I do not think any useful purpose will be served by discussing the origin of the dispute between ourselves and Great Britain. Everybody will have their own view on that matter, and nothing that is likely to be said will alter that view. However, the fact is that the dispute is there, and that, arising out of it, certain penal duties were imposed on Irish produce sent to Great Britain. The Free State retaliated by imposing certain duties upon British goods consigned to this country. The duty upon coal is one of the retaliatory duties. We are not anxious to maintain that duty one moment longer than we consider it to be necessary. We are willing to remove all the Emergency Duties to-morrow if Great Britain will do the same. We might go further, and say that we will remove the duties if we get an indication that Great Britain proposed to do the same within a reasonable time afterwards. It is quite obvious that any action to remove the barriers to trade between the two countries must be reciprocal. We cannot do it alone. If the British Government considers it necessary to impose these restrictions upon our exports, we consider it necessary to maintain the restrictions upon British exports to this country. But we are anxious to end that situation as quickly as possible and, if the British Government are willing to take the obvious step in the matter, we are willing to follow them. We do not suggest that the British Government should fail to take any action it considers necessary for the protection of British industry and British agriculture. It is, I think, in consequence of the policy of the British Government in that respect that the importation of agricultural produce into Great Britain is being, or will be, restricted by quota arrangements.
The development of the fuel resources of this country may necessitate a quota arrangement in respect to coal after the emergency duties have been removed. The removal of the emergency duties may mark the end of the economic war, or a phase of it, but the desire of the Government on each side to protect industries will continue, and any action taken by either to that end is, of course, something about which the other cannot complain. The British Government are maintaining special duties on our agricultural produce in consequence of the dispute between us. They are proposing to restrict, generally, imports of agricultural goods in consequence of their desire to encourage agricultural production there. By the removal of the emergency duties it does not necessarily follow that the situation in respect to the quota arrangements will be modified. Nevertheless, the removal of the emergency duties will do much to facilities trade between the two countries. Similarly the removal of the emergency duties by us would encourage the purchase of British goods, where they have to be imported. Any other action taken by us would be to protect our own industries and to secure the development of our own resources. Amongst these I would mention the fuel resources.
Whatever the origin of the duties I do not think the result has been wholly bad. I refer particularly to coal. As Senators are aware, there was an arrangement in Great Britain by which the price of coal internally was artificially inflated, in order to make it possible to sell coal on the export market at lower prices. For the purpose of that arrangement we were regarded as a "home county," and we had to pay a higher price, even though we got none of the benefit of the arrangement in the form of employment. The imposition of these duties has at least terminated that system. I do not think it is correct to assume that these duties are being paid by industrialists and consumers here, entirely. In many parts of the country the duties have not been paid at all by our citizens. They are being paid by the exporters, and have been met by a reduction in the price of coal, or in the freight for transhipment of coal here. That is not true, to the same extent, in other parts of the country. On the whole, I think it can be stated coal is cheaper here at present than before the duties were imposed. We have got coal resources which we are anxious to develop. I disagree with Senator Bagwell when he says that it is impossible to use Irish coal for industrial concerns. The quantity of Irish coal now being produced is, of course, totally inadequate for our requirements, but industrial concerns that have used it have, I think, considerably reduced their manufacturing costs, in consequence, and have given public testimony of that fact. The coal resources of this country can be developed to a much greater extent than at present, and action to that end will, I expect, be taken, and arising out of that action some artificial restriction on the importation of coal may be necessary. Of course, in that eventuality we would be fully prepared to consider giving preference to those countries which are prepared to give similar preference to Irish exports.
It will, perhaps, be interesting to Senators, who are not aware of it, that the net result of these emergency duties has not deprived us of our position of being Britain's best customer in Europe, and, except for India, Britain's best customer in the world. The figures for the first four months of this year, during which the duties were in full operation, show that we have retained our position by a long margin in that respect. We are still buying more British goods than any country in Europe, than any member of the British Commonwealth, and than any country in the world, except India.
Senator Douglas referred to the handicap which the emergency duties on coal imposed on certain industries with an export trade. In certain industrial groups, where it was shown that the importation of British coal was necessary for efficient production, a licence for the importation of coal has been given either in respect of all the requirements concerned, or in respect of that portion of their requirements which had some relation to the total as their export trade had to their total production. It may be that in certain industrial groups a similar concession has not been given. I am fully prepared to consider any representations made in that regard. We would not be prepared to give that concession to firms doing an entirely internal trade except under very exceptional circumstances. We are not desirous of imposing any new difficulties in the way of those who are maintaining an export trade in industrial products.
The Senator also made reference to the importation of overcoats and men's trousers from Poland or Russia at a remarkably low price. Certain representations have been made concerning these cases and I am having them examined. It may be that one consignment of these goods has arrived. It is not, of course, unusual that a sale of a bankrupt's stock or something of that kind might produce temporary importations, at a very low price of goods subject to duty. If, however, the evidence is that these goods are being sold at low prices, as part of the industrial policy of the countries concerned, and that importations are likely to continue, then we will not hesitate to stop these importations entirely. I think traders who might be tempted to purchase these goods, because of the low prices at which they are offered, should bear in mind the fact that the Government has got power to impose duties by Emergency Order, and will not hesitate to use it if the industrial life of the country appears to be threatened by these uneconomic imports. I agree that the use of the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act for the purpose of promoting Governmental protective policy is not desirable. At the same time, in view of the rather abnormal trade conditions now existing throughout the world, it is necessary for the Government here to have what Governments in most other countries enjoy, and that is the power to act speedily in the matter of imposing emergency duties to restrict imports, subject, of course, to the early ratification of their action by the Legislature.
I do not think that we can contemplate depriving ourselves entirely of the power to take speedy action, even if the immediate cause for the enactment of this Emergency Imposition of Duties Act were removed. Only quite recently we had occasion to use these powers for purely protective purposes when the ordinary power of imposing duties might not have been effective. Our proximity to Great Britain, and the fact that we ordinarily speak the same language as Great Britain, usually result in the diversion to the market here of any goods which are excluded from the British market by duties imposed by the British Government. In this year the British Government imposed certain duties on different classes of goods, and that resulted in the diversion of the goods prepared for the British markets and labelled or packed in containers printed in the English language, to this country. The size of our market is such that one decent ship-load of a particular article might easily flood the market here for years, and consequently it is necessary that we should have power to move quickly as soon as we realise the danger that threatens our industrial stability. However, these are questions that we might more conveniently discuss on another occasion.
The immediate purpose of the Bill is to confirm the duties imposed by Order No. 5. For Senator Jameson's information I might explain that Order No. 11 was confined to the repeal of duties. It is necessary, however, to confirm that, because these duties were included in the original Order No. 5, although it was subsequently varied by Order No. 11. It does not alter the situation. That can only be altered by the return to sanity of certain members of the British Government.
