Control of Imports (Amendment) Bill, 1936—Committee.
Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 5, I think, the Minister, when introducing this Bill, said that there were only a few minor alterations intended, and in so far as the Bill improves the existing machinery for dealing with a number of very complicated questions, we can all agree with him. At the same time I see that under Section 5 power is taken to the Executive Council that when they think fit they may direct "that such quota shall not include any goods which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, either (as shall be specified in such Order) were manufactured or produced in a specified country, or were consigned to the importer from a specified country." As far as taking power to do that is concerned, I think that possibly the Minister is very well justified, but he would want to see that all the factors in connection with the matter were taken into account. I should like to say that certainly if a percentage of the importations are to be taken from a specified country, or excluded from a specified country, it enormously increases the difficulties of dealing with the question.
By way of illustration I should like just to mention one case where a definite percentage was specified. I refer to the amount of cement that was last year allotted to English manufacturers. As far as bargaining that this country would take English cement in exchange for Irish cattle is concerned, I have nothing but praise for that idea; as an ordinary business idea I think it was excellent. I take it that the Minister saw that he got a quid pro quo in cattle. I am merely saying that I am prepared—and I think everybody else who reflects on it is prepared—to approve of that general principle of bargaining what we manufacture and want to sell in return for what we do not manufacture, but it is the working out of the scheme in so far as that one particular commodity is concerned that I wish to bring under the Minister's notice. One-third of the imports of cement into this country were allotted to the British manufacturers. I will not go into the method by which I think that could be just as successfully worked out in another way. I merely want to show the Minister what happened under that particular Order that was made, namely, that one-third of the imports should be British, and that the other two-thirds should be foreign.
What happened was that the importers, who had to import their commodities in the proportion of one-third British to two-thirds foreign, passed that on to the customers. The result was that a person using cement, having done the front part of the building with foreign cement, was then faced with the statement from his supplier: "Well, you have had your two tons of foreign cement, and now you will have to take one ton of British cement." We all know that different cements have different colours. In a case in which the front of a building was done with foreign cement and the back with English cement, the consequence will be that in years to come people will be able to point to that house and say: "The difference in colour between the back and the front is due to the Coal-Cattle Pact." That is in so far as the larger centres are concerned; when you come to the smaller ports around the West of Ireland, they naturally had to bring in that cement by some means or other. In certain cases, where there was no direct sailing to England, people were in the habit of loading up a ship on the Continent with foreign cement and other commodities. What did they find? They found that they had to take one-third of their imports in British cement. They had no means of bringing it in; they had to rail it overland or make some other arrangement which altered the price of the commodity entirely disproportionate to the value that they received. I should like the Minister, when he is replying on this Section 5, to say that in future all the factors in connection with a commodity will be taken into account. I have conceded to the Minister that the main lines of the bargain were good, namely, bartering cement for cattle, but when the details came to be worked out, they were worked out in a most unfortunate, cumbersome and costly way to the community. I hope the Chair will not think that I am comparing the Minister to a dog when I say that he should be allowed one bite, but I hope the Minister will see that we are not faced with percentage imports of certain commodities where they have to be brought in in bulk. I am sure I have said enough for the Minister to realise that we do not want to see a recrudescence of the sort of thing that occurred in respect of cement, and I agree that, conceivably, the Minister is quite right in seeking power to vary the imports from different countries. I hope the Minister will deal with the question I have raised.
It seems to me that the Deputy has addressed himself more to the advisability or wisdom of certain trade agreements which were made, rather than to the powers which the Government should possess for the regulation of imports. It is quite true that the powers conferred by the original Control of Imports Act proved to be cumbersome in their operation in certain respects, and that is why this amending Bill has been brought to the Dáil, so that the machinery may be improved and enlarged as the experience of the Department of Industry and Commerce suggests it should be. It is true that a strict adherence to the letter of the Principal Act in the matter of distributing licences for the importation of cement within the period when there was a special quota in operation in respect to cement, would have involved the arrangement which the Deputy suggests, namely, that each individual importer should get two licences, one an open licence for two-thirds of his requirements, and the other a special licence for one-third of his requirements which would have to be imported from Great Britain; but, as the Deputy is aware, we tried, within the narrow limits fixed by the Act, to effect an arrangement among the importers themselves under which those importers principally engaged in the importation of British cement would continue to get it, and those importers principally engaged in the importation of non-British cement would continue to get it, but, in fact, the arrangement never got a chance to work out, because the price of British cement went up sharply, and, due to circumstances which were not under our control, the British cement manufacturers were not in a position to supply, except at prices which would have been unfair to our consumers. We had to secure, and we did secure, from the British Government a release from our obligations to purchase cement from Great Britain at all, and the special quota ceased to operate, but we hope that, as a result of the modifications of the provisions of the original Act contemplated by this Bill, we will have more freedom of action in dealing with a situation of that kind, if and when it should arise in the future.
The principal purpose of this section is fourfold. Firstly, it is to confer power to exclude from a quota goods manufactured in or consigned from a particular country; secondly, to confer power to ensure that where, in consequence of a trade agreement, we contract to take a specified quantity of a certain class of goods from one country, we can confine our imports to that quantity. At present, as the Deputy is aware, when a special quota is made in favour of any particular country, that particular country not merely gets the benefit of the special quota, but it can import under the general quota as well. That is a certain defect in the Act which is being remedied. Thirdly, by this section we are making it clear—it is not a matter of great doubt, but there is no harm in having it clear—that where an additional quota is made, that additional quota can also be divided, if necessary, into a special quota and a general quota; and, fourthly, it confers power to do something which we thought we had power to do under the original Act, but which we are advised we have not, that is, to limit importations in relation to the total value of the goods coming in, rather than, as at present, in relation to the actual number of such goods. At present, as Deputies are aware, all control of import orders define the permitted imports in terms of the number of items imported. That was found in practice to be a rather inconvenient arrangement in respect of certain classes of goods where it would have been handier to have been able to limit imports with reference to the value of the goods imported, and that is the purpose of sub-section (4). This section merely extends the powers conferred by the corresponding section of the original Act in respect to these matters, because experience has shown that such extension will, in fact, facilitate importers.
This section introduces a new principle into the quota system, and, while the Minister's explanation of the matter has very largely clarified the situation, I am afraid, at the same time, that the extension of the quota system in this particular way is open to certain abuses and to the possibility of discrimination against certain importers. I am not alleging that the Minister has any intention of doing any such thing, but I am afraid that section will lend itself to it.
I am afraid I cannot follow that.
The section sets out:—
Whenever the Executive Council, by an order made...appoint a quota, they may, if they so think fit, direct that such quota shall not include any goods which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, either (a) were manufactured or produced in a specified country or (b) were consigned to the importer from a specified country....
Does that not mean that if you have a quota order applying to a particular country and to a particular importer, it is in your discretion to alter it and to say that that particular importer shall not get those goods?
What then is the meaning of that sub-section?
So far as the individual importers are concerned, they do not come into the picture until long after this section has been operated. A quota is fixed. It can be fixed in the form of a global quota without restriction as to country of origin of the goods or otherwise; it can be divided into two parts—a special quota in favour of some countries and an open quota in favour of our country; and, under this section, it can be framed in the form of a total quota excluding only one or more countries. It is not until the quota order has been made, the actual quotas fixed and the conditions under which importation can take place have been determined that the importer comes into the picture. He then applies for his licence under the special quota or the global quota and, so far as that is concerned, the arrangements for the distribution of licences between all applicants are set out very elaborately in the Principal Act so as to ensure that there cannot in fact be any discrimination exercised as between one and the other, except in relation to their previous position in the business. The arrangements in operation do permit of that amount of discrimination. Preference can be given to an importer previously engaged in the business of importing the goods concerned as against a newcomer, or licences can be varied in proportion to their importations of the goods concerned in any year. But apart from the element of discretion which is there in the interest of importers themselves, there can, in fact, be no discretion as between importers; all applicants for licences can register their applications for licences and they must get licences; and they must get precisely the licences asked for. It is only where the total number of applications exceed the total of the quota that a certain element of discretion comes in. But that discretion can only be exercised in the case of those previously importing those goods as against new applicants. The quota is fixed and the conditions as to importation are determined by so much as the national requirements exceed national production.
Am I to take it that the calculations are made before the quota is fixed?
What will happen afterwards if a special quota is made?
Precisely the same procedure as in the case of the original quota.
Section 5 put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) In lieu of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Principal Act (which is repealed by this Act) it is hereby enacted that whenever and so long as any particular register of importers is maintained in pursuance of sub-section (1) of the said Section 7, there shall be registered and, subject to the provisions of the Principal Act and of this Act, be kept registered in such register every person who applies in the prescribed manner to the Minister for such registration and satisfies the Minister in the prescribed manner—
(a) that he is either—
(i) an individual who is a citizen of Saorstát Eireann, or
(ii) a partnership carrying on a business whereof more than half the capital is beneficially owned by an individual who is, or two or more individuals each of whom is, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann, or
(iii) a company which is incorporated under the laws of Saorstát Eireann, or
(iv) a company, incorporated under the laws of a country other than Saorstát Eireann, which has, during at least the five consecutive years next preceding the establishment of such register, carried on the business of importing into Saorstát Eireann goods of a description to which the relevant quota order applies,
and that, in any such case, he has a place of business in Saorstát Eireann and carries on or proposes to carry on, at such place of business, a business in connection with or as part of which it is, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary or usual to import goods of a description to which the relevant quota order applies, or
(b) that he is a society, institution, or other body (whether incorporated or not incorporated) formed wholly or mainly to carry on, and actually engaged in carrying on, in Saorstát Eireann a business or other undertaking of a religious, charitable, or sociological character in connection with or as part of which it is, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary or usual to import goods of a description to which the relevant quota order applies, or
(c) that he is a Minister, head of a Department of State, or
(d) that he is a corporation, board, committee, or other body (whether incorporated or not incorporated) established by statute or by order made under statutory authority to exercise generally or locally any function of government (including local government) or to discharge generally or locally public duties in relation to public administration or public service, or
(e) that he is a person holding a licence under the Control of Manufactures Acts, 1932 to 1935, authorising him to carry on in Saorstát Eireann any process in connection with or as part of which it is, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary or usual to import goods of a description to which the relevant quota order applies.
I move amendment No. 1:
In sub-section (1) (a), page 4, line 5, before sub-paragraph (i) to insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
"(i) the owner, or one of the owners of a business which was carried on in Saorstát Eireann on the 1st day of April, 1937, or".
I do not know exactly how you are going to take this section; because it seems to me that this is the most important section in the Bill. I do not know if you are to limit the discussion to the first amendment or will you permit a general discussion on the section. My four amendments have been more or less designed to clarify the position of certain people who do not appear to be registered or entitled to be registered.
The Deputy may discuss all the amendments to Section 6 together.
Then I move amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4:—
2. In sub-section (1) (a) (iv), line 13, before the words "a company" to insert the words "an individual, a partnership or" and in line 14 after the word "Eireann" and before the word "which" insert the words "who or."
3. In sub-section (1), line 34, to delete paragraph (c).
4. At the end of sub-section (1) after paragraph (e) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(f) that he is an individual, partnership, company or other body (whether incorporated or not incorporated) carrying on a manufacturing undertaking in Saorstát Eireann in compliance with the Control of Manufactures Acts, 1932 to 1934."
So far as amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are concerned I am prepared to accept them in principle, subject to certain limitations in amendment No. 4. It seems to me that if amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are accepted, Deputy Dockrell's point is met to a great extent, except that so far as amendment No. 3 is concerned it raises a different point.
Yes. The Minister has met me in the matter I had in mind and it really more or less remains to clear up this point. I do not know whether it is a misunderstanding or not on the part of the Minister, but I would like to know does he wish to narrow the scope of people who are entitled to import?
The answer to that must be yes. Where the quota order is in operation it is reasonable to assume that it was brought into operation for the purpose of diminishing imports of the goods subject to that Order. There are some exceptions to that. At present there is no attempt to diminish imports of oranges and coal and certain other items. However, in respect of the great majority of classes subject to a quota order, the Order was made for the purpose of reducing the imports of these goods, with a view to their ultimate elimination. Take the quota that operates in the matter of boots and shoes. The intention of that quota is ultimately to eliminate boot and shoe imports altogether, because of the development of home production now. We think the main purpose of a quota order is to limit and ultimately to diminish the imports of goods. It should be our policy, and the original Act and this Bill were framed to enable us to confine the remaining and diminishing business in the importation of these goods as far as possible to the firms previously engaged in the business of importing, or at any rate to confine it to such firms plus nationally-owned firms. In fact the Act operates to ensure that once a quota order has been made for that purpose in respect of any class of goods a very definite preference is given to the firms previously engaged in the import of these goods in the issue of licences—so far as licences are issued at all.
From the purely administrative point of view the best arrangement would be to say that everybody can apply and everybody can get proportionately the same part of the total quota. That would be the simplest procedure. But it would be unfair to firms who have been for a number of years engaged in the business of importing these goods and who had been forced to change over to another business. So long as there are any goods to come in under the Order, all the business of importing them should be given to those firms I have mentioned. That provision is set out specifically in the Principal Act. The Minister, in the exercise of his discretion, in the only circumstances where, in fact, he has any discretion—that is, where the total applications for licences exceed the total to be distributed—is required to have regard first to the interests of the firms previously engaged in the import of these goods. This limitation imposed by this corresponding section upon all classes of persons interested in imports is designed to that end. These limitations are designed to secure that that limited amount of preference will be given to firms previously engaged in the business when that is brought to an end by legislative action.
I think the Minister is following right lines in that respect, and I am glad to know he is keeping in view the people who were engaged previously in that business. I do not agree at all with the Minister when he says the main purpose of the Quota Order is to limit it to diminishing goods or imports. The main purpose is to limit the supply until we have production enough to meet our requirements. These are two different things. There has been a little misunderstanding about that. To my mind the Quota Order is not for the purpose of diminishing supplies of imports, but for the purpose of enabling our own requirements to be met until our own manufacturers are in a position to supply.
With a great part of what the Minister has said I entirely agree. There can be no question of a case where the quota has been reduced because there is increased manufacture in the country. I am certainly not objecting to that. I think I would also approve and applaud the Minister for saying that the major portion of the import licences should be given to those firms previously engaged in the business. I think that is very reasonable. Where I do join issue with the Minister, and where I do not think he has yet answered my question, is in this wise—it seems to me that certain classes of persons who were carrying on business before may now be shut out from getting portion of the quota. If they were merely importers there might be something to be said for the Minister's point of view. But where there is a manufacturer who has come in and either complied with the Control of Manufactures Act, or at any rate has not been under any disability by reason of it, it seems as if there is a possibility that such an applicant might be shut out. In my amendment No. 1 I want to add the words "the owner, or one of the owners, of the business which was carried on in Saorstát Eireann on 1st April, 1937," so as to cover such cases. There is another point under (iv) of (a). Does the phrase in line 16, "carried on the business of importing," cover a company which imports its raw material, or does it mean an importer only? Perhaps the Minister may ask what I am getting at. What I want to know is if that wording is intended to decrease the supply of raw material which a manufacturer has been previously getting. If that is to be done under the decreased quota due to increased manufacture in the country, I think the Minister is perfectly right, but are there any manufacturers who have complied up to now with the regulations and who are going to be hit in the supply of their raw materials? I do not, of course, mean by reason of the reduced quota due to the increase of manufacture. The real point I had in mind was whether that would really amount to attempting control of manufacturers under a Control of Imports Bill. If the Minister says that nothing of that sort is intended, I shall be entirely answered. I thought that a general discussion on this section might help to clear it up. The Minister has largely cleared up the matter by accepting amendments Nos. 2 and 4. We shall, perhaps, hear later why he will not accept amendment No. 1. I agree with him that amendment No. 3 is in a different category. We shall come to that in due course. I should like to know from the Minister if it is intended that any section of this Bill should be regarded as retrospective.
We are discussing here not the policy of restricting the import of materials of any kind——
—but merely the question of the classes of persons who will be entitled to continue to import those goods which are made subject to quota orders. The main purpose of this amendment was to extend the list of such persons. I am prepared to accept the Deputy's amendment No. 2, for the reason that in the original Act we defined a "person" as a "national of Saorstát Eireann." What constituted a national of Saorstát Eireann was defined in that Act. Since then, the Citizenship Act became law, and the term, "national of Saorstát Eireann" was changed into the term, "citizen of Saorstát Eireann," to bring this legislation into conformity with other Statutes. That, in the ordinary course, would mean a widening rather than a restriction of the term, but it had, incidentally, this limiting effect— that a "national of Saorstát Eireann," as defined in the Principal Act for the purposes of that Act, was a person who had five years continuous residence in the Saorstát. Such a person might not be a citizen, and might for some reason, be unable to acquire citizenship of Saorstát Eireann. Consequently, he would be excluded from the register, if some amendment on the lines of amendment No. 2 were not accepted. That is why I am prepared to accept amendment No. 2.
As regards manufacturers, it is intended that a manufacturer should be allowed to be registered as an importer, and the Deputy's amendment to extend the definition of "manufacturer" in the relevant paragraph is acceptable, subject to one condition. As the section would stand with the incorporation of the Deputy's amendment, any manufacturer could get on to any register, and could become an importer of goods in which previously he had no interest. I propose to limit that by words similar to those appearing in paragraph (b). We would allow any manufacturer to get on the register and become entitled to import goods where, in the opinion of the Minister, it is necessary or usual for such manufacturer to import goods of the description to which the relevant quota order applies. There must be some limitation of that type. Otherwise you might have a boot manufacturer blossoming out as an importer of oranges.
I do not think that it is necessary to accept the Deputy's amendment, No. 1, to meet his point, having regard to the acceptance of amendment No. 2. If we did accept No. 1, the rest of this provision would become almost meaningless, because it would extend very widely the class of persons to whom registration could be given. In fact, that limitation existed under the Principal Act, and no case of difficulty arose. In any case where a firm was unable to qualify for registration under that section, they formed a company, and, as a company, were entitled to registration. That still holds. Once they form a company in accordance with the laws of the State, they are entitled to registration, irrespective of the location of the ownership of the company. As regards paragraph (c), it is necessary to grant the power which it is proposed to confer—power for a Minister, head of a Department of State, to be registered as an importer. I assume that the purpose of the Deputy's amendment is to compel a Minister requiring to import goods to arrange for their importation through some trader in the Saorstát. I do not think that we should impose that limitation. There is no reason why the stores department of the Post Office, which arranges for the purchase of most of the goods required by the Government, should not be in a position to contract for the supply of some materials which have to be imported, and which are subject to a quota order, direct with an outside supplier instead of being driven to make an arrangement for the importation of these goods on behalf of the State with some private trader, even though that private trader might not, in fact, have a licence to import the full quantity of the goods which the State would require. I think it desirable that that extension of the register should be effected so that the head of a Department of State may, in fact, be registered. It did happen in a few cases that a State Department had to import goods which were subject to a quota order and could not get a licence to import these goods. When that situation arose, the State Department had to arrange with some private trader to import the goods on its behalf, whereas we think that the State Department should be in the same position as any other purchaser, free to contract with an outside supplier and entitled to get a licence to import.
Would not the Minister think it desirable to limit the head of a State Department to the actual requirements of his Department? Would be allow the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to contract for goods which his Department does not require?
The Minister as the head of a Department of State on the register will be subject to every limitation that every other registered importer is subject to. That limitation is expressed in Section 9 of the Principal Act. There are three circumstances contemplated there. One is where the total amount applied for by registered importers to be imported, that is the sum total of all the licences applied for, is less than 75 per cent. of the quota, in which case the Act prescribes that every applicant must get the licence applied for without question. There are then the circumstances where the total of applications is less than 100 per cent. but over 75 per cent., in which case almost similar conditions obtain. Where the total of applications exceeds 100 per cent. of the quota, the Minister must have regard to the interests of those previously engaged in the business of importing this class of goods to the extent of 75 per cent. of the total of the quota. That 75 per cent., in practice and by law, must be distributed in direct proportion to the previous importations of the applicants for licences. The Minister has a certain element of discretion in respect of the remaining 25 per cent. It need not be distributed. It can be kept in reserve to meet emergencies, or to deal with unexpected shortages. It is only in respect of that 25 per cent. that we could, in special circumstances, facilitate a State Department.
The Minister has given the House an explanation of why a Minister as head of a State Department should be registered. I desire to draw his attention to the first clause dealt with under paragraph (a):—
"an individual who is a citizen of Saorstát Eireann."
Then there is Section 14 which gives power to issue licences in excess of a quota. Surely the Minister could get his licence under Section 14. The object in resisting paragraph (c) of this section was to establish that there was not to be an extension of State trading in all forms to Departments of State. I think the Minister is covered under this paragraph, or the section I have referred to.
We want power to issue a licence to the Minister as head of a Department of State. The Minister as an individual may get a licence to import a motor car for instance, but as head of a Department of State he imports for his Department, and it is as such that he gets the licence to import.
Is the Minister satisfied with the alteration proposed in this Bill as compared with the original Act? Under it an importer should be a national. The change proposed here is from "national" to "citizen."
The effect of Deputy Dockrell's amendment No. 2 will be to make the situation precisely the same as it was under the original Act. I agree that an amendment is necessary to achieve that, and that is why I have agreed to accept the Deputy's amendment in principle. On the Report Stage I hope to introduce official amendments to meet the points raised in amendments Nos. 2 and 4.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed—"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before Section 7 to insert a new section:—
When a business is transferred and the transferee applies to be registered in the register of importers relating to any quota order such business shall be regarded as having been carried on continuously from the date of the commencement of such business.
I think the Minister realises the purpose of this amendment. In the case of a business which is transferred, I think it would be a hardship if the goodwill which has been acquired in that business in quotas and so on could not also be transferred. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
If what the Deputy has stated reflects his intentions, I do not think the amendment is necessary at all. A person entitled to registration would in any event be entitled to it, even without the transfer of a business to him. The only purpose which the Deputy's amendment would, in fact, serve would be to introduce a method by which a person not entitled to be registered could become registered— that is, by having a business transferred to him. If a person to whom a business is transferred qualifies under Section 6 to be registered, then in any event he is entitled to be registered, even if starting a new business.
Yes, but will he step into the shoes of the old business, so to speak?
In practice, in these circumstances, a question as to the amount of the licence under a quota can only arise where the Minister has to exercise a discretion, that is, where the applications exceed the quota, and it cannot be otherwise. In practice we are giving credit for the importations under the old business to the person to whom that business is transferred, except in certain difficult cases which the Deputy's amendment would not touch: in a case where, say, two partners split a business and each carried on separately, or the case where a number of partners did that and thought that each could get a licence equivalent to the licence that the combination could have got before. These are types of cases that can only be dealt with with a certain amount of discretion. In the circumstances which exist in respect of a number of quotas at the present time, where the total applications are less than the quota, then everyone gets what he has applied for. In the other case, this element of discretion has to be allowed. I can inform the Deputy that, in practice, where a business is transferred from one person to another, the successor in the business gets credit for the previous importations.
It is a purely administrative arrangement, because the Department takes into account or gets information relating to the previous importations of the firm, and this is merely for the purpose of carrying out its obligations under the Principal Act.
The Minister has told us that, generally speaking, almost any person is entitled under Section 6 to be registered, but the Minister is taking power under Section 7 to refuse "at his absolute discretion" to register certain people.
To refuse a transfer on certain grounds.
So that even though an applicant qualifies under Section 6, the Minister has still this absolute discretion to disqualify on certain stated grounds.
Only on the grounds set out.
Take the case of a man who comes into a business. Possibly it may not have been well run before he took it over. The new man finds that because his predecessor was not competent the quota allotted to the firm was small. In such a case as that the Minister would, I take it, be entitled to crush out the new man entirely.
Only on the grounds that he did not previously import the class of goods concerned or that his importations were negligible. The idea behind that is to confine the limited business left to the firms which were previously and genuinely engaged in it. Under the law, every applicant for a licence must get a licence. Even if it be for only one boot or one shoe they must get a licence. Obviously, a licence to import one boot would be of no value. Take the case of a quota order in respect of motor cars. In that case we must fix a quota for motor cars to correspond to the total number of persons on the register, because every registered person is entitled to a licence, the minimum number being one. The intention there is to prevent registrations being inflated by the inclusion of people who have never been engaged in the business concerned or only engaged in it to a negligible extent. We want to have that power in order to be able to keep such people off the register for the benefit of the genuine importers whose names would be left on it.
Yes, but is there not a danger there of injuring somebody who might be absolutely genuine? You see, the Minister has absolute discretion.
The use of the term "absolute discretion" there is merely to prevent the question being taken to court as to whether or not the person concerned fulfilled the requirements set out here, but the Minister cannot exercise his discretion except he is satisfied that the circumstances are such as require the refusal to register.
I see the Minister's point, but if the Minister had only quotas, say, to 60 per cent. of a particular article, and if he had at the same time refused to register a certain party because his predecessor, whose business he had come into, did not do a very big business, or a very small business....
Oh, no—no business at all.
...well, in the Minister's opinion, negligible, or so small as to be practically no business at all; but my point is that in such circumstances the Minister may be doing very great injury to someone and possibly conferring great benefits on other people because of the fact that you might not have importers for the whole 100 per cent.
No. In the case of a person doing a genuine business, who transfers that business to another, it is natural to want to ensure that the transferee is entitled to the credit given in the ordinary course.
Yes, that would be natural, of course. That would follow.
In the other case, if we were to try to meet an unusual case such as the Deputy has in mind, we would be in the position of allowing people on the register who should not be there. This is not for the benefit of the Department at all. We would prefer to see that everybody who wants to apply can do so and, from the purely administrative point of view, it would be easier for us to give them all the same amount. That would be the simple way, but it would be unfair to the people genuinely engaged on the business. That is the only reason for this provision. As a matter of fact, it is only in a few cases that this would have to be availed of to protect bona fide firms. In respect of some classes of goods, it can be easily seen that a licence to import one article might be of considerable value.
Oh, of course, if by the insertion of this we were to open the door to undesirable people, I certainly would leave anything in that might help to prevent that, but I am afraid there is really something there whereby some people might be discriminated against, if you like—that, unintentionally perhaps, a wrong might be done.
But it must be remembered that a national of Saorstát Eireann or any of the classes set out in Section 6 are entitled to be registered in any event.
Yes, provided you do not operate this discretion which you have here; but if you do exercise that discretion, you can keep them out.
No. I do not say that they are entitled to anything more than a nominal licence, but circumstances have arisen where some firms, in fact, have got a substantial licence.
Well, I am afraid we are at sixes and sevens on this. It says here that the Minister may, at his absolute discretion, refuse to register.
At present we are dealing with that situation by letting these people appear on the register, but giving them only nominal licences. That has been the way up to the present, but we think it is much better to keep such classes of people as are here set out off the register and give bona fide licences only. That is what we propose to do. We did not contemplate, under the original Act, such circumstances arising, and now we propose to keep such people off the register.
I agree, but let us not be deluding ourselves. After all, the Minister can refuse to register.
Yes, on the grounds set forth.
Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6, Sir, I think, deals with the same point.
Yes, it is the same point.
Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I should like the Minister, if he would, to explain what is meant there by the removal of persons from the register. My reason for asking is that it might so happen that difficulty might arise, such as that goods that came from a certain country might not be available for import by reason of something happening in that country, and would the manufacturer or the person who was on the register lose his registration because of that fact?
Well, how does the Minister provide against that?
At the present time, our powers of removal from the register are confined to two cases: one, where the person is convicted of an offence under the Act; and, two, fails to use at least 25 per cent. of the licence issued to him. It is only in one or other of these circumstances that we could remove a person from the register. Then there is the question of removing a person from the register at his own request, Now, any person who, in respect of two successive quota periods, fails to apply for a licence, may be removed. It is not a question of failing to use a licence, but of failing to apply at all. It has happened up to the present time that certain firms, that applied for licences in the first quota period, subsequently got out of the business, but did not bother to inform us that they had got out of it. Their names remained on the register and they had to be communicated with at each period, and were endeavouring to come back at any time. We are proposing that if a registered importer fails to apply at all for a licence during two successive quota periods, he may be removed from the register. If he gets his licence and fails to use it to more than 25 per cent., he may also be removed, but there, of course, he has the right to put forward as a good defence any such circumstances as Deputy Good indicates, such as a strike, the hold-up of shipping, or any international circumstances which made it unreasonable for him to be expected to use his licence. We are also taking power here to remove from the register any person who, it subsequently appears, made false or misleading statements for the purpose of procuring registration. This is really a widening of the powers of removal, because some of the registers were getting cluttered up with names of people who were not genuine importers at all, and the genuine importers suffered in consequence of that.
Is there any clause, or is it necessary to have a clause, whereby the case of the person on the register would be heard as to why he did not apply during two successive periods?
No, but the Deputy may take it that, in practice, any person who is seriously in the business will apply for his licence at the beginning of the quota period.
But it may be that, owing to particular difficulties or circumstances, he does not apply.
It must be remembered that these periods are fairly long. The period may be for two years, or there may be two successive periods of six months each. If the person does not apply at all for two periods, he may be removed, but I think it is reasonable to think that anybody who is in the business, even in a small way, will apply for his licence. He may not use it, and if he fails to use it to 25 per cent., he may be removed, but only in circumstances which give him the right of putting forward his defence. He can plead any circumstances outside his control, if necessary.
Where do you get that right of hearing?
That applies in respect of the person who applies for a licence but who fails to use it. That is covered in the Principal Act, but we are covering here another type of person, and that is the person who does not apply at all for a licence for two successive periods, and it is intended to cover the case of a person who has gone out of business and who has not informed us of the fact that he has gone out of business, and I think that any person who does not apply for such a lengthy period can reasonably be thought to have gone out of business.
One can understand that where the periods are, say, two periods of six months, that is 12 months in all, the country from which the manufacturer gets his materials may be affected all through that 12 months and that consequently he cannot get his materials. He does not apply for his licence, and he may in consequence be struck off the register automatically.
The Deputy may take it he will apply for a licence. Remember the goods are coming from somewhere. He is on the register of importers and he gets a communication from the Department that a quota for the goods has been fixed at the commencement of the quota period. If he does not apply for a licence, it means that he is not interested in the importation of the goods concerned. He may not be able to get supplies from particular sources, but remember the goods must come from some source, and if this particular person is not pleased to apply for the right to import, we are taking power to assume that in such circumstances he has gone out of business. It is, I think, a reasonable assumption.
I want to give him an opportunity of putting his case forward for registration again.
He is entitled to apply for registration again.
That is after he is struck off. I want to give him the right, before he is struck off, to put his case before the Minister.
I may say, also, that communications go out to everybody on the register at the commencement of a quota period, informing them that a quota has been fixed and that applications for licences to import must be submitted before a certain date. They are given the appropriate forms on which they are to apply. Any person interested in the goods has got that personal notification which permits him to apply for his share of the quota. The application need only be quite formal. He merely makes the application and he does not know then, and will not know for some time afterwards, what amount he will get. In fact the practice is to apply for a much larger amount than the importer hopes to get when the distribution takes place. I can assure the Deputy that we would not remove from the register any person under the section without notifying him of the fact that his removal was in contemplation or without calling his attention to the fact that for two quota periods he had, in fact, failed to use his licence at all. The reason for that is obvious. We have got at the beginning of the quota period to consider how 75 per cent. of the total quota is going to be distributed and we must assume that everybody on the register is going to apply. Consequently there can be only one unit of distribution. That unit has to be fixed in relation to the number of people on the register. If the register is full of people who are not seriously in business, confusion is caused in the Department and considerable loss is caused to bona fide importers who get less of the goods on their licences than they would otherwise obtain. It is in the interests of bona fide traders that the register should be confined to such traders. It is also in the interests of the Department as it facilitates administration because it eliminates complaints towards the end of the quota period when supplies are running out and when the power of the Department to issue licences is strictly limited.
I want to ensure that where there are circumstances beyond the importer's control——
That he will be warned and notified?
Yes, and that you will have power to consider his case and to retain him on the register.
We have full power to do that. We are only taking power to remove at discretion. The practice will be to notify the importer as at present, although there is no statutory obligation to do so.
Sections 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I notice that under sub-section 2 (a) of this section, the Minister has the right to take into consideration any relevant consideration in fixing particular quotas for a particular period. In paragraph (b) of the same sub-section it is set out that
"where it is not possible or in the opinion of the Minister is not practicable, to issue the full number of the licences so applied for, the Minister shall issue only so many licences as appear to him to be reasonable having regard to the quantity of goods aforesaid and in such case the Minister shall issue such licences to such persons (being persons who have applied as aforesaid) and for such quantities of goods as he shall consider to be proper having regard to all the circumstances."
The Minister gave us to understand that there was a statutory preference given to people who were doing the business of importation. Does that not give the Minister discretion to go outside these people? There is no mention there of the people who have been already regarded as importers of these particular commodities. There is no mention of anything like that.
With regard to sub-section (a) under which the Minister takes the right to have regard to any relevant consideration, I should like to ask the Minister what is the machinery existing between the Minister and the manufacturers by which he is able to get the information required for the fixing of the quota? Is the Minister satisfied that he is always able to get the necessary information in that respect? Recently I have read in some of the newspapers that there were some factories, I think boot and shoe factories, working on short time, and at the same time we had an importation of boots and shoes under quota orders. I should like to know from the Minister what is the machinery that exists as between himself and people who are engaged in the manufacture of certain articles, a certain proportion of which are being imported at the same time under licence.
Where the circumstances arise that the Minister has to exercise his discretion, in other words, where it is possible to give a licence if applied for, we require the applicants for licences to furnish evidence of their importations of the goods concerned during the year immediately preceding the operation of the quota and then we distribute the licences to each applicant on the basis of their importations in that year.
Have you that information at the moment?
Yes. Obviously that method is going to become less satisfactory as time goes on in relation to certain businesses. Some of the quota orders were made in 1934 and licences are being distributed under them in accordance with the importation of firms in 1933. 1933 is now four years away and a lot of circumstances have begun to operate which will justify some new standards. We have to adopt various standards from time to time in relation to the 25 per cent. of the global quota in respect of which the Minister is given discretion. For example a boot and shoe retailer who, in 1933 bought a larger quantity of Irish boots and shoes than a competitor in the same business, would have been penalised in the matter of import licences, under the 1934 arrangement because of that fact, if we do not proceed to set up a new standard for the additional licences and give licences to import in proportion to purchases of Irish goods. The same applies to certain classes of woollen and worsted cloths which are subject to an import duty. New firms are coming into the business of manufacturing clothing. Some new standard has got to be fixed in relation to them and the standard we are operating is one in relation to the purchase of Irish materials. It is in relation to these purchases that we are giving licences. We are trying in sub-section (b) to look after another situation, where the total applications for licences are out of all proportion to the actual amount of goods admitted and where the number of articles to be admitted would not permit of giving a licence for one article to each applicant for it. Take the case of motor cars. We might fix, say a quota for 20 motors to be imported in a period of three months and we might have 40 applicants for licences. As the law stands at present we would be in fact bound to give everyone a licence, but it would be a licence in that particular case to import half a car. Although we have met the difficulty by limiting the number of articles imported to the number on the register, it may be desirable to go below that in respect of certain articles and, therefore, we are taking power to confine the issue of licences in such circumstances in such a manner as the Minister shall think proper. We might decide to confine the licences for the importation of complete cars to firms engaged in the assembling of cars. We have not got that power at present. It was a defect in the Principal Act, which limited the restriction on imports that could be imposed in certain cases. We are taking that power now, again trying to preserve the situation in which the firms entitled to a preference will continue to get it. I think it will be found more and more difficult to do that as time goes on, in respect of certain articles. For instance, the distribution of a quota in 1940 in relation to importations in the year 1933 might be very unfair to a number of firms and, therefore, we have to depart from that position. We are, however, trying to preserve that position as far as possible.
You are trying to preserve it only at the Minister's discretion, not by way of statute.
The Minister in exercising his discretion shall have regard to the interests of such firms. That is a statutory obligation on the Minister. It is for him to justify the exercise of his discretion. I do not think that we could go further than that without making the Act too rigid.
Can the Minister indicate what machinery there is between his Department and the manufacturers with regard to the amount of material to be imported?
There is an advisory committee, and that committee is brought together where any question arises and the whole position is investigated. It is not merely necessary for us to find out what quantity the manufacturers did produce, but we must also ascertain the quantity they are likely to produce in the period covered by the quota order. We get returns certified by auditors in respect of production, and we have to consult with the manufacturers as to the arrangements made individually for an extension of production. We have to take into account new firms established, and we have to arrive at an estimate with regard to the quota. The quota is, in fact, fixed so as to allow a fairly considerable margin. We are under statutory obligation to distribute only 75 per cent. of the quota. There is always 25 per cent. held in reserve. That is used only to deal with a situation where a shortage might be expected, either because we miscalculated production or because some importer did not use his licence, or because of a strike at the ports or for some other reason. In such circumstances that 25 per cent. margin may be and is utilised.
Sections 10 to 18, inclusive, and the Title, agreed to. Bill reported. Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 3rd March.
