Vol. 82 No. 12
I move motion No. 2 on the Order Paper.
Items 2 and 3 may be taken together. The purpose is a very simple one, merely to bring the definition employed in the original quota orders into line with the definition used in the wording of the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Act. The particular commodities in question are controlled under the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Act and under the Control of Imports Act.
What are the commodities?
Terry towelling, and cotton piece goods, including towelling other than terry towelling. The object is merely to bring the definition in each case into conformity.
May I inquire whether it is deemed desirable in times like these to maintain these quota orders?
Nothing but the actual motions before the House may be debated.
These are two quota orders.
Which are largely a matter of terminology.
Of the quota orders. At the present time we are confronted with great difficulty in getting supplies of anything. Is it sensible in that situation to be restricting supplies that are available, and, by legislating, forbidding people to bring stuff into the country? As far as I am aware, we must be the only country in the civilised or the uncivilised world doing that at the present time. Apart from darkest Abyssinia, every country in the world is trying to get supplies which they regard as vital.
Standing out in the community of nations like a sore thumb is Éire, which declares: "Not only do we not want to get them, but if anybody attempts to bring them in, we will confiscate them and throw them out again." We may be married to the doctrine of economic self-sufficiency, although, God knows, we are getting a dose of it at present, and it may prove a salutary lesson to some of our amateur economists of the post-war period, but surely the Minister for Industry and Commerce should tune down the orchestra a little at present, and, instead of warning any of us who might be able to get supplies against trying to get them, should rather say that, for the period of this crisis, all quota orders go by the board, and that any person who can get supplies anywhere of anything that our people require is doing a public service and we will facilitate him in any way we possibly can. Would the Minister give us his view on that aspect of this matter?
I doubt whether I could deal with the very wide question which Deputy Dillon has raised, but with regard to the particular quota orders which we are considering at the moment, I would ask the Deputy to bear in mind that these orders form part of an agreement which, whether for good or ill, was made with the British cotton manufacturers, under which our mills are assured, within the limits of reasonable ability to fulfil that engagement, of a supply of cotton yarns for their works. Accordingly, we could not, in this case at any rate, decide that cotton-piece goods would be allowed in free of quota restriction, without giving notice that we wished to terminate that agreement and without jeopardising the supply of raw materials for our own cotton manufacturers. That is the position, and, as matters stand at present, I think it is in the best interests of the community as a whole that we should maintain our engagements with the British manufacturers in order that they will fulfil their engagements with us.
On the general question as to the advisability of continuing restrictions upon imports in any form during the present emergency, I do not think that that properly arises on these motions. Perhaps the Deputy may wish to discuss it at a later date, upon a more appropriate occasion, and I would then be prepared to deal with it more fully.
It would be correct to say that this quota order operates to secure for us supplies of cotton yarn which we otherwise would not get?
Yes.
