I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, to delete Section 1 (2).
This is to delete from Section 1 a sub-section which was inserted in Committee and which it is proposed to re-enact in a new section in a somewhat altered and improved form.
Control of Imports Bill, 1934—Report.
What is the improvement?
Paragraph (b) provides for a national whose mother was at sea at the time he was born.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 2, before Section 2, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In this Act the word "importation" and cognate words shall be construed as not including or applying to importation for the purposes only of transit and consequent exportation.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, importation shall be deemed to take place when the importing conveyance is reported under the Customs Acts.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, goods shall not be deemed to have been manufactured in a particular country unless the prescribed proportion of their value is derived from expenditure of a prescribed kind incurred in the said country in respect of materials produced or work done in that country.
(4) Each of the following persons shall for the purposes of this Act be a national of Saorstát Eireann, that is to say:—
(a) a person born in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now comprised in Saorstát Eireann;
(b) a person born outside Saorstát Eireann or the area now comprised in Saorstát Eireann whose mother at the time of his birth was ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann or such area;
(c) a person who at the relevant time is and for not less than five consecutive years immediately preceding that time has been ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann.
This is a section to provide for a number of matters of interpretation. Sub-section (1) provides that the word "importation" and similar words shall not be construed as applying to importation for the purposes only of transit and consequent exportation; in other words, goods which come in transit are not deemed to be imported. It is necessary to have such a sub-section inserted, because otherwise it might be held that a ship calling at a Saorstát port with goods not intended for a Saorstát destination on board would, nevertheless, be importing those goods and they would be subject to the quota restriction. Sub-section (2) provides that importation shall be deemed to take place when the importing conveyance is reported under the Customs Acts. That is the necessary legal form. Sub-section (3) provides a definition of the term "manufactured in," to which reference was made on the Committee Stage. I explained then that the use of the term "manufactured in" required some further provision in the Bill so as to make it quite clear what value added to the goods by a process undertaken in any country would entitle those goods to the description of being manufactured in that country. The proposal here is that that percentage of added value shall be preseribed in relation to the particular classes of goods subject to a quota order. Sub-section (4) is merely a re-enactment of the sub-section dealing with the definition of national of Saorstát Eireann.
I take it that sub-section (2) means when they are entered—that that is the moment at which they are supposed to be imported. For the purposes of revenue that might be a very fair arrangement, but under this Bill, where certain whole cargoes might be shut out by hours, it seems a monstrous thing that a ship might be in the river with a consignment of goods coming in and, because the entry had not been passed, the entry of those goods might be prohibited. I should like to ask the Minister if he cannot see his way to make some provision for the case of goods that are actually on the high seas when a quota order comes into force. It is a very serious point for importers and manufacturers of every description. I should like to point out to the Minister that what would probably happen is, that if a quota order is likely to be made, or if the importer feels it is likely to be made, the goods will not be imported if there is not some means of allowing goods which have actually arrived in the port, but which have not been entered, to come in. I should like to ask the Minister how far he has considered that phase of the situation. I take it that this is the technical meaning of an import. Certainly it seems extraordinary that a cargo should be moored alongside the quay and be deemed technically not to have arrived.
This particular sub-section is not intended to deal with the particular matter of goods in transit to which Deputy Dockrell referred on the Committee Stage. This sub-section merely defines in legal terms what constitutes an importation. The picture becomes clear if one visualises a Customs post at the Border which is not exactly on the Border but some distance inland. A person importing goods brings them into the Saorstát before he reaches the Customs post, and under the terms of this Bill might commit an illegality under certain circumstances. The purpose of the sub-section is to make it clear that the importation has not taken place until he has reached the Customs post and reported the goods to the Customs officer.
The particular matter that Deputy Dockrell is interested in, however, is the possibility of goods being in transit to the Saorstát when a quota order is made. I have indicated that we have a six weeks' period between the making of the order and the commencement of the quota period, during which licences for the importation of the goods can be issued, and issued fairly freely. That period is provided to enable that difficulty of goods in transit to be overcome, as well as certain other difficulties. Whereas in the case of certain goods it may not be adequate to the purposes, in the case of the majority of goods it will be adequate. Where inadequate, the difficulties that may arise will have to be settled in consultation between officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the importers concerned, with a view to an adjustment of the first quota, and the duration of the first quota period, in a manner which will prevent difficulties being experienced.
Do I understand that there is power to consider individual cases on their merits outside either the preliminary period or the quota period?
There is complete discretion in respect of the preliminary period, and each individual case can be considered on its merits and a special arrangement made to deal with it. During the quotas period the allocation of quotas must be in accordance with the Act. It is contemplated that in respect of certain goods if a quota order is made the first quota period will have to be short in duration and a liberal quota will have to be made so that there will be no hold up of goods in transit. It is afterwards, probably in the second quota period, that any restriction in quantity will come into operation. I do not want it to be taken that that will apply in every case, but it will be the ordinary procedure, where difficulties arise which affect certain classes of goods which were ordinarily a long time in transit to this country.
Has the Minister power to deal with these goods when the period of six weeks has elapsed?
No. I have no discretion after six weeks.
How does he propose to deal with goods in transit?
By fixation of the quota, on a basis which will enable licences for importation to be issued to any persons who require them.
When dealing with the matter on the Committee Stage the Minister mentioned that there were certain goods which would not come within this import duty. Flour was mentioned. Where in the Bill are these exempted?
Section 2 (5) provides:—
A quota order shall not be made in respect of any description of goods the importation of which into Saorstát Eireann is for the time being prohibited by law.
The reason I mentioned flour was, because its importation under licence is at present prohibited by another Act, so that it does not come under this Bill.
Will it apply to any other goods besides flour?
Legally it may be applied to any class of goods on the importation of which there is not a prohibition in some other enactment. In practice, of course, there are many classes of goods in respect to which quota orders cannot be made.
With regard to the definition of the word "manufactured," I presume that is intended to enable the Revenue Commissioners to operate the provisions contained in amendment 8, but in amendment 8 the alternative word "produced" is used, the phrase reading "manufactured or produced." Does the Minister not consider that a possible difficulty arises there?
The term "manufactured" covers all classes of goods, except those properly described as raw material, which are the product of nature unaided by man. If the goods have been subject to any industrial process whatever they are "manufactured" and come within this definition.
"Produced" then means a natural growth. Yet "produced" is used here as an alternative to "manufactured."
Yes.
I noticed that when explaining the amendment the Minister referred to the power he is taking to prescribe the proportion of "added value." The amendment in my opinion applies to more than "added value." Would it not also apply to primary value? Take a very common happening, the case of a machine partly constructed in the United States, which is sent to Canada to be finished. Would not this amendment enable the Minister to prescribe the amount of work that would have to be done in the United States in order that it might qualify as an import from the United States; as well as enabling him to say how much value would have to be added in Canada, in order that it might qualify as an importation from Canada?
The phrase used is one with which customs officers and importers are familiar, and it appears in all Finance Acts. The value is added to the raw material by the process of manufacture. The procedure is to prescribe what that percentage must be in order to be entitled to be described as having been manufactured in a particular country. Under the Finance Acts I think there is 25 per cent. added value which entitles goods consigned from Great Britain to get the preferential rate. Cotton is grown in America and is brought to Great Britain, where it is spun and woven. If the added value is of the prescribed percentage it becomes entitled to enter this country at a preferential rate. The same thing applies in this Bill. I do not anticipate any difficulty in interpretation; because the phrase is standardised in all our Finance Acts.
I am afraid the Minister did not get my point. If this is only to be applicable in the case of added value, the amendment would be misleading. I want to know if it would apply in the case I mentioned, to the engine of a machine. Take a motor car where the engine or the chassis is manufactured in the United States and is then sent to Canada for finishing. Will the amendment enable the Minister to say that such part can be regarded as an import from the United States provided there is a certain percentage of the total work done there; or, alternatively, can it be regarded as an import from Canada because certain work has been done there?
It is true that I used the term "added value." but I want to point out that the phrase was my own, and not that of the draftsman. The definition in the amendment is fairly clear.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 2, Section 2 (3), line 44, before the word "use" to insert the word "personal".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 2, Section 2 (4), line 47, after the word "manufactured" to insert the words "or produced".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 2, Section 2 (5), line 51, after the word "law" to add the words "otherwise than under this Act."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 3, Section 3 (3), line 11, after the word "Act" to insert the words "before such quota order has been approved of by Dáil Eireann."
The necessity of this was explained on the Committee Stage. Section 3 (3) is designed to protect the rights of the Dáil against the Executive. The effect of it is that where the Executive Council has made an order, and has either failed to get it approved by the Dáil, or has revoked it before coming to the Dáil, it cannot make another order of the same kind. The section is all right as it stands, but one particular difficulty might arise. An order may have been made by the Executive and approved by the Dáil, but revoked subsequently for some bona fide reason. It may desire to renew that order, and consequently it is proposed to insert the words “before such quota order has been approved of by Dáil Eireann.”
May I ask the Minister when will these quota orders come before the Dáil?
Within six months.
Then we may have a situation something like this: if there is a quota on bolts and nuts it may be six months before we hear officially what the real terms of that quota order are.
No. The six months is the period within which a resolution approving of the order must be brought before the Dáil. If the Dáil fails to approve of it, then the order ceases to have effect at the end of that period. The publication of the order will take place as soon as may be after it is made. The terms of the order will be available in the Iris Oifigiúil and through the ordinary official channels to Deputies.
The Minister says that the publication of the order will take place as soon as may be after it is made. I would like to have something more stringent than that. At the present time we are dealing with a number of restrictions. I submit that Deputies ought to be made aware officially of the terms of all those orders. The official text of them ought to be before them immediately. It is on that that I want to get an assurance from the Minister: that the presenting of a quota order to Deputies will not be delayed for a long period. I gave an instance earlier to-day of what I have in mind in connection with the order relating to bolts and nuts.
When an order is made it will be published in the next following issue of Iris Oifigiúil.
When will it come before Deputies?
The actual publication of the terms of an order for the information of interested parties and the submission to the Dáil of a resolution approving of an order are two different matters. The resolution approving of the order must come before the Dáil within six months after the order is made.
Does the Minister not think that those orders made by the Executive Council should come before Deputies practically as soon as they are made? I think there was some machinery in existence some time ago by which those orders were brought before Deputies, but now we are left in ignorance of them, and what I am concerned about is that this practice will not be still further extended under the quota Bill.
The terms of all orders, whether made under this Bill or under the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Act are laid on the Table as soon as they are available. The Deputy referred to an order made on Saturday last. That order has not yet been laid on the Table of the House. I think it would be most unusual if it were available in its printed form for laying on the Table within two days of its being made, but it will be laid on the Table as soon as it is available.
Is there any objection to bringing an order in the form of a resolution before the House immediately it is made, provided the Dáil is sitting, and not wait for this period of six months to elapse?
Quite a number of matters arise after the making of an order. The full effect of an order cannot be seen until it has come into operation. There must be, in any event, a six months' period before the expiration of which a resolution must be submitted to the Dáil, seeking approval of an order. If such a resolution is not submitted, then the order cases to have effect. When a resolution for the approval of an order is submitted to the Dáil a discussion, of course, can take place on it. That will afford Deputies an opportunity of ascertaining what precisely is intended, both in respect to the quota to be fixed as well as the period for which the quota will run. That is one reason for fixing a fairly substantial period between the date of the making of an order and the submission of a resolution for approval of it. In view of the fact that the Dáil frequently adjourns for a period of two or three months, the Deputy's suggestion that orders, as soon as they are made, should be submitted immediately to the Dáil in the form of a resolution, is not practicable.
My suggestion is that the order should be submitted in the form of a resolution, at the first opportunity, by the Minister.
Ordinarily that will be the practice, but the Act provides a maximum period within which the order must be submitted and approved of by resolution of the Dáil. Otherwise it will cease to have effect.
Would it not be better if the Minister were to put himself in the confidence of the House and introduce immediately a resolution covering the order without waiting to see the effects of the order in practice? I am sure the Minister is not going to make an order without having good reasons for doing so. Once an order is made, then his boats are burned and it starts having its effects. The reasons that prompted the Minister to make the order could, I submit, be fruitfully placed before the House with a view to getting its opinion on the order. The House would take a greater interest in the subject matter of an order then than in, say, five and a half months after an order is made.
At present there is the feeling that the Executive Council is acting more or less independently of the Dáil. In saying that I am not arguing against the emergency powers that the Minister has. Personally, I feel that he should have them while we have a protectionist policy. It could not be made effective if the Minister were not vested with such powers: powers to enable him to act quickly in a situation without having to wait for the authority of the Dáil. While I agree that the Minister should have such powers, I think that in his own interests and in the interests of the country generally, he should seek the first available opportunity to put his reasons for making an order before the Dáil and without waiting to see the effects of the order in practice. I am sure the Minister will not make an order without being able to stand over the reasons that prompted him to do so. I would strongly urge on him to bring these orders before the Dáil as quickly as possible.
I agree that there should be no undue delay in seeking the approval of the Dáil for any order that is made. What is in the Bill. however, is this: that that approval must be got, at the outside, within six months after an order is made, even if a special meeting of the Dáil has to be held for that purpose. Within that period the resolution can be submitted at any time. I agree that there should be no delay, which can be avoided, in seeking approval for an order.
If the Dáil were sitting, would it not be waste of time to bring it before the Dáil immediately?
Not in every case.
I take it that you do not make an order without substantial reasons for doing so and that, therefore, you are prepared to stand over the making of that order for these particular reasons and to give the reasons to the Dáil. That gives the Dáil a greater feeling that they are sharing in the making of the order rather than a feeling of being ignored and that the emergency powers are being abused.
I should like, Sir, to press that point about the minimum period on the Minister. Of course, the Minister mentions particular cases when the order cannot be brought up, but there may be urgent reasons for bringing the order up. The dislocation arising out of the order may be serious to business. I think it would be more satisfactory if something were inserted in the Bill to the effect that it is to be brought up as soon as possible and, in any case, not later than six months. I think that would meet the difficulty.
I would agree with that suggestion, Sir.
I agree that there should be no undue delay in doing it, but I think it would be most undesirable that the resolution should be brought here at once in the case of every order. There will be circumstances where it would be obviously in the interests of the Dáil that they should know not merely the order but the quotas proposed to be fixed, and that will be announced at the end of the six weeks' period after consultation with all the parties.
That would mean that it would run for six months, and that is undesirable.
Definitely, in some cases, it might run to the six months. As a matter of fact, under the existing emergency powers there is a period of eight months. In other countries, in similar cases, there are even longer periods.
Perhaps the Minister would say what is the meaning of the provision by which, if the Executive Council make an order and then revoke it, it shall not be lawful for the Executive Council to make a quota order at any time with regard to the same classes of goods.
The intention of that is to prevent an Executive Council making an order, revoking it, making the order again and continuing on in that fashion, so as to prevent it from coming before the Dáil.
Might I ask the Minister if there are any standards of home supply to guide him when making an order, such as the order in the case of nuts and bolts? For example, what is the percentage of supply and what is our percentage of capacity to supply our own needs? Speaking generally, has the Minister any standards to guide him as to our capacity to supply our wants, and what is our present standard of supply of our wants?
That is a subject of investigation in each case.
But unless we are within reasonable distance of being able to supply our wants, so that just another little bit of effort would enable us to supply, or nearly supply, our wants, would it not be putting a great handicap on a lot of construction that is essential from another viewpoint if you clapped on a big tariff suddenly?
That is the main reason for this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 3, to add at the end of Section 4, a sub-section as follows:—
Goods the importation of which is for the time being unlawful by virtue of this section shall be deemed to be included among the goods enumerated and described in the Table of Prohibitions and Restrictions Inwards contained in Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and the provisions of that Act (as amended or extended by subsequent Acts) relating to the importation of prohibited or restricted goods shall apply accordingly.
This is a purely legal amendment which, apparently, is necessary in order to make sure that this Customs Consolidation Act applies.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 3, Section 5 (3), to delete all words from the word "manufactured" in line 47 to the end of the sub-section, and substitute the words —"which are shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners either (as shall be specified in such order)—
(a) to have been manufactured or produced in a specified country, or
(b) to have been consigned to the importer from a specified country, or
(c) to have been manufactured or produced in a specified country and consigned to the importer from that country."
Deputies will remember that, on the Committee Stage, I mentioned the necessity for this. The section, as it stands, merely relates to goods manufactured or produced in the specified country. That is inadequate in itself. If a general quota was made in respect of a particular class of goods and a special quota was also made in respect of a particular country, say, France, it might be desirable to be able to exclude goods manufactured in France, but, for the time being warehoused in another country. It means that the Executive Council may direct that a specified proportion of the quota shall consist of goods manufactured or produced in a specified country, or goods which are shown to have been consigned to the importer from a specified country, or to have been manufactured or produced in a specified country and consigned to the importer from that country. It is really an elaboration of the section and makes very little change in it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 4, Section 6 (2), lines 6 and 7, to delete the words "of which more than half of the capital invested in the business" and substitute the words "carrying on a business whereof more than half the capital".
This is just a verbal change in an amendment which was inserted in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 5, Section 8 (2) (c), line 35, before the word "shall" to insert in brackets the words "(save so much thereof as requires the licence to be issued before the commencement of the quota period)".
This also is really a verbal amendment. There is the main quota and there may be a special quota, in respect of both of which applications for a licence must be made. There is also the possibility of an additional quota and as the Bill stands at present, applications for licences under the additional quota would have to be made before the quota period. That is impracticable and, consequently, these saving words are required.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 5, Section 8 (3), line 38, to delete the word "issued" and substitute the word "issue."
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a misprint.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 5, Section 8 (3), to delete all from the words "a condition", line 43, to the word "country", line 45, and substitute the words "conditions in respect of the country in which goods imported under such licence shall have been manufactured or produced and the country from which such goods shall have been consigned to the importer or in respect of either of those matters".
This is conditional on amendment No. 2.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 5, before Section 8 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) The Minister may insert in any licence issued under this section a condition as to the route by which goods imported under such licence shall be brought to Saorstát Eireann from the country from which they are consigned to the importer."
This is another amendment which I mentioned on the Committee Stage. If we make a special quota in respect of some classes of goods, we do not want them coming in here after travelling all around the world. We may want them to come here by the shortest and cheapest route.
I do not understand the explanation the Minister has given. He says that he does not want goods to go all around the world. Presumably, if somebody has paid for them to go all around the world, it would be found that there was some method in their madness. I should like to be sure that the Minister would look upon this in a rational way. It must be remembered that you can put so many restrictions on the carrying out of the necessary condition that the goods may fail to arrive. It is all very fine to specify that they should go by a particular route, and, on the face of it, it may look as if they ought to go by that route; but there may be very excellent reasons why they should not go by that route. I should like the Minister to amplify his statement a little further and let the House know what is the idea of a special route, because this is going to amount to a special quota. There will be as much trouble in getting goods, that have been quotaed by the wrong route, altered, as there will be in getting them altered for some other reason. What is the Minister's idea in being able to specify one particular route and that route only?
I think it is a very desirable power to have, because it will enable us to see that the goods will be imported directly into the country. Deputies, I am sure, are aware that there are many classes of goods produced on the Continent and elsewhere which, at the present time, can only be brought in through England, so far as we are concerned, and sometimes warehousing charges, agents' commissions, and similar charges which are unnecessary have to be paid in Great Britain. Efforts have been made from time to time to get agencies here for these classes of goods so as to remove from the consumers of such goods in this country the tax which is at present levied on them for the benefit of agents and commission men and warehouse men in Great Britain. That is one reason. Another reason is to ensure that the most economic route will be chosen for the goods, so that the exporter, if a special quota exists under which he is operating, cannot use that position for the purpose of benefiting a particular transport or shipping company to the detriment of consumers here who must get the goods under that quota or do without them. They might be forced, if somebody acted as I have suggested, to pay more for the goods in order to benefit some transport organisation in which the exporter was interested. Again, we might require the goods to be imported directly into a Saorstát port instead of overland. The power given under this subsection is necessary to protect the interests of consumers of imported goods here.
Is the Minister taking any steps to limit the charges that Britain is getting out of the importation of continental goods by way of bills of exchange? Is any machinery being set up to deal with that matter?
Not under this Bill at any rate.
The charges in that respect are greater than the warehousing charges. Warehousing charges are exceptional; the other charges are the rule.
I think that the Minister is over-estimating his powers of control under the Bill. The Minister proposes to specify certain routes by which merchandise is to be taken into this country. If the amount were small and if it had to be shipped direct here, the charge might operate against our interests. The Minister says that, if he were not to specify routes, certain transport companies might be favoured, as against the interests of consumers here. I am afraid we have no control over these outside transport companies. No matter what provision the Minister inserts here, I do not think that he will be able to exercise any control over these transport companies. I do not think that the Minister is looking forward to big importations of these goods. If the quantity is small, it might be against our interests to have direct importation. This provision may have re-actions that the Minister does not foresee.
The section does not make it compulsory to define a route. The section merely gives power to do that when that course appears to be desirable. If we were importing some commodity which is used extensively throughout the country, one would not like to see it all coming into one port and being distributed internally. It would be desirable that the existing practice of importing to the port nearest to the point of consumption should be continued. It is desirable that power should be given to ensure that that would happen.
This amendment is designed to give the Minister power to insert conditions in any licence issued under this section. I raised here before the general question of licences——
On a point of order, I submit that the Deputy cannot discuss the general question of licences but merely the amendment which is before the House.
I propose to discuss the amendment before the House. This amendment is designed to confer upon the Minister power to insert conditions in licences. I desire to examine the utility——
It gives power only to insert a particular condition in licences issued under this section.
I desire to examine the utility of furnishing the Minister with powers to insert conditions in any licence.
On a point of order, the sub-section relates only to the insertion of a particular condition in a particular type of licence.
I desire to submit to the House that any legislation designed to give the Minister power to insert any condition in any licence is of very questionable desirability.
I submit, a Chinn Comhairle, that the Deputy will be out of order in proceeding along those lines.
I shall hear the Deputy, who is confined to the condition to be attached to the licence as defined in this section.
And, on general principles, I object to giving the Minister power to insert this or any other condition in this or any other licence.
I submit, again, that the Deputy must confine himself to this particular type of licence.
I submit that a general argument can be made applicable to a particular case. Deputy Dillon has not been allowed to put two sentences together without interruption. The Minister has jumped up again and again without waiting to hear what the argument would be.
He knows what it will be.
The House is discussing this Bill on Report. We have discussed the amendments as if in Committee. I raised no objection to that so long as I was dealing with Deputies for whose opinions I had respect. If Deputy Dillon is to take part in the debate, I think he should be confined strictly to the rules of order.
After that becoming lecture from the Minister, I have no doubt that you, a Chinn Comhairle, will be more competent to discharge the duties of Chairman of this House. To proceed, I question the propriety of furnishing the Minister for Industry and Commerce with power to insert any condition in any licence. I do so for this reason: under a previous Act passed by the Oireachtas, the Minister was given power to issue licences for the importation of flour free of duty——
On a point of order, flour is not covered by this Bill. It is excluded by a specific section——
But licences are covered. Accordingly, the Minister is given power to exercise discretion. Under a section analogous to the section which we are at present considering in connection with this amendment, a licence was issued in the County Donegal to an individual trader for the importation of flour free of customs duty. The flour was imported, and that flour was sold in the County Donegal——
On a point of order, am I to understand that you, a Chinn Comhairle, are going to permit this discussion to take place?
I must hear the Deputy further to judge his line of argument.
That flour was sold in the County Donegal at a cut price, to the detriment of the legitimate competitors of the licensee. In Volume 47, column 1, of the Official Report, there is a record of a question addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in connection with these licences. Deputy Doyle asked whether any conditions attached to the granting of licences permitting the importation, free of duty, of 2,300 units of 280 lbs. of wheat flour into County Donegal during the month of February, 1933——
Amendments are ordinarily submitted in Committee. Certain amendments, as in this case, may be submitted on Report as arising out of matters debated in Committee. Debate is limited to these amendments, and it is not in order to discuss the defects or maladministration of a licence previously granted by the Minister in connection with quite another commodity.
I do not propose to discuss it. I propose to draw the attention of the House to what happened in a case where this power to insert a condition in a licence was used or sought to be used by the Minister, or where, although he had power, it was not used and, in the event of its not having been effectively used——
On a point of order, I submit that the Deputy is proceeding to discuss the principle of the Bill which was approved by the Dáil on Second Reading.
On a point of order, I submit that the Deputy is strictly in order in objecting to the insertion of a provision in this Bill on the ground that in an analogous case there was an abuse, as I think the Deputy holds, of a similar power. That is an excellent reason. I can find no better reason for refusing to give the Minister these particular powers. If I understand the argument of the Deputy, it is relevant, and most relevant. Personally, as I say, I can see no better argument than the case the Deputy has put for refusing to give these powers to the Minister.
The question of licence was decided on the Second Reading of this Bill, and the Deputy is now making a Second Reading speech on an amendment relating to a specific point adumbrated in Committee. A Second Reading speech is not in order now. The principle of licensing, already agreed to on the Second Stage, may not be re-opened.
I am directing my argument, not to the licence at all, but to the power contained in amendment No. 13, which is that a new sub-section be inserted where the Minister may insert in any licence issued under this section a condition as to the route by which the goods imported under such licence shall be brought, etc.
The particular condition?
I do not mind the particular condition. My argument is directed against the usefulness of the purpose of giving the Minister power to insert a particular condition.
Is it not clear from that remark of the Deputy's that he is discussing the conditions of the licence?
If the Minister would listen in silence for a few minutes, and if he would only allow himself to hear what I am saying——
My contention is that the Deputy is out of order, and if I can prevent him doing now what he has done before, taking advantage of this House to slander a particular person in Donegal, I shall do so.
Is this in order?
The Deputy may proceed.
He is guilty of most slanderous behaviour. I invite him to repeat his charge outside this House.
Has the Minister quite finished interrupting?
I will leave it at that.
No specific condition or stipulation is made in the licence——
I draw attention to that phrase.
No specific stipulation was made in the licence granted to two Donegal bakers to the effect that the flour in question should be used only in the making of bread. And he goes on to say "they were recommended, however, by my Department on the understanding that such flour would be used only in the bakeries of the licensees." I assert the Minister has power to insert in that licence the conditions.
I had no such power.
And I submit that having that power it should have been inserted——
On a point of order. There is no such power. The issue of licences under another Act is not relevant.
The statement that the Minister has no such power is not a point of order. It is a statement of fact. I suggest that the Minister is out of order once again in this particular discussion.
I submit that this power to insert conditions had been used with propriety by the Minister. I am pointing out that the conditions should be issued with the licence on this occasion in view of the fact that the Minister recommended the issue of the licence on the clear understanding that the flour to be issued would be used only by the bakers for the making of bread.
What the Minister should or should not have done on some other measure is not relevant to this amendment.
Surely if I can prove, with adequate powers he had in the past to impose conditions, that he did not use them for the common weal, I am entitled to ask what reason have we to believe that he will use them now if he gets them when he did not use them before?
May I draw attention to the fact——
Is this a point of order?
May I draw attention to the fact that the statute under which licences were issued gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce no power to insert any conditions?
That is not a point of order. The Minister is grossly abusing his position.
The House is not now discussing flour, and the detailed criticism of the administration of flour licences cannot be pursued.
It was not in the hope of challenging or circumventing your ruling that I raised these points. I suggest to the Minister that he has the power to insert conditions in the licences, and that, having that power and failing to use it for the public weal in the past, we are entitled to ask that the House should not give him such powers in the future; and that if he does not know how to use such powers he should never have them. I respectfully submit that that is relevant and logical.
The details of the working of the flour licences cannot be pursued. The Minister has stated in that Bill he had no power to prescribe conditions in the licence. That is, of course, a matter for future argument between the Deputy and the Minister. The Chair considers that the details of other licences cannot be gone into.
If you tell me, Sir, that I am not able to draw an analogy between a licence that may be issued under the amendment that the House is now discussing, and the licences that were issued under exactly similar powers under other statutes then my argument is concluded.
The Chair has no intention of precluding the Deputy from making any such analogy, but the Chair is decidedly of opinion that a discussion on flour licences, which the Deputy is endeavouring to develop, and cognate matters controverted on previous occasions in this House, are not relevant.
I am producing evidence to show that a controversy was not worth the time. I am discussing that in the issuing of a licence in the past the conditions were not properly used. If you rule it is not relevant in an amendment, that the Minister may provide in any licence the conditions, then I have no more to say; but I submit I am entitled to quote from the Official Report, Volume 47, column 391.
I invite the Deputy to make the speech he has made here outside the House so that the persons attacked may be able to get at him.
Is that a point of order?
It is not.
The Minister knows less about a point of order than any Deputy in this House. In column 391 I referred to the fact that in issuing these licences on certain conditions—
The Deputy has been told that a discussion on the flour licence is out order and has disclaimed any intention of attempting to circumvent the ruling of the Chair but he persists in discussing flour.
As you rule that the conditions issued in the licence to which I have referred cannot be discussed I shall not continue the matter further.
May I point out in this amendment the Minister takes power to mark the route by which goods may be carried? These goods are of a competitive character; they have been subjected to competitive estimates. The route by which they are carried will make all the difference. One route may not cost half the money of another route. As has been pointed out, if there is not a sufficient cargo or if there is not a sufficient of the commodity to make up a cargo, the goods cannot be carried at an economic figure. You have either got to pay an uneconomic price for them or you have got to await the time when a sufficient cargo will be available. That will make all the difference in the job I have in mind in which a large amount of these commodities are required. I think we should have some undertaking from the Minister that he will consider that aspect, to ensure that all goods coming from a certain port shall come by one route so that other competitors of the importer will not have the advantage of bringing them by a cheaper route. At the present moment it is not possible for economic reasons to get a cargo of such goods into the Free State as there would not be sufficient demand for them. The Minister may say at a particular time: "There are vessels now sailing and I want you to get that commodity in now." It may cost double the price to get the commodity by that particular route. It may be double the economic rate. That I hold is interfering in business because it may be conferring an advantage on one man and places his competitors in business at a disadvantage.
The main purpose of the section is to ensure that goods will come in by the most economic route.
Why not put that into the section?
Very frequently, at the present time, they do not come in by the most economic route. One always assumes that in business where there is the free play of competition, uneconomic elements are eliminated, but in these days of cartels and combines that is not always the case. In respect to a number of goods coming into the country it is not always true to say that they come in by the most economic route. Consequently there has to be an increased charge for these goods. That situation may be easily aggravated when there is a quantitative limitation in respect of goods imported. In such cases there should be power to ensure, in respect of certain classes of goods at any rate, that they will be landed in the country in a manner which will permit of their being sold to consumers at the lowest price and not imported into one part of the country for general distribution throughout the country. In every case full consideration will have to be given as to whether a condition should be attached, but such a condition will not be imposed where it would be uneconomic to specify a particular route. We have no interest nationally in taking any other course. If there were any national interest to be served by adopting some other course, it might be mentioned, and a decision to adopt a route that was, say, the second best route, might be justified on these grounds, but our only desire here is to use these powers so as to get the goods as cheaply as possible, and by the most economic route.
Would there be any objection to stating that in the section?
That might lead to a dispute in every case.
I might suggest that what is happening here is that the Minister's Department is deciding what is a purely business matter, namely, the question of what route is the most economic. I suggest that is not the best method of deciding it, that a branch of the Civil Service should not be called upon to decide which is the most economic route. I should like further to suggest that that may not be the only consideration that may be introduced in deciding the route, that the Minister may choose certain routes in order to bar out certain other routes. The Minister may want certain goods to be imported direct for economy reasons, he may say, but the direct route may not always be the cheapest route. Already it has been put to the Minister that this Bill will put a strain on the importer down the country who has to get a certain amount of goods in a certain country where he has not been accustomed to get them up to the present. If the quantity is small, he must depend on an agent here in Dublin. He cannot import them direct. There is an extra charge for that, and he is dependent on the business ability of the agent here in Dublin.
I think the Minister will remember that he gave me that answer previously, that the business will be carried on by an agent of the country which is enjoying the quota. That may work detrimentally to the liberty of the trade and to the detriment of the person down the country who will have to bear an extra charge. The Minister may determine on a certain route. He may have, for some reason or another, a dispute with another country and he may determine to utilise this particular Act for the purpose of preventing goods coming in through that particular country. I would suggest that a Civil Service Department, that is not engaged in the ordinary run of competition, is not the best body to decide what is the best or the cheapest route.
I submit to the Deputy that there are certain other considerations to which he has not adverted. So far as the individual importer is concerned he will endeavour to get goods in by the cheapest route—the cheapest in that connection being the cheapest to him of all those available but that is not always the cheapest possible, if other arrangements can be made. Even in that regard, as I have mentioned, there are certain classes of goods which are costing us more to buy at the present time than they should because the exporters of these goods choose that they shall reach us through a particular channel or have a particular method of marketing them. We have no control over that at the present time, but we may have when this Bill is enacted. There are quite a number of countries at the present time, to which it would be possible for us to export certain produce profitably if freight charges could be fixed upon the basis on which they would be fixed if return cargoes were offering. These return cargoes are not offering despite the fact that from these countries we are importing fairly large quantities of goods. By the operation of the powers given in this Bill, it may be possible to provide for these return cargoes, that is, to ensure not merely the possibility of an export trade but also the possibility of cheaper routes for goods that we import, in preference to the haphazard arrangements in which goods reach us now from these countries either as a result of transhipment, warehousing or something of that kind. There are quite a number of directions in which it is possible to use these powers not merely for the purpose of facilitating exporters but also for the purpose of facilitating the import of certain goods which we must import in any case.
The Minister stated that his object in this amendment is that in connection with certain goods imported into this country he is satisfied that if he had the powers he asks for in this amendment he would be able to get in those goods more cheaply. I am not entirely against the spirit of this amendment, but I do not think the arguments which the Minister is advancing are convincing. Every man to his trade. Surely the importer, whose job it is to import, and who is not importing for natural love and affection but to make money, is getting this stuff in by the cheapest possible route. If not, he would soon be out of business, and another fellow would be getting it in by the cheapest possible route. I doubt if the second argument advanced by the Minister will give us those imported goods more cheaply. In effect it amounts to this, that from certain countries we are getting goods—perhaps piecemeal, or bits and scraps by various routes. The Minister visualises that those countries could do with goods which we have to export, and that we could fill a cargo and export it to those countries; that all the little bits and scraps which we are getting from this particular country, if consolidated, would give a return cargo; that it would be to the mutual help of our export and import trade if the Minister had power to issue a licence that by a certain line of steamers those goods—we will call it timber; we will not call it flour—could be imported, and then to that country which is exporting timber to us we could export some surplus that we have. That is apparently the Minister's argument, but I am afraid that to attempt artificially to build up an import and export trade in that way will hardly work.
The point raised by Deputy Good is important. The Minister, I am sure, would give an assurance that if it is a matter of competing for an import trade no facilities will be given to one importer that will not be given to another, and that if a direct route or a route round the world is to be chosen—whichever it is —all importers will have to use that route. If we have an assurance on that, I do not see a terrible lot of harm in giving the Minister the power, but the Minister should not have any powers of discriminating between routes. If he selects the route that stuff has to be imported by, then there should be no other route. There should not be fish for one and flesh for another importer.
Amendment No. 13 put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 6, Section 9 (1), line 3. before the word "a" to insert the words "and subject to such conditions as the Minister shall think proper to attach to such licence."
This is to provide for the imposition of conditions when a special privilege is conceded to an importer who failed to make good his licence to import during a quota period, through causes outside his control, to import those goods during a subsequent quota period. The necessity for having power to impose conditions will be obvious if one contemplates a possible case where the goods licensed and not imported might have been considerable in quantity, and if imported in the same quantity without being subject to restriction in a subsequent quota period might cause considerable dislocation, apart from defeating entirely the intentions of the Government when making the quota order. The licensee or importer gets under this section, in any event, what is an ex-gratia concession. Consequently, there can be no objection to power being taken to impose upon the granting of that concession such conditions as are deemed necessary for the protection of national interests. Deputies are aware that the section applies only where a licence has been issued in respect of a quota period, and for some reason the licensee does not fill the licence—does not import during the period the goods licensed. It is provided that, at the discretion of the Minister, that person may be permitted to import those goods in some subsequent period, if this amendment is passed, subject to what conditions are deemed necessary in order to protect industrial interests here.
It is necessary, I think, for the business community that there should be some assurance on the part of the Minister that different licensees will not get different advantages.
They cannot get them.
It is a very important thing. It may mean the loss of a man's livelihood. If one licensee gets a particular advantage over another it means that the business will go to the man who has the advantage, and leave the order man.
That cannot be so in respect of a quota period. The conditions under which the licences are given are set out clearly in the Bill. There is no power to attach to those licences any conditions other than those specified in the Bill, namely, the condition as to the quantity of goods to be imported, and, in certain circumstances, the country from which they must be imported. Subject to the provisions of the Bill everyone gets the same treatment. The particular case covered under the section to which this amendment refers is intended to deal with individual difficulties. A man might, through no fault of his own—a strike or some other reason—be unable to import within the quota period the goods for which he got a licence. Subject to conditions he may be allowed to import those goods in a subsequent period in order to get him out of a difficulty not attributable to his own fault.
Will there be any difference between a manufacturer who requires the goods for manufacture and a person who requires them for resale, or the various other types of individuals? In other words, instead of importing goods free of duty will the manufacturers be able to import the goods free from certain restrictions?
So far as this Bill is concerned there is no power taken to remit any duty.
We are talking only of this Bill.
Quite. If there is a duty payable on the goods then the licence issued under this Bill does not release the licensee from the obligation to pay the duty. He must pay the duty in any event, even though he may get a licence to import the goods.
The point I was making is, will the manufacturer who requires goods for manufacture be able to get a licence to import the goods free from the Control of Imports Bill?
Oh, yes.
He will?
Yes. A manufacturer is one of those to whom a licence may be issued—any person engaged in any process of manufacture in the Saorstát.
Then, in other words, a manufacturer will be able to import the goods free from a quota and free from a specified route?
Oh, no. A manufacturer is entitled to get a licence to import the goods under a quota, subject to the conditions that are applying to everybody else.
The conditions will not be varied in his case as regards the route or country of origin?
No.
That is the point I wish to make. In order words, are they on all fours under this Bill?
Yes.
I raised the question of importing free of licence merely by way of illustration. It is really another day's work and involves another Bill.
How does the Minister say that by the terms of the statute all are on all fours? The Minister, by the amendment we have just adopted and, further, by this amendment No. 14, can provide that Deputy Good will import his goods along one route and Deputy Dockrell along another. Is that not so?
The Deputy either has not read the Bill or has not understood what I said.
There is no reason for the Minister to be either facetious or offensive——
If the Deputy read the Bill he would understand.
Where an importer has received a quota in the quota period of February to import and his premises are closed down, because of a strike, until the quota period of March, the Minister may say: "Very well; I will let you bring in the February goods in the March quota period, subject to certain additional conditions which I will impose upon you." Is that not the situation? Deputy Dockrell asked if there was a statutory guarantee that every importer, every manufacturer and every merchant to whom this quota Bill applies will be on all fours, one with the other, by virtue of the terms of the statute, to which the Minister says "Yes, quite." I submit to the Minister that there is nothing to prevent him, under this special power for inserting conditions in postponed quotas, from prescribing one set of conditions for AB, and an entirely different set for CD, although both of them have been prevented from bringing their share of the quota in the quota period originally allotted to them.
That is what I said.
There is a complete discretion in the Minister's hands to provide different conditions for different importers.
Not under the main scheme of the Bill—only in respect of this particular section. If the Deputy had read this section, he would have seen that for himself.
Surely that is the direct reverse of what Deputy Dockrell said? Deputy Dockrell desired to know if there was a statutory assurance that everybody would be on all fours, one with the other. They are not. Each individual may have different conditions imposed upon him by the Minister at the Minister's discretion——
No.
——in this particular case.
Does the Deputy know what the case is?
I do.
Read the section and find out.
I have gone over it, and I am not going to go over it again. All I desire to say on this is that, in my opinion, this is bureaucracy gone mad. Quota systems, admittedly, may be necessary in consideration of the insanity that is sweeping over the whole world, but that there should be discretion left in the hands of a Minister of State or a high civil servant, no matter how high he is, to differentiate between two trade competitors, trading within the same jurisdiction, is to my mind, bureaucracy gone absolutely mad. Every man in this State now who, for the purpose of his trade, desires to import is absolutely in the hands of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his officials, and he can be wiped out by the imposition on him of restrictions that are not imposed on his competitor. We are all familiar with the assurances we get here when Bills of this kind are passing through, or when amendments of this kind are being inserted, but it is just as well for the commercial community in this country to realise that this Bill, with its amendments, represents bureaucracy gone mad, and, sooner or later, this Oireachtas will have to face this—that the right to discriminate as between citizens should not be left in the hands of any Minister, no matter what party he belongs to, or of any civil servant, no matter how high his integrity may be. Citizens of this State should have statutory rights that they can enforce through the courts against the Minister or against the Civil Service or anybody else. This Bill and this amendment takes those statutory rights away, and makes it legal for the Minister to impose arbitrary conditions at his own sweet will, and the courts are of absolutely no avail to prevail against the particular whim the Minister or his permanent officials have in their minds when they come to prescribe conditions provided for in amendment 14.
I would merely suggest to Deputy Dillon that before he speaks on these matters, he should have some discussion with members of his own Party who know something about business.
I am going to make the submission, Sir, that insolent interjection in debate by the Minister for Industry and Commerce does not serve as an adequate answer to concrete points raised against the hare-brained policy he sponsors in this House.
The Deputy will realise how adequate the answer is if he discusses this with business members of his own Party.
The Deputy realises the passion the Minister has for unadulterated bluff. He puts forward more of that bluff than all the other Deputies in the House put together, and when he is faced with an inconvenient question or an awkward corner, that is the way in which he gets out of it. He deceives nobody by that kind of talk. The amendment, Sir, is thoroughly rotten.
Will the Minister say definitely that the amendment gives no power of discrimination?
Of course, it gives him full power of discrimination.
This particular amendment relates to the section of the Bill which provides for the granting of a concession under exceptional circumstances in exceptional cases. So far as the Bill is concerned, a procedure is laid down under which, when a quota order is made and a quota fixed, licences are issued to all persons who apply for them in accordance with the rules set out in the Bill. It may happen that, through causes arising entirely outside the control of the licensee, the licensee may not be able to import during the quota period the goods for which he has got a licence and it is provided that in such circumstances, if the Minister thinks fit—in other words, if he is satisfied that the causes were outside the licensee's control and were of such a nature that special favours should be conceded— that person may be permitted to import those goods after the expiration of the quota period, subject to such conditions as may necessarily be imposed in the public interest. That section is completely useless unless there is an absolute discretion to deal with each individual case that will arise and I think there are associated with the Party opposite, to my knowledge, a very large number of people who have had good reason to be glad that the Ministry had power to deal with the difficulties of individual cases which are bound to arise under all circumstances.
I can see the point of the Minister's reply but still, to my mind, it does not do away with the possibility of discrimination, because, even though an importer may be prohibited by some reason or other beyond his control from importing the goods in the specified time, the Minister may, under this section give him the right to import at a later period and to prescribe the particular method in which he shall import, but there is nothing to prevent the Minister from giving a particular importer terms more favourable than are given to another importer who filled his quota at the proper time. I want to be clear that the Minister has not got in this section the power to discriminate between two different importers of goods. So far as I can see the power of discrimination is there and we want, perhaps, more than the Minister's definite assurance, although I should be quite prepared to take this particular Minister's assurance. I am, however, rather loath to take assurances from any Minister, because on two or three occasions during the last session we had explicit promises from Ministers in debating Bills here that certain circumstances would be taken into consideration and that certain things would not happen but these certain things happened immediately after the particular Bill had passed. We cannot, therefore, rely altogether on what a Minister says across the floor of the House. For my own part, I am not at all satisfied that discrimination of a very extreme nature cannot take place under this Bill.
I am willing to try to explain the matter to Deputy Bennett because I have some hope that he will understand it.
What we might call discrimination.
One does not attempt the impossible. This is the discrimination that arises—this is how Deputy Bennett differs from Deputy Dillon. I am quite prepared to leave this whole section and the amendment out of the Bill if any of the people in the Party opposite who are experienced in the importation of goods or in business are prepared to say that they want to leave it out. This matter is put in entirely to deal with the difficulties that arise for business men, such difficulties as strikes, shipwrecks and so on—things altogether outside their control—and which may prevent them from importing the goods which they need to import. In certain circumstances, it is desirable that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have discretionary powers in order to permit of the difficulties in which business men are placed being met by the issue to them of an extra licence for a subsequent quota period. Power must be discretionary, for the Minister must be satisfied that the failure to import was due to causes outside the control of the importer. In other words, that no attempt was made to defraud other importers or to get an advantage from the Minister by misrepresenting facts. It is the only way the Minister has of licensing and it is only in cases where the failure to import is outside the importer's control that the Minister would exercise his power. He would do so solely to save the importer from serious loss. The obvious way to meet the difficulty would be to give the licence for another quota period. This could not be fulfilled unless the discretionary power of the Minister was exercised so as to enable that to be done. It is true that the Minister may have power to give in one case what he would refuse in another case. The Minister is responsible to the Dáil and he answers here for his public acts. If any Deputy feels that he has exercised a discretion in favour of one importer as against another under similar circumstances——
He will be told that he is committing slander and that he ought to publish it outside.
The particular case to which Deputy Dillon is referring was a case in which the allegation was not against me. It was against the person outside, and it was said of him that he misrepresented facts to me, and I said the person could answer that.
Deputy Bennett put a definite question: Does this amendment give power to the Minister to discriminate as between two importers in similar circumstances? The Minister got up and talked for ten minutes but carefully abstained from answering the question put by Deputy Bennett.
The Deputy is aware that we are not in Committee.
You have a discretion here. That is the nett question—does that section give the Minister power to discriminate say between A and B? I made a certain allegation here some time ago and a person interested in that wrote me a letter 2½ feet long on one sheet of paper and he published it in the newspapers. From the first word to the last in that letter he never mentioned the word "flour." He went into my pedigree, and my grandfather's pedigree, and his own pedigree, and my political record, but he eschewed all reference to wheat products.
We are back on the hills of Donegal.
This amendment gives power to the Minister to discriminate between two importers who are in exactly similar circumstances.
I understand from the Minister's reply that possibly as the necessity may arise it may be possible to renew importer's licences. If the Minister will give an undertaking it would satisfy me personally, and that is that where the importer gets the benefit of this amendment of his quota being extanded he will not, under that extension, get terms more favourable than the similar importer got— that he will not be more favourably treated than the man who filled his quota.
The man who fills his quota has nothing to do with this section at all. This section relates to the man who did not fill his licence. He obviously, should not get more favourable conditions on his licence. The section here takes power to impose on his licence conditions that cannot be imposed on other men.
He might get more favourable terms under the new agreement. On the last amendment there was a discussion as to the route; for instance, that it might be specified that he might import by a definite route. He might, the Minister says, be compelled under a previous agreement to import not by the quickest and cheapest route. If he did not fill his quota the Ministry may possibly give him new terms which would be more favourable than the terms given him or a similar importer under the original licence.
The Deputy must have neglected to examine the section when the Committee Stage was going through. There are tremendous powers in the original section without these powers at all. There is power given to the Minister that he may not give this license at all; it is only if he thinks fit. Now there is a lot of dispute about what is only a very minor matter in the section.
The Minister does not reply.
Amendment No. 14 agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage fixed for Thursday, 8th March.
Will the Minister give us any information about the point which we were discussing on the Second Reading about licensing of goods in transit?
The matter did come up on amendment No. 2 and it was raised by Deputy Dockrell. The quota period will cover all that.