I understand we are not allowed to speak on the section?
Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1935. - Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1935—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
Not according to the Order of the House.
We are opposing this section.
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 32.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian,
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Hayes, Séan.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Séan.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
There can be no discussion on this section either?
Not according to the Order of the House.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Séan.
- Goulding, John.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the Schedule as set out be the Schedule to the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the Title as set out be the Title of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
The question is: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Attention called to the fact that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being found present.
Question put.
The House divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 35.
Tá
|
Aiken, Frank.Beegan, Patrick.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Brian.Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Concannon, Helena.Cooney, Eamonn.Corbett, Edmond.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Timothy.Daly, Denis.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Doherty, Hugh.Donnelly, Eamon.Dowdall, Thomas P.Flynn, Stephen.Fogarty, Andrew.Gibbons, Seán.Goulding, John.Harris, Thomas.Hayes, Seán.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Keely, Séamus P.Kelly, James Patrick. |
Kelly, Thomas.Keyes, Michael.Kilroy, Michael.Kissane, Eamonn.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moane, Edward.Murphy, Patrick Stephen.Norton, William.O Briain, Donnchadh.O Ceallaigh, Seán T.O'Doherty, Joseph.O'Dowd, Patrick.O'Grady, Seán.O'Reilly, Matthew.Pearse, Margaret Mary.Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.Ryan, James.Ryan, Martin.Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Victory, James.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. |
Níl
|
Alton, Ernest Henry.Beckett, James Walter.Belton, Patrick.Bennett, George Cecil.Bourke, Séamus.Brennan, Michael.Burke, James Michael.Coburn, James.Cosgrave, William T.Costello, John Aloysius.Daly, Patrick.Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Doyle, Peadar S.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Fagan, Charles.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Lavery, Cecil. |
Lynch, Finian.MacEoin, Seán.McGilligan, Patrick.McGovern, Patrick.Morrisroe, James.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.Nally, Martin.O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Sullivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Redmond, Bridget Mary.Rice, Vincent.Wall, Nicholas. |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
The question is: "That the Bill do now pass."
Is that motion moved?
There is no necessity for the Minister to move it.
The Minister for Agriculture suggested that, if he got a chance, he would tell us something about the Excise duty on pigs.
Dr. Ryan
It is suggested that we are giving cheap bacon to British consumers by this arrangement. Our bacon is realising more on the British market than bacon from any other country, so that, in reality, the British consumer is paying more for our bacon than for any other he is getting. How it can be contended by anybody, even by the Opposition, that we are giving cheap bacon to John Bull by paying this bounty is more than I can understand. The British consumer is paying the very highest price for it, but the point is that we believe our producers are not getting enough, and, on that account, we are giving our producers an export bounty in addition to what they are getting from Great Britain. That is the position.
I was also asked why there was any delay about the Bacon Bill. It must have been explained many a time, when that Bill was going through, that there were various steps that had to be taken after the Bill had passed both Houses and had been signed before it could come into operation. We have to register all the different factories and, naturally, some notice had to be given for the reception of applications for registration. They had to be registered and the register has to be built up; we have to get a panel of electors to elect the boards and the boards have to be set up and have to issue orders. I said, all along, that it would take a couple of months from the time the Bill passed for the Act to become operative——
You knew that last March.
Dr. Ryan
I knew it all the time.
Why did you not hurry it up?
Dr. Ryan
It was hurried up as much as possible.
It was introduced in December and debated on Second Reading on 22nd March. Why?
Dr. Ryan
It was the longest Bill ever introduced into this House, and from the time the Commission sat until it appeared in this House less than 12 months elapsed.
We had three months between the First and Second Stage.
Dr. Ryan
Because the Bill was not here. It had not left the draftsman.
It was introduced.
Dr. Ryan
But it had not arrived here.
It was introduced before it arrived?
Dr. Ryan
Of course, it was, as Bills always are.
Never, except before a long vacation.
Dr. Ryan
That was a long vacation.
The Christmas vacation?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Rubbish! It is not in accordance with Standing Orders.
Order.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy is not obeying Standing Orders either.
There was no alteration.
Order.
Dr. Ryan
It was also suggested that somebody had broken faith in regard to this money that was collected as Excise duty and that it did not go towards export bounties but into the Exchequer. That was explained over and over again in this House on the Bacon Bill, on the Budget and when a Bill like this went through the House last October, confirming certain Excise duties on bacon.
I explained, at the time the Pigs and Bacon Bill was going through, that when the Bill would be operative there would be power to collect levies, put them into the funds of the Pigs Board, and have them paid out again by that Board. They need not go through the Exchequer. Until the Bill becomes operative, the levy must be collected as an Excise Duty, must go through the Exchequer and be paid out again as a bounty. So far from it being a fact that we did not keep faith, as a result of this Excise duty which was brought in during the last financial year, we collected something like £289,000, and on the other hand we brought in a Supplementary Estimate for the payment of bounties amounting to £850,000.
On bacon?
Dr. Ryan
Not on bacon alone. A sum of about £490,000 went in bacon bounties and only £239,000 was collected towards that by way of Excise duty and paid into the Exchequer. In addition to the £289,000, there was paid from the Exchequer back again in export bounties something like £600,000. These are the facts about the allegations that have been made.
The Minister might give a little further explanation in regard to this matter. He said that they had kept faith with the farmers. Let us see what they have done. He admits that a sum of £289,000 was collected within a certain period which was not a 12 months period. It was a ten months period. There would be well over £300,000 collected from the producers in 12 months. Is it really not to the advantage of the Exchequer that this Bill has been held back so long?
No.
The peculiar thing about this Bill is that the Minister for Finance gave the game away in his Budget speech. Previous to his Budget speech, he gave a reply to a question in this House which was similar in effect to the statement of the Minister for Agriculture just now, namely, that they had kept faith with everybody, and that in addition to the sums of money they collected from the pig producers, they paid out several thousand pounds. The peculiar thing about it is that the Minister speaking in this House some time previous to the Budget, said that every penny he got in by way of levy on pig carcases was of no advantage to him. Now let us agree on that, that he had to pay out all the money he got in. He states in his Budget speech that the levies amounted to a sum of £240,000. He said: "This will cost the Exchequer £240,000."
I did not make the statement which the Deputy is just after attributing to me.
I shall quote from the Official Report. This is what the Minister said. He said speaking of the remission of this pig carcase tax:—
"This will cost the Exchequer £240,000."
Read the passage from the words "Included in the Estimate."
I shall read the whole paragraph. It states:—
"Before proceeding to consider how this expenditure is to be provided for, there is one proposed change in the basis of the existing tax revenue to which it is necessary to allude. Included in the Estimate under that head is the amount which it was estimated would be collected over the 12 months from the existing Excise duty of 10/- per pig carcase and part of a pig carcase. The Minister for Agriculture has pressed me very strongly to remit this duty altogether. I am not in a position to do so immediately, but I have agreed, when the Board which is contemplated under the new Pigs and Bacon Bill has been set up and is fully functioning, to take steps to reduce and ultimately to remit this duty during the current year.
This will cost the Exchequer £240,000"—
That is where I started at first, and I do not see that the first part makes any difference. The Minister's statement goes on:—
"—and is a remission which must be made good by a new impost elsewhere."
When the Minister was proposing to remit this £240,000, the reason given was that it was to be taken up by the new Pigs Board.
There is no suggestion of that at all.
That is the intention, and that is what the Minister for Agriculture has told us, that when the Pigs Board start functioning they will undertake the collection of this levy as part of the business. Notwithstanding that, the Minister for Finance speaks as if this were a loss to the Exchequer, although he is not going to be responsible for the future bounties. The Pigs Board is going to see to that. The Minister said further:—
"In my opinion, the advantage which agriculturists would derive from the remission of the pig duty would not be lessened but rather would be increased by a tax on foreign wheat."
Of course, that is downright humbug. He went on:—
"Accordingly, I propose to levy an import duty of 6d. per cwt. on that commodity in the hope that it will recoup us to the extent of £190,000."
Recoup you for what? You are not losing anything by it. If you collected a tax of £240,000 in the past, and if somebody else collects it for the same purpose in the future, why should you be recouped? Further, the Minister says:—
"The balance of the £240,000 will be found by an extension of the existing duty of 8d. per gallon on mineral hydrocarbon light oils, to cover all mineral hydrocarbon light oils used in the propulsion of motor vehicles. This will produce £60,000, leaving an acceptable balance of £10,000 for the general purposes of the Budget."
It will not. It will leave an acceptable balance of £250,000 because you will have the whole thing. Other people are going to impose the levy on the pig producers. You are going to have your wheat levy, plus your hydrocarbon oil levy, which you have put on in substitution for the pig levy. Is not that the meaning to be put on that? That is the position we have been landed into. The Minister for Agriculture tells us quite calmly now that the very highest prices are paid for Irish bacon on the British market, the good old British market, that extraordinary market in which we are able to get the very highest price! Of course, because of the economic war and because of this type of measure, we must take 10/- off every pig fed in this country. It is the pig producer who will pay that, not the bacon producer. It is not the man who kills the pigs who will pay it. We are agreed upon that, but the Minister for Finance is going to recoup himself for something which he does not lose at all. Other people are going to collect the levy on pig carcases. That is the position in which we have to discuss this Bill.
I did not intend to take up much of the time of the House in this debate, but the extremely misleading speech of the Deputy who has just sat down has made it necessary for me to engage the attention of the House for some considerable time. First of all, let me see how this Excise duty arises. It was necessitated in the first instance by the failure of the bacon exporters here to fill their quota in the British market. Why? Because the prices which they were able to get on the Irish market at home were so very much better and so much more profitable to them that they were prepared to forego their British connections altogether.
We could not eat more than enough at home.
The fact remains that we could sell more here at higher prices than they could sell in Great Britain, and they were prepared to take the higher prices here and let the British market go.
At what period was this?
If Deputy Belton would listen, I think I started my speech by saying that the reason this Excise duty was necessary was because that was the position in 1934. The Deputy has possibly heard the Minister for Agriculture and some of the members of his late Party say that this duty was first imposed by Emergency Order in 1934.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
I should like the House to know that, if valuable time has been wasted, it is due to the action of the Opposition Deputy who called a count. I was referring to the circumstances which necessitated the introduction of this Excise duty. The reason was, as I have said, that the bacon producers found the home market so profitable and so extensive that it was difficult to get them to fill their quota in the British market. Therefore, the additional inducement of an enhanced profit on their produce sold in the British market had to be offered to them. That was in 1934. The value of the additional home market offered to them may be gauged from the fact that, in 1932, no less than £1,670,000 worth of bacon was imported into this country. For the first time this market was at the disposal of the home bacon curers and of the home pig producers.
Do not be wasting time. Come on to 1935.
It is impossible to make a connected speech if Deputy Belton continues with these irrelevancies. We are told that the British market is our most valuable preserve. Deputies opposite talked as if the British market was formerly a preserve of theirs, in which their produce commanded a monopoly price. Deputies opposite talked as if this market was the most valuable preserve of Irish farmers. What do the facts in relation to this bacon bounty disclose? They show that even though Irish bacon is getting top price in the British market, that is not, in the opinion of Irish bacon manufacturers, an economic price. Therefore, an additional inducement must be offered to them so that the Irish pig producers may be offered an economic price. Deputy Belton is one of those Deputies who profess to speak for the farming community. The Deputy is one of those members of the House whose actions always belie their words. He is always pretending to advocate a new tillage and a new industrial policy but, on every occasion, his vote is cast against the enforcement of a tillage policy or an industrial policy.
On a point of order, I submit that what is before us is the bacon levy and not Deputy Belton.
I referred to Deputy Belton's attitude in these matters because I know he is going to vote against the provisions of this Bill. If he votes against the provisions of this Bill and compels us to drop the Excise duty, then it will be necessary for us to delete the provision for the export bounty on Irish bacon. In that way Deputy Belton will be voting for a reduced reward for the Irish pig producer.
How nice!
To come back to my Budget speech, what did I say there? It has been alleged by Deputy Brennan that I am trying to have it both ways. I pointed out in the Budget that, to meet the requirements of the Minister for Agriculture, I had agreed that, after the board to be set up under the Pigs and Bacon Bill, as it was then —the Pigs and Bacon Act as it is now —had been set up and was fully functioning, I should take steps to reduce and, ultimately, to remit this Excise duty on pig carcases and parts thereof. There is not in that statement any reservation that if the Exchequer does forego that £240,000 of Excise duty there will be a corresponding reduction in the export bounty on pigs and bacon. It is only on the supposition that I had made that reservation there could be any force or substance in the allegation which Deputy Brennan has made in the House. The trouble with the Opposition is that either they cannot read or they do not appear to understand what they do read.
Will the Minister read what he says now into his Budget statement?
We heard Deputy Brennan's colleague state on the motion which preceded the discussion of this Bill that, until he listened in here on the Committee Stage, he did not know there was to be a tax on rice or on grapes or on certain materials used in the building of houses. That is a confession on Deputy McGilligan's part of one of two things—either that he had the Bill and did not read it or that he tried to read it and could not read it. The imposts upon these items were discussed here time after time. They were published not merely in the Bill, as it appears and as it has been discussed here, but they were set forth in detail in the Resolutions which were considered by the House. Deputy McGilligan's statement this evening was a confession——
That was on another subject.
——that until he came in here he had not read the proposals which he was supposed to come into the House prepared to discuss, and it is the same with Deputy Brennan. I would like to emphasise again that there is nothing in my statement on the Budget which would justify Deputy Brennan saying that I was trying to have it both ways: that I was going, first of all, to make good the loss to the Exchequer occasioned by the reduction and eventual remission of the Excise duty by imposing a duty on wheat and on hydro-carbon light oils for propelling motor vehicles and that at the same time we were going to reduce the export bounty by a similar amount. It is only if we did these two things that, as I have said, there would be any foundation for the charge which Deputy Brennan has so lightly levelled against us.
I think it might be no harm, in view of the statements that have been made here, to call attention to what is in the Bill which the House is now asked to pass. There are four Resolutions. The first is this one dealing with the duty on pig carcases. The principle of that proposal has been discussed in this House on at least one occasion. It was discussed in October last when the Bill confirming the first emergency duty was passed by the House. The principle was then accepted by the House, after it had been explained to the Deputies why it was necessary to impose this Excise duty at all. When it was pointed out that, pending the establishment of a board to control the industry and to provide for the proper marketing of Irish pig products, emergency machinery of this sort had to be set up, the House accepted that, and I do not think there was very much discussion about it. The Deputies who are supposed to come in here equipped to discharge the nation's business, who are supposed to be familiar with what they have done in this House before they get up to talk here, seem to have forgotten what happened earlier, and that is why we are accused of presenting to the House some new and novel principle. Not merely was this proposal and the effects of it discussed in 1934, but it was discussed on what was then the Pigs and Bacon Bill and is now an Act. It was also discussed in the general Resolution on the Budget. Deputy McGovern made a very long speech on it. He spoke, I think, for almost an hour, and the main burden of his speech was the question of this Excise duty on pigs and pig products, and quite naturally because the pig producing industry is a very important one in the constituency which he represents. So much, then, for the item in the Schedule which confirms this Excise duty on pigs and pig carcases.
The next item which is to be confirmed is the duty on writing inks, a duty which slightly increases the existing duty by removing the preferential rate. That has been discussed at great length in the House on other occasions. As a matter of fact, in the debate on the Resolutions Deputy Dockrell got up and spoke at some length.
And got no reply.
He spoke at some length on the Resolutions, and at some length on the question as to whether what was known as washing-out ink was properly chargeable under this clause. But what is the position? The position is this: that the House, having accepted the principle that the home manufacture of inks was an industry which ought to be protected, imposed a duty in order to afford Irish enterprise an opportunity of establishing that industry here, finds itself in this situation: that having imposed the duty, the duty is, to a large extent, ineffective. It is ineffective for this reason, that by virtue of the fact that the manufacturers of a certain country got a preferential rate under the earlier resolution of the Oireachtas they were enabled to send considerable quantities of their manufactures into this market and that the new industry had not in fact the opportunity of establishing itself firmly, which the Dáil thought it had conferred on it when it accepted this principle to protect ink. This emergency duty has been imposed in order to remove the preference and to put all foreign manufacturers upon the same plane in this country in that regard.
Now, I do not think, notwithstanding all the six hours' talk that we have had here this evening, that even Deputy Belton or Deputy McGilligan, if we had put this proposal only before them, would venture to get up here and say that we were justified in continuing to extend this preference to manufacturers who are out-selling our home manufacturers here. I think they would have had to take up the same position in this regard as the Government.
And now they have pigs, cutlery and tyres as well.
A mixed grill.
I come now to deal with cutlery. The Finance Bill of this year once again was preceded by a Financial Resolution which was very fully discussed in the House. There are provisions imposing an overriding duty of 75 per cent. on foreign manutured cutlery. The Emergency Order which is to be confirmed is an Order imposing a duty of 25 per cent. on foreign manufactured cutlery. In the course of the discussion on the Resolution, and on the Committee Stage of the Bill, one of the points upon which the Minister for Industry and Commerce was most closely challenged was as to why it was necessary to have these two duties, the one of 25 per cent. imposed by the Emergency Order, and the other of 75 per cent. imposed by the Financial Resolution. He gave a reason which I think was satisfactory to the House. He pointed out that we had already taken steps to establish the cutlery industry in this country, and in order to make certain when established that the whole of the home market would be reserved for the products of this industry, it was necessary to impose a duty of 75 per cent. He anticipated that the new factory would be opened before next year's Finance Bill was introduced.
But, in order not to impose an undue hardship on consumers in this country, pending the opening of the factory, the 75 per cent. proposal embodied very wide licensing provisions. On the other hand, experience has taught us this, that when these licensing provisions are embodied in a proposal, there is a disposition on the part of wholesalers and retailers of the protected commodities to stock up to the fullest extent by importing abnormal supplies, and in order to prevent abnormal importation in that way, and, as it were, to damp it down, this 25 per cent. duty was imposed by Emergency Order. But some point may be made of the fact that it was only imposed last February, and is not a duty the confirmation of which is immediately required. It must be confirmed before the 15th October. Perhaps the Dáil, when it adjourns, will adjourn until some date later than 15th October.
It might as well.
Are we to bring the Dáil back merely to confirm this duty which, I believe, every Deputy who is anxious to help Irish industry, and who appreciates the conditions under which it was designed, would vote for?
If there was not 75 per cent. added.
Accordingly, as this is the only opportunity we have before the Session ends, and in order to obviate the necessity for bringing the Dáil back to do something about which there could not possibly be any contention or any difference of opinion, it is embodied in this Bill.
Again, take the Excise duty on tyres. That duty is imposed at the rate of 7½ per cent. on the retail price of the tyres for motor cars and steam cars. It is a duty of which the Dáil had prior knowledge. Remember that the manufacture of pneumatic tyres was at a very early stage in the development of these tyres undertaken in Ireland. The whole facts concerning the reestablishment of this Irish industry were before the Dáil when the motion to confirm the quota order on tyres was discussed here at length.
The whole facts?
Deputy McGilligan was able to get up here to-day, and to refer to that discussion, saying that they had been told that over and above the 15 per cent. which was at present imposed on motor tyres, there would possibly be imposed an additional duty on motor cars, and he told us why. Because the cost of manufacture would be so high, and the market comparatively small, while imports of raw materials would cost more. The Deputy said that all that was disclosed to the House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. While Deputy McGilligan did not specify the occasion, I am stating now that it was when the motion to confirm the quota order was discussed.
Did he say that there would be an Excise duty?
He pointed out that the Exchequer was going to lose by reason of the establishment of this industry here, and that it would have to recoup itself for that loss. He did indicate that there would, possibly, be an Excise duty. This was all discussed in the Dáil at length and the principle embodied in the quota Resolution was accepted by the House. What then is the position in regard to the Excise duty? The Customs duty on rubber tyres is a tax of 33? per cent. ad valorem. When this Emergency Duty Order was made we were told that the new factory in Cork would be coming into production within a week or a fortnight. Of course, at the commencement it would manufacture largely for stock. We realised that these stocks were going to come on the market eventually, and that there was going to be a considerable loss, by reason of the fact that imports were going to diminish proportionately as the factory began to deliver Irish-manufactured tyres for motor cars and cycles. This emergency Excise duty at the rate of 7½ per cent. on retail prices for tyres for motor cars and steam cars was imposed merely as an emergency duty, to allow the Revenue Commissioners to set up the necessary machinery, and to recoup, though only partially, the Exchequer for the loss of revenue which would arise immediately these tyres were put on the market and that imports of tyres diminished. It now comes before the Dáil. If the House had ten hours to discuss that Order, is there any person here who would have the hardihood to get up and say that we should not take this 7½ per cent. off motor cars?
I would.
Of course there are always one or two Deputies to stand in the gap and try to retard industrial development in this country.
You are helping it by extra tariffs, and by putting a tax on Irish manufactured tyres.
The only point of disagreement between Deputy Mulcahy and the Government is that we are putting that 7½ per cent. on motor car tyres.
Manufactured in the Free State.
Therefore, I assume, as far as Deputy Mulcahy is concerned, that these tyres would be allowed to be sold free of duty.
Certainly. Does the Minister not think there are enough taxes?
Motor car tyres manufactured in the Free State are to be sold free of duty! That comes from a gentleman who last week spent 30 hours criticising the Government because it had a tax on rice, on grapes, on tea and sugar. Now he is going to put an additional tax on everyone of these articles in order to allow motorists to go free of tax.
And we will find the £2,000,000.
This is the Deputy, who, last week, was a sort of dreamwalker through the houses of the working-class people of this country! Remember how he tried to take the Minister for Finance for a walk into the workingmen's houses in this country and told us about the tea on the table, and the plates on the dresser, and the glass in the windows, and how he saw through Deputy O'Sullivan's ceiling to the slates on the roof, and how he told us that the Minister for Finance was taxing all this and all that! Now he tells us to-day that he would do without a tax on motor-car tyres——
Manufactured in Ireland.
——and put it on one or other of these articles because that is the only alternative to reducing, as he did previously when he was in office, the expenditure on these social services. That is the position in regard to Deputy Mulcahy. I do not think, however, that, with the exception of Deputy Mulcahy, there was any other Deputy, who is so adamantine in his opposition to industrial development in this country, who would get up here and say that we ought to throw the whole of this industry into the flames again; that we ought to throw it back to England and thus undo what we regard as being one of the signal achievements of this Government: the re-establishment of the manufacture of the pneumatic tyre in the land of its birth. This is the country where this tyre was invented; and one of the things that we can pride ourselves on is that, whereas the manufacture of these tyres was driven out under the British régime, it was brought back to this country by a Republican Government.
And you welcome its return with a tax!
And the tax means that Irish-manufactured tyres will be sold at about 2 per cent. less than tyres were sold in this country before their manufacture was started here at all.
When will that happen?
It will happen when the tyres are on the market.
When will that be?
When the House considers the purposes which each of these emergency orders have been designed to serve: the payment of an economic price to our pig producers, which is what the first order is designed to do; protecting adequately the manufacture of writing inks in this country, which is the purpose of the second emergency order; the facilitating of the establishment of a cutlery industry in this country, which is what the third emergency order is designed to do; and the assisting of the establishment on a firm basis of the manufacture of pneumatic tyres for motor-cars and cycles in this country, which is what the fourth emergency order is designed to achieve—it is little wonder, knowing the attitude which the Party opposite take towards Irish industrial development and the attitude they took when they were in office, that Deputy McGilligan referred to-day to these emergency orders as four disagreeable items. Yes, they are. They are very disagreeable items to the Opposition, because they mark four more stages in the fulfilment of the Government's policy of industrial development in this country. That is why so much time was wasted last week on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill—not because they had any hope that they were going to defeat the Government on that Bill or to criticise intelligently any of the proposals in that Bill, but because they wanted to hold up, if they could, the confirmation of these orders and, in that way, retard and obstruct the Government in its endeavours to develop Irish industries in this country.
Deputy McGilligan said to-day that we were supposed to be a democratic Government and he alleged that the action of the Government, in taking the necessary steps to see that this measure would become law in due course, was subversive of the principles of democratic government. The Opposition may have a duty to criticise—I do not think they ever discharged that duty, because they have confused criticism with obstruction—but the Government has also a duty. The people have given this Government a majority in this House.
And a mandate!
The people have given this Government a clear majority in this House within the last three weeks and, therefore, have placed an added responsibility on our shoulders.
Now we know!
The burden is ours, and the duty is ours, of seeing that our programme goes through, and we are the more determined to put it through because we have now, beyond equivocation or denial, the overwhelming support of the thinking people of this country for our policy. If we had not this motion: if this Bill was being discussed otherwise than under a kangaroo resolution: if the Whips were off, and if there were a free vote in this House: is there anyone opposite who is prepared to say that the Deputies who will go into the lobby and support this Bill, if it were a free vote of the House, would vote in any other way than they are going to vote on it now? First of all, they have given their allegiance to the Fianna Fáil Party because they believe in the Fianna Fáil policy. The people have returned them to this House to support that policy and put it through. I say, beyond any fear of challenge, that, if the Whips were off to-morrow, and there were a free vote of Deputies in regard to any one of the proposals in this Bill, not merely would everyone of the Deputies who accept the Fianna Fáil Dhips support it, and everyone of the Deputies who accept the Labour Party's Whip support it, but some of the Deputies who are compelled, against their conscience and their feelings of patriotism, to vote against it now, would vote for it also. I think that even the public pronouncements of the Opposition themselves throughout the country show that whatever views the people have of the Government's political policy, they have no doubt whatever about the wisdom of our industrial programme and that they are prepared to support it and to make considerable sacrifices to support it, because it is the programme, not merely of President de Valera and those who opposed the Treaty, but of the late Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith as well. We are the true inheritors of the programme which the Irish people hoped to see put into operation at the close of the Black and Tan campaign in 1921, but we have not got any help or consideration in this debate from the Party opposite. They have not been concerned to see Griffith's policy initiated and consummated in this country, or to see even the steppingstone policy of Michael Collins put into operation. They have turned their backs on all those things, and now they are fighting that policy—the policy of Sinn Fein and the policy of the Republican Dáil—as the obscurantists in Ulster and throughout the Thirty-two Counties fought Home Rule under Sir Edward Carson. Despite all the vexatious opposition of the last ten days this Bill is going to go through, and I hope it will become law. The justification for our action will be the new industries which are springing up in consequence of the Emergency Orders which we have made.
In the short time at my disposal. I must protest against the cowardice of the Minister for Finance. He had all last week——
When he was reading the yellow book.
He treated this House with the utmost contempt, when he had the opportunity and was invited to stand up here and defend the proposals that were before the House. He had not the courage to get up, nor his understudy, the Parliamentary Secretary, who came in here to perform in a nonsensical way, had not the courage to face the situation. Now, under the guillotine, when we had an hour at our disposal, the Minister for Finance has used up 40 minutes of that in making a political speech. I hope that Dublin Opinion will not lose this opportunity of having the Minister for Finance with a firm grip of a pig's tail in its next issue. There is one thing which I would advise the Minister for Finance to do, and that is to study the elements of economics. Let him get the old files of the United Irishman edited by Griffith 35 years ago, and down to 30 years ago, and read them. Then if there is any human feeling left in his heart, he will try to make restitution for the rest of his life for having been in any way remotely responsible for the early death of Arthur Griffith, and similarly with Michael Collins. I am sorry that I have not time to reply to the illogical and ignorant arguments nad statements made by the Minister for Finance. It would give me the greatest pleasure of my life to have him there and paste him with replies, but on every occasion when an opportunity comes the Minister for Finance bows himself out. I have him now, but the guillotine is against me. He, nor the Minister for Agriculture, who told us that this emergency duty had to be imposed last year to save the Irish export trade, did not tell us the reason why that export trade was vanishing—because of the British special duties.
Trash, and you know it.
One of the intelligentsia of the Government Party says "tosh" or "bosh." I do not know which, as I cannot interpret his accent very well.
Too much rhubarb!
It takes a man of intelligence to grow it. I will put this question to the Minister, or to anybody on that side: Is the Irish exporter of bacon getting any more for that bacon than he would get in a free British market?
He is getting less.
I put this question to the Minister for Finance, who claimed that a Republican Government is in office: Is the Dane not getting 25 per cent. advantage over the Irish exporter to the British market, due to exchange advantages of the Dane? Is Australia not getting 25 per cent,? Is New Zealand not getting 25 per cent.? The incompetent Minister for Finance gets up here and says he is Minister for Finance in a Republican Government, while that Government leaves the entire control of that exchange with the Bank of England. Where is the republicanism? I must reply to a personal remark that the Minister made. I have not time to go into the whole case. He took very good care that I, nor anybody else on this side, would not have time to go into it. He accused me of voting against every proposition here for tillage development or for industrial development. Why did not the Minister for Finance get up and say that last week when I had time to reply to him? I have always advocated both tillage development and industrial development, and I have helped both, which the Minister never did.
He has destroyed them.
Does the Minister not realise the vicious circle that he is in? Does he not realise the figure to which the costs of feeding stuffs have gone up in this country? Does he not realise that the 75 per cent. tariff which he is putting on cutlery, the tariffs on boots and everything else, have put up the costs on the agricultural producer, and the country where those articles are sold without those extra burdens is the country that we have to produce for and sell our surplus agricultural produce to, namely Britain. The economic war had throttled the Irish export trade to Britain, and this levy had to be put on, not to save that export trade in bacon, but to cover up that breach which the Minister and his Government are not able to maintain or repair in this so-called economic war. Now, Sir, why was the bounty which was necessary not provided for without taxation? What was the Minister doing with the £4,000,000 that he was collecting here and not paying to the British? What was he doing with the local loans that all the local authorities in this country had to pay into the Exchequer, and that the previous Government paid to the British? He got it into the Exchequer but he did not pay it to anybody. Why did the exporters and the producers of bacon and other things not get the benefit of that without any further taxation? The Minister knows that there is no answer to those questions.
There is.
Not a solitary answer. Deputy Kelly has consistently gone into the Lobby here for the last week to vote for special taxation to crucify the poor people to look after whose interests he claims to have been elected both to the Dublin Corporation and to this Dáil. He has used that position to go tramping up those stairs to the Lobby to vote for increased costs of housing to the working classes. Deputy Kelly cannot get away from that.
Mr. Kelly
You are full of brass to say the like of that.
I would smother my face if it were half as brassy as yours.
Keep it for the next election.
He will have a little Fine Gael polish on it by them.
The Minister for Finance, with his usual bluster and with a political ring, said, in his concluding remarks, that anybody who voted against this was voting against the development of Irish industry. Where is the cutlery industry? Where is the ink industry? Where is the motor tyre industry?
In Cork.
Since when?
Come down and I will show it to you.
I am discussing a serious matter. No tyres have yet been manufactured in Cork.
That is not true.
Where are they?
Come down and I will show them to you.
Why does cutlery want 100 per cent. tariff?
I will have to put the motion now.
That is the guillotine, and the Minister is saved, but we will get him yet.
Question put—"That the Bill do now pass."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- 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.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Keating, John.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smi th; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.
This Bill has been certified by the Ceann Comhairle as a money Bill under Article 38 of the Constitution.
Ordered: That a message be sent to the Seanad accordingly.