Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1934

Vol. 54 No. 4

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) (No. 2) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

As the House is aware, under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, orders made thereunder cease to have statutory effect within eight months from the date of the making of those orders unless they had been previously confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas. The purpose of the present Bill is to give permanent statutory effect to the duties imposed by the various Orders enumerated in the schedule to the Bill. A number of the Orders which appear in the schedule would cease to have statutory effect after the 28th February, 1935, and it has therefore been considered desirable that the necessary confirming Bill should be introduced at this stage, so that there will be no danger of adequate parliamentary time not being available for the progress of the Bill. Advantage has been taken of the introduction of the Bill at this stage to include in it several orders which, in the normal course, have longer currency than those expiring on the 28th February next. In view of the dates of certain of these orders, it would not be practicable to give permanent statutory effect to the duties to which they relate in the ordinary financial resolutions or in the principal Finance Act of the year. It is proposed, therefore, to include them in the schedule so as to obviate the necessity of introducing a Bill or Bills in the course of the next year.

This Bill takes the same form as the previous Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1933-34. These orders are set forth in the schedule and briefly the subjects to which they relate are as follows:—Order No. 32 relates to boot, etc., laces, elastic, buttons, tape and tape holders, electric wires and cables, vegetable oils and fats, safety razor blades, agricultural forks, automatic machines and statuettes; Orders 42 and 43 are designed to prevent an abuse which has arisen in connection with certain industrial and agricultural products upon which on export a bounty or subsidy was paid. The practice grew up, not very extensively, but it would, I have no doubt, rapidly develop, under which manufacturers exported certain industrial or agricultural commodities upon which bounties have been paid, disposed of a portion of them abroad. Then as these articles were of Saorstát origin they were reimported free of duty though those who had previously exported them received a bounty in respect of them. Orders 42 and 43 are designed to prevent that practice.

Mr. Dillon

Does 43 cover bacon?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, bacon, poultry, and eggs in shell. Orders 44 to 50 cover tanks, not for military use, but for domestic purposes, cisterns, drums, etc., yarns partly of wool or worsted, rope, cord twine, etc., nursery produce, dead rabbits. Order 51 relates to Emergency Duties imposed upon sugar on the 12th October last.

With reference to Order 51 it might be desirable that I should make the position clear in regard to that order. The House will remember that on the Second Stage of the Sugar Manufacture Bill, in July, 1933, in discussing the protection which would require to be afforded to the new beet sugar company, I emphasised that as the company would be in the position to supply the major portion of the country's requirements, it would be essential, in estimating the measure of protection which might be necessary, to have regard to the fact that sugar constitutes an important source of revenue. I indicated that the excise duty on home manufactured beet sugar which had hitherto been exempted would have to be imposed, and the customs duty on imported sugar increased so that the revenue from sugar would be substantially maintained. In my forecast of the additional duties which would have to be imposed to meet the requirements of the Exchequer, I stated that these might be such as to involve an increase of as much as ¾d. per lb. in the price of sugar to the consumer. In February last year, in order to counter the dumping of sugar, the Executive Council, by Order under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, imposed an additional duty of 4/8 per cwt., that is, ½d. per lb., on imported sugar, bringing the customs duty up to 16/4 per cwt. A subsequent examination of the position immediately before the opening of the new sugar factories disclosed that a protective tariff of at least 16/4 per cwt. would be required to enable the new industry to establish and maintain itself. Every effort was made to secure a reduction of this figure, but owing to the fact that the new factories will not operate at their highest efficiency during their first season protection for the full amount indicated was unavoidable. Furthermore, in order to enable the new factories to dispose of all their products between now and the opening of the new campaign, a Quota Order was made restricting the imports of sugar to a very small fraction of what had hitherto been the normal quantity during this period. By the operation of this Quota Order, the normal inflow of revenue from the customs duty on sugar was reduced to vanishing point. Accordingly, it became necessary to consider the amount of excise duty which the sugar from the new factories, which were about to come into production, would have to bear as from the date upon which these factories commenced operations.

As I have already pointed out to the House, I indicated in July, 1933, on the Second Stage of the Sugar Manufacture Bill, that the erection of the new factories might involve an increase of as much as ¾d. per lb. in the cost of sugar to the consumer. The protection which had been previously offered to Carlow sugar in February last has resulted in an increase of ½d. per lb. in the price to the consumer of foreign-manufactured sugar. An excise duty of ¼d. per lb. was accordingly imposed on Irish-manufactured sugar. This is the only tax which the sugar from the new factories carries. In order to preserve the minimum margin of protection, of 16/4 per cwt. required by the new enterprise, there was a corresponding increase in the customs duty on foreign-manufactured sugar. Owing, however, to the operation of the Quota Order to which I have referred, the new customs duty will be productive of very little revenue. As the result of the rearrangement of the customs and excise duties, I am advised that the total revenue from sugar for the current financial year will be £85,000 less than the original estimate.

Mr. Dillon

This Imposition of Duties Bill now before us gives us an opportunity of raising matters which, in my opinion, are of grave constitutional importance and also which reflect on the purity and decency of the public life of this country. I want to draw attention first to certain extracts from the debate that took place in this House when the Emergency Imposition of Duties Bill was passing through in 1932. On that occasion the Minister for Finance and the President of the Executive Council were closely questioned as to why they sought the very wide powers which the Emergency Imposition of Duties Bill was calculated to confer upon them. In column 1187, volume 43 of the Official Debates, Deputy Bennett spoke as follows:—

"Will the Minister give us an undertaking in relation to this measure that, if the Bill comes into operation, it will not be used to impose any further burden on the already over-burdened farmers of this State? I want an assurance from the Minister as to that."

The Minister for Finance replied:—

"The powers of this Bill, as I have said, will be used primarily to open up new channels of trade and establish, if necessary, new industries here."

Deputy Bennett then said:—

"Yes, but what about industries already here?"

And the Minister's reply to that was:—

"As I said, the object of the Bill is to recoup ourselves for any losses which we may suffer as a result of the present British penal legislation."

Now, there is no question or suggestion in that exchange that the Government had it in their mind to use the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act for the purpose of arrogating to themselves the right, hitherto reserved to Oireachtas Eireann, of raising revenue through the Finance Act or through financial resolutions adopted by this House. In column 1247, the President of the Executive Council intervened in the debate and said:—

"With regard to the Bill, the Executive Council is taking the fullest powers in order that, should occasion arise, it may be able to avail of these powers for a single purpose, namely, defence of the interests of the country."

Now, here is a solemn undertaking given by the President of the Executive Council; that he is taking exhaustive powers for a single purpose—defence of the interests of the country. Deputies will remember that the representation made in introducing this Bill was that tariffs were being put on by Great Britain against Saorstát Eireann and that the Government of Saorstát Eireann must be furnished with powers to put on retaliatory tariffs. The President emphasises that and says that he "seeks these powers for a single purpose." The President went on to say:—

"It has been suggested that we are going to abuse these powers. Of course, we know that they could be abused, but the guarantee that they will not be abused is in the fact that the Dáil is master of the situation ultimately. As evidence of our good faith in the matter, we have accepted the recommendation of the Seanad which makes it possible for the Dáil to be assembled at any time on a requisition of the majority of the members."

What a valuable guarantee!—77 members who, speaking through their spokesman, Deputy Donnelly, say:—"The only policy we have is to catch hold of the tail of the President's coat and follow him wherever he leads. We are all agreed on that." And Deputy Jordan said: "We are all agreed on that, but what that is we do not know."

Mr. Jordan

Most profound!

Mr. Dillon

And this is the guarantee—after the President runs amok, the gentlemen running amok at his coat-tail are to march in defence of the constitutional rights of Oireachtas Eireann. The President concluded by saying:

"When we are taking powers it would be stupid not to take powers which would cover every kind of action which might conceivably be necessary. But simply because you take powers which might conceivably be necessary it does not follow that you are to use those powers on all occasions."

Now, the language there employed by the President, reinforcing the assurances given by the Minister for Finance, is as clear as any two Executive Ministers could give to this House. It is a clear, definite statement that the powers conferred upon them under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act will be used for no other purpose but to counter fiscal action taken against this country by Great Britain. And after all these protestations and assurances we discover that, when the Minister for Finance is short of revenue, the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act is called into requisition and employed for the purpose of raising revenue. Of course, the Minister for Finance meant to be in a position to say: "Anything I did in connection with the imposition of duties on sugar was done for the purpose of building up industry in this country." On this occasion, however, not only did the President run amok, and the 76 loyal supporters run amok with him, but "Truth in the News ran amok as well and, to the astonishment of all be holders, told the truth. The Propaganda Bureau in Government Buildings was set in motion and they published a statement which appeared in "Truth in the News." The end of the statement reads as follows: "The rate of 2/4 per cwt."—which the House will remember is the excise duty imposed under this Emergency Order, not the customs duty—"the rate of 2/4 per cwt.—one farthing per pound—was decided upon as the lowest which could be imposed having regard to the requirements of the Exchequer." Not having regard to the requirements of the industry or to the requirements of a successful prosecution of the economic war, but having regard to the requirements of the Exchequer! And the Bill brought before this House for the purpose of confirming the imposition of this excise duty is a Bill which bears upon its face nothing but 21 sections, each one of which consists of the words "Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. —) Order, 1934," and it is suggested to the House that that provides Oireachtas Eireann with a sufficient opportunity of considering the methods by which the Government is raising revenue, when every Deputy in this House knows that not 2 per cent. of the Government Deputies know or care what the terms of the Emergency Imposition of Duties Order (No. 51) is.

I believe that there is no precedent, since the time of the Stuart Kings in Great Britain, for an attempt by the Executive to raise revenue by decree, and this House should realise that if the Government are going to be allowed to raise revenue indefinitely under the powers conferred upon them by the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, there is no necessity for this House to meet, because they can carry on the Government of the country without ever calling Oireachtas Eireann together at all.

Mr. MacEntee

Has the Deputy read the Bill?

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy has read the Bill and he is well aware of the fact that within eight months of the decree of an Order it lapses unless it is confirmed by legislation. Is the Deputy in error in that?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is quite correct.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has an indefinite power to go on imposing new duties. The Minister can raise his revenue for these eight months on sugar, and when that lapses he can proceed to raise it from tea. That is putting it very plainly. The Minister could raise his revenue from one group of commodities in the first eight months and another group in the next eight months. He could proceed from one group to another group almost indefinitely. I have no doubt it would be a cumbersome method of raising revenue, and it is a grave inroad on the constitutional rights of this House. It is furthermore a deliberate betrayal of the undertakings given to this House by the President and the Minister for Finance when they sponsored this Bill. The action of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance in imposing this excise duty under the powers of the Bill constitutes a betrayal of their undertaking and convicts them of a deliberate intention of deceiving this House when they were recommending the Bill for the acceptance of this House and of Seanad Eireann subsequently. I have no hope that the 76 gentlemen—and ladies— who are tied to the coat tails of President de Valera will take any action to defend the rights of this House, but it is necessary that the people of this country should know the nature of the legislation that Fianna Fáil has forced on Oireachtas Eireann, and the manner in which they are employing that legislation, having got it by deceiving the House here and by deceiving the Seanad as well.

Now we come, Sir, to the question of general administration in connection with the licence provisos contained in the Emergency Imposition of Duties Order.

Mr. Lemass

I was afraid the Deputy was going to pass on without making any reference to it.

Mr. Dillon

I tell the Minister that by the time I have finished, and by the time I have read the Minister's correspondence, he will pray to God that I had never opened up on it, because it took me a long time to catch him, but I have managed to catch him at last. I have a letter here from you, but you did not know that you were writing it to me when you wrote it. The Emergency Imposition of Duties Order, No. 32, provided for the imposition of a duty on bootlaces, and it gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Finance power to permit the importation of bootlaces free of duty where they should think that necessary. I ask the House to remember that when I last raised the question of licences in this House I charged the Minister for Industry and Commerce with discriminating between merchants who sought these licences, although the circumstances under which they sought them were identical. The Minister for Industry and Commerce angrily repudiated that suggestion. The Minister for Finance went so far as to say that the law made such discrimination impossible. He was wrong. I immediately said to him: "Will you take steps to introduce a Bill into this House or to amend the Bill we are at present considering in order to place a legal obligation on the Minister to deal equally with merchants who apply to him in identical circumstances"?

Mr. Lemass

You said more than that.

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

I have it here.

Mr. Dillon

So have I, and I have a lot more which I propose to read to the House in a couple of minutes. The Minister for Finance, having been challenged on that, turned querulously to his colleague and, if I might lapse for a moment into the vernacular, he got a flea in his ear, and very shortly afterwards stole out of the House and left the Minister for Industry and Commerce triumphant on the field of battle, saying nothing. My charge was that discrimination was being used. I shall now cite two specific cases in which discrimination has been used as between two merchants. The first case is one which is dealt with in a letter addressed from the Trade and Industries Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce, Lord Edward Street, on 7th August, 1934, under the reference "T.I.D. 1294/3046."

That letter notified an applicant for a licence to import bootlaces free of duty that the Minister was not prepared to alter the decision already conveyed in the Department's letter on 24th July, signifying the Minister's determination not to grant a licence. The application on that occasion was made in respect of bootlaces, which had been ordered and despatched from the North British Bootlace Co., Glasgow, prior to the making of the Emergency Imposition of Duty Order, No. 32. The bootlaces were in the hands of the carrier when the Order was made and by the time they reached the port of entry, they were debarred from entry by that Imposition of Duty Order. The licence was refused. I know that another merchant in this country made a similar application. He was asked the same question that the addressee of the letter which I have just read out was asked and that was, were these bootlaces consigned before the Order was made. He replied as the addressee of the letter replied: "Yes, they were." He got his licence.

Mr. Lemass

When?

Mr. Dillon

The addressee of this letter did not get his.

Mr. Lemass

When?

Mr. Dillon

Just about the same time.

Mr. Lemass

The date is important.

Mr. Dillon

He got it just about the same time as this correspondence.

Mr. Lemass

That is not good enough.

Mr. Dillon

I have got another case and I shall give you the dates. The Minister need not be a bit uneasy.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Deputy running away from the first case?

Mr. Dillon

No. I charge the Minister that he gave a licence to import bootlaces free of duty to one merchant in the South of Ireland and refused it, under exactly similar circumstances, to another merchant in the West.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy said under similar circumstances, but he can't even give the dates on which the application was refused.

Mr. Dillon

I am giving the Minister the date on which the application for the licence was made by the addressee of the letter which I have read. I am giving him the reference and he can get the correspondence if he wants to.

Mr. Lemass

Can the Deputy produce a case for the same date on which the application was granted?

Mr. Dillon

What relevance does the Minister attach to that?

Mr. Lemass

Because there was a change of policy at a particular time in relation to bootlaces.

Mr. Dillon

If that convinces the House the Minister is very welcome——

Mr. Lemass

I shall deal with it afterwards.

Mr. Dillon

——is very welcome to the impression that that creates on the House and on the public. We shall pass on to the next case. I stand on the first case, and I have given the Minister the full reference for the correspondence. The Minister says there was a change of policy. Of course, there was a change of policy, but there was only a change of policy after the Minister got my letter notifying him that I was going to expose him in the Dáil.

Mr. Lemass

I got no such letter. In fact, I had been expecting a letter from the Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

Fortunately I have got a copy of my letter and the answer to it, which is rather awkward for the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

Before the Deputy leaves the first case, is he going to give me the date on which the application was first granted?

Mr. Dillon

I invite the Minister to answer the case that I have made.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy has made no case. The position was that all applications for licences were refused for a period, and that after a period all applications were granted. I suspect that the Deputy is quoting one case from the earlier period and one from a later period.

Mr. Dillon

Am I to understand the Minister to say that there was a short period after the imposition of the duty when all licences were refused?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. I will explain it fully.

Mr. Dillon

And that, after the lapse of a week, a fortnight or a month, there was a change of policy and all bootlaces were let in free of duty?

Mr. Lemass

Quite.

Mr. Dillon

I am clear on that.

Mr. Lemass

More or less.

Mr. Dillon

Now, what happened? I want the House to be clear on this: On the 24th July the addressee of this letter wrote to the Minister explaining that the bootlaces were lying down in the Customs shed, having been consigned prior to the imposition of the duty, and asking for a licence. The Department wrote back and said: "We cannot": that "the Minister has decided not to give a licence." The addressee of the letter wrote to the Minister, or to the Department, stating that the goods were consigned before the duty was put on and that this was surely a case when his power should be exercised. After the lapse of a fortnight in which the matter was considered and turned over in the Minister's mind, and carefully digested, when doubtless numerous other applications had reached him, and when he had the whole picture before him, he writes on the 7th August: "No; we cannot change our mind in this matter. You must pay the 80 per cent"—or 100 per cent., I think it was—"duty on these bootlaces." The duty was paid, and the goods were imported. Suppose the Minister's rather tenuous tale be true——

Mr. Lemass

Would the Deputy come to the second case?

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister give me a chance?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy stated that he had two specific cases. In one an application was granted, and in the other the application was refused. He has given no information whatsoever about the case in which the application was granted, not even the date on which it was granted, much less the name of the firm.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister admits that he has granted such a licence since because of a change of policy, but here is a case brought twice to his notice.

Mr. Lemass

And refused.

Mr. Dillon

Here was a duty paid, and without changing his policy he lets a competitor next door bring in a large parcel of bootlaces.

Mr. Lemass

I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Dillon

Do not interrupt me. He lets a competitor bring in a large parcel of bootlaces free of duty under licence.

Mr. Lemass

Who is the competitor next door?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister will have an opportunity of speaking.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy says he is making his case. He gives information about one case which I can identify, but he gives no information at all about the other.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister not admit that he issued a licence for the free importation of bootlaces? Here is a case in which he refused, on repeated application being made, the result of which is that you have No. 1 man in a street selling bootlaces on which he has paid one hundred per cent. tariff, with No. 2 man in the same street selling bootlaces on which he has paid no tariff at all.

That is one case. Now I come to another case, and this is even more flagrant and more scandalous still. Under Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Order No. 33, the Minister imposed a tariff of 80 per cent. on elastic. I ask the House to bear specially in mind that I made two charges against the Minister on a previous occasion. One I have already outlined. The second was that he was giving a licence to an entrepreneur to bring in tariffed goods and act as a wholesale distributor of these goods within the tariffed boundary long before they were in a position to produce goods of a Saorstát manufacturer. Therefore, you had a situation where an entrepreneur who set up in a back room in Dublin could import under licence while a merchant who had been importing a particular commodity for 50, 60 or 100 years was put at an unfair advantage as compared with that entrepreneur who had only set up a few weeks before. On the 14th August the Minister wrote the following letter, under the reference T.I.D., 1294/3046, to a firm which had applied for a licence to import elastic free of duty. The letter stated: "With regard to elastic, the Minister is not prepared to recommend the issue of a licence for free importation, as supplies are obtainable from Messrs. So-and-So, in such-and-such a street, in Dublin." I take it the Minister does not want me to name these firms. I have given the reference numbers.

Mr. Lemass

I do not care whether you do or not. I am not denying that letter.

Mr. Dillon

The firm which was seeking to buy elastic wrote to the people to whom the Minister had instructed them to apply for supplies and it got this answer:

"We enclose herewith samples of elastic as requested. There will be a discount of ... off marked prices for ten gross lots. We hope to be manufacturing similar numbers in the Free State within the next couple of months."

Now, the firm which had written to the Minister has been importing elastic into this country for the last 70 or 80 years, while the people to whom they were referred by the Minister for Industry and Commerce had nothing to do with the elastic or with the sale or distribution of elastic up to about six months ago. The firm applying for a licence to import elastic wrote this letter to the Minister:—

"We have received your letter dated August 14th, informing us that you are not prepared to recommend the issue of a licence for the free importation of elastic as supplies are available from Messrs. So-and-So, No. 12 So-and-So street in Dublin. We have received a letter from Messrs. So-and-So to-day offering us foreign elastic and stating they would not be in a position to supply elastic of Saorstát manufacture for at least two months. Speaking in Dáil Eireann recently you emphatically repudiated the suggestion that while traders were refused licences to import certain commodities free of duty other individuals who held themselves out as manufacturers were given such licences and were allowed to offer for sale that merchandise in this country. We have been importing elastic regularly for many years and would be glad to know from you now why Messrs. So-and-So are entitled to import elastic on terms more favourable than those available to us."

That letter remained unanswered for a week and then on the 30th August the following letter was issued from the Minister's Department:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to refer to your letter of the 22nd inst. relative to the importation of elastic and to inform you that the general question of the issue of licences for the free importation of elastic has been under consideration and that the Minister is now prepared to consider the issue of licences on receipt of the following particulars: (a) certified statement of your importations for the 12 months ended the 30th June, 1934, giving quantity and value; (b) full particulars of the consignment in respect of which application for a licence is now made giving quantity and value; (c) port of entry and name of shipping company or carriers."

There is an absolutely watertight case, convicting the Minister of doing the very thing which he declared was unthinkable three weeks ago in the Dáil. What I want to drive home to this House is the infinite difficulty in getting details of those cases. If I went to any merchants and asked them to put that correspondence in my hands they would absolutely refuse to do so, because they know perfectly well that putting facts of that kind before the House would mean that the Minister would practically close down upon them, and refuse to give them any licences in the future.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is not aware that all those facts were published in the newspapers?

Mr. Dillon

What does the Minister mean?

Mr. Lemass

That all the facts he has just read were published in the newspapers.

Mr. Dillon

I do not understand what the Minister means.

Mr. Lemass

I cannot help that.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister suggest that the correspondence which I have read was published in the newspapers?

Mr. Lemass

All the facts to which the Deputy has referred were published.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister suggest that this correspondence was published in the newspapers? Does he, or have his words any meaning at all?

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that the whole of the case which he is making, based upon the issue of licences for the importation of bootlaces and elastic, was fully ventilated in the newspapers by responsible people.

Mr. Dillon

I am not talking of some entirely irrelevant insertion in the newspapers but of the correspondence which I have read for the House, clearly convicting the Minister of doing what he undertook not to do; clearly convicting the Minister for Industry and Commerce of having discriminated as between two merchants under the powers conferred upon him by the Imposition of Duties Act; of grossly abusing those powers, and of deceiving this House. My statement is that the correspondence which I have read here proves that case to the hilt, and my suggestion is that when I have been able to bring before the House conclusive proof that such things have happened, the House is entitled to assume with me—unless the Minister is prepared to rebut my presumption absolutely—that those things are happening in hundreds of other cases, and that the persons to whom they are happening are either afraid or unable to publish the facts before the country. I said, prior to the Minister's last interruption, that to get facts of this kind is fearfully difficult, because merchants will not put them in your hands lest the Minister or his Department should visit their temerity upon them. The facts laid before the House now are laid before it with profound reluctance. Because I felt it was essential to make known the true facts to the country, I myself applied to the Minister for the licence here referred to. This correspondence here passed between the Minister and myself, writing in the name of the firm of which I happen to be managing director. But for that, search as I might, I could not bring those facts to light, nor could I carry conviction to the Deputies of this House that such transactions were going on under the veil of secrecy. I now repeat my demand to the Minister that this system of licences be brought out into the light of day, so that the people of this country may be given an opportunity to make up their minds as to whether the powers conferred upon the Minister under the Imposition of Duties Act are being properly used, and whether substantial justice is being done as between one citizen and another in connection with the applications which they make to the Minister's Department for exemption under the Orders to which I have referred.

Mr. Lemass

Before the Deputy passes from that, I should like to ask if that is the whole of the case on which he bases his allegation of monstrous corruption.

Mr. Dillon

What does the Minister refer to?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy's speech about monstrous corruption.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister quote the words I used?

Mr. Lemass

I have just done so.

Mr. Dillon

The words I used and repeat are that if this situation is allowed to develop—the issuing of licences under cover of secrecy and anonymity—there will arise in this country a monster of corruption such as other countries are at present finding it impossible to destroy. I have repeatedly said in this House that I am glad to think there is no gross corruption in the public service of this country to date, though I do believe there is political corruption, inasmuch as a strong political supporter of the Government, backed by influential Fianna Fáil Deputies, will get a readier and more generous hearing for applications made under this Licensing Act, or the Cattle Licence Act, than the ordinary citizen would.

Mr. Lemass

Let us just get that point clear. The Deputy charges the Government with political corruption.

Mr. Dillon

I do.

Mr. Lemass

I take it, therefore, his allegation is that the firm to which this correspondence was directed, and to which the licences to import this elastic and laces were issued, was a firm supported by the Government. Is that the Deputy's allegation?

Mr. Dillon

Let the Minister sit down and speak when I have finished. Tripe of that kind is not going to divert me by one hair's breadth from the charge I have made. Let him put up no dummies for the purpose of knocking them down for the edification of the amadáns from the country. The charge is clear and explicit; it is that the Minister did not do substantial justice between two citizens of this State. Do not try to inject into that charge any allegation which I did not make.

Mr. Lemass

That is the basis of your charge of political corruption?

Mr. Dillon

The Minister intervenes in my speech, and asks whether this is the sole ground for the allegation of gross political corruption which I made in Limerick. I asked him to quote my speech, and the Minister replied that he was quoting it. What I said in Limerick and in this House was that if this system of licensing under cover of anonymity goes on there will arise in the country a monster of corruption which other States are finding it hard to break down. I said, and repeat, that I am glad to think that to date there is no gross corruption in the public service, but I do believe there is political corruption of a certain kind.

Mr. Lemass

And that is your evidence?

Mr. Dillon

In connection with the licences issued under this, and the licences under the cattle Order——

Mr. Lemass

Do not run away to the cattle Order. That is your evidence of political corruption?

Mr. Dillon

It is quite unnecessary to connect the two things in this debate. I make my charge, based on that correspondence. Let the Minister meet it, and let him not attempt to draw any red herring across the trail. There is an absolutely watertight case.

Mr. Lemass

Of political corruption?

Mr. Dillon

Proving the Minister to have deceived the House, gone back on his undertaking, and differentiated unjustly between two citizens of this State. Let him meet that charge and leave other charges for discussion on some other occasion, when I shall be glad to discuss them with him. I made two specific cases. Let those be met to the satisfaction of the House and of the country and I shall be content.

Now we pass to Emergency Order No. 43. In that connection quite another aspect of this whole problem presents itself. It is only right that the country should know why this Order was imposed. The House listened to the Minister for Finance speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, when he made a rambling, involved and mumbled statement as to why those Orders were imposed. He did not take the House or the country into his confidence as to why Order No. 43 was imposed.

Mr. Victory

The Deputy says that they are all amadáns.

Mr. Dillon

I beg the Deputy not to ask me at this juncture to pass judgement on his intellect. I have no desire to be rude.

Mr. Victory

The Deputy will have to go to the country.

Mr. Dillon

I propose to take the country into my confidence as to why the Order was imposed. It was imposed because the Government discovered that, in the fullness of their own wisdom, they had devised a system of bounties and tariffs which made it profitable for a man to cure bacon in Limerick, to export it to Liverpool, and to bring it back again and to sell it in Cork. The situation to-day is that it is worth a man's while to cure bacon in Limerick and to ship it to Liverpool before selling it to a man in Kilmallock. In order to meet that situation, the Government imposed a special duty to prevent a system of carting of our produce to and fro between Great Britain and Ireland to collect bounties, with a view to making an artificial and preposterous profit, which arose out of the folly of the Government's own transaction. It is right that the country should know the position to which the trade, agriculture and every other industry of its citizens are to be reduced by the Government. The country does not know that, and Deputy Victory does not know it. The Deputy is living in the happy illusion that everything is going on well, like wedding bells.

Mr. Victory

I will have to learn that from the Deputy who on one occasion put down an amendment and voted against it.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot hear the Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The point raised was not relevant.

Mr. Dillon

The Chair has apparently heard the point. I must apologise. I did not. I made the case primarily for two reasons, one, in connection with the sugar Excise duty, to protect the constitutional rights of this House, and, in connection with licences, to bring home to the Minister vividly the urgent necessity of putting an end to a system whereunder such things as I have described could happen. I am convinced that if such things continue to happen public confidence will be sapped and grave public district of the morality of them aroused, not merely in Ireland, but throughout the world. Such abuses do obtain in other countries. It will be almost an irremediable disaster if they are allowed to develop here. It is because of that, that I have ventured to deal at some length with the Bill at present before the House.

Mr. Anthony

I do not intend to deal with all the Emergency Orders, but I should like to direct the Minister's attention to the fact that the frequency with which they are issued has created extra trouble and has incommoded many traders in cities and towns. As a matter of fact I could call the Minister's attention to many cases where Emergency Orders have been issued overnight, and like Deputy Dillon, I could produce correspondence to show that orders given for certain commodities on the 1st of the month have been held up on the third or fourth of the month, because Emergency Orders were introduced in the meantime. I feel that the Minister would not like to incommode shop keepers or traders, if it was proved to him that these Emergency Orders were a restraint on trade, and I suggest that he should apply the soft pedal in relation to their introduction.

Two cases were brought to my notice in Cork last week. In one case the customs authorities put on a charge of 2/10. When the proprietor of the firm concerned returned from lunch he interviewed the authorities, and they informed him that he had been undercharged. When the merchant pointed out to the customs officials that he should not be charged at all, a reference to the schedule showed that he was right in his contention, and the 2/10 was refunded. I want to give another instance, which I hope the Minister will take notice of, as I intend to bring it to the notice of his Department at an early date. In the meantime, he should consider whether it is worth while handicapping an industry which was founded in Cork, and which has ramifications all over Great Britain and in many parts of Europe. I refer to the industry carried on by the very old established firm of Booth and Fox. By virtue of good organisation, efficiency, and all the other qualities that are necessary in business, the firm reached a stage when they were able to send out goods, value for thousands of pounds, to Great Britain and to continental countries. They were the originators of the manufacture of eider-down quilts. What do we find to-day? The firm is very seriously handicapped because of some of these Emergency Orders. It endeavours in every way possible to support Irish industry, but cannot get in this country the necessary material for the better class article. For the cheaper class goods, certain suitable textile goods can be had, but for the high-class trade they cannot get the kind of textile required. Because of that, and because of the imposition of duties, they are seriously handicapped. While I feel that the Minister is serious in endeavouring to create a situation where firms will be able to produce most of the commodities they require, and while I also feel that he is sympathetic to a firm which had built up a very big trade, even before the Free State was established——

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is referring to something that is not affected by this Bill.

Mr. Anthony

It is affected by these Emergency Orders.

Mr. Lemass

I think we are precluded from discussing any tariff or Emergency Order not confirmed by this Bill.

Mr. Anthony

I submit it has general application. I sincerely hope that the House will prevent the Minister from imposing an Order which affects an industry that was built up before the Free State was established.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Bill deals with the continuance of certain Orders. The question of the policy of such Orders in general does arise, and I am allowing the Deputy to continue his reference to a particular firm in Cork; but I do not think there should be a general debate on tariffs.

Mr. Lemass

Surely the effect of a tariff imposed by the Finance Act of 1933 is not a matter that has any bearing on a Bill to confirm Emergency Orders?

Mr. Anthony

The Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) (No. 2) Bill relates to Orders Nos. 32 to 52, most of them in restraint of trade— I have no hesitation in saying that. I was endeavouring to relate some of the things in these Emergency Orders to the whole situation in relation to tariffs. I want to keep as far as I possibly can within the Rules of Order, but I submit that I am entitled, in relation to these Orders Nos. 32 to 52, to which this Bill relates, to relate the position brought about, not alone by some of the Emergency Orders, but by the whole policy in relation to tariffs. I do not want to delay the House or to say much more on that matter but I will repeat this: the Minister might apply the soft pedal in these matters. I know of many cases where hardship has been brought about. I brought those cases to the notice of the Minister's Department. I prefer to do it that way first. That has been my policy since I came here— to bring matters to the notice of the Government Department concerned rather than first bring them to the notice of this House.

I will say, in relation to these Emergency Orders, that they have been very injurious in their effects. I think most Deputies are conversant with what occurred in Carlow. Certain matter were mentioned by Deputy Dillon, but surely the Minister must be aware of the position created in Carlow, where a factory was supposed to be established for the manufacture of certain commodities and where the Order was forestalled to the extent that already a three years' supply of that particular commodity is in the country. I will give credit to the Minister for this, no matter how I may differ from him politically, that I believe he is quite serious and quite sincere in his intentions. At the same time, I feel that he has made many blunders in connection with these Orders.

Mr. Lemass

Which of them?

Mr. Anthony

Many of them. I have not the particular ones with me at the moment.

Mr. Lemass

Have you read them?

Mr. Anthony

Every one of them. As a matter of fact, they are coming now with such frequency that I merely glance through them and then throw them in the waste paper basket. I am sure many Deputies will agree that it would require not alone one clerk but two or three clerks to keep pace with the Minister's Orders. In fact, the ordinary traders do not know where they stand from one week to another. You may ask any small trader in Dublin or Cork what he thinks of the Minister's Orders from day to day, and, indeed, if the Minister did so ask, the reply would probably be an education for him and would give him some enlightenment on the position. I can indicate several small traders from Cork who do not know where they are in relation to these Orders. I seriously suggest to the Minister, in all good faith, that he should put on the soft pedal; he should not keep rushing the trading community from one week to another, putting them in such a position of doubt that they do not know where they are.

The Minister surely must recognise this—he has some knowledge of business—that if he gave an order for a certain commodity which is not manufactured in this country, let us say an order for hats or any other commodity in the drapery trade, and having given that order he finds overnight an Emergency Order has been issued putting on a tariff of 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. and compelling him to apply for a licence before he can get the goods in, he would be put in an extremely embarrassing position. The Minister has been a business man, but, as I understand, he severed his connection to some extent with business. I am sorry he has done so, because I believe if he had kept in touch with ordinary business he would realise how injurious it is to keep introducing Emergency Orders almost night after night.

General Mulcahy

The Minister for Finance told us very little about this matter, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not very anxious to tell us anything about it. He is not in a hurry to rise in his place.

Mr. Lemass

I am very anxious to hear the Deputy.

General Mulcahy

The Minister will have this opportunity. It is usual when substantial Customs duties are imposed to hear from the Minister for Finance what their effect will be from the financial point of view. If the position is that the duties that are imposed by these Orders are intended to develop industry, then the House would expect that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be on his feet to tell us what these Orders were going to do for the development of industry in the country. Why, the very rate at which the unemployment figures are rising ought to pull him out of his seat. The Minister for Finance told us nothing about the revenue effect of these tariffs. The people of this country woke up when the Minister for Finance produced his financial statement on the 31st of March last to find that the Minister had lifted out of their pockets £1,500,000 more than he told them at the beginning of the financial year he was going to take. Is the Minister for Finance during the current year lifting, through these Orders, out of the pockets of the people and without the people realising it another £1,500,000 more than he told them at the beginning of this financial year he was going to take? The House is entitled to know whether that is so.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is in a position to supplement the information, or fill up the gap in the information left by the Minister for Finance. He can tell us to what extent he has issued licences in every single case in which licences were asked for under these Orders, and to what extent there are any of these Orders under which he has not issued licences for the free import of articles. I think it is a very brazen thing on the part of the Government to introduce a measure of this kind, if it is going to raise revenue, and not tell the House what revenue it is going to raise. When these Orders were issued the atmosphere was created by the Government that the effect of the Orders would be to develop a number of industries throughout the country. One would expect that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would have told us something about them. I would like to hear from the Minister what exactly is to be the manufacturing effect of these Orders.

At the time these Orders were issued the Government, it would appear, issued an official statement. It announced with reference to Order No. 32 that laces and elastic factories were to be set up in Ennis. I think it suggested that, under Order No. 34, a factory for the manufacture of buttons was to be established in some place which at that time they were not able to specify; that, under Order No. 36, there was to be established at New Ross a factory for the manufacture of electric lighting cables and wires; that, under Order No. 37, there was to be established at Drogheda a factory for the manufacture of oils and fats; and that at Enniscorthy we were to have a factory for the manufacture of razor blades, brought about by Emergency Order No. 38. It is whispered abroad that, under Emergency Order No. 45, there is to be a factory for the manufacture of electric lamps at Bray. I do not know whether it is Emergency Order No. 46 or not that is developing the meat factory at Roscrea. The Ministerial Press told us that there was to be a rope factory established in Kildare; that the workhouse premises had been got there and that the work was well advanced. That, no doubt, was to be brought about in the atmosphere of Order No. 48.

I say again that it is an extraordinary thing that these Orders should be enshrined in a Bill and the Bill brought before the House, without any statement from the Government as to what exactly is likely to happen to the manufacturing side, and the question arises as to whether we have arrived at a point at which the Minister is simply blindly issuing orders—that his experience is such that he does not know exactly what is going to happen —and chancing what is going to happen, but that he is not going to put himself in the position of making promises which have to be withdrawn again, in the same way as the Minister for Education withdrew the whole series of election promises that were issued some time ago. Again, on the question of licences, every single one, or, practically, every single one, of these Orders contains a provision that licences may be issued for the import of these articles, according to the Minister's wish, without payment of duty. In reply to a whole series of questions to-day, the Minister said that he was not-prepared to give information regarding businesses carried on by individual firms. The Minister may feel that he has a certain responsibility in keeping the names of individual firms private, but surely that is no reason for stating to this House that he is not going to tell them anything, good, bad or indifferent, about what is happening in the matter of licences under each and all of these Emergency Orders? Either the Minister has a policy which is enshrined in these Orders or he has not; either he expects something to develop in the line of Irish industry as a result of them or he does not. He ought to tell us one or the other. There is one question I should like the Minister to answer. In each of these Orders, is there anything that should cause a rise in the price of the articles specified in them beyond what the price of these articles was before the Orders were issued? The Minister has a duty to this House which he has made no attempt to discharge, and I would ask him to discharge that duty.

Mr. Lemass rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Minister rising to conclude?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

General Mulcahy

Surely not? If there is no one who wants to engage in the discussion, I do not desire to object to the Minister concluding, and if the Minister will undertake to answer the questions which ought properly to be answered by the Minister for Finance with regard to the revenue that is anticipated from these duties.

Mr. Lemass

The various points on which Deputy Mulcahy wants information have, I think, all been dealt with more or less in the explanatory statements which were issued to the public through the Press when the various duties were imposed. A number of the duties, of course, imposed by these Emergency Orders, are properly the concern of the Minister for Agriculture, and some of them are the concern of the Minister for Finance, in so far as they are designed to serve either agricultural or finance policy. The duties which were imposed for the purpose of facilitating industrial development, and which are operating to that end, are those in respect of which I can give the Deputy a certain amount of the information which he desires. On the general question of the amount of revenue likely to be secured as a result of these duties, it is not possible, for a reason which was given to the Deputy in a reply to a Parliamentary Question, to give any precise figure. In the case of most of the commodities covered by these Orders, precise information as to the value of the imports of them into the Saorstát in previous years is not available, because they were not subject to a separate classification on the import list. It can be said, however, that in so far as these duties are designed to protect industries, the revenue to be secured from them will be very slight indeed. In fact, the operation of some of them will reduce the revenue heretofore enjoyed by the Exchequer, because of other and lower duties which applied to these goods.

Deputy Dillon, of course, at the outset of his speech and as a mere preliminary statement, alleged that the main consideration behind these duties was to enable the Minister for Finance to get revenue without consulting the Dáil. The net effect of all the duties which were imposed by the Emergency Orders which are confined by this Bill is to reduce the revenue which the Minister for Finance might, and did, anticipate from Customs duties during the course of the year, as the Minister for Finance himself explained in his speech.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of correction. I made no such allegation as the Minister suggests I made. In special reference to Emergency (Imposition of Duty) Order No. 51, I criticised the raising of revenue as evidenced by the official statement issued by the Government Information Bureau and pointed out that the President of the Executive Council had given an explicit undertaking to Dáil Eireann, when the Bill was passing through the House, that the Act would not be used for the purpose of raising revenue or for any other purpose than to combat tariffs put on by Great Britain in the prosecution of the economic war.

Mr. Lemass

And the Minister for Finance, with great patience and great clarity, explained in such words that even Deputy Dillon must have been able to follow his meaning, that the effect of the changes in the duties on sugar brought about by the Emergency (Imposition of Duty) Order No. 37 and the corresponding changes that took place at that time, would be to reduce the estimated revenue from sugar by £85,000 in this year.

Mr. Dillon

Nonsense! The Order imposed an Excise duty of 2/4 per cwt. on Irish sugar.

Mr. Lemass

And at the same time a quota order was made which restricted imports of sugar on which the duty was 16/8.

Mr. Dillon

And which was in competition with sugar which heretofore——

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy will stop for a minute, I will try to give Deputy Mulcahy some of the information he requires.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister interrupted me frequently, and if he has the courage to face the same interruptions that I had to face, he will hear me. An Excise duty of 2/4 a cwt. was imposed on sugar which hitherto bore no duty and which was protected by the Customs duty which the Minister for Finance was in process of altering and which he now alters and proceeds to raise revenue; whereas under the old arrangement the Customs duty was left untouched and no revenue would have accrued.

Mr. Lemass

And the revenue from sugar will be £85,000 less than the Budget estimate. Will the Deputy write that down and study it for five minutes, while I answer Deputy Mulcahy's questions?

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has produced several red herrings from his pocket. Let him desist now.

Mr. Lemass

A duty on boot and other laces was imposed in order to promote the establishment of a factory for the manufacture of these goods, which factory is now being built in the town of Ennis, in County Clare. In the same factory the elastics which were made subject to duty by Emergency Order No. 33 will also be manufactured. The factory for the manufacture of buttons, established by the Irish Button Co., Ltd., is located at Whitehall in Deputy Mulcahy's constituency. The factory for the production of advertising tape, established by a company known as Irish Tapes, Limited, is also located in Dublin. The factory for the production of electric wires and cables, insulated with rubber, established by the Irish Driver Harris Company is located at New Ross and came into production this week. The factory for the production of oils and fats, which has been established by the Irish Oil and Cake Mills, Ltd., is being built at the present time at Drogheda. The factory for the production of razor blades was established in Enniscorthy and is at present in production. As to the production of agricultural forks and component parts, there is more than one factory established, but the principal one is located in Galway, and is in production.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister allege that that factory was established since the imposition of that Order?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Dillon

It is a pity he did not say so at first.

Mr. Lemass

The factory commenced production of a number of these classes of goods made subject to that Order since the imposition of the Order.

Mr. Dillon

We are aware of that.

Mr. Lemass

A factory for the production of cylindrical drums, cisterns, tanks, etc., is located in Dublin. The factory for the production of elictrical filament lamps, which is at present being constructed, is located at Bray in the Co. Wicklow. The factory in Kildare for the production of cables, ropes and twines has been in production for some time and is increasing its production as it makes progress. If there is any specific point relating to these duties upon which more definite information is required I can arrange to have it supplied when the Bill is being discussed in Committee.

At this stage we deal primarily with the principle of the measure, and in dealing with the principle of the measure I should like to deal with the very unprincipled speech which Deputy Dillon delivered himself of. He commenced his speech by reading a number of extracts from statements made by the Minister for Finance and the President on the occasion of the passing into law of the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Act and tried to hang on to these statements a general allegation that the Government had secured the passage of that measure by fraud, by deceiving the House as to the effect of it, and deceiving the public as to the manner in which the powers conferred upon them would be used. The statements bear no such interpretation. Even the extracts read by the Deputy bear no such interpretation. I am quite certain that he has garbled these statements in accordance with his usual tactics.

Mr. Dillon

That is a very grave allegation to make. I have purported to quote the Official Debates.

Mr. Lemass

I am as much entitled to make an allegation as the Deputy is.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order. I purported to quote the Official Reports, and I did so verbatim. It is now alleged against me that I garbled the Official Reports of this House in communicating them to the House. I resent that allegation, and, in the absence of proof, I ask you, Sir, to compel the Minister for Industry and Commerce to withdraw that charge.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy quoted from the columns of the Official Debates. The Minister had an opportunity of verifying this quotation. Until the quotation cited by the Deputy has been proved incorrect, it must be accepted by the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

I am prepared to accept that. I am prepared to say further most emphatically, and I think I am entitled to say——

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister withdraw the allegation that I garbled the Official Reports of this House when purporting to read them to the House? I ask for an express withdrawal of that allegation.

Mr. Lemass

Can I proceed?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, in accepting the accuracy of the quotation, has consequentially withdrawn the allegation.

Mr. Dillon

I do not wish to question your ruling in any way, but I should think I would be remiss in my duty if, after being called upon to withdraw an allegation, I merely said I accepted your instructions and failed to discharge the courtesy of complying with them. The Minister has been instructed to withdraw the allegation made against me. I ask him to do that with the same clarity as he made the allegation. Does he withdraw the allegation that I garbled the Official Reports when reading them?

Mr. Lemass

I think, Sir, you said I could proceed.

Mr. Dillon

Does he withdraw?

An Ceann Comhairle

I stated the Minister would have to accept the quotation made by the Deputy——

Mr. Dillon

And withdraw the charge.

An Ceann Comhairle

That he would have to accept the quotation made by the Deputy as correct. Acceptance of accuracy was a withdrawal of the charge.

Mr. Dillon

Any Deputy then can get up and charge me with deliberately garbling the Official Reports for the purpose of deceiving the House and fail expressly to withdraw the charge. I submit, Sir, with all respect, that I am entitled to protection from you against such charges, and I think I am entitled to demand that the Minister will expressly withdraw such a charge.

An Ceann Comhairle

As the Minister accepts the quotation as correct, the charge is in fact withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

It is possible to convey a very wrong impression of what anybody said by reading a small extract from a long speech and then trying to hang on to that extract an allegation which it will not bear, and which is contrary to the general tenor of the speech.

Mr. Dillon

Do you withdraw the charge?

Mr. Lemass

That is what Deputy Dillon did.

Mr. Dillon

Have the courage to withdraw a false charge made.

Mr. Lemass

These extracts which he read did not bear the interpretation which he tried to force upon them. What were the extracts? We had a speech from the Minister for Finance in which he stated that the powers of the Bill were going to be used to open up new channels of trade and establish new industries. Are they not being used for that purpose? Is there any other design behind the various Orders made under the Bill except to open up new channels of trade?

Mr. Dillon

Finish the quotation.

Mr. Lemass

May I be allowed to speak without interruption? It was also stated that the Bill would be used to recoup ourselves for the losses which we now suffer from British legislation. That is what we are doing—recouping ourselves for the losses of trade which may have followed from the action taken by the British Government by establishing new industries, new opportunities of employment, new sources of wealth within the country. The President said the powers of the Bill were going to be availed of for the single purpose of defending the interests of the country. That is what they are being used for. To attempt to read into that statement, or into the statement of the Minister for Finance, an undertaking of some kind, which the Deputy did not explain, is obviously an attempt to mislead the House now as to the obvious meaning of the speeches that were delivered on that occasion.

However, I want to deal more specifically with the charges of political corruption which Deputy Dillon has on this as on the previous occasions thrown out with great liberality. There are more ways by which the development of Irish industry can be sabotaged than by knocking trees across the road. Deputy Dillon, by the method of these wild allegations of political corruption, is engaged in the same design, and is working with the same purpose, to sabotage Irish industrial development, as actuates those who have other and more direct methods to that end. It is not the first time that Deputy Dillon made charges of corruption, made allegations here that the licensing system was being used, as he said, to give favours to the Government's political friends to the detriment of the Government's political opponents. The Deputy made these allegations here before. But this time he came out in the open and endeavoured to support his charges by evidence. He never went so far as that before. In the past his charges were always based upon general statements without any evidence to substantiate these general statements in a single particular though frequently he pledged his word and honour here to the House to produce evidence and failed to do so.

Mr. Dillon

Never. That statement is not true.

Mr. Lemass

On the 19th June, 1934, as reported in the Official Debates, Volume 53, No. 2, column 657, Deputy Dillon gave his word here to produce this evidence. I interrupted the Deputy in the course of one of these wild speeches of his in which he alleged that licences were being issued because of political considerations and that corruption was the determining factor which operated in the giving of the licences. He said that various influences were being exercised and that favours were being given to his political supporters by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I then asked the Deputy to give specific cases. I said:

"I think the Deputy had better get away from generalities and mention some specific case."

Mr. Dillon said:

"I will give the Minister any particulars he may require."

"Mr. Lemass: I am asking them now."

Then there were one or two interchanges of a similar character and then Deputy Dillon delivered himself as follows:—

Mr. Dillon

Read the intervening passages.

Mr. Lemass

I will.

Mr. Dillon: Does the Minister want to know them?

Mr. Lemass: I want to know them.

Mr. Dillon: I will furnish them in private.

Mr. Lemass: I suggest to the Deputy that he should refrain from making general charges.

Mr. Dillon: It is a well-established rule in this House that the name of any individual should not be publicly mentioned unless the individual is here to defend himself. The Minister wants a specific case. I will send him several. Is that fair? If I do not send them he can get up here on the next stage of the Bill and say that I made general charges and was not able to substantiate them. Well, he did not send them.

Mr. Dillon

I did.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy did not send them to me and, furthermore, he admitted in this House on a later occasion that he did not send them.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister is alleging this as a fact. In your presence. Sir, and in the presence of the House I tendered to the Minister a full statement of these charges on condition that he would not publish the names of the merchants. The Minister said across the House to me: "If you give me the names I will read them out"; and later he said: "If you object to the publication of the names of licensees how can you ask me to indicate to whom the licences were issued?" The Minister then said that if he did not get these names he would take it that the charges could not be substantiated.

Mr. Lemass

Can I make a second speech now like other people?

An Ceann Comhairle

There has been a good deal of cross-firing between the Minister and Deputy Dillon. If they have differences to settle they should settle them in an orderly manner. I do not want from either the Minister or the Deputy any observation such as that now made by the Minister: "May I make a second speech now like other people?"

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Dillon made a second speech.

An Ceann Comhairle

Reflections on the Chair by either Ministers or Deputies will not be tolerated.

Mr. Lemass

I would like to be allowed to develop my point. The incident to which Deputy Dillon refers took place on the 7th August of this year. The matter of which I am reminding him took place on the 19th June, when Deputy Dillon undertook to supply evidence in the case of several charges he made. He said he would substantiate them. The charges made then were similar to the charges he made now. But he did not substantiate these charges. He did not attempt it. He did not send a single word or message of any kind to me to substantiate the allegations he made on the 19th July, though he agreed that if he failed to do it I could get up here at a further stage and say that he had failed to substantiate his charges and fling them back in his teeth. He did not substantiate these charges although his speech now is full of charges of gross corruption. He failed to prove his original charges.

Mr. Dillon

Quote it.

Mr. Lemass

I will. He said gross corruption. On the 19th June the Deputy spoke of gross corruption, and Deputy MacEntee said "if the Deputy charges the Government with corruption either for votes or money he should produce some proof and ask for an inquiry," and Deputy Dillon said: "Charge you with political corruption! I have spent the last half-hour charging you with political corruption. You are rotten with it." That is the type of allegation Deputy Dillon has been making not merely in this House but outside it. I asked him to produce evidence, and he did not do it, although he contracted in public to produce that evidence in private. He did not do it. His whole speech was based upon the assumption that he could produce evidence. On the 7th August I reminded him that he had not produced the evidence. I told him that he had failed to fulfil his previous promise. He pleaded on that occasion that it took him a long time to get the facts, and then he said: "I have them at long last; here they are (waving a sheet of paper at me). I will send them over to him in about two minutes, but I will send them over to him in my own handwriting." The Deputy left the members of the House under the impression that the charges were contained in the documents that he was holding in his hands and that he was sending them across to me. He did not do so. No evidence was submitted to the Department and no attempt was made to substantiate the charges. No opportunity was given to the Department to conduct an examination to prove the untruth of these charges. Deputy Dillon made these wild charges, and he did not confine himself to making the charges here. He continued his campaign of seditious libel outside the House——

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, I submit that to charge a Deputy of this House with a felony is an abuse of argument, and to charge him with seditious libel is to charge him with felony. I do not know whether the Minister means that?

An Ceann Comhairle

A charge of seditious libel should not be made against a Deputy. This House is not a court of law.

Mr. Lemass

And a charge of gross corruption can be made.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not a charge of personal corruption.

Mr. MacEntee

What is the difference?

Mr. Anthony

May I ask the Minister with regard to recent appointments in the National Health Board whether these are not cases of political corruption?

An Ceann Comhairle

That question does not arise.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dillon makes charges of corruption, and in the newspaper organ of his Party these charges are repeated to people outside this country. He is going outside and telling the world that there is corruption here. In Limerick he said there was corruption here——

Mr. Dillon

Quote what I said, and do not garble the report of my speech.

Mr. Lemass

The whole evidence is based upon two cases that he produced, and there was no attempt whatever to find out if there was an obvious explanation in the circumstances to which he referred. There was an obvious explanation—an explanation which he could have ascertained not merely from the officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce but from the officials of the Merchant Drapers' Association and of the Federation of Irish Industries. Representatives of both these organisations had discussed with me the circumstances relating to the issue of licences for the commodities to which Deputy Dillon was referring, and were fully informed as to the position. I ask Deputy Dillon why he did not produce in relation to the second of the two cases to which he referred, the same information that he had about the first case—namely, the date on which the licence was granted. He was able to produce full details—the date and other particulars—in respect of the licence that was refused——

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister give way to me for a moment?

Mr. Lemass

He took good care not to produce the information in the other case.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister give way while I read the quotations on which he bases his allegations?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will not read the quotations and he will not allow me to read them. He charges me, nevertheless, with saying that gross corruption was in existence in the State, although that is in direct contradiction of what I said.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dillon said, on the 19th June, as reported in column 664, Volume 53, of the Official Debates, when accused of charging the Government with political corruption:—

"Charge you with political corruption ! I have spent the last half hour charging you with political corruption. You are rotten with it."

That is not merely a general insinuation; it is a very definite assertion. That is from the verbatim report of the Deputy's speech.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister alleges that I said certain things as reported in a Limerick newspaper. I ask him to quote the speech, and he says to an usher: "Bring that over to the Deputy and let him read his speech." My speech in Limerick directly contradicts the construction put upon it by the Minister. I ask the Minister if he will give way to me so that I may read the speech to which he has referred.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Deputy withdrawing his allegations of corruption?

Mr. Dillon

Everything I said with regard to corruption I now specifically reiterate.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy says that this Government is rotten with corruption.

Mr. Dillon

Will you allow me to read those extracts?

Mr. Lemass

Now he is trying to run away from that allegation.

Mr. Dillon

No. I reiterate every word I said.

Mr. Lemass

On a previous occasion, when the Deputy was asked to produce a single instance to support his allegation, he ran away from the case he was professing to prove, even though he tried to save his face in public by promising to produce evidence in two days or two hours. He had not the moral courage to stand up and admit that he had no evidence, and he had recourse to that mean subterfuge of promising to send evidence on and then not doing so. What are the cases to which he referred to-day? One was the case of a man who wanted to import bootlaces and was told he could not get a licence to do so, and the other was the case of a man who got a licence.

Mr. MacEntee

For the importation of elastic.

Mr. Lemass

No. There were two cases. One was a case of bootlaces and the other was a case of elastic. I shall tell the Deputy the manner in which the licensing power in respect to the importation of bootlaces and elastic was operated. These duties were imposed before the factory was constructed to manufacture these goods because we anticipated—and, as events proved, rightfully anticipated —that information concerning the intention to construct such a factory was common amongst certain traders and that efforts would be made to bring in large quantities of these commodities in an attempt to forestall any duty to be imposed and get the benefit, if benefit there would be, of such forestalling for the profit of the persons concerned. Certain firms placed orders for abnormal quantities of both laces and elastics. If they had succeeded in their efforts to bring these abnormal quantities of goods into the country, the prospect of establishing a factory for their manufacture would have to be postponed for about two years, because sufficient laces and elastics to meet all our requirements for that period would have been available in the country. The duty was imposed, therefore, before the construction of the factory was commenced and as soon as the various necessary, preliminary arrangements for the establishment of the industry had been completed. The instructions which I issued to my Department and the instructions which were acted upon by my Department were that wherever they had, in the preliminary period, clear proof that laces or elastic were in transit to this country in normal quantities by firms normally engaged in the importation of these articles, licences for their importation should be issued, but where there was evidence that orders for elastic or laces had been placed after the duty had been imposed or for quantities which were abnormally large—the Revenue Commissioners could supply information as to normal importations—applications for licences should be refused and that, subject to what I have said during the whole of the period intervening between the imposition of the duty and the coming into production of the new factory, the business of importing elastic should be confined to the particular firm which was constructing the factory. That may have been good policy or it may have been bad policy. I am quite prepared to discuss that question at any time but I do not think that anybody could base upon that decision an allegation of political corruption or an allegation such as Deputy Dillon tried to make—that the firm concerned were getting that concession because they were political supporters of the Government, whereas they were a foreign firm coming into this country under a licence under the Control of Manufactures Act.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Minister now referring to bootlaces or to elastic?

Mr. Lemass

To both. The same conditions applied to both.

Mr. Dillon

The circumstances relating to the two cases were entirely different.

Mr. Lemass

The circumstances of the two cases are exactly the same. That decision was made because there were a very large number of small concerns in this country importing laces and elastic in small quantities and it was considered that there would be very considerable administrative inconvenience in operating a licensing system under these circumstances. It was decided to adopt a system—this is the practice in the majority of European countries in which a licensing system is in operation—of nominating a particular importer or importers to import the quantities normally required and to sell them, subject to certain conditions, one of the conditions being, that the prices should not be increased—that is to say, that the importers should continue to get the imported commodities at the price at which they would have obtained them if a licensing system had not been brought into operation. We tried that system in relation to laces and elastic and, during that period of trial, all applications for licences were refused. When we decided that that system was not working as satisfactorily as we should have liked, we terminated it and all applications for licences to import were granted. I want Deputy Dillon to support his allegation not by comparing a refusal of an application in one period with the granting of an application in another period but by evidence of divergent treatment in two similar cases in the same period. He has not been able to do that.

In the case of elastic, to which the Deputy referred, the company building the factory—it was the same company—was at that time being treated as the sole importer of elastic and not alone was the application of the Deputy's firm refused but the application of every other firm was refused. Without seeing the document received by the Deputy, I should say that it is a stencilled document such as was sent out to all firms applying.

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Lemass

I do not want to argue that.

Mr. Dillon

There is no necessity because the document is here, typed and signed.

Mr. Lemass

Precisely the same reply was sent to every applicant, no matter what his political opinions were— whether he was a political supporter of the Government or an opponent of the Government. When that experiment in operating the licensing system terminated, every person who was entitled to a licence to import commodities on the ground that he was previously engaged in the business of importing them, was given a licence for the full normal quantity without consideration or regard to his political affiliations.

Deputy Dillon is a new member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. He has come into that Party newly, and knows very little of its history. If he did know that history he would hardly have the face to come here and make the allegations he has made. I wonder did Deputy Dillon ever hear of a circular issued by my predecessor in the Department of Industry and Commerce to the English flour millers soliciting subscriptions for Party funds after that Government had refused protection to the Irish millers? I suppose he did not ever hear of a similar circular to other English manufacturers engaged in exploiting the home markets to the detriment of Irish manufacturers? He should at least note the company in which he is now sitting before he throws out allegations of this nature. People in glass-houses should not throw stones. A Deputy on the Front Bench opposite is making some noise; possibly he has indulged in some observation that I have not been able to grasp.

General Mulcahy

It is possible to make what the Minister is saying the subject of an intelligent observation.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Mulcahy sat there with his mouth closed while his colleague was throwing these allegations across the floor of the House. He stood on a public platform when Deputy Dillon was broadcasting these things to the public and stating that this Government was grossly corrupt.

General Mulcahy

The Minister need not work up his indignation in regard to me, because I have not any vestige of indignation at the moment myself.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy ought to be indignant. He is associated with Deputy Dillon, but apparently he likes to lie in the same sink with him. Deputy Dillon, no doubt, has dragged Deputy Mulcahy down into it.

General Mulcahy

I am not in the slightest bit indignant at the stench.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy cannot get the stench he is not very sensitive.

Mr. Dillon

You mean the stench of your red herrings?

General Mulcahy

The stench from some of the Minister's factories would prepare us for anything. I have been around a few of them. I am hardened.

Mr. Lemass

What were you doing? —knocking down trees.

General Mulcahy

Not at all. I was not even knocking down Mallow Bridge.

Mr. Lemass

No, you were not there. You sat in Merrion Square sending out the necessary orders to cut down the trees. The people who took the risk are sent to jail, but the Deputy remained safely in Merrion Square.

General Mulcahy

Tell us something about this licensing business.

Mr. Lemass

I have told you. I want any Deputy opposite to produce for me any published statement made by a single responsible body of traders or manufacturers in this country, to the effect that they have reason to be dissatisfied with the administration of licences on the ground that there is unfair discrimination between one applicant and another. I do not mind what allegations Deputy Dillon makes. We expect such things from him. I do not complain that he is supported by Deputy Mulcahy. Deputy Mulcahy, of course, cannot let his colleagues down. But if these gentlemen are serious, let them produce from any association of manufacturers, from any chamber of commerce, or any association of merchants, statements showing that they are dissatisfied with the licensing system as administered by my Department, statements that will in any way support the allegations made by Deputy Dillon and they will be investigated. I made that challenge before but they did not take it up. I said before and I repeat, that if such allegations are made in a serious manner, by any responsible organisation of business men in the country, I shall agree to have the minutest possible inquiry made so that the allegation, and everything associated with it, will be brought to the light of day and Deputy Dillon's charge of political corruption finally disposed of. I will not waste the time of the officers of my Department, and of people associated with the public service, who have their work to do, investigating these allegations simply because Deputy Dillon thinks fit to make them. I have given the Deputy a challenge. If he is serious in his charges, let him take up that challenge and he can have the investigation which he pretends to want. Perhaps when he starts out to avail of that opportunity and comes into contact with business men who have had dealings with the Department of Industry and Commerce in these matters—men who never were and never are likely to be political supporters of the Government—he will get an idea of the impartial and efficient manner in which the Department of Industry and Commerce is now conducted as compared with the way it was administered a short time ago. Deputy Dillon said that if he were to produce the names of firms who made complaints as to the manner in which licenses were issued they would be victimised and would never again get licenses to import any commodities. That is the type of charge that Deputy Dillon would make. That is the manner in which his mind is bound to work. I say that if Deputy Dillon believes he can substantiate any such charge in the slightest way, I shall give him the fullest opportunity for investigation. I would remind him of this fact: He is not the only Deputy in this House who has got those complaints to make. Other Deputies in his Party have got similar complaints but, instead of making them the basis of groundless charges here, they come to my officers, put their case before them and get every satisfaction or a reasonable explanation. Other Deputies in Deputy Dillon's Party, with a livelier sense of decency than Deputy Dillon has shown, have taken that course. There are other Deputies in the Party opposite to whom firms come with their complaints, without the slightest fear of victimisation because of making these complaints. These Deputies have no hesitation in coming direct to the officers of my Department who administer the licensing provisions and putting their information before these officers. They have a full explanation given them as to the course of action taken by the Department. Quite frequently, Deputies, with the information supplied by the firms, are able to secure changes by affording new information not previously available, or by placing before the officer concerned a new aspect of the matter that had not been previously considered. If Deputy Dillon will consult members of his own Party likely to have received complaints, and who have been in contact with the Department concerned with these complaints, he will find that what I say is true. But Deputy Dillon would take no great pains to find out the truth because, if he did, he could no longer sling his mud across the House and could no longer give vent to his bitter venom. The Deputy made many of those accusations on other occasions and ran away from the task of substantiating them. His effort in that direction to-day discovered a mare's nest.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad you think so for the sake of your own peace of mind.

Mr. Lemass

Not merely do I believe that I have convinced every member of the Dáil that there is no basis for the allegation that political corruption was responsible for my giving a licence to import either of the commodities the Deputy mentioned to one firm, and refusing it to another, but I am also satisfied that the organisations concerned—the Merchant Drapers' Association and the Federation of Irish Industries—are so satisfied. The Deputy might be well advised to try to establish contact with responsible men and hear the opinions and views of responsible men before he comes into this House again to make another wild speech such as we have had from him on so many occasions.

Question put; the Dáil divided.

Tá: 62; Níl: 53.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.Bartley, Gerald.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Boland, Patrick.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Brian.Brady, Seán.Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Carty, Frank.Concannon, Helena.Corish, Richard.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Timothy.Davin, William.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon. MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán.Murphy, Patrick Stephen.Norton, William.O'Briain, Donnchadh.O'Dowd, Patrick.O'Grady, Seán.O Ceallaigh, Seán T.O'Reilly, Matthew.

Doherty, Hugh.Everett, James.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Gibbons, Seán.Goulding, John.Harris, Thomas.Hayes, Seán.Keely, Séamus P.Kehoe, Patrick.Kelly, James Patrick.Kelly, Thomas.Keyes, Michael.Kilroy, Michael.Kissane, Eamonn.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Lynch, James B.McEllistrim, Thomas. Pattison, James P.Pearse, Margaret Mary.Rice, Edward.Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.Ryan, James.Ryan, Martin.Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Victory, James.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C.

Níl.

Alton, Ernest Henry.Anthony, Richard.Beckett, James Walter.Bennett, George Cecil.Bourke, Séamus.Brennan, Michael.Burke, James Michael.Burke, Patrick.Coburn, James.Cosgrave, William T.Costello, John Aloysius.Curran, Richard.Davis, Michael.Desmond, William.Dillon, James M.Dolan, James Nicholas.Doyle, Peadar S.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Fagan, Charles.Finlay, John.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Haslett, Alexander.Holohan, Richard.Keating, John.Lynch, Finian.

MacDermot, Frank.MacEoin, Seán.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.McGovern, Patrick.McGuire, James Ivan.McMenamin, Daniel.Minch, Sydney B.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.Nally, Martin.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Neill, Eamonn.O'Reilly, John Joseph.O'Sullivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Reidy, James.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Rogers, Patrick James.Rowlette, Robert James.Thrift, William Edward.Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Motion declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

To-morrow.

General Mulcahy

I object, Sir, to taking the Committee Stage to-morrow. We have got very little information as to the general effect of these Orders, particularly on the revenue side, and as many amendments will be put down, I think it is absurd to suggest that we should take the Committee Stage to-morrow.

An Ceann Comhairle

In that connection I may state that it is the opinion of the Chair that the only amendment possible would be the deletion of a section or sections from the Schedule.

General Mulcahy

I understand, Sir, that it will be necessary to put down amendments to delete some of the Orders in the Schedule in order to discuss the effect of these Orders.

Mr. Cosgrave

Would it not be possible to put down an amendment to reduce the amount of the duty?

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments will be carefully considered when submitted. The purpose of the Bill is to continue certain Orders, and amendments would seem to be limited to the sections of the Schedule. However, amendments will be considered when submitted.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like you to consider that point.

An Ceann Comhairle

It cannot be debated now.

General Mulcahy

I am objecting to taking the Committee Stage to-morrow.

Mr. MacEntee

The difficulty is that we want to dispose of this business before the Oireachtas adjourns for the Recess. If I were to agree to ask the House to take the Committee Stage this day week, I should have to have some assurance that all stages will be taken on that day.

General Mulcahy

The Minister asks us that, in respect of a number of Orders issued as long ago as June. Now, after the Dáil has been called together for only three days since it adjourned in August last, he asks us to rush this business because Christmas is so near. Why did the Minister not introduce the Bill a fortnight ago instead of bringing the Dáil together for one day one week, and then shutting down for another week and bringing the Dáil together again for two days more?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether the Deputy is aware of the fact—Deputy Dillon during the course of the debate did not seem to be aware of it—that these Orders are issued to all Deputies of the House and were in their hands a few days after they were made. It was open to any Deputy who wished to move an amendment to delete any of the Orders from the Schedule to the Bill, to have put down a motion—

General Mulcahy

In Private Members' time?

Mr. MacEntee

In Private Members' time, or a motion for which he could have asked Government time. It is open to any Deputy, to put down a motion asking for the withdrawal of the Order. This desire to amend the Schedule in some way or other, is purely obstructive on the part of the Opposition. However, with the proviso that we shall have to get all stages of the Bill next week, I agree to taking the Committee Stage of the Bill next week.

Mr. Dillon

Under what section of the statute have we power to put down a motion to raise an Emergency Imposition of Duties Order?

Mr. Lemass

You have power to make a speech.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister is always charming. The Minister has alleged that we have the right under the Imposition of Duties Act to put down a motion and to raise any of these Orders on that motion. I should like to know under what section of the Act that can be done.

Mr. MacEntee

I did not say that any Deputy could put down a motion under the Act. I said under the Standing Orders.

General Mulcahy

What the Minister is now putting to us is that it would have been possible for a Deputy to put down a motion which would take its place with the seven or eight other motions that have been kept deliberately on the Order Paper, and in respect of which Private Members' time has been refused by the Government.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is well aware that during the past three months it was uncertain whether any Deputy on the opposite benches had any authority to move any of these motions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter before the House at the moment is to fix a date for the Committee Stage of the Bill.

General Mulcahy

I should like to add that we are giving no assurance until we hear the result of the discussion next week as to what we shall do in respect to the other stages.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it a fact that the only possible amendments are amendments to delete certain portions of the Schedule?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the view of the Chair.

Mr. McGilligan

That makes it all the more necessary that we should have sufficient time to frame the amendments. It will require all the greater time to have consideration given to amendments other than those which you have indicated. They will apparently have to be framed very carefully.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is decided that the Committee Stage be taken this day week.

Mr. MacEntee

This is the third Bill of the kind which has come before the House. The Opposition could have considered all these matters on the other Bills.