I am satisfied that the point has been established and I do not intend to press it further. Mr. Quinn was speaking, as I say, with experience, and what he says is surely true. I do not think anybody here is in favour of giving that immense measure of protection to our industries, however much we may favour the industries themselves, because they are in danger of being protected against the need to be efficient, which means being protected into a state of inefficiency extremely detrimental to the country when the time comes for the Government to decide that these duties, in accordance with international agreements, must be reduced.
That is why I find this Bill particularly disappointing. After three or four years of office by the present Government, and after the very menacing speeches made by the Taoiseach and others in relation to this whole matter of protective tariffs and so on, I would have expected that at least one tariff would be at least marginally reduced. Yet the Minister says that six of them are new, five are to amend, that means to increase tariffs, and two of them are to tighten up and meet evasion. I find that profoundly disappointing. I take it that we shall have to wait until next year—I hope not beyond that— to find an Imposition of Duties Bill being brought in which will do what the Government have been loudly proclaiming they are going to do, reduce the protective tariff wall.
It should be quite possible for all of these industries which have got going to keep going with at least a smaller percentage than was necessary when they started out.
I should now like to look at the items themselves. I do not want to weary the Seanad by running down the whole thirteen items but I should like to look at one or two of them. I should like to take, first of all, a minor point and compare the Imposition of Duties (No. 87) Order with No. 97.
The Imposition of Duties (No. 87) Order is the wool wadding order. It came into operation on the 11th March, 1960. It extended the scope of the customs duty of 50 per cent. full, and 33 1/3 per cent. preferential, on wadding made wholly or partly of cotton wool or imitation cotton wool to include wadding made wholly or partly of wool. It also brought within the scope of the duty certain articles made wholly or mainly of such wadding.
We find that the Imposition of Duties (No. 97) (Wadding) Order came into operation on the 6th September, 1960. It amends the conditions that are related apparently to Order No. 87, because it introduces in relation to the customs duty previously mentioned of 50 per cent. full, and 33 1/3 per cent. preferential on wadding made wholly or partly of wool a minimum rate of 9d. full, and 6d. preferential.
I feel that within 6 months it ought not be necessary to make this kind of amending Order. It looks to me as if the first Order was drafted without sufficient attention to the conditions obtaining. I do not think it should be necessary within the same year to fiddle with these Orders, piling one on top of the other and amending one order and introducing another both of them having to be confirmed on the same day by the Oireachtas.
I turn now to Order No. 88 which is an Order that extends the scope of the customs duty of 75 per cent., full, and 50 per cent. for the United Kingdom and Canada on certain electrical accessories to include certain switches, sockets and plugs. I make the point here that this is a very high duty, 75 per cent. full and 50 per cent. United Kingdom and Canada, on items of everyday use, domestic and otherwise. I feel that this is an example of an order where the duty is too high.
Similarly, in regard to the following Order, No. 90, which amends the customs duty of 75 per cent., full, and 50 per cent. United Kingdom and Canada in order to provide for a minimum rate of duty, this is on certain hats and caps for wear by women or girls, of 15/-, full, and 10/-, United Kingdom and Canada. What I am criticising here is the level of protective duty considered necessary and which is far too high. I beg leave to doubt whether the trade requires such a high measure of protection.
I should also like to advert to Order No. 98 which refers to structural iron and steel manufactures and extends the scope of the customs duty of 50 per cent. full and 33? per cent. United Kingdom and Canada on certain articles of fabricated structural iron or steel to certain additional articles including assemblies.
I would suggest—I am open to correction on the matter—that this is a duty and an extended scope which affect very much the agricultural community. I would suggest that in relation to a great deal of agricultural buildings and sheds, this is almost a punitive duty, a protective duty which raises the price of production for the whole agricultural community. I should like to hear from Senators representing agriculture some kind of protest against this measure of protection which seems to be unwarranted.
The last Order, which is No. 99, relates to socks and similar articles of man-made fibres. It amended the customs duty of 75 per cent., full, which was not apparently enough, and 50 per cent. United Kingdom and Canada and provides for a minimum rate of 50/-, full, and 33s. 4d. United Kingdom and Canada per dozen pairs of these articles. Again it makes sure that where the imported article, whether it be from the United Kingdom or further afield, is cheap we shall ensure that the retail price here is kept sufficiently high to over-protect our home industries, and hit our consumers.
I will conclude, therefore, by stressing again the point that if a new Irish industry is unable to do with less protection after 5 years than was necessary for it in the launching years, then either it has made no progress at all in efficiency or else excessive profits to the firm are being subsidised by the consuming public, who are prevented by such protective duties as are enshrined in this Bill from buying competitively elsewhere. For these reasons I find this Bill profoundly disappointing.