Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 May 1934

Vol. 52 No. 8

Galway Harbour Bill, 1933. - Customs Duties (Preferential Rates) Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.

Mr. Esmonde

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—

For the purposes of this Act, Northern Ireland shall be a country which the Executive Council may appoint to be a country to which a preferential rate shall apply.

The object of this amendment is to make it possible for the Executive Council, in any case which they may think proper, to give special preference or special privilege to Irish goods produced or manufactured in Ireland, over and above goods produced and manufactured in any other country, when they are imported into Saorstát Eireann. The Bill, as it is drafted, is not a perfect example of clarity in legislation. This amendment or a similar amendment might have been inserted in different clauses of the Bill and I was advised that the best form of making this point clear would be to introduce this amendment in this particular form. I could have introduced an amendment in the first section with reference to the definition of what is or what is not a country for the purpose of this Act. It may be contended by the Minister that the Act, as it stands, gives permission to the Government to carry out the purpose of my amendment, but I am advised to the contrary.

There is nothing against the Government giving special preference to any particular section of any customs unit. Great Britain and Northern Ireland form a customs unit just as Belgium and Luxemburg form a customs unit, and commercial treaties are made not with Belgium or Luxemburg separately, but with the customs unit of Belgium and Luxemburg. So also customs agreements with this country are made with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. At the same time I think that the Government, if they should see fit, should have the right and should be clearly enabled by law to differentiate between goods manufactured and produced in Northern Ireland and goods produced and manufactured in England, Scotland or Wales. I do not believe that the Minister will be unwilling to accept this amendment. There is no compulsion on the Government to give any special preference to Irish goods in any particular case, but it is well, I think, that the Government should have that statutory authority to use it as they see fit.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

Subject to the consent of the Oireachtas and the enactment of the necessary legislation, there is nothing to prevent special preferential customs treatment being given to goods originating in Northern Ireland. The purpose of the amendment is really to enable that preferential treatment to be given by order of the Executive Council. A decision to extend such special preferential treatment to Northern Ireland goods would be a decision of major importance and should not be given effect to, I think, without prior discussion with and the consent of the Oireachtas. Consequently, I think that the Deputy's amendment should not be pressed.

Mr. Esmonde

This is a new attitude adopted by the Government—that they wish to divest themselves of dictatorial powers and that they hesitate to assume the right of giving such preference to Irish goods in their admission to this country. I think that the Minister's plea is not very sincere. I think that it is designed to hide the fact that his Government is in complete and total agreement with the Government of Northern Ireland in endeavouring to put obstacles in the way of the development of trade between the two sections of our country. The Government of this section of Ireland, both by word and deed, has shown its anxiety to prevent the development of commercial intercourse between Northern Ireland and the Free State. In fact, they are engaged at the present moment in an economic war with our fellow-countrymen in Northern Ireland. They try to escape now from assuming the responsibility of being willing to give special preferential national treatment to Irish goods in the Irish market—as I say, by hiding behind the skirts of the Oireachtas. That is to say, they are trying to hide the economic war behind the statue of Queen Victoria.

There will come a time when we will have persons both in Northern Ireland and the Free State who are anxious to develop trade between the two sections of the country and who are anxious to preserve the economic interdependence of the two sections. It was for that reason that I put down this amendment, so that, when the time comes, it will be possible for friendly persons in both sections of Ireland to advance special preference to goods of the other section of Ireland, over and above any preference that may be given to other countries across the seas.

It might be argued that at the present time the Government of Northern Ireland could not reciprocate to any satisfactory degree with regard to any concessions we might make. That is not strictly accurate. They have not control over customs, but there are one hundred and one other methods whereby they could assist the Free State imports into Northern Ireland in return for our assistance of Northern Ireland products in the Free State. I can see no reason whatever why the Minister should not accept this amendment. He is claiming that he is too humble, that he is afraid to face the responsibility of taking such a grave decision as that without the authority of the Oireachtas. The purpose of this amendment is in order that the Oireachtas may give him that permission—may enable him to give that decision. I do not see any derogation of the authority of the Oireachtas, seeing that it is the Oireachtas which enacts this Bill and thereby gives discretionary powers to the Minister. I hope that other members of the House will support me in advocating that the House will have the right at least to give preferential treatment to Irish goods produced in Ireland and manufactured in Ireland by Irish people, when they are imported into the Irish Free State.

General Mulcahy

Only a few days ago, I think, we had Ministers saying that they were so determined to have the Border wiped out of existence that, if it were necessary, they would even fall back on the gun. Here we have the Minister for Industry and Commerce refusing even to accept the possibility of powers being put in his hand that might rub away the Border in respect of, say, one or two small items of manufacture or of commerce about which an agreement might be made between Northern Ireland and ourselves. Do I understand his attitude to be that there is one place in the world with which he is not going to have any kind of agreement, whereby he might utilise this Bill by Order, for the purpose of giving special preference—that there is only one country or one territory in the world, and that that is the Six Counties?

Do we understand that the Minister is quite satisfied to make agreements by Order and to make arrangements, such as are contemplated in this Bill, by Order, with places, like Spain, Mexico and Russia without coming near the Oireachtas, but that Northern Ireland is entirely taboo and that he could not risk entering into conversations on trade matters with the Northern Government or make any kind of agreement on trade matters with them without coming to the Oireachtas and practically running away from coming to agreements, until he has laid the blame for these agreements on the Oireachtas itself.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It seems to me that there is rather a bigger question behind this amendment of Deputy Esmonde's than the Minister recognises and I do not think the Minister can completely brush it aside in the very cavalier fashion in which he endeavoured to brush it aside a few moments ago. This amendment is an amendment which, indeed, binds the House to nothing, but it is an amendment which, if carried, would be a friendly gesture towards the people of the Six Counties. It is, I think, a matter on which all Deputies are agreed that the unity of this country is a consummation most devoutly to be wished and, perhaps, in the political world, the consummation of all consummations most devoutly to be wished, and anything which even in a slight degree may help on that unity is something which I think we should do.

There are ways in which the unity of this country may be established. It need not be established in the one way only. It need not be that the whole Six Counties will join with us in the Irish Free State together as one. It may be that the final solution of our Irish problem may be achieved by policy of attrition, that we may work them off bit by bit and detach, one by one, counties from the Six Counties to join with us. That may happen and that may come about because certain counties in Northern Ireland may discover that their trade interests are so bound up with our trade interests that it is highly desirable for them to join with us and may agitate themselves until they get, in the British House of Commons, an amendment of the Act setting up the Constitution of Northern Ireland. That is an aspect of the Irish question which may ultimately turn out to be the solution, and anything which would help on a solution of that nature should not, I think, be lightly brushed aside by the Minister. It is true, as I said a moment ago, that this may lead at the present moment to nothing, but it is there. There is the possibility of it and if any section of the community in Northern Ireland becomes anxious to enter into closer business dealings with the people of the Twenty-Six Counties power will be in the Executive Council, or in any future Executive Council, immediately to enter into negotiations, if you like, with a trading body in Northern Ireland, and to let that trading body or association of individuals see that they have more to gain from being on friendly terms with the Government of this State than they would have if they remained completely and entirely tied to the Six Counties.

I do not see what harm this can do. The Minister says it is a very big question, and I grant the Minister that it is a very big question, and possibly the occasion may never arise for an Executive Council to exercise the powers which Deputy Esmonde's amendment will give them, but the very fact that the powers are there, and known to be there by members of the community of Northern Ireland, may very well have the effect of arousing in them a feeling very friendly indeed to this State. Since it really ties the Executive Council down to nothing—it does not tie them to take action—I would suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider his decision and accept this amendment.

Mr. Lemass

It was reasonable to assume that this amendment, introduced by the notoriously irresponsible back bench member of the Fine Gael Party, was not seriously intended. Now, however, that it has been endorsed by two of the front bench members of that Party, we must accept it as the considered policy of the Opposition for the solution of the Partition problem. It was appropriate that the announcement of that policy should be made through Deputy Esmonde. I do not think that Deputies quite understand what the amendment is about. There is no reason why any such policy, if it were considered worth while, should not be operated. It is not necessary that an amendment should be made in this Bill in order to do so. Deputies may take it that the Government are quite prepared to make trade agreements with any country or any portion of a country where such agreements are likely to have beneficial effects on trade. We, however, as a rule, make agreements with people who have power to make agreements with us. Deputies perhaps have not quite realised that in order to make trade agreements affecting goods from Northern Ireland negotiations would have to take place with the British Government and not with the Government of Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland have no power to make agreements affecting trade matters, or to enter into negotiations on matters affecting rates of Customs duties. If Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is to be taken seriously, however, the amendment does not go far enough, because the operation of the policy of attrition, to which he has just referred, would seem to suggest that instead of taking power to give preferential treatment to goods originating in the Six Counties, we should take power to give preferential treatment to goods originating in any one of the Six Counties and to proceed to confer the benefit of that on one county after another until we had detached them from Northern Ireland and attached them to the Saorstát. It is a good policy for Fine Gael and about as sensible as any other policy they have enunciated on any other subject. Deputy Mulcahy made a reference to some Minister having said that the Border was going to be removed by the gun. No Minister made any such statement.

General Mulcahy

"And it would be removed by the gun if necessary."

Mr. Lemass

Certain ex-members of the Fine Gael Party used to talk in that strain at one particular period but they learned sense with time. I think that the policy of this Government with reference to Partition has been made repeatedly clear and if Deputy Mulcahy wants to attribute such statements to any Minister, he should at least quote his text.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Mr. Esmonde

I do not wish to refer to the vulgarities of the Minister but he suggested that the Northern Government have no power to negotiate with us to any useful purpose on such matters as are suggested in this amendment. The Minister is evidently unaware of the text of the agreement with Great Britain whereby his Government have a right to negotiate with the Government of Northern Ireland on matters of common concern, without any reference whatever to the British Government. He probably has never bothered to read that agreement, or never bothered to read the Acts of the Oireachtas embodying that agreement. As a matter of fact although the Northern Ireland Government has not got power over Customs they have got, in many other ways, methods whereby they can reciprocate in promoting trade between the two sections of our country.

Mr. Donnelly

They certainly have.

Mr. Esmonde

The time will come when there will be friendly Governments on both sides of the Border and it will then be possible for them to try to encourage national trade and encourage the reintegration of economic unity in this country. This motion is set down for future use, and I certainly wish to press the amendment and get a division on it.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 36; Níl, 56.

Tá

• Anthony Richard.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davis, Michael.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Reidy, James.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Dowdall, Thomas P.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Esmonde; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 4 put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, every order made by the Executive Council under this Act shall have statutory effect.

(2) Every order (not being merely an order revoking an order previously made under this Act) shall cease to have effect at the expiration of three months from the making thereof unless such order is approved of by Dáil Eireann by resolution passed before the expiration of the said three months.

(3) Where an order made by the Executive Council under this Act has, before it has been approved by Dáil Eireann, been revoked by an order similarly made or has, by virtue of this section, ceased to have effect, it shall not be lawful for the Executive Council to make under this Act an order having the same or substantially the same effect as the said order so revoked or ceasing to have effect, and for that purpose a mere change in the dates or times of operation shall not be a substantial change of effect.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (2), lines 25 and 27, to delete the word "three" and substitute in each case the word "six".

The purpose of amendments Nos. 2 and 3 is to bring the machinery of this Bill into conformity with the machinery of the Control of Imports Act as it emerged from the Oireachtas. Deputies will remember in respect of amendment No. 3 that a similar provision was inserted in the Control of Imports Act in the Seanad and accepted by the Dáil. The purport of amendment No. 2 is to make the period between the making of an order and the confirmation of it the same under this Bill as it is for orders under the Control of Imports Act.

Mr. Cosgrave

On the face of the amendments it would appear that there is a very big difference between the first and the second—they do not necessarily run together.

Mr. Lemass

They do not run together. I merely explained that the purpose of them is to make the relevant portions of this Bill the same as the corresponding portions of the Control of Imports Act.

Mr. Cosgrave

Could the Minister give a reason why he has substituted six months for three months? In this case, certain preferences can be altered and so on. The Minister wants six months now instead of three. Could he give any particular case in which the Dáil would not be meeting for three months and in which it could not consider a matter of this kind? If there is an alteration made by the Executive Council under the Bill as it now stands it must be approved of within three months. The Minister is extending that period to six months. Will he give a reason for that?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is aware that on occasions in the past the Dáil has adjourned for the Summer Recess, say, for periods longer than three months.

Mr. Cosgrave

Very seldom.

Mr. Lemass

I agree that it has not done so very often, but the main reason why the period has been extended is because that situation has arisen. It is felt that there is not a lot of difference from the point of view of urgency in the matter and that we might as well have a period expressed in this Bill which will provide against the necessity of holding a special meeting of the Dáil in order to confirm an order made under the Bill. For the same reason, the period of three months in the original draft of the Control of Imports Bill was extended to six months.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is a certain difference between these two Bills.

Mr. Lemass

There is this difference, of course, that under the Control of Imports Act a longer period would ordinarily elapse before one could say clearly what the effects of an order were going to be than would be the case under this Bill. I am not, however, particularly wedded to the amendment, and if there is any strong objection to it I am prepared to withdraw it.

Mr. Cosgrave

The more one considers a measure of this kind the stronger one's objection to it becomes, if we are to have any regard for representative institutions. As the matter stands in respect of ordinary taxation, an Order of the Executive Council can impose taxation now. It need not come before the Dáil for a certain time, assuming it is a Customs duty, or something of that sort, under the Imposition of Duties Act. I think the Minister will admit that that is not a very advisable procedure. This is the 16th May and the sugar duty imposed on 9th February last has not yet come before the Dáil. A matter of that sort ought to be discussed in the Dáil at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Lemass

It came before the Dáil last week.

Mr. Cosgrave

It was not mentioned.

Mr. Lemass

It was one of the Resolutions.

Mr. Cosgrave

It was not mentioned till I stirred up my recollection in regard to the matter. I cannot always depend on that, and I would advise the Minister not to depend on it.

Mr. Lemass

You are very wise. The Resolution did come before the Dáil last week.

Mr. Cosgrave

Then it must have been hidden along with some of the others. There were 19 of them. The Minister will admit that that matter must come again before the Dáil for discussion. First of all, there is a sort of preliminary canter. I presume the Minister occasionally wastes time at a race meeting and he knows that before the horses go to the starting place there is a sort of preliminary canter. If you are a good judge of a horse you can make your choice during that period. We are in much the same position with regard to these duties. If the Minister ever reads any works on government and so on I should advise him to look up Lord Hewart's book on this matter, in which he points out how much Parliaments are being relieved of their duties by industrious and, perhaps he might have added, designing and conspiring Ministers who take certain decisions and then put them before their Party and say, "Are you going to let us down?" That is perhaps the best description that one could give of the manner in which the sugar duty was imposed. Now we are invited to postpone our decision on any alteration of a preference that the Executive Council may decide upon until six months after the decision has been taken. On the face of it, even the conformity suggestion of the Minister is not, to my mind, a sufficient justification for altering the period from three to six months. To come to the next reason given, we find that it is that the Dáil may adjourn for a longer period than three months, let us say, four months. I do not think this Executive Council could survive without coming to the Dáil with some proposition in the course of three months. The Executive Council is a sort of uneasy assembly and it must get an occasional airing in Parliament. Therefore, that is unlikely to happen in this case. In one case which the Minister has not put up yet it might arise. That is the Dáil adjourns for say three months. At the end of two weeks following the Executive Council decides to go to the country, approaches its doom in other words. In that case where it would not reassemble for three and a half months I admit there is something in it, but in the other cases it is different.

Mr. Lemass

The amendment is not really important. Its introduction is really due to a desire in the minds of people who were responsible for framing this legislation for a similar period in similar enactments. The main argument for it is that it may be necessary on occasion to summon a special meeting of the Dáil. I agree that, with a little foresight, it might be avoided. It is possible that agreements may be made which would have to be implemented within a limited period and when such foresight cannot be exercised. I want to tell the Deputy that I read the book on "The New Despotism" published in 1928. The Deputy did not read it that time. He did not read it until he had leisure in Opposition.

Mr. Cosgrave

I beg to inform the Minister that I have not read it yet. I get people to read these things for me. I have heard about the book and I understand the point. I do not think the Minister ought to press this.

Mr. Lemass

As it is not an important matter, I do not mind giving way.

General Mulcahy

The only thing about that book, "The New Despotism," is that the Minister has given rather a few additional things that might be added to it. He says he read it, but a new edition is badly wanted now, and if the writer sat down to write a new edition of that book he would die with heart failure after having contemplated some of the things the Minister did.

Mr. Lemass

The writer had not heard of the Corporative State.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3:—

In sub-section (3), to delete all from and including the word "it," line 31, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "no order, subsequently made by the Executive Council and having the same or substantially the same effect as the said order so revoked or ceasing to have effect, shall come into operation or be effective until it has been approved of by Dáil Eireann by resolution."—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)

Mr. Lemass

The Bill provides that where an order made by the Executive Council has been approved by Dáil Eireann and revoked by an order similarly made it shall not be lawful for the Executive Council to make under this Act an order having the same effect. Such an order cannot be made in future and if it was desired to make a similar order new legislation would be required. The amendment provides that in such circumstances any order being so made and revoked, a new order could not be made until the prior consent of the Oireachtas had been given. A similar provision was inserted in the previous Customs Duties Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6 and Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage fixed for Thursday, 17th May.