Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Feb 1934

Vol. 50 No. 8

Control of Imports Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Item 5 (Control of Imports Bill, 1934) on the Orders of the Day called.

The Minister in charge of the Bill is not present and in view of the extraordinary disrespect with which the House is being treated by the Government, would you, a Chinn Comhairle, accept a motion that the House adjourn until to-morrow?

What is the "extraordinary disrespect"?

I am not prepared to accept such a motion.

The Minister attended later.

I move: "That the Control of Imports Bill, 1934, be read a Second Time." This is a Bill to provide power for the quantitative regulation of imports by the institution of a quota system similar to the power possessed by the majority of European Governments at the present time. Since the Bill has been published, certain newspaper leader writers and other ill-informed persons have jumped to the conclusion that this Bill is designed to provide an additional weapon with which to conduct what is called the "economic war" with Great Britain. The origin of the Bill has nothing to do with what is called the "economic war." It is no more the outcome of that situation than similar legislation introduced by the British Government was the outcome of that situation. If there never had been a dispute with Great Britain it would be necessary for the Government to take powers similar to that proposed to be conferred by this Bill. The prime purpose for which it has, been introduced is not even to secure the regulation or the development of our external trade. It is primarily designed to provide more effective machinery to develop the industrial activities and the industrial potentialities of this country. Its enactment will enable a more orderly and regular system of controlling imports to be operated than that now existing. As Deputies are aware, we have got certain powers of regulating imports at the present time. These powers have been used where occasion seemed to require them, and the system of licensing which has grown up in consequence of them, while it has worked fairly satisfactorily, is open to criticism.

Hear, hear!

I do not say that any grounds for such criticism exist, but it is obviously desirable that we should have substituted for these powers a regular system such as this Bill proposes to create. There are many industries for which it is desired to afford protection but in respect of which that protection cannot readily or easily be afforded by a system of import duties. Where an industry has been developed to the stage that it is capable of supplying the requirements of the Irish people in a particular class of goods, then an import duty is a satisfactory method of affording protection to it, but where an industry is only in the initial stages of development and incapable of supplying in quantity the goods required here, the imposition of a tariff involves either the operation of a licensing system, or else the imposition of a charge upon goods which must be imported because of the deficient production at home. There are many examples of that to which reference could be made. The boot and shoe industry, for example, although it has developed very rapidly in the course of the last 12 months or so, is not yet by any means in the position to supply the country's requirements and, consequently, some quantities must be imported even though there is a tariff. Similarly, with a number of other classes of goods, it is deemed preferable to have power to restrict imports in quantity rather than to restrict them by raising their price. This Bill provides that power and is primarily designed to provide that power.

It is true that the possession of these powers will enable the Government to conduct trade negotiations with other States with greater advantages than it possessed heretofore. Deputies who keep in touch with developments in Europe and throughout the world generally will have noted that international trade is becoming very largely a matter of barter between countries. Agreements are being made every week between different nations for the exchanges of goods on the basis of quantity—so much of one class of goods against so much of another class. The absence of power to regulate imports in quantity here has been found to be a difficulty in bringing to a satisfactory conclusion negotiations which have been in progress with certain other countries, except where the power of regulation existed by accident, shall I say, arising out of other enactments of this House. The passage of the Act will enable the Government to enter into these negotiations in a position to conclude agreements to which we will be able to give effect. At the present time, the only power we possess in order to influence trade into particular channels is the power of imposing duties and the granting of preferential rates in respect of these duties. That power, while found adequate until recently, is no longer sufficient, and the power of quantitative regulation is now required here, as it has been found to be required in practically every other country. The conduct of these negotiations is particularly difficult when the country with which they are taking place has got a quota system in operation and is prepared to conclude deals upon the basis of defined quantities of specified goods.

The Bill itself is simple and easily understood. It provides that where an order is made by the Executive Council, which, for the purposes of the Act, is called a quota order, it shall not be lawful for any person, so long as the quota order is in force, to import into Saorstát Eireann, otherwise than under and in accordance with a licence in that behalf issued under this Act, any goods the importation of which is prohibited by such quota order. An order made by the Executive Council is valid only for a limited period, and expires at the end of six months unless ratified by the Dáil. Where a quota order is made there is a period of six weeks before the first quota period commences to run. During that six weeks it is necessary to have more extended powers to license imports than are required after the commencement of the quota period. That is, there will always be that period, during which arrangements to bring the quota into operation are being made, when goods must, nevertheless, be imported, and the Act provides that during such period licences may be issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce at his discretion. In the interval, a register of importers is prepared. Any person who comes within the definition set out in Section 6, and who applies, is entitled to be and must be included on that register. The definition set out in Section 6 is quite wide. The person must be a national of Saorstát Eireann, or a partnership of which all the members are nationals of Saorstát Eireann, or a company registered in Saorstát Eireann, or a person carrying on a manufacturing undertaking in Saorstát Eireann. A person can be removed from the register only for a limited number of stated causes. They can be removed if they are convicted of an offence under the Act, or if they have failed to exercise, to the extent of more than 25 per cent, licences issued to them in two successive quota periods. When the register has been prepared, the next stage is the announcement of the quota and the duration of the first quota period. The quota will be the specified quantity of the goods covered by the order, and the period will be such period as may be fixed by the Executive Council. That period may vary in respect of different classes of goods, but the first quota period in respect of any class of goods must necessarily be limited.

Is that the first quota period or the preliminary period?

The first quota period. The preliminary period, which must not be longer than six weeks, is not covered by the provisions of this Bill at all. During that period, which is necessarily a period for making arrangements, and for the preparation of a register, imports can take place under licence. These will be issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, at his discretion.

At his discretion?

Yes. If the Deputy has any other suggestion to make regarding that period we will be glad to get it. The period is as short as is reasonably practicable, to give time for the preparation of a register of importers, the determination of the quota, and the duration of the first quota period. The register of importers is prepared in the manner I have stated. Any person who comes within the definition of Section 6 is entitled to apply and to be included. There is no power to exclude except for the two reasons I mentioned, conviction for an offence under the Act, or, at a later stage, failure to fill any licences issued in any two successive periods to the extent of 25 per cent. When the quota is announced any person registered as an importer can apply for a licence to import any quantity of goods specified. The Bill provides that if the total quantity of goods in respect of which applications for licences are received are less than or equal to 75 per cent. Of the quota, the Minister must issue to all applicants licences to import the quantity of goods applied for. If the total quantity of goods for which licences are applied exceeds 75 per cent., and is less than 100 per cent. of the quota, then the Minister may, at his discretion, either issue licences to all applicants for the full quantity they apply for, or otherwise, pro rata, reduce such applications, so as to bring the total quantity down to 75 per cent., but not below 75 per cent. If the total quantity of goods for which applications for licences are received exceeds the quota, the Minister is given discretion, subject to the limitation that he must allocate those licences, having regard to the interests of persons ordinarily engaged in the importation of such goods before the date of the order. It will be noted that there is a possibility, in respect of any quota fixed, that 25 per cent. of the quota may not be allocated at the beginning of the quota period. That provision is necessary to ensure that there will be a margin available, so that the total imports can be increased during the quota period, if the requirements of the country necessitate it, and also to permit of effect being given to any trade arrangements that may be made during the quota period.

Section 5 provides that when the quota is fixed the Executive Council may, by order, specify that a definite proportion of the total quota shall be confined to a particular country. If a quota, which we shall for convenience call 100 units, is fixed for a particular class of goods, the Executive Council may provide that 25 of the 100 units shall be goods manufactured in and imported from a specified country, and if such a special quota is fixed by the Executive Council then licences to import goods under that special quota are allocated in precisely the same manner as licences to import goods in the general quota.

And in respect to the costs?

The importer negotiates in the matter of costs.

He must buy in that country.

But he is not under any obligation to buy from any individual firm.

Will importers, who are affected by the cutting down of imports from other countries, be entitled to first preference?

Quite. If the applications for licences exceed the total quota, then first consideration must be given to applications received from persons ordinarily engaged in the importation of the class of goods concerned. The same arrangement applies precisely in respect of goods imported under the special quota, or imported under an additional quota, because power is taken to increase, but not to decrease during the first period, if the necessity arises. If an additional quota is required it is allocated amongst persons on the register in the same manner.

Supposing a quota order applies to one country and that that country charges 100 per cent. more for a commodity than the importer has had to pay in other countries, is he still compelled to buy in the one country?

He is not compelled to buy at all.

Of course, he can shut down.

His supplies will be cut off.

We have quotas for agricultural produce in a number of countries that we are not filling, because it does not pay us. We will not fill them unless it pays. We have quotas for agricultural produce in other countries which, in our opinion, are not large, enough, and we are trying to increase them. These are quotas in respect of produce which it pays us to sell in the countries concerned.

We are limited to certain countries for purchases. If these countries charge 100 per cent. more than another country for a commodity we are still compelled to buy from these countries.

Yes, but the Deputy has got to be prepared to leave it to the Executive Council to exercise discretion whether they will, in fact, make a special quota in favour of any country if such circumstances are likely to arise. It is most unlikely that they will arise, because the Deputy presupposes a monopoly existing in a country which is in a position to fix one price, and to maintain it under all circumstances. At the present time there is a quota for Saorstát cattle in Germany, and it is open to any German citizen to come here and to buy cattle and export under that quota. If it pays them they will do it; if it does not they will not.

I take it that the Executive Council will take into consideration such questions as currency changes.

The Deputy can be certain that no special quota will be fixed in favour of any country unless, in the opinion of the Executive Council, it is in the national interest to do so. That is the whole scheme of the Bill. It is not modelled on legislation in any country, but it is similar, in effect, to legislation existing in most other countries. It provides for the simplest system of quantitative control of imports which can be devised. If Deputies have any suggestion to offer, by which the system could be simplified to a greater extent, we will be very glad to consider them. I am anxious to get a simple system that will work not merely without friction, but without unfairness to any individuals interested. We have endeavoured to provide for that as much as possible. We have secured that operations under this Bill will receive the fullest possible publicity; that everybody will know the quota fixed; that everybody who wishes will be free to apply for a licence to import under the quota; and that the full amount of goods applied for by each applicant for a licence will be issued, except in the one case where the total of applications exceeds the quota fixed, in which case we provide that the interests of those persons who are ordinarily engaged in that particular business will have first consideration.

The operation of the Bill, as I said, will have three main effects. One is that there can be substituted a regular and orderly system of regulating imports by quantity for the existing system, which up to the present has worked fairly satisfactorily, but which, as I have said, is open to criticism. Secondly, it will provide a more effective method of affording protection to industries in the initial stage of development here than could be afforded by the system of customs duties. Thirdly, it increases the negotiating power of the Government in the conclusion of arrangements with other countries for the benefit of our external trade. Having regard to the fact that the Bill is a simple piece of machinery designed to achieve those three desirable things, I confidently recommend it to the Dáil.

I have never met the Minister that he was not confident. He was confident when he thought tariffs would save the whole situation. Twelve months afterwards he found it necessary to introduce a Control of Manufactures Bill as a result of his tariff policy which had proved insufficient. Now, we have another step, because two measures on which the Minister so confidently relied, one 12 months before the other, have proved insufficient and have not justified his confidence. That is typical of the confidence of the Minister and of his optimism.

Before I discuss the Bill in general, there are a couple of points that I am not quite clear about from the Minister's exposition. Let me take, firstly, one of the last points he mentioned— the fullest possible publicity. These are the words I think he used. Are we to take that quite literally? In a case like this grave abuse may arise in connection with the issuing of licences. Are we to take it for granted that there will be the fullest possible publicity as to the amount allocated to each importer and as to his trade, say, for the previous 12 months, on which I presume the particular amount allocated will be based? Do I understand that that is the pledge of the Minister?

The fullest possible publicity is the first thing that vanishes from the Minister's statement.

I should be glad to know if the business representatives of the Deputy's Party desire publicity for such matters.

I did not interrupt the Minister. I gather that the Minister does not mean what he said.

Has the Deputy consulted his colleagues on that?

That is the point on which I have most complaints to make in connection with this whole business. The Minister in the opening of his speech referred to the fact that the existing system of licences was open to criticism. With the quickness that distinguishes the Minister he promptly began to correct that statement and said: "Of course, I am not saying it was justified." Undoubtedly, there has been a lot of criticism in connection with it. I have heard efforts made in this House even to get the Minister to answer certain cases that were alleged—the case, for instance, raised by Deputy Dillon. I never heard any answer. Deputy Dillon, however, can deal with that. There has been a great deal of criticism in connection with the way in which the licence system is worked, and in which the quota system has worked in the one case in which the quota system is in operation.

There was another point that I am not quite clear about, although the Minister was interrogated on a couple of occasions, and perhaps the Minister will clear it up. I am, say, an ordinary business man down the country, and import in the usual way, say £1,000 worth of ordinary goods. I am accustomed, let us say, to get them from England. In pursuit of their bargaining policy the Government decide that I shall get 25 per cent. of the quota of these from Czecho-Slovakia. I get a licence for £800 worth of goods of that particular type to be imported. Does that mean that I individually must get £200 worth from Czecho-Slovakia? There will be in that case also discrimination between individuals. Certain individuals will, under licence, be allowed to get goods from England, where they have been accustomed to get them. Others will be compelled to get them from Czecho-Slovakia. Am I correct in that, or has the Minister followed the point?

I have. I shall explain later.

It was not quite clear. I gathered at one stage in the exposition of the Minister that the countries would have to be distributed pro rata too. Supposing, therefore, 25 per cent. had to come by the quota from Czecho-Slovakia, where we will suppose there is a higher price charged——

That does not mean that each individual must import 25 per cent.

Why is that? There is discrimination against certain individuals. Take the case that in the country from which we are compelled as a nation to take 25 per cent., there is a higher price charged. If that amount is to be introduced some people will have to take that 25 per cent. Therefore, they will have to pay a higher price than others who are not compelled to go to that country. Do I understand that the licence system will so operate that some people will still be allowed to get the full quota allowance from England at a certain price, whereas other people will be compelled to take more than 25 per cent. from a country which charges a higher price? Is that the position? I hope the Minister will clear it up. I must say that it was not made quite clear. If a licence is issued for that amount, and it is possible to get them from England at a lower price at present, then I say, if the whole quantity is imported, some people will have to take their 25 per cent., or in the case of some people getting off, not merely 25 per cent., but more than 25 per cent. at a higher price. Therefore, unless there is an allocation not merely of amount, if I may so use the phrase, of imports, there will be discrimination it seems to me against certain individuals, I thought that one particular phrase used by the Minister was a charming one, that in which he spoke of substituting the system of licences that exists at present, and which had proved unsatisfactory. We will agree that it proved unsatisfactory. The Minister possibly attaches a somewhat different signification to the word "unsatisfactory" than some of his critics.

Produce your dissatisfied person, barring Deputy Dillon.

He will be more dissatisfied, probably, in three months. Really to suggest that this is a substitute for the existing licensing system is not justified. Surely it is an increase of it in many ways. More power is really being given into the hands of the Minister for the moment. When the Minister spoke of substituting, I wondered whether I had missed the page that he was referring to, but I saw that I had not. There was no substitution, of course. The Minister spoke of the bargaining power this will put into his hands. I confess again that the matter is not quite clear. Does the bargaining power consist in a positive advantage that may be given to individual countries? Is there any power in the Bill, either in the definition clause or elsewhere, to discriminate against any country? Supposing you give 25 per cent. to a country, A.B., in Europe, and if that is mentioned in your quota, is there power to say that the other 75 per cent. cannot be taken from any other country?

Is there any negative power, even in the definition clause?

Therefore, the bargaining power consists in a positive and not a negative advantage that you can give to a country. I was not quite clear whether in the definition clause the words "particular description of goods" could not be so read as to give a negative power as well as a positive power to the Minister. I take it for granted that is not his intention.

A certain European country imposed a tariff on milk, but excepted milk yielded by cows ordinarily maintained in a certain latitude. By that device they confined the imports of milk to a certain country. That device is always open.

Let me take an example. Is English coal a description of goods?

I am glad to have this assurance that the whole bargaining power is in clause 5 and, possibly, clause 8 (3).

I have heard this Bill described by one Dublin business man as the worst Bill yet. That is an exaggeration, of course.

I could nearly name him.

Doubtless you could. Of course, what he said was an exaggeration. To think that this Government should wait until now to reach the worst of their Bills is absurd. This measure, however, is a proof of the contention that once you get into State regulation you are driven to Bill after Bill. The Minister started with tariffs as a remedy. We were told we would be all right if we adopted a system of tariffs. The country was to be turned immediately into an industrial country. I think the Minister mentioned a period of eight months on one celebrated occasion.

He was to absorb the 80,000 unemployed.

There is even a Fianna Fáil club in my own county anxious to know where the industries are. They suggest that there is a boycott of that county in the matter of industries. We have not been able to get information on the subject from the Minister here and, apparently, his supporters, who surely are above suspicion, are in the same boat. Has the Minister not got the club's resolution?

The resolution surely implied the existence and development of the industries.

Possibly in places they did not see, but there certainly were no industries in places within those people's observation. They had faith in the Minister in matters over which they had no control, but they had no faith in him so far as they were able to get into touch with realities. So far as the tariffs were concerned, the period of 12 months proved ineffective. Now this measure is a necessary accompaniment. We will have to take this Bill as one of a series. The House has committed itself and the country largely to that particular policy. It is another example of the rapidly-growing tendency of the State to interfere more and more with every class of business. This will mean a tremendous increase in the amount of trouble that will be put on ordinary business men who are accustomed to import their goods. It may mean that they will be driven to leave the importing of goods altogether in the hands of a few people in Dublin. There may be advantages to the Minister from that point of view, but for the ordinary importer it means additional trouble in the matter of getting himself registered and showing what he imported during the preceding 12 months from different countries. That obviously is necessary, because otherwise the Minister cannot have that vague regard to the interests of importers that is referred to in clause 8. That is quite obvious both from clause 6 and clause 8. Not merely has the Minister discretionary power during the preliminary period of six weeks, but what control is there over him as to how he will issue the licences after the period of six weeks?

The Bill sets out the phrase "with regard to the interests." It is a delightfully vague phrase. What control is there to see that he has regard for the interests or that he has paid attention, in dividing licences between different importers, to the trade they carried on over the whole preceding 12 months? I am surprised the Minister has had no complaints about the licensing system or that there have been no complaints about the quota system. I have heard a number of complaints in regard to the export quota system. It has not given satisfaction, and it has not instilled confidence either. The whole question of the licensing and quota system is raised here. It is not enough for the Minister to say that many other countries have given their Governments power. We are not so full of confidence in this Government, and we do not think the country should give the Government this power. We have seen the country and the House again and again giving the Government power that we are convinced was used by the Government gravely to the detriment of the country.

There is nothing in the career or conduct of the Government that can create any feeling of confidence in placing this tremendous power in their hands. To me it seems that giving to the Government powers of this kind and other powers that they are now exercising, is very like putting dangerous weapons into the hands of children. They have utilised at least some of their powers, not to damage the people they pretend are their enemies, not to get better bargains for this country, but to damage this country. This country has been the main sufferer from the use of the weapons—I think the Minister himself used the word "weapon"—that the country thought it necessary to put into the hands of the Government or was cajoled into putting into the hands of the Government. The country has reaped no benefit from giving their confidence when they were asked to trust the Government. The Government has asked for great powers and has got them and the principal sufferer from the use of those powers has been the country. We have no guarantee that these powers will not be similarly used now by the Government. I am speaking, not of the merits of this as an abstract measure, but of its merit in the hands of the present Government. The whole thing depends on how this is to operate. It could operate well if there was a Government capable of operating it to the advantage of the country. The Minister was very careful in some portions of his opening statement. He referred to articles that appeared in the public Press in which, he said, this Bill was referred to as another weapon in the economic war. He was careful to say that that had not been the origin of the proposal; that if there had been no economic war this measure would have been called into existence by this Government. But he did not go on to suggest that, now that it had been called into existence it would not be utilised to the fullest extent in the economic war. The Minister was very strong in this protest against the ignorance displayed in those articles, to which he referred, in suggesting that this was a weapon to be used in the economic war. At the same time he did not say that when it was passed it would not be used to the fullest extent in the economic war. We all have to face the fact that it will be a powerful weapon. Tariffs were not powerful enough, apparently, in the hands of the Government. The Control of Manufactures Act was not powerful enough, so that a more powerful weapon of this kind is necessary. I suggest the more powerful the weapon given the Government the more damage they can do, not to the country they are fighting against, but to this country they are pretending to protect. That is another reason why I have certain hesitation in giving to this Government what other countries have freely given to their Governments. The Governments of other countries are, what might be described as, normal Governments but we have seen in this country in the past two years that the present Ministers have done extremely abnormal things.

It is a pity Deputy O'Sullivan would not enable us to enjoy his speech a little more by giving us some idea, beyond hints, as to the powers given to the Government that they have abused or not properly utilised. Why does he assume that we should, at once, be able to visualise these things, be able to lay our fingers upon them; why did he not help us to locate them? If he had definite instances in his mind of things of that kind that have happened, why should he be shy of mentioning them? It would help a great deal if he did so. I cannot myself think what powers, he is suggesting. I am quite prepared to be sympathetic to his charge if he gives me an opportunity of being so, but I have not the faintest idea of the particular things he is referring to. In the case of a Front Bench Deputy, at least, one should be in a position to know exactly what he is talking about. Further, with regard to Deputy O'Sullivan's speech, I do not think he is as innocent as he pretends to be. He pretends to be shocked at the increasing tendency of the Government to control and regulate commercial affairs. But he is not so innocent as to think that any country can live in the modern world and carry on its industry without constant guidance, direction, and control by the Government. Surely, when almost all countries are going in the same direction, it would have to be a very big and a very strong country, much bigger and stronger than ours is, that would say "we do not care what step other countries in the world are marching to, we will march to our own step." I am sure Deputy O'Sullivan is about the last man who believes it would be possible for this little State to act on a purely independent policy and to say that whatever policy Great Britain or Germany pursues in regard to the control of their industry, whatever power President Roosevelt may claim we, at any rate, are going to go on on our own lines and will not give our Government any more power than they had in the past. I do not think Deputy O'Sullivan would propose that at all. I do not think that even the Convention which is being held to-day would demand that. I venture to suggest that the real proof of the absurdity of Deputy O'Sullivan's remarks in this respect will be found in the resolutions passed at the Convention to-day. You will find these very free and independent citizens, who want no Government interference in their affairs, prefacing all their resolutions with the words: "We call upon the Government to do so and so and so and so."

You are greatly misinformed. You have read the wrong paper.

We can judge to-morrow who is right. At any rate the farming community are supposed to be against Government interference and against control by civil servants and yet there never was a farmers' convention that did not ask the Government to take all sorts of measures that involved Government control.

I think this Bill is a very useful and necessary measure. Apart altogether from the general question of the drift of things, generally, it seems curious that Governments did not always have the control that this Bill proposes to give the Government of this country. It seems a curious thing that any Government should find themselves in the position, when attempting to make a bargain with another State, which was able to say to them "we will give a certain concession in return for a particular concession on your part," of having to say: "Unfortunately we cannot give you anything. We have allowed our trade to be carried on by private individuals regardless of the interests of the State. We allow our citizens to buy in the cheapest market and we regret that however anxious we are to make bargains with you we cannot do so." It seems to me that unless the Government of the country is to be merely a nominal Government it should have the powers contained in this Bill. But quite frankly, I think the Bill will have to be very carefully administered. There are many opportunities in it of causing hardship to individuals and groups. I suggest to the Minister that his Department should be very careful to consult with trade organisations before enforcing its provisions; that they should look considerably in advance, and well ahead, before taking the decisions that will arise under this Bill. For instance, in the particular trade that I know a good deal of contracts are made in one particular month of the year. Deposits are paid in connection with these contracts. Immediately also considerable expense is incurred in advertising and kindred matters. It would be a very great hardship to the traders, to their staffs and employees if, three or four months after such a contract was made, and after the deposit was paid and considerable preliminary expenses were incurred, the Government came along with an announcement that the full quantity of the particular goods I have referred to could not be imported, that the quantity would have to be reduced substantially, and that, consequently, all these arrangements, and all that expense were to be seriously affected by that order. That is one instance of the hardship that might accrue.

There are other things too that occur to me in connection with the Bill. For instance, several countries have each a particular agent in this city for the importation say, of machines, from their territories. If it is proposed to transfer the importation of a certain machine or perhaps a particular quantity of a certain machine from, say, France, to Czecho-Slovakian, will the agent for the Czecho-Slovakian machines get the entire benefit, or is there to be any compensation for the agent of the French machines, for the loss of trade and the loss of capital which he has invested in connection with his business? It is very obvious that considerable adjustment would be needed. In connection with the importation of motor cars, for instance, big staffs and big premises are provided and there are also such things as arrangements with the bank, provisions for overdrafts and so on. It is very obvious that before transfers of business from one agent to another are allowed to take place or rather are compelled to take place that all these things—the effect of the transfers on the particular individuals, on employment and on capital investment— should be taken carefully into account. For that reason I suggest to the Minister with all respect—I know very well his Department is very efficient and looks considerably ahead but this is a new type of measure and its consequences might not be fully visualised— that, in the administration of the Act, consultation with traders and with trade organisations should be an essential part of the administration and that before deciding on the quotas there should at least be confidential communication with particular people with a view to ascertaining whether the scheme contains any defects or not. It would be a very serious thing if, after an agreement had been made, it were found that particular people established in business, with all the commitments that establishment in business would mean, were very seriously affected in their business and that the general effect on their position was one that the Minister would regret. At the same time, I think that this is not only a useful and necessary measure but one that should have been passed long ago and that the Dáil should have no hesitation in accepting it.

The Minister in his remarks said that this Bill is not another stage in the economic war, and then he proceeded to tell us that certain other countries had arrangements for making bargains. At the same time he did not tell us what was the underlying idea of making these bargains. Would, for instance, the Executive Council, because I presume it would be they who would be really responsible for the bargain, approach the question with the idea that the country that took most of our goods ought to get most of our orders? That might be one way of looking at it. There are a great many sides to the question. Deputy Good, in asking a question, raised, to my mind, a matter that is very relevant. If you make a bargain with a country that takes a considerable amount of your goods, are you going to take into account the question of cost, the question of the suitability of the goods and whether these goods would assemble with other goods which are imported into this country or of which there are stocks in the country? I think it would be expecting too much from the Government to think that they could possibly, in making a bargain with a country and saying to it: "Well, we will give you 25 per cent., or 50 per cent., of the orders for goods of a certain class coming into our country," to take into account transit facilities from that country, seasonal demands, and the fact that possibly in some countries the ports are closed for six months in the year. That is merely a detail, but if you got a quota for December, when the ports of that country are closed by ice, you would not be very much further on.

Deputy Moore raised another very important point which I was sorry he did not develop further, because a lot of the business in this country, and in every other country, is carried on for a period of, say, a year, and sometimes before the season opens—it varies from month to month in various trades— there have to be very considerable preparations made and very considerable commitments entered into. The Minister has not told us, for instance, what will happen if a contract is entered into between an Irish firm and a manufacturer in some other country, and the Government come along and refuse him a licence during the preliminary period. I do not know whether it is the preliminary period or the first quota period that the Minister mentioned as having a duration of six months, but while it might be possible for many transactions to be concluded within that time it would be quite inadequate for other transactions. Deputy Moore raised a very important point about people in certain trades who enter into very considerable commitments even before the season opens. If, after the season opens, they find that they have to proceed to undo what it has taken them four months to carry out, I think they will find that it will really be better for them to go out of business. I think it was Deputy Moore who mentioned the case of a French agent for machinery, when the quota is transferred from France to Czecho-Slovakia. What was the French agent to do? I tell you what I hope he will not do and what I hope the Government will take good care he does not do. I hope he does not go round to the customers and say to them: "Of course, you can import your goods in small quantities for household requirements; you know my goods; you have had them for years; this stuff from Czecho-Slovakia is unknown." The Minister, under this Bill, seems to anticipate that all goods are standard. I think everybody in trade is conversant with the fact that when new goods are brought under their notice the usual procedure is to order a very small consignment, test this out, and if it is found satisfactory order a much larger consignment and then enter into a business arrangement with the manufacturer who supplied the first lot on trial and loss. I do not see how business is to be conducted in that way if we are to go on from quota period to quota period and we are to be swapped about from one country to another.

If there is one thing that the mercantile community abhor it is the idea of these time tables. There is a preliminary period in which the announcement is made, and you have to rush down and make your peace with the Minister or Ministry in order to obtain your licence. A person may have made a favourable purchase and may be refused a licence to bring it in. I think the experience of most importers in this country is to find that the requirements of this country are too small to find in foreign countries manufacturers who are manufacturing this class of goods which they require and to find that these can be delivered just at the time they wish and that they can be brought in on a line of steamers running into this country. I would like to bring that before the notice of the Minister for the consideration of his Department when the licences and the quota periods are being fixed. Unless there are to be untold difficulties put upon the manufacturer, these quota periods must have very considerable elasticity as to when the goods are to arrive.

Nobody in these days is able to make a definite time-table where goods have to be sent long distances, and where the manufacturers have to wait until the steamer calls on certain dates. Merchants will find that the goods have arrived two days after their quota period has expired. They are then in for untold penalties unless they can get the Minister to make some sort of order varying these quota periods, and I do not see that he has taken power to do that under this Bill. There are certain details about which I would like to ask the Minister before I could criticise the Bill. What is a national? In all the other Bills or, at least, in a lot of them you have a definition of what a Saorstát national is. In this Bill there is no definition of what a national is. What is the reason of that? The next point about which I want to ask the Minister is about sub-section (3) of Section 2 which reads:—

The Executive Council may, in and by any quota order, exempt from the prohibition of importation effected by such order, goods imported in quantities not exceeding a specified amount for the use of the importer or members of his household.

Does the Minister think that there is going to be such a shortage that householders are going to be left short? I suggest to him that what he ought to do is to issue priority certificates, and say to the householder: "You can try and get goods on that certificate, and if you find that you cannot get the goods——

That section is solely designed to deal with the difficulties on the Border, and to enable some discretion to be exercised in respect of persons coming into the country. If we have a quota on collars, we will not require every passenger coming to Dun Laoghaire to take off his collar. This is purely a customs convenience.

If it is merely a question of bringing them in for customs convenience that is another matter. The Minister did not make that clear. If that is the only object of this section I am glad I have asked the question, because it has brought it to the Minister's mind. There is nothing in the point I made if that is what the sub-section means. Can I take it that it is merely for personal purposes when the goods are accompanied by the person?

There is a duty upon spirits and cigarettes, but people coming into the country are allowed to take in small quantities without paying duty. That is put in the Bill for administrative convenience. If there was a quota order for cigarettes the same convenience would be given in that section instead of having to issue a licence for small quantities.

I am glad that the meaning of that section is quite different from the interpretation I put on it. The next is sub-section (4) which reads:—

No quota order shall apply to or affect the importation into Saorstát Eireann of articles which were (whether before or after the date of such order) manufactured in and exported from Saorstát Eireann.

I think that the Minister has not said it would be 100 per cent., but I think he might put down a substantial percentage, such as 25 per cent. or one third. I think if the Minister is able to get goods out and, if they come back in the form of 25 per cent. in the manufactured article or something like that, he would be doing a very good stroke of work for the country. At the same time, I put the figure of 25 per cent. forward for the Minister to consider as to what might be done in that respect. I do not think the Minister can hope to get 100 per cent. Irish goods exported and have them coming back 100 per cent. Irish goods again. The question in such case would be what is the purpose of sending them out of the country and having them brought back? In this respect it would be a very good bargain to strike with neighbouring countries—to say to them that if there was 25 per cent. Irish material in the manufactured article they were importing they would be exempt from the quota.

In Section 6, where the Executive Council makes a quota order, the Minister has to be satisfied that under (2) (a) the individual is a national of Saorstát Eireann. There again the question arises of what is a national. In (2) (b) the Minister must be satisfied that it is a partnership of which all the members are nationals of Saorstát Eireann and that the firm has a place of business in Saorstát Eireann. I suggest to the Minister that surely partnership need not be 100 per cent. There are cases where there is some foreigner in the partnership for technical purposes. The Minister might very well allow at least some aliens with technical knowledge into the partnership. When quoting this section I understood the Minister to say: "A company carrying on a manufacturing undertaking in Saorstát Eireann"; I notice that in the Bill it is "a person." Does he mean a company as well as a person?

In the interpretation of the Act the word "person" covers all such organisations.

The next thing I should like to suggest to the Minister is that there will be a frightful difficulty with goods that are in transit, and that have arrived just inside or just outside the quota period. The Minister ought to take some power to vary the date. I should also like to ask him what is his attitude towards contracts? Is he going to protect his nationals from actions by firms outside this country for breach of contract that has been brought about by Government regulations?

Section 8 (b) says: "If the total quantity of goods for which such licences are so applied for exceeds 75 per cent. of the said quota but does not exceed the said quota..." I understood the Minister in his speech to state that he was taking power to go from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent., according to the circumstances. Is that the position?

The next question is in connection with Section 8 (c) "if the total quantity of goods for which such licences are so applied for exceeds the said quota" the Minister has to give a quantity not less than 75 per cent. of the said quota. I do not know why the Minister is cutting it down to 75 per cent. of the quota, because with the best intentions in the world you will find that the people will not be able to bring in the whole of the quotas that are allotted to them, because all sorts of unavoidable delays and cancellations of contracts will take place. I, therefore, suggest to the Minister that he might leave the country very short of the particular goods on which he is imposing a quota.

I have spoken about the Bill in general, but I should like again to urge on the Minister that if this Bill is going to pass—which I suppose it is, having been brought in by the Government—it is going to entail a tremendous hardship on the mercantile community. They will have to make all sorts of calculations, apply for all sorts of licences, and enter into a lengthy correspondence with the Minister about a whole lot of items which there may be very little in, but which, from their point of view, are very important. I should like to suggest to the Minister that the fullest possible attention— when giving a country a quota—ought to be given to such considerations as how far they are able to supply according to price, quality and the transit facilities that are available, the time of the year at which the quota is going to be granted, and how far the goods really conform to the goods in this country. As just one instance take screw tubes. There is a whole lot of screw tubes on the Continent, and I do not suppose they differ very largely from what is coming into this country. The Minister might, however, enter into negotiations, find out that the transit facilities were all right, that the price was all right, and the quality of the tubes was all right, and then issue licences for the import of those tubes, only to find that the tubes had non-standard threads on them, and could not be assembled with any existing tubes in this country. I merely give that as an instance, and while that takes place in this section of the business it must run through every other class of goods imported into this country. There is a whole lot of specialised knowledge locked up in the heads of the mercantile community, and I only hope that we will not have to find it out like the ship that was coming into port and struck a rock, thus finding out that the rock was there. I hope we will not have to strike a snag in each industry to find out the particular objections that are attendant on the importation of goods which look perfectly satisfactory on the face of them.

I must say that I am rather perturbed as to how the operation of this Bill will affect the small port and tidal harbours. One must assume that the Minister will use his powers under this Bill to fix a coal quota. In that case it is to be hoped that they will be used with a discretion favourable to the smaller ports. The limited powers which he got and used quite recently have militated against the Port of Wexford. To a great extent coal is being brought from Continental ports in ships of such a large tonnage capacity that they are not able to enter the smaller ports. I am, as I have said, rather perturbed as to the effect this Bill will have on ports like Wexford. Unless the Minister uses great discretion in issuing licences and fixing quotas I am greatly afraid that this Bill will militate very badly against such ports as I have mentioned. Quite recently there was a publication in the daily papers that the Government were negotiating with the United States with a view to having 2,000,000 tons of coal imported from the United States. I think the Minister has had representations made to him with a view to trying to stop that within recent weeks, because the Harbour Commissioners who are in charge of small ports realise the effect that that would have upon those ports. The application of tariffs generally has done a great deal of harm in small harbours. I am not going to say whether or not it has been felt in an opposite way in other directions: that matter can be discussed at another time. I would, however, suggest to the Minister that in issuing licences for coal quotas, there should be an insistence that the coal should be delivered in the port by sea. That is to say, that a port which has a pretty decent, harbour and facilities for loading and unloading should not be dependent on Cork or Waterford, or any of these other harbours where there is plenty of water at all times, for their supply of coal. I would ask the Minister to use his discretion in this matter with a view to preventing the smaller ports from being wiped out of existence altogether. There was a great fear amongst the members of the different Harbour Commissions, when they saw this Bill was about to be introduced, that it would have that effect on the harbours under their jurisdiction and they ask the Minister to give some assurance that he will try to secure that the quotas are issued in such a manner as to prevent the trade of these ports being diminished any more than it is at present.

I note that Deputy Corish is perturbed. I earnestly hope that that perturbation exists to such an extent in the minds of his fellow members of the Labour Party that they will be found giving expression to it by going into the Lobby and voting against this Bill. Otherwise, that perturbation which is supposed to exist in Deputy Corish's mind does not exist at all. This Bill, if passed, will authorise the imposition and provide for the enforcement of import quotas, and having read the Bill very carefully, I feel that the whole kernel of it is contained in Section 2, which authorises the Executive Council to do many things, such as to import articles of any particular description or descriptions. I should like to get some assurance from the Minister that in arranging for these quotas, regard will be had to two things, firstly, the matter of reciprocity or reciprocal trading by which foreign countries will take from us some of our exportable surplus of agricultural produce, for instance—if he has regard to that he will be doing a statesmanlike and a proper thing—and, secondly, to the numbers of Free State nationals engaged in other countries and so to arrange matters that if and when these quotas are brought into operation, countries such as England, Wales and Scotland, where many of our nationals find useful and good employment will be taken into consideration. Otherwise, we can only look on the Bill, notwithstanding the protestations of the Minister, as another step in the economic dispute.

I have not, at the moment, the figures by me, but they are readily available to any Deputy who takes the trouble to examine them, but we know that we send to Germany an infinitesimal quantity of goods while Germany exports considerable quantities of goods to us. I also feel that measures of this character when introduced here, have a tendency to disturb the industrial and commercial equilibrium of the country and in that disturbance, it is the general experience that the first persons to suffer are not the very wealthy classes but the poorest classes in the community and the working class people, particularly. As proof of that, we must all be aware that when tariffs were imposed on a large scale, many of our commercial travellers were thrown out of employment and many persons in the distributive trades were thrown out of employment and, last but not least, a number of dockers and other riverside workers were thrown into the ranks of the unemployed. I sincerely hope that that will not occur as a result of the operation of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, but I should like to emphasise a fact which I have emphasised in another place, that we have very few Irish nationals, either north or south, working in Czecho-Slovakia and we have very few Irish nationals working in the mines in the Ruhr Valley. We have very few Irish nationals working in Russia, in Poland, in Silesia or the one hundred and one foreign countries which will get the benefit of our trade when this Bill becomes an Act.

I do feel that when the position is thoroughly understood in the country, a very large volume of opinion will be brought to bear on the Minister's Department to stop this kind of mad legislation. It does not get us anywhere. It might be necessary in time of war, in time of big economic upheaval, to take extreme measures to safeguard our industries, but here we are entering on an era of economic topsy-turvydom. We get nothing, or relatively nothing, at all events, from these countries. They buy very little from us, while we buy many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth from them. That is the case with regard to Germany and this country, and I have no doubt at all that this Bill is largely aimed at the coal supply that hitherto has been coming from Great Britain. We have many Murphys and many McCarthys, and many Kellys and people with Italian names of that kind, working in the mines of Wales and in the English mines, but we find very few of these people working in Czecho-Slovakia, as I have said, and I do hope that in arranging for these quotas, if they have to be arranged, and as, no doubt, they will have to be, because it is a Government measure, that the Minister will have due regard to the numbers of our own kith and kin who are working across the channel, and to the fact that very few of our nationals find work in Czecho-Slovakia, in Poland, or in Russia.

Or in the United States.

They were in the United States, but they are getting fired out of it.

Deputy Anthony's statement on this Bill is in keeping with the other statements which we expect to hear from Deputy Anthony when he stands up to speak. We had Deputy O'Sullivan telling us previously that it was a good Bill and could be used to the advantage of the country, but it was being brought in by a wrong Government. That was the summing up of Deputy O'Sullivan's criticism of the Bill. Deputy Dockrell, Undoubtedly regretting the severance of the long business association between the business people of this country and across the water, and the other Deputies who spoke from the opposite benches, all wound up with the economic war—this was all meant for the economic war. The quota system that has been put on in respect of our cattle by Britain is not any result at all of the economic war, because the same quota has been put on in respect of other Dominions, and if we have an article here to sell, and if in looking for a market for that article we have to use, so to speak, the system of barter and find another country that will take it from us when we take something from them, we have to work a quota system whether Deputy Anthony likes it or not. That, to my mind, is the meaning of this Bill. I can also see, in the case of small industries springing up, industries which would not be able in themselves to cater for the whole of our trade, and in connection with which a tariff would undoubtedly be injurious, inasmuch as the licensing system is awkward, that this quota system will be of benefit. In such cases this Bill will undoubtely be very useful. We have had from the opposite side a moan about the severance of our relations with Britain and about the prevention of coal coming in from that country. I think it is the best thing that has ever happened. I would ask Deputy Anthony to cast his mind back to another place where this question of coal was discussed, and where he found that the public bodies concerned gained by getting German coal: where the benefits of German coal as against British were brought home to him. The actual results were given in black and white as the result of proposals of his which came before business men who, if anything, are totally opposed to the policy of our Government. These men considered the relative merits of German and British coal. They decided in favour of German coal and in favour, too, of kicking out Deputy Anthony's proposals.

I do not think that is so.

There was only one set of figures submitted.

Apparently you had no others, and the Unionist Harbour Board decided against you. I think the result ought to have satisfied the Deputy. The only other point that I wish to make is that where we can find a market for our produce then, in return, we are going to give the people who take it a preference, here. We are entitled to do that. What is more, we are going to do it, and that ends it, whether Deputy Anthony and those on the opposite benches like it or not.

Now, fortunately, we know all about it.

We will when you are finished.

I feel it is only right that a tribute of congratulation should be forthcoming from these benches for the valuable co-operation of Deputy Smith and Deputy Corry in illuminating us as to the underlying principles of this legislation.

Tell us all about the galvanized goods.

However, now that this economist has finished his speech perhaps the ordinary Deputy can intervene. I was amused when the Minister said that this Bill provided for a more orderly and regular regulation of imports than at present obtains. Well, it was not a hard job to do that, because if ever chaos broke out in the country I would suggest that that spot was Lord Edward Fitzgerald Street. I invite any disinterested citizen to go up and contemplate the countenances of the unfortunate civil servants in Lord Edward Fitzgerald Street who are trying to deal with the Minister's whims and fancies in respect to licences to import goods free of duty, and if his heart is not moved to pity it never will.

I have been there very often and they all seemed very pleasant-faced.

Deputy Kelly has developed a habit in this House of imposing on the indulgence of his colleagues, but there is a limit to one's patience.

You are not a bad hand at it yourself.

I am ready to take any knocks that are coming to me, but I suggest that Deputy Kelly should be kept in order by his own colleagues.

It would be no harm if you got some assistance in that direction yourself.

The Minister went on to say that this Bill was designed to do away with licences, but the fact is that this Bill is designed to perpetuate the system of licences. It is designed to be superimposed on the present licensing system. There is nothing in the Bill to make an end to the present arbitrary system of licensing which prevails. Mind you, when every country in the world is going into this quota system I think there is a great deal to be said for the point of view that our Government should have similar powers. There is a legal fiction concerned with the law that one sometimes finds: that one has to pretend to believe what everybody knows is false: the legal fiction that everyone knows the law, and of course nobody does. For the purposes of legislation of this character we must have the constitutional fiction that the men who are sitting on those benches are fit to sit on them. Everybody knows that is a fiction: everybody knows that they are not fit to sit on those benches, but we have got to assume that they are.

The people know it.

We did not ask you to assume it.

We will keep you off them, anyhow.

We are told that the licensing system under this Bill is something that nobody need be the least afraid of. In the hands of a normal Government there ought not to be any serious apprehensions in the minds of the people, but I recall to the memory of the House an incident in connection with the operation of the present licensing powers that took place in the County Donegal. Under the Cereals Act that we passed here there was a prohibition placed upon the imports of flour, but there was a saving clause giving the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to permit the import of flour under emergency circumstances. What happened? Representations were made to the responsible Ministers and a licence was issued to a notorious and uproarious supporter of Fianna Fáil in the County Donegal.

The Deputy has forgotten what the Act was about.

I am talking about the licensing provisions in the Act. A licence was issued.

Is it the Deputy's point that a supporter of Fianna Fáil must not get a licence under any circumstance?

The Minister is in a difficulty.

Would the Deputy inquire how many supporters of Cumann na nGaedheal got licences? This is the same allegation, based entirely on ignorance, which the Deputy made before and which was completely exploded.

The Minister does not like to heal about it. Bad as the foundation is, it is good enough to start an irritation somewhere in the Minister's constitution.

I object to decent citizens—better than the Deputy ever was—being slandered by him.

This particularly uproarious and notorious supporter of Fianna Fáil——

The best man in County Donegal.

——got his licence. He has changed his coat so often that I warn the Minister that while he supported you at the last election, he may be against you at the next election.

I do not care what his politics are.

He got a licence to import baker's flour in order to keep his bakery open to feed the starving people of County Donegal. Having got his licence, he brought in ordinary shop flour to the extent of half the quantity allowed him, and he sold the shop flour to his competitors' customers about 4/- per sack cheaper than his unfortunate competitors could sell it.

The Deputy has his facts all wrong. This merchant got a licence to import flour.

I know the facts, and a good many people in the County Donegal know the facts. Deputy Brady and Deputy Hugh Doherty know the facts. Everybody else in County Donegal knows the facts.

Every other baker in Donegal got a licence to import flour.

They got no such thing. Some of them who did took in baker's flour, not shop flour to cut the prices of competitors.

If the Deputy looks at the Act he will see that there is no reference in it to baker's flour.

That is the point I am making. A person could go to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and make representations through Fianna Fáil Deputies that he wanted flour for a certain purpose. On that false representation, he got a licence and he brings in the goods for an entirely different purpose.

I want to make a protest. This was ventilated in the Dáil before, and the Deputy is slandering a business man in Donegal. He is alleging that that man got concessions he should not have got by making false representations. That is not true. Deputy Dillon refused to make the inquiries which he ought to have made before making such an allegation here. It is about time that Deputies ceased to abuse the privileges of this House by slandering people who cannot answer the charges.

The Minister can drop the bluff. If the Minister wants to answer me, he can answer me when I sit down.

I am protesting to the Chair.

I refuse to give way to the Minister. The Minister is one of the most brazen-faced bluffers ever heard in this House.

Dubhairt an tAire nár bhfíor an rund adubhairt an Teachta O Diolúin. An ceart don Teachta leanúint den scéal in a dhiaidh sin?

Learn the Standing Orders.

Dubhairt an tAire nár bhfíor an rud adubhairt an Teachta. Níor ghlac an Teachta O Díil úin leis sin. An bhfuil san ceart no an bhfuil an Teachta in ordú?

If a charge is made against a particular Deputy, and that Deputy denies the charge, the Deputy making the charge has to accept the other Deputy's statement. In this particular instance, Deputy Dillon alleges that certain merchants were granted preferential treatment, so to speak. The Minister denies that preferential treatment has been given.

No; the point is that Deputy Dillon alleged that this person succeeded in getting into this position by making false representations to the Department of Industry and Commerce. That is the allegation that Deputy Dillon has made.

Ní dubhairt sé é sin.

I did not gather that Deputy Dillon said that false representations were made to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Deputy has no right to make, under the protection of the House, statements like that regarding any citizen.

I submit that I have not used a single syllable that transgressed the rules of order. The Minister is trying, by cheap bluff, to suppress something that he does not want brought into the light of day. I have made the allegation, every word of which I stand over, that representations were made to the Department of Industry and Commerce to secure from that Department, or the Department of Agriculture, a licences to import flour in favour of one individual, to the grave detriment of his legitimate competitors in trade.

He was entitled to a licence.

I say it was a scandalous misuse of licensing power.

What do you know about it?

I know all about it—a great deal more about it than you would care I should know.

Deputy Dillon is, I understand, making political charges against the Minister?

Certainly—charges of general incompetence.

The charge is one of corruption.

No, I do not think that Deputy Dillon has alleged that there has been any consideration.

I take it that Deputy Dillon is charging me with having given a supporter of my Party a licence to import flour that that person was not entitled to. Is not that the charge?

I shall make whatever statements I please.

And run away from them as fast as you can.

The Chair will deal with me if I transgress the rules of order. I repeat that the licensing provisions contained in previous legislation have resulted in a person securing a licence from the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of Agriculture, which licence placed him in a position to bring flour into the County Donegal without paying the 5/- tariff, and placed him in a position to sell that flour at a great advantage as compared with his legitimate competitors. I say that that is scandalous.

Where did his legitimate competitors get their flour?

They were obliged to import flour or to purchase flour manufactured in the Saorstát, the price of which had been raised under the protection of the tariff, as was admitted three days ago at the Commission on Prices when that Commission was investigating the price of bread. This Bill proposes not only to leave those deplorable licensing provisions in full operation but to extend them.

Before I pass from that question of licensing, a question was put down here a couple of days ago with reference to the cattle quota provided for Mr. Killeen, of Claremorris. It is commonly stated in every fair in the country that Mr. Killen, of Claremorris, is in a position to export a greater number of fat cattle under the quota licence which it is in the power of the Department of Agriculture to issue than anybody else. Before any allegation was made in that respect, a question was addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. The answer of the Minister was that it was not in the public interest to inform anybody what quota Mr. Killeen or any other individual got. We do not know, and no member of the public knows, whether or not that individual or any other individual is getting preferential treatment under that quota system. So far as I can see, there is nothing in this Bill which would enable a member of this House or anybody else to find out whether the Minister, in the exercise of his discretion, does not prefer the claim of one citizen to that of another. There are circumstances in which the Minister will allot the quota at his absolute discretion. To my mind, that opens the door to grave abuse. Legislation along those lines is, in itself, bad. There ought to be no scope for such preference or advantage under legislation of this kind as between citizens in the enjoyment of their rights.

Deputy Moore asked why we should hesitate to give this Government the fullest power and authority. He said: "You have given it before and they have never misused it or, if they have, tell us about it." Deputy Moore has vanished. I should like to remind him of one case in which a measure passed through this House has been used and is being used to-day for a purpose entirely different from that for which it was passed originally. The Emergency Imposition of Duties Act was passed at the earnest request of President de Valera to provide him with weapons to fight his war with the British Government during the recess and afterwards. It was passed, I think, eighteen months ago. That Act gave the Executive Council power to impose duties without reference to this House at all. It was represented as an emergency measure. The Minister was asked "Why do you use that measure for the imposition of ordinary tariffs?"

"Well," he said, "there was another measure which was virtually if identical with this measure. It was an expiring statute, and we just let it expire and started to use the same powers under this Bill." He entirely forgot to mention that the expiring statute placed on him the onus of coming to this House with any Imposition of Duty Order and having a financial resolution passed, whereas the statute under which he is operating at the present time places no obligation on him to do that at all, and we have him putting a duty on sugar.

Why do you not read the Act before you talk about it?

I did read it, and I know all about it. He puts a duty on sugar a couple of days ago, and restores to the backs of the ratepayers a burden which the Minister for Finance spent half an hour of passionate eloquence taking off in his Budget speech. He described his Government as a Christian Government, a Government that loved the poor, and whose only solicitude was to lighten the burden on the backs of the poor and, in virtue of that he took off the tax on sugar which was the food of the children of the destitute and downtrodden; but now the hard-hearted businesslike Minister for Industry and Commerce comes along a few months later, one month before the Budget is to be introduced, and says: "Cut out all this tripe about the destitute and downtrodden poor. Sock it on. Put back the halfpenny. It is all part of the game." Is that use or misuse of the powers President de Valera asked for? Was it for that we gave him those powers? Does not everybody know it was not?

Now I come to Section 8, sub-section (2) (c), which says:—

If the total quantity of goods for which such licences are so applied for exceeds the said quota, every such licence shall be a licence for the importation of such quantity of goods (not exceeding the quantity mentioned in the application for such licence) as the Minister shall, in the case of each particular licence, determine having regard to the interests of persons who were ordinarily engaged before the making of such quota order in the importation of goods to which the said quota order applies, but so that the total quantity of goods for the importation of which such licences are issued is not less than seventyfive per cent. of the said quota.

That sub-section is not easy to understand. Does it mean that the circumstances envisaged in that sub-section discharge the Minister from all statutory obligations and give him the absolute discretion to divide up the quota as he thinks best? Is that the correct explanation?

I would despair of explaining it to the Deputy.

Perhaps the Minister does not care to explain. Of course, if it does mean any such thing, it is manifestly wrong, and it opens the door wide to the very abuse to which I have referred earlier in my speech this evening. Personally, if I had confidence in this Government——

The Bill would be a good one, I suppose!

——if I had confidence in this Government and found the Government face to face with other Governments which were resorting to this extremely undesirable quota system; if I believed that this Government was going to use this quota system for the purpose of securing as useful markets, profitable markets, unsubsidised markets, I think on the whole, the Government would be entitled to get these powers; but when I look back on the effects on Irish trade that the gyrations of the Minister for Industry and Commerce during the last 18 months have had, I am very reluctant to put any more weapons in his hand. He has been dancing the can-can now, like a Dervish, for the last 18 months, lashing out in every direction with every weapon in the armoury of his Department, and cutting more legs off Irishmen than heads off foreigners. This is another very sharp knife. Used with precision and prudence, it might achieve something, but if it is to be used to whirl around the Minister's head while he executes a new step in the political can-can in which he is engaged at the present time then, inevitably, it will do far more harm than good. I have no hope now of dissuading the Minister from dancing himself into a Dervish fit. They will go on following the mad career they have been pursuing for the last 18 months. They have gone so far now that they have not the moral courage to go back. I have no desire to put another weapon in the Minister's hands. I have no desire to give him power to do more damage than he has done already. He will get up in a minute and say that this Bill is one of the greatest feats of industrial regeneration that was ever seen in Europe. Deputy Tom Kelly will spend a year looking for it, and it will take him longer to find it than it took us when we were looking for the Minister this afternoon.

The fact remains that this Government is not competent to have the powers proposed to be conferred in this Bill. If they were competent enough, they would get the Bill without serious demur from any part of the House. As it is, they will get it with the very gravest misgivings of every sensible person in the mercantile life of this country.

I should like to know from the Minister whether all imports come under this Bill. Are there to be quotas for all imports?

There are not? Can the Executive Council, at any time it likes, make an import the subject of an order? The Minister seems to dissent. Well, now, I want to show the Minister what is the position of a business man. In my business we tender for very large works extending over twelve and eighteen months. In those works there are a great many commodities not manufactured in the country. A great quantity of steel is not manufactured in the country, although it may be fabricated here. I am called upon to quote for a contract that has 500 tons of steel in it. Steel is not the subject of the quota when I make my tender; the market is free. I take the lowest tender and base my tender for the contract on that. Two months after I have sent in my estimate and that estimate has been accepted, steel is made the subject of a quota. I am compelled, instead of buying in the cheapest market, to buy in the market with which the Government arranges. The Government is taking another commodity from them, and they have undertaken to take so much of another commodity they have to sell. That commodity may cost £2 or £3 a ton more. Who is to compensate me? Business is impossible on that basis. Let us take the case of an industry that we are all anxious to encourage— shipbuilding. The raw materials for shipbuilding are not manufactured here; the plates have to be imported. An order is placed here on a definite contract, and that order is based on the lowest price that can be obtained in a free market. Three months after the order has been accepted the raw materials become the subject of a quota. Business is absolutely impossible in that way. If the Minister wanted to bring in a Bill that was fair and reasonable he would have a schedule attached to it, and he would include in the schedule certain items for which he was going to declare a quota. In that way business men would be warned that this was not a free market, and they would know what to do. There is no use in driving the little business we have out of this country. Business has been harassed since this Government came into power. We have had tariffs. The quays are full of stuff that will never arrive at its destination, and that is not fit to be sent back. This system is making business impossible. In its present form, at all events, I am not afraid to say that this Bill is the worst Bill that has been introduced here.

Did the Deputy ever say that before?

I am speaking as a business man, and I challenge any business man to declare that what I have said is false. During the 11 years I have been a member of this House we have had bad Bills which interfered with business, but this Bill will stop all business.

Is it not usual to have a clause in contracts protecting business people against the vagaries of tariffs?

In some contracts.

Mr. Kelly

It is done in nearly all contracts in the Deputy's line of business.

One cannot protect oneself against everything.

I think Hitler and Mussolini would be ashamed to acknowledge the Deputies opposite as Fascists. It may be that in their organisation they have got people who read a few newspaper articles about Fascism, and who know something about it, but none of these have yet been elected to this House and probably none of them ever will be. I was reading the United Irishman last week.

Mr. Kelly

I am sorry to hear the Minister is reading it.

I was reading an article that set out a programme to regulate all our economic activities.

We will have you converted.

I am certain that at this moment, at the meeting of the supporters of the Party opposite being held to-day, a resolution is probably being passed declaring it to be the policy of that Party to regulate all economic activities. I heard Deputy Dillon making a speech about it. I do not say that the speech was intelligible. The Deputy made a speech about corporations, councils and industrial courts. A scheme of institutions to regulate economic activities of all kinds was set forth in every paragraph of the programme of that Party. When an attempt is made to regulate to the minimum degree an economic activity that has to be regulated, Deputies come here and cast their doubts before us revealing an absence of any basic plan behind the various schemes they formulate. They talk about the inadvisability of regulation; the slippery slope of regulation; that the introduction of a Bill of this kind leads to another Bill until all economic activities are regulated. Mind you, the Great White Chief will be repudiated. He has been making many speeches lately, in which he said some things he will find it hard to explain. If he reads the speeches which are made in the Dáil—and he will probably be foolish enough to do that—he will have a lot of trouble in trying to reconcile his own declared policy with the views expressed here by his sub-lieutenant's, sergeant-major's, company-captain's, or whatever they are. It is a repudiation of the Fascist doctrine by two of the leading Fascists and an interesting development. Do they stand for the regulation of economic activities or do they not? Is the editor of the United Irishman a member of the Party opposite, or merely stealing their name and trying to tack on to them a policy that they repudiate? Does Deputy Dillon read the United Irishman? If he read the United Irishman he would, at least, know more about the policy of his own Party.

The Deputy will tell me all about it.

Deputy Dillon's lungs generate a certain amount of nitrogen and that nitrogen must come out. It beats against his vocal chords coming out.

The Minister knows as much about physiology as he does about industry.

It does not matter to the Deputy whether the sounds are intelligible or not. As a rule they are not intelligible. Sometimes he lets them become slanderous. I want to talk to the Deputy about the habit he has of attacking, in ignorance, decent citizens of this State by making wild charges, without having any shred of evidence to support them. He asked a question about a licence that was issued for the importation of flour by a particular concern in Donegal, and mentioned an individual. He certainly said enough to indicate who it was. As a matter of fact the licence about which Deputy Dillon was inquiring was one given, not to an individual but to a co-operative society. The implication of Deputy Dillon's remarks was that a certain individual, being a supporter of Fianna Fáil, either on the basis of false representation or otherwise, succeeded in getting a licence to import flour, to which he was not entitled. Is not that the allegation? The society in question is the Templecrone Co-operative Society, the Chairman of which is Mr. Patrick Gallagher. As many Deputies know, Mr. Gallagher is the Chairman of the Society, a position for which he is paid much less per week than Deputy Dillon receives per day. The salary is one which a junior clerk in the employment of the Dáil would not accept. Mr. Gallagher refused to take an increase in his salary. He is running a group of industries in the western part of Donegal which employs 300 or 400 people, industries which have succeeded against tariffs and quotas in sending their goods into the world's markets on merit. That is the man Deputy Dillon attacked, a better man than Deputy Dillon or anyone in his Party will ever be. He made an allegation against Mr. Gallagher, of false representation.

On a point of order. I made an allegation against no individual and in this House I named no individual. As I understand, it is strictly against the Rules of this House to make an allegation against any person who is not here in person to defend himself. The Minister has chosen to assume that the allegation I made in respect of a certain licence referred to Mr. Patrick Gallagher, of the Templecrone Society. The Chair knows that I have never transgressed the rules of order by mentioning the name of a citizen, whatever the Minister may have done.

The Minister is not making any charge.

I take it that what Deputy Dillon said is a charge against me, that I issued to some person a licence he should not have got.

You are responsible.

Such licence was issued on my direct instructions. There was no one else responsible. That is the allegation?

A question was asked about the licence. I take it that the question was about the licence issued to the Templecrone Co-operative Society. Let us get rid of the humbug The society in question was trading and operated a bakery. It got a licence to import flour and, since Deputy Dillon asked the question, it got further licences to import flour, and everyone else in Donegal in the same position got licences to import flour. Deputy Dillon's allegation is that this man got flour free of duty, whereas his competitors had to pay duty. His competitors had not to pay duty. Since the Cereals Act became law it is not possible for anyone to import flour except on licence. There is no duty on flour. Deputy Dillon forgot that.

I did not forget that. At the time the flour was imported there was a duty of 5/- a sack on it.

When Deputy Dillon's question was asked?

The Minister issued the permit and should know.

The question he asked here related to a period when the situation was as I have described.

There was a duty of 5/- per sack on flour when the permit was issued. Do you deny that?

The Deputy may be talking about a different permit. Listen to what I am going to say. Both before and since there was a duty on flour that society have got permits to import flour, and so long as flour has to be imported they are as much entitled to it as anyone else on the list of importers, and because they are entitled to it they are going to get it.

This was a licence to import free of duty.

What else is a licence? Other licences were issued to import free of duty.

A licence under the Cereals Act is to import——

Free of duty. All licences are licences to import free of duty.

Not necessarily.

Before the Cereals Act became law anyone could import flour and pay the duty. Since the Cereals Act became law there is no duty.

His competitors had to pay the duty and he had not.

The Deputy's allegation was that this co-operative society, for political reasons, got, to use his own phrase, on the basis of false representations, a licence that they should not have got. It is not true, and I challenge Deputy Dillon to produce one shred of evidence in support of the allegation.

My allegation is, and I repeat it as the Minister wants it repeated, that a person who is a notorious and uproarious supporter of his Party got a licence to import flour free of duty, when his competitors were under the obligation to pay 5/- per sack duty, and that he sold the flour in competition with his competitors to their grave detriment.

The people who imported flour and paid duty on it were people who were not entitled to a licence, and because they were importing that flour we prohibited this importation. We imposed a duty of 5/- per sack on flour with the intention that it would be prohibitive, but it was not. Therefore, we made it prohibitive. Deputy Dillon came in here and threw out his allegation.

That allegation was proved up to the hilt.

He did not care whether it was slanderous or not. He never proved anything in his life. He never even proved his right and title to be a member of this House. That was the basis of his allegation. On the basis of that he tries to condemn the whole system of regulated imports for the benefit of the industries of the country. I think his attitude on the question is contemptible. This is not the first time he has abused the privilege of the House in order to attack people who are his political opponents on the basis of false information or his own imagination. I have nothing to say about the other case he mentioned as to the licence for the export of cattle. That is a matter entirely for the Minister for Agriculture. If it were for me, nobody would get a licence to export cattle who did not, first of all, produce a receipt for his rates.

Now he wants this Bill.

Now we will get to the Bill. This Bill sets out, on the face of it, the considerations that are going to apply in the issue of licences. If Deputy Dillon has read the Bill he will know that. It sets out seriatim the circumstances under which a licence must be granted, or under which it may be refused. It can only be refused in two circumstances. It can be refused in the event of the total applications for licences involving a quantity in excess of the quota, and that amongst those applications there is one from a person who was not previously engaged in the business of importing those goods; or it can be refused to a person who has been convicted of an offence under the Act, and not otherwise. These are the only circumstances in which it can be refused. Deputy Dillon asked about taking into regard the interests of persons previously engaged in a particular business. Let him sit down and think and produce here in the form of an amendment for the Committee Stage an alternative to that if he can think of it. Let his great mind work.

What is the meaning of Section 8 (2) c)? Explain it.

I shall explain it. If the total quantity applied for is less than the quota, taking 75 per cent. of the total quota as the figure that matters, everybody must get a licence for all they apply for. If the total applications exceed 75 per cent., or are less than 100 per cent., then either of two things happens: either every application is pro rata reduced so that the total quantity is 75 per cent., or else everybody gets a licence for all they apply for. But if the total applications exceed 100 per cent. of the quota, then there has to be a discrimination exercised to ensure that injustice is not done by speculators to people bona fide and regularly in the business of importing those goods. We could say simply that in the event of applications for licences exceeding 100 per cent. of the quota all applications will be pro rata reduced, but Deputy Dillon, if he has any imagination, can imagine what would happen in those circumstances. The only alternative is to give a discretion to the responsible Minister, indicating, on the face of the statute, the manner in which that discretion must be exercised.

Why not have reference to his imports previously?

The Deputy may take it that that will be taken into consideration in those circumstances.

That ought to be referred to on the face of the statute.

It need not necessarily be.

Could it not be?

I asked Deputy Dillon to produce his alternative in the form of an amendment.

Will you accept it?

I do not think so. It is not likely to be sufficiently intelligible. Let us see what it is, anyway. Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Dillon, of course, take the one line in relation to this Bill. It is a good Bill if there were a good Government to administer it. To quote Deputy Dillon's words, they have a monopoly in this House of honesty, prudence, discretion, and all the other virtues. On this side of the House there is nothing but corruption, wickedness, intrigue, and a feeling that we must do the worst by our political opponents and the best by our political friends. That is the attitude. It is extraordinary the very poor ideas Deputies opposite have about themselves. We like their modesty. They never sing their own virtues; they leave them to be inferred; or perhaps they feel it is necessary to make speeches of that kind so that people will know exactly what great people they are. Deputy O'Sullivan's modesty was always well-known, but Deputy Dillon's has been revealed in all its pristine glory this evening. If only he were over here, of course, those powers would be all right.

What do you mean by pristine?

Deputy Dillon's assertion is that if only he were over here it would be possible to confer those powers upon him with full confidence that they would be administered properly, impartially, honestly and justly. Deputy Dillon always reminds me of the youngster at school who gets first place in the school examination, goes home to his father with a certificate and says: "Father, look at the very clever fellow I am." That is his whole attitude to life. The trouble is he got the certificate under false representations.

Like the flour licence.

Like the flour licence he is talking about that was never issued.

It is a rattler he should have.

It may be that the Deputies opposite possess all the virtues and that we on these benches have all the vices, but for the time being, we have been entrusted with the responsibility of government and, if this Bill is a good Bill, then Deputies may pass it with the knowledge that whatever may happen, and if the people will be so foolish as to put them into office, this measure will be there for them to operate. It may be that in ten or 15 years' time the people may desire a change of Government. I do not think that is likely, having regard to the only alternative that is offering. But if they should desire a change, is it not well that this measure should be there ready for operation? In the meantime, however, the country has made its selection in regard to a Government. They do not seem to be displeased with their selection. They do not seem to think as highly of Deputy Dillon as he seems to think of himself. I grant you that that would be very difficult.

At any rate, the regulation of economic activities of this kind is coming. It has come to other portions of the world, and it has been forced upon us in consequence of developments elsewhere. It is, I think, a necessary and inevitable step in the improvement of the economic equipment of this nation that a Bill of this kind should be passed. Deputy Good says it will tend to make business impossible. In fact, he referred to the different Bills introduced by this Government as Bills tending to make business impossible. Of course, Deputy Good has only one definition of business. Business to Deputy Good, and those with whom he associates, consists of importing goods. I agree that the imposition of customs duties or quota systems is designed to impede the importation of certain classes of goods. I do not say we are making business impossible, but we are certainly impeding the importation of particular classes of goods. The more they do that, the more our tariffs are achieving their purpose. Other people have a different definition of business than Deputy Good. The best business of all is to develop the production of those articles in our own country.

And Deputy Good is engaged in that business, and the Minister knows it.

I am glad to hear he is so engaged.

The Minister introduced a special Bill this evening to recognise that he is.

Leaving aside Deputy Mulcahy's irrelevant interruption——

It is very much to the point.

——Deputy Good's statement about making business impossible is unintelligible unless the term "business" is correctly interpreted, and the term "business," as the Deputy uses it, is not the business of manufacturing for sale and distributing the goods manufactured here, but rather is it the business of importing goods manufactured in other countries.

Any man who makes that statement does not know business.

The enactment of this measure will simplify the procedure at present in operation for the regulation of imports of various kinds. Deputy Dockrell probably has experience of a particular class of case which he obviously had in mind when he was speaking. For a period we had to regulate the importation of planed and dressed timber. A duty was imposed and for nearly 12 months we had to regulate the importation of those goods until the productive capacity of the Saorstát firms had been increased sufficiently to meet the country's requirements. There was, in relation to that, an absolute discretion. Deputy Dockrell knows the procedure adopted. The merchants were taken into consultation. They were asked to state their difficulties and they frequently overstated them. At any rate, a system was devised which worked fairly, and there is not another member of the business community who has had any experience of the operation of the licensing systems now in force who will not be prepared to testify that they are worked fairly and impartially. They may not always have been satisfied with the way those systems worked; we may have restricted supplies to an extent more than they were prepared to agree to, and we may have endeavoured to speed up production more rapidly than they anticipated, but at any rate the systems operated so fairly that a very large number of those people, in public, have given testimony to the fact, and their word is much more likely to carry with business men in this country than the wild allegations of Deputy Dillon and the vague insinuations of Deputy O'Sullivan.

Deputy Good suggested consultation with persons engaged in any particular trade likely to be affected by a quota order, and Deputy Moore made the same suggestion. That consultation will undoubtedly take place. The period of six weeks between the making of the quota order and the commencement of the quota period is provided to enable that type of consultation to take place. You could not have it before making the order. If I take a group of business men engaged in the importation of a commodity and tell them that in six weeks' time there is going to be a tariff imposed or a quota established, I could get no further; they would be all out of the room immediately to get in touch with their agents on the telephone in order to rush goods into the country before the period expired.

What about those who enter contracts?

The procedure would be that, having made the order, a consultation would then take place and the position of contractors can be safeguarded. I suggest that contractors should themselves safeguard their own positions by the insertion of clauses in contracts of the kind inserted in contracts in other countries where imported goods are specified.

Will shipbuilders do the same?

It has always been the practice to regard shipbuilding as a trade apart, and to operate tariffs so as to exclude goods intended for shipbuilding purposes from their scope. Shipbuilding firms here have been given complete exemption from tariffs for all goods necessarily imported for shipbuilding purposes. That practice is not merely the practice in this country, but in all countries, because the shipbuilding industry is one that it is desirable to reserve and is one which can easily be killed, because orders for the construction of ships can be transferred from one country to another with very considerable ease.

How will they be exempted?

They will be guaranteed quotas if the goods they require are the subjects of quota orders. Deputy Good seems to have the idea that this will apply to all goods imported. That is not so. There are many classes of goods in respect to which a quota system would not be possible of operation, because it would be impossible to define them in an appropriate fashion. You have, for instance, machinery for the generation of electricity or the manufacture of cement, or some other class of machinery of that kind. One could not submit a quota for such machinery. You might have a half a million pounds worth imported one year and the next year you might import none at all. It is impossible to define it in terms of quantity. The quota system is completely impracticable in relation to many classes of goods. However, there are many classes of goods where it can be applied where there are standardised qualities. Flour is one of them, and it is now subject to a quota. Sugar is another, and there are many other commodities which I do not want to mention now, because if I did there would be immediate importations of them in anticipation.

Why not have a schedule?

That is the very thing we are anxious to avoid. If we introduced into this Bill a list of goods that were to be subject to quota restriction during the next six weeks the ports would be choked with imports.

You could protect yourself.

Only by imposing restrictions forthwith, and it is precisely for that reason that the quotas, when they come into operation, will like customs duties be effective from thenceforward.

But I think it is rather unfair to those engaged in industries where they have entered into contracts which may be seriously affected. These people will have no idea at all of what they are to be allowed.

There will be no difficulty in providing machinery to meet these difficulties so far as goods in transit are concerned the discretion exercisable during the first six weeks will cover that point, but if it does not, the issue of a licence during the quota period can be so arranged as to provide against any injury being inflicted upon particular interests.

What about the man who has entered into a contract and cannot possibly get out of it?

The quota would not be fixed for five weeks after the making of the order. During that period, all these consultations can take place, and any representations the parties want to make can be made. It is only in the light of the knowledge which is acquired that the actual quantity to be imported will be fixed.

Will they have priority over others?

I think they should have. Deputy Dockrell referred to getting a definition of "national". There is necessity for a definition and it will be inserted in the Bill. It was omitted through an oversight. The Unemployment Assistance Act has a definition, and I think it is the best of the various definitions that we have had from time to time. It is also necessary to get a definition of the phrase "manufactured in" so as to define the percentage of value that must be added by a process of manufacture in any country to enable goods to be defined as manufactured in that country. That will be dealt with on the Report Stage. Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned a number of things but none of them very definite. He skirted the subject and threw out a number of innuendoes and hints but neither his objections to the Bill nor his argument against it were stated in a clear manner. He ended up by saying that the Bill might be a good Bill if properly administered. As against his opinion as to the working of the Bill by this Government I am prepared to accept the opinion of the broad masses of the people. He had difficulty about how special quotas would be allocated. Would each importer be required to import his full portion of the quota from the country to which the special quota was allotted? That would not be the position. If a certain commodity is bought subject to the quota order— take flour as an example, assuming this Bill applied to flour—and that it was decided to make a special order confining 25 per cent. of the total imports say to France, the procedure would be precisely as if they were two separate quotas to be allotted. As regards 75 per cent., applications would be received from persons who are registered and dealt with as specified in the Bill. The 25 per cent. would be allotted in the same way. If there was a reluctance to import French flour the importers would apply for their share of the 75 per cent. and when the whole of that had been allotted those who still wanted to import would be confined to the 25 per cent, and to getting the material from one country. This system has operated elsewhere and judging by the number of European countries that use it it is the system that offers the least difficulty.

It would be undesirable, I think, to publish, as Deputy O'Sullivan suggested, the figures supplied by businessmen as to their business in previous years, upon which our decision concerning the licences to be issued might be based. If there were a mere automatic issue of licences in each case the amount being the amount applied for, there could be no objection to publishing the full list, but if there is a discretion exercised, on the basis of confining business to those previously engaged in it, to the extent that they were previously engaged in it, we would have to get from these firms, from their books, what their previous business was, and that should be regarded as confidential and not for publication. That would mean that certain work under the Bill may not be done publicly, but so far as that is concerned, it will be merely to protect the interests of the business firms concerned. I think I have now dealt with all the points of importance raised, but before concluding there is one further point to which I would refer. We have, at the present time, with a number of countries most favoured nation treaties. These treaties require us to give, in respect of goods imported from the countries concerned, terms as favourable as those which we give to any other country. The operation of the most favoured nation clause in trade treaties was, of course, the big barrier to the rapid introduction of the quota system, because it was possible under that clause for any one country to claim quotas as large as the largest given to any other country. Various devices have been adopted by each Government in order to meet their legal obligations under that clause. Whatever device we adopt will at least have the sanction of acceptance generally in Europe. We have a number of devices to choose from. They are all equally effective in securing a certain amount of liberty in the quota system despite the fact that the most favoured nation obligations exist.

Our intention is to respect our most-favoured nation obligations in full, and it is not expected that we will have any difficulty in that regard. The bulk of the goods imported in the past into this country came from Great Britain. We have no most-favoured nation treaty with Great Britain, and in so far as changes in the direction of trade must take place in consequence of the operation of this Bill, they must necessarily be at the expense of British exporters. That may be what Deputy O'Sullivan had in mind when he talked about the intensification of the economic war. I may say however, that, on the basis of reciprocity we are ready to do business with Great Britain or with any other country at any time. The position will be, therefore, that in so far as the most-favoured nation obligations of this country may require the issue of quotas or special quotas for various classes of goods, they can be issued and will be issued so as to secure continuance of that arrangement wherever it exists. In fact, however, the number of countries with which any substantial volume of trade is done under a most favoured nation treaty arrangement with us, is not very large. Wherever that system exists it generally operates only in respect of limited ranges of goods, so that the effect of the clause on the operation of any quota system can be easily determined. I gather that everybody in the Dáil with the exception of Deputy Anthony is in favour of the Bill.

Will the Minister say a word in regard to the question which I raised?

As regards the question raised by Deputy Corish, I am afraid I can say nothing at this stage. We are anxious, with reference to the smaller harbours, to see some development of these harbours or, at any rate, their continued operation. It may be necessary on occasion to take action which may be detrimental to particular harbours, but we shall try to avoid that. It seems to me that so far as Wexford Harbour is concerned, the most satisfactory solution of the difficulty is to make the harbour capable of accommodating the larger vessels which are now going to Rosslare.

Will we get any assistance from the Government?

That is another question.

I should like to ask the Minister a question. I do not know whether he has dealt with the matter already. If he gets this Bill, will the Government use it strongly and ruthlessly if necessary to change the present lop-sided, one-sided state of our trade with continental countries?

In so far as the powers given to us allow, they will be used in the most gentlemanly manner in order to develop our export trade with the Continent.

Question put and agreed to.

I suggest that the Committee Stage be taken next Wednesday.

Could the Minister not give us a little longer? It is rather an important Bill.

I suggest that it should be put down for next Wednesday. I am not sure how the Parliamentary programme is to be arranged, but if there is a sufficient amount of business I should be quite prepared to leave it to the bottom of the list.

This Bill requires some inquiry. It is hardly for the Minister to say, for that is in essence what he said, that the public will pay the cost.

If it is put down for Wednesday, I would be quite prepared to leave it to the bottom of the list provided we get to the Committee Stage some day next week, Thursday or Friday.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th February.
Top
Share