Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 25 Nov 1932

Vol. 45 No. 3

Private Members Business. - Financial Resolutions—Report.

I move: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in the Report of the Financial Resolutions."

These Financial Resolutions have the general effect of confirming the duties imposed by the Agricultural Produce (Emergency) Provision of Duties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Orders. There are certain modifications, and there is general power to admit any of the articles free of duty on licence, except in the case of pigs' meat, in which case also a licence can be granted where the meat is intended for further manufacture. In the case of agricultural machinery, which also comes under the Emergency Order, the duty is reduced from 100 to 75 with 50 per cent. preferential rate. In the case of sheep and live poultry it remains the same; also tinned meat. In the case of eggs in shells the duty remains the same, except in the case of dry eggs, which is met here by regulating frozen albumen and frozen yolk of egg. It is also made clear in these Resolutions that it does not apply to imported food stuffs that contain a certain proportion of the articles in paragraph (a). Animal fats are added. In the case of vegetables there are changes in Emergency Order No. 3. There was a duty of 1/8. There is a classification of vegetables now and different duties apply to different classes. Rhubarb has been added to the list. In the case of cut flowers, the duty imposed last April——

Is the Minister dealing with the first Resolution?

I am proposing to deal with them all.

As a separate decision will have to be taken on each Resolution, I think that for the present the House should deal only with what comes under Resolution 1.

We have heard something about what the first Resolution effects but nothing as to the reason for it. It is quite interesting to hear that this does something which is consequent upon the Emergency Duty Order passed earlier, and to be told that the animal fats scheme is completed now. But why were the duties imposed in the first instance, and why is this about animal fats introduced now? On the point as to having these things brought before us in this way and rushed in this manner, could we have some information now as to the pivotal dates which have got to be worked to? What is the important stage of these things, and what is the date at which either that important stage or, say, the passage into law of the Bill must be achieved? When we have got some knowledge of that we can understand why these Resolutions are being taken to-day.

Does the Deputy want to know the technical reason for bringing them in at this date, or whether they have to be sanctioned by a certain time? Under the Emergency Powers that the Executive got these duties, as well as I remember, were to last for eight months without confirmation, if necessary. The reason why they are brought in at this stage is to make them permanent duties before the coming Finance Bill is introduced. The Finance Bill, I believe, is to be introduced in the near future, but I am not sure of the exact date.

Is the question of its introduction the point that matters? Is not the real question its passage into law? Could the Minister say what is the date that we are up against?

I do not know.

Then why bring these in this morning?

The only thing I can say is that the Department of Finance informed me that these Resolutions should be reported to-day. I am not able to give the exact date when the Bill must be through the House. With regard to the other point as to why an emergency duty was put on these articles, the reason is because there was a considerable import of certain things. In the case of pigs' meat, for instance, Deputies are aware that the duty was imposed about the 1st January, 1932. The effect of that duty was to exclude, or cut down, imports to a great extent. Under that particular duty bacon was allowed in free from Commonwealth countries. Whereas the import in the first six months of 1931 was 253,000 cwts., that was reduced to 161,000 cwts. for the first six months of 1932. The effect of the duty was to increase the imports from certain Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, and to cut out almost completely imports from Continental countries. Since the imposition of the emergency duty against Commonwealth countries, as well as other countries, the import of bacon has practically ceased.

In the case of sheep they were imported principally from Northern Ireland. At the time the tariff was put on large purchases were being made of breeding sheep in the Six County area for importation to the Free State. Since the tariff was imposed we have had applications for permission to import. It may be necessary to import certain breeding stock and we should have power to licence the import of sheep for that purpose. The same thing would apply to live poultry. It may also be necessary to import pedigree stock under that head.

In the case of eggs in shell, the imports reached in value £35,000 in 1928. In 1931 the value was £6,500. As regards eggs not in shell the value of the imports varied from £37,000 to £48,000 over the last ten years. For the first nine months of this year the imports were £22,600 in value, the same as for the corresponding period of 1931. During the month of September, which is the only month for which we have accurate returns since this duty was imposed under the Emergency Powers Order, the import was 68 cwt. as compared with 813 cwt. for the corresponding month of last year. The import of fats and so on has been rather large. Untreated animal fats are already dutiable under the bacon tariff and other meat tariffs that were imposed, but these are treated animal fats. It is felt that it would be difficult to put a duty upon meat essences because that would influence the prices of certain medicinal preparations and certain articles which are used largely by the poor in the making of soup and so on. Dripping, soup and so on which are treated can be very well done in this country. As our export of animal fats is larger than our imports in any one year it is clear that there is a sufficiency of these goods and that they can be treated in this country.

With regard to vegetables, the imports, exclusive of potatoes, onions and tomatoes, amount to between £7,000 and £9,000 annually. That is to say, raw vegetables. The value of imports of preserved vegetables varies from £8,000 to £25,000 annually. The imports of onions vary from £60,000 to £80,000. We do not propose to place a tariff on onions because the price at which they can be produced by the home growers would be very much greater than that at which they would be imported. The imports of tomatoes vary from £99,000 to £120,000 annually. I do not think there is anything else that I have to say.

There is nothing else I want to hear from the Minister except the reason for all these things.

On a point of order, was not the Minister to conclude?

I took it that the Minister was replying to the questions put to him by Deputy McGilligan.

This is another illuminating item in the rush that is now on. Yesterday we had financial Resolutions before us. It is obvious that there had to be secrecy about any financial Resolutions brought in, but when arrangements were made previously with regard to the business to be done this week, there was no question or no suggestion from the Government that there might be certain emergency things to be taken and that time would be required for them. The more the Government wants the ordinary time allowed for discussion on these matters to collapse the better prepared they ought to be with reasons for these matters.

Yesterday I queried what were the reasons for these tariff Resolutions and I got a variety of inconsequential replies from the Minister for Finance. I asked the Minister for Agriculture to give us some indication for these and he said the Department of Finance told him it was necessary. That is all that he requires. I did not know that orders were taken so subserviently from the Department as all that, but now it would seem that the Minister for Agriculture just gets his instructions to go into the Dáil and get these things through because the Department of Finance tells him to do so. That might be his reason, but if so he might have kept it to himself and put up a better show here. We are faced now with this procedure on resolutions brought in yesterday. We are asked to take the Report Stage to-day. There must be some terrible power in the Department of Finance when it compels the Minister to take these things through in this way. Previously the Wheat Bill was represented as one of special urgency and that its passage through the Dáil this week was necessary. The only reason we are now told for throwing over this Bill is that the Department of Finance told the Minister that these Resolutions must be got through. He did not stop to get the dates. We might have got the dates yesterday so as to try to see what we are working on, and have the discussion at a later stage if it is thought necessary to have it.

Then I say that if there had been even good preparation in getting the matter put before us in a cogent way, we should have understood both the scope of the duties and the necessity for having them through within a certain time. In that case there might be some excuse, but the Minister merely stood up and did no more than read the Resolutions. A question was put to him to explain what the Resolutions effected. I asked what was the reason for whatever effect the Resolutions had and I got a long statement about certain bacon from Canada and about certain pedigree poultry and pedigree sheep which had to be imported from Northern Ireland. Certainly that is so in the case of sheep, but I do not know about the poultry, but we are told that the continuance of their import is likely.

Why this change, whatever the change may be? The only thing I could gather from the Minister's attempted explanation was that if there be imports amounting to a considerable figure, then if you put up a sufficiently high tariff you can reduce that import or possibly stop it altogether. Well we all knew that already. But tariffs are not imposed on the basis of merely trying out the effect of that particular weapon. That is not the object of tariffs. I assume there is some better reason behind it than that, but that is the reason that the Minister has ventured on. There used to be imports from certain countries. The tariff was put on. The imports dropped. Canadian imports rose to a certain value, but they will be stopped or lessened at any rate unless they find their way into some other port.

But why put on a tariff for the purpose of seeing what will be the result? That does not justify the use of a tariff and particularly it does not justify the Resolution as to pedigree sheep and pedigree poultry. I do not see the relation. The Minister says that these have been imported and will likely be imported for some time to come. They will, he says, have to be imported under licence. That is no justification for what it is proposed to do and what we are asked to do this morning. There is only one item mentioned by the Minister that had any reason and that is the necessity for letting in a certain amount of untariffed material. Amongst all the things we are tariffing we are exempting one thing. We are not asked to put a tariff on onions coming into the country. In the matter of onions we are not going to be left to the mercy of people who grow onions at home. The reason the Minister gives is that the price of our home-grown onions would be considerably in excess of the price at which onions can be imported into the country. That is the only argument given for this mass of Resolutions with regard to tariffs.

It would be interesting to have the onions analogy introduced into the Wheat Bill when we resume the debate on it. The argument is that home-grown onions must, if the tariff is put on onions, be sold at a considerably greater price than that at which imported onions could be brought in without a tariff. Now that argument will destroy most of the Wheat Bill. I would like to know what would be the difference in price in the case of home-grown onions if the people were to be given subsidies and bounties on whatever acreage was put down under this particular vegetable. There has been no reason given for these tariffs and there has been no clear explanation as to the effect of them or their particular relation with the Resolution brought in this morning.

That is mainly the reason why I protest against these things being taken this morning at a time when the House was supposed to be devoting its energeies to the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill. We were kept at that Bill all day on Wednesday and then we even utilised Private Members' time. We were considering the same measure all day yesterday, from Question time to 10.30 p.m., and we were told that we were to take it into consideration again to-day. It was pointed out to us that there were over 100 amendments to be considered. Then quite suddenly to-day these Financial Resolutions are shot at us. We are given absolutely no time to consider them, to grasp the relationship of the new Resolutions with the Resolutions previously passed. We are given the minimum amount of time in which to get the effect of the Resolutions clearly in our minds. No reason has been given in the statements made by any of the Ministers for bringing in these Resolutions to-day; there may be reasons, but we have not got them yet.

The Second Reading of the Finance Bill will have to be taken next week; that is, if we are to sit four days next week, and that appears to be necessary. If the Bill is to be read a First Time next Tuesday and circulated, I am sure Deputies opposite will say that the time given them for consideration of the measure is much too short, particularly if we are to take the Second Reading on Friday.

That is not our fault.

I am not saying it is your fault; I am merely giving the dates when it is likely the Bill will be brought forward on the First and Second Readings. If we are sitting four days next week the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will have to be taken on Friday.

Is that the date definitely arranged for the Second Reading? When was that known?

Evidently it was known to the Department of Finance, but I only know of it now. With regard to the reason for introducing these tariffs, the Deputy, of course, takes a different view to that adopted by the Government. I gave my reason for not putting a tariff on onions. Vegetable growers here say they can grow vegetables as cheaply as a foreigner, and my view is that if that can be done without inflicting a great hardship on the consumer, it should be done, and there is no necessity for putting on a tariff. If there is no great reason for putting on a tariff, then no tariff should be imposed. I do not see why we should give any reasons for putting on tariffs. It is the natural thing to do—to confine the market to our own producers. With regard to the question of sheep and Northern Ireland, I said that we were asked to allow sheep in on a permit. I pointed out that they were not pedigree sheep and that the importation would be in a commercial way. It may be necessary to import a small number of pedigree sheep, not necessarily from Northern Ireland, but perhaps from some other country, and hence the reason for this licence.

With regard to all this talk about an agreement being made, the Chief Whip of this Party came to me to know if we would postpone the Committee Stage of the Cereals Bill last week so as to give the Cumann na nGaedheal Party time to put in amendments. I stated that if the Cumann na nGaedheal Party were prepared to facilitate us in respect of the remaining stages I would be agreeable to that course. He said that they would be prepared. After we had agreed to postpone the Committee Stage, Deputy McGilligan came along with 126 additional amendments. If we had held to our original time table in regard to this Bill Deputy McGilligan would not have had an opportunity of putting in his amendments.

The Committee Stage was originally arranged for last Thursday.

But would you have got beyond the point at which my amendments would ordinarily have come in?

I do not know.

I do not think so. At any rate, would my amendments not have been relevant to the Report Stage?

A lot of them were not relevant to the Committee Stage.

How many of my amendments were ruled out of order?

A lot of them, at least, were not necessary.

I am not accepting the Minister's judgment in that respect.

I consulted legal authorities and I found that the Deputy's ideas on the law were very juvenile.

Wherever they were applied they were found appropriate. They certainly were not infantile, as are the Minister's views with regard to wheat.

The Deputy's interpretation of the law——

——has not been proved wrong yet.

So far as the agreement is concerned, the Chief Whip came to me to make certain arrangements. We intended to sit on Tuesday in order to get the Committee Stage through. The Cumann na nGaedheal Whip said that the members of his Party were prepared to facilitate us in connection with the Bill.

The anxiety not to sit on Tuesday was not confined to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

The suggestion came.

It did not. Just get your Chief Whip for the purpose of having this matter made more clear.

It is not advisable for the Minister to go into that sort of stuff.

Let us at least have a proper presentation of this.

The proper presentation of it, so far as I am concerned, is this: I agreed to give in on two occasions to the wishes of the opposite Party. On one occasion I agreed that we would not take the Committee Stage last week, and on another that we would not sit on Tuesday. On each occasion the promise was given that we would be facilitated.

And so you will.

The Minister is not going to get away so easily with this. I do not care what the preliminaries were. The agreement was based on this, that nothing would be introduced except First Readings during the three days on which the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill would be under discussion. I deny the Minister's statement with regard to the preliminaries. That agreement has been broken. Withdraw these Resolutions now and you will get your Committee Stage to-day.

That is the sort of attitude we may expect from the Cumann na nGaedheal Party whenever we give in to them. We agreed to put back the Committee Stage and so allowed Deputy McGilligan to wake up after four or five days and come along with another 126 amendments.

There was no special allowance to me. I could have claimed my rights on the Report Stage and could have got them. I could have got every one of my amendments down for the Report Stage and have them discussed.

Not if they were not put down for the Committee Stage.

Certainly. I got no allowance at all from the Minister and I am not under any obligation to him whatsoever.

Question put: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Financial Resolution No. 1."
The Dáil divided; Tá, 57; Níl, 31.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas J.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.
Question proposed: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee on Finance in Financial Resolution No. 2."—(Minister for Agriculture.)

What is Resolution No. 2?

It deals with potatoes.

What is the reason for it?

A duty was imposed on potatoes last April of 28/- per cwt. with 75 per cent. chargeable to Commonwealth countries. That is a difference of 25 per cent.

Does this mean that the duty is reduced by 25 per cent.?

The duty applying to Commonwealth countries was 75 per cent. of the full duty. Up to the time the emergency duty was imposed, the imports were free.

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee on Finance in Financial Resolution No. 3."

The same thing applies in the case of cut flowers.

No. 3 is cut flowers?

We were told differently yesterday.

You were not.

No. 3 was understood to be potatoes yesterday. It was the last one spoken of and it was mentioned as potatoes.

Resolution No. 3 reported and agreed to.
Top
Share