goes Deputy McGilligan often made use of that statement when he was Minister. I think, also, he knew something about guarantees being given as to prices not being increased as the result of tariffs. I would like to get from the Minister what I think is very much more important, and that is, as to how many of the rapidly increasing number of unemployed are to be absorbed as a result of the tariffs. If there are to be a fairly decent number of unemployed absorbed, I am prepared to stand over the tariffs, even though they lead to an increase in the cost of living—that is, supposing there is not an undue increase in the cost of living. But it seems to me, and I think it will be borne out by results, that those duties are imposed more for the reason of raising revenue than for protecting industries.

This was to prevent this duty bringing in increased revenue from it. We have had all this before. We have had these same arguments every time that a tariff was brought before the Dáil. Deputy McGilligan attacked them in his intricate way trying to prove that prices would go up, and Deputy Morrissey says that he had no reason to believe that prices would not go up.

I have very good reason to believe they will go up.

We put certain duties on plaster slabs, and we believed that the prices would not increase on these plaster slabs, and Deputy Morrissey said he would leave it to Deputy McGilligan to prove by all sorts of abstruse theories and figures that the prices would go up. Yet the facts were, that since we proposed the duties the price has gone down by 25 per cent.

What about the quality?

The actual fact is that the price has dropped 25 per cent. There is nothing more prejudicial than that beautiful theories should be killed by actual facts and that presentation of actual facts should kill beautiful theories. It is an actual fact that the price went down, quality for quality, by 25 per cent. as a result of the duties that we imposed and in spite of the fine theories that have been put forward by Deputies opposite.

Has the Minister any views as to the price now and twelve months ago?

I have not, but I know that the price has gone down now by 25 per cent.

The price remains stable in England?

I cannot say.

Is not that a material point?

The speeches and arguments of Deputies opposite were that the prices would be increased. Now when we have proved that the prices have decreased they find other avenues and contend that the prices in England, Czecho-Slovakia, Manchuria, Japan and other places have gone down, so that there is nothing in the fact that prices have not increased here.

Precisely, but there are other circumstances that enter into a comparison of prices. The extra tariff on cattle has not increased the price in England but it has very much increased the price here in Ireland.

I do not remember ever trying to establish the fact here that prices would increase except they were prices taken in relation to everything else.

Quality.

Not merely quality but cost of raw material. If the cost of the raw material fell 50 per cent. and the article is tariffed 25 per cent. obviously it is increased in price if the price remains the same. Relatively it is an increase in price. That type of petty quibble does not stand as fact to destroy theory. The Minister's theory is thus destroyed by the fact which is within everybody's knowledge that all this nonsense of guarantee cannot be carried out.

Give me an instance.

I would like that the next time Deputy Morrissey speaks he would give me an instance of specific articles in which I said I had guarantees that the price would not be increased because of tariffs.

Margarine.

I may have said it with regard to specific articles. I would have said about specific articles in 1925, in the case of the manufacture of shirts, for instance, that, every relation of quality and cost of material taken into consideration, it was just as good as the manufactured article on the other side. It is that that keeps the price low, not any guarantee by the manufacturer. But if the manufacturing capacity of this country is more than enough for the needs of the country and they have to look to the export trade you do not get prices lower until you get such intensive home competition as will keep prices down. And even that could be nullified by the formation of a ring. If you have an industry where the home manufacturing capacity is more than the home consumption and where no ring has been formed you are on the way to keeping your prices low. I have not made myself responsible for stating that prices must be higher because of a tariff, but that the effect of a tariff is to make relative prices higher. And there you have not merely a question of quality, but where the cost of the raw material has gone down, the price of the manufactured article will fall. The Minister's example is that these plaster slabs have fallen 25 per cent. since the duty was put on. If that were so why is it they did not think of producing these things in the country before now? If they were capable of reducing the price by one-fourth what was the necessity for protection? Could they not have lowered the price? What do they need a tariff for at all? It is a thing that does not require protection and, therefore, some other circumstances must have been necessary. If that is the fact I think it is so ridiculous that it cannot be accepted without some more precise details by the Minister; there must be some explanation. The thing is so ridiculous I do not believe it. I would suggest the explanation is what is given. Certain things that go to the composition of these particular slabs have been reduced in price at a time when there is a fall in price in everything. The raw material is reduced and consequently you get the drop in price. If there has been a 25 per cent. reduction it absolutely does away with the necessity for a tariff. If the Minister would waive the thing, let him face up to the details, quote the prices from particular areas, and comparisons made, and then give a specific case.

The Minister talked of ugly facts destroying some beautiful theories and he stated that the price of fibrous plaster slabs had fallen 25 per cent. To what period does he refer —the present time as against what date?

Prior to the imposition of the tariff.

That was early this year. I should like to see further proof of that. At the same time there is a much more important point. I should like to ask the Minister what he means by compositions made of plaster of paris in sheets or slabs. We all know what a fibrous plaster slab is, but what I should like to ask him is, does he mean compositions which are partly wood fibre and partly plaster of paris? Are they dutiable under the section?

I am afraid I would want notice of that.

The Minister would want to go into that very carefully.

There is nothing dutiable as a result of this Resolution which was not dutiable already.

I do not agree with the Minister there.

It is quite clear and definite.

I am not satisfied on that.

This particular reference in the Resolution has precisely the same wording as the original.

I should like the Minister to go into that very fully because, remember, plaster slabs as the trade understand them, are one thing and they are very extensively made in this country, but there are also what I might call boards—I suppose the technical name would be emulsified wood fibre—in which plaster would be partly incorporated. These sheets or slabs are not made at all in this country, and this simply means that you are adding the amount of the tariff on to the cost straight away. I should like the Minister to consider and tell us when he can give us an answer to this—Is there anything more than plaster slabs covered by this Resolution?

No, definitely not.

I was going to raise the point to which Deputy Dockrell referred. There is a very much wider application of this tariff than that which the Minister suggests. As far as I know the importation of ordinary fibrous slabs is comparatively small. In fact I do not know that any slabs— and I have a knowledge of the trade— were imported for some time past, even prior to the tariff. What the tariff does hit is the other board to which Deputy Dockrell referred, and which is largely composed of plaster. It is also very largely used in the building industry. If that particular board is tariffed, it is not manufactured in this country and the tariff would be no advantage to the country, but would increase the price.

Again I repeat that we are not putting a tariff on any article as a result of the reference that is not in existence already.

We have asked is a board of the description I have stated subject to the tariff?

If it comes within the definition.

The Minister is trying to represent that only plaster slabs are subject to the tariff. I suggest that emulsified wood composition in which plaster is incorporated might conceivably come under the definition and that is what I want to be made clear upon. If Deputy Good and myself are correct in our contention, there is no point in the contention of the Minister that the price of the article will not be increased because the amount of the duty will be added on.

It is not manufactured in this country.

We want to know if wood fibre in which plaster is incorporated is subject to duty.

If the Deputy means what I mean the answer is in the affirmative.

What does the Minister mean?

A slab made of wood fibre incorporating plaster.

Then I say with all due respect that the Minister's contention that this tariff will not increase the price of the article will not hold, because these articles are not manufactured in this country, nor is there any likelihood of their being made in the country. The Minister has made a contention which I rather challenge. However, that is beside the question as against the bigger and wider issue of the enormous quantity of these slabs which are used.

Does Deputy Dockrell say that the slabs to which he refers cannot be substituted by ordinary plaster of paris?

They are of an entirely different composition. I will not say they could not be used for a ceiling, but I doubt if they could be used in a wall.

It is intended definitely that the tariff should be applied to slabs of the type which is made here. If the Deputy thinks that there are others to which it also applies I am prepared to amend the definition, but this tariff has been enforced for six months and no complaint has reached the Department during that time.

We all know what plaster slabs are, and that you cannot get sheets made of plaster of paris——

This is precisely the same definition as in the original Resolution.

I hope you are not trying to throw your net a little bit wider. Remember the Revenue Commissioners have to administer the Acts as they are passed.

Quite.