Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Mar 1934

Vol. 18 No. 10

Control of Imports Bill, 1934—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

When the House adjourned last night I was referring to the economic condition into which the country, almost unconsciously, is drifting: that is a condition virtually of economic dictatorship. I was illustrating that by the attitude of the Minister, in introducing this Bill, towards the question of transport routes for imports under quota. He said: "We wish to have the power to regulate the routes by which these goods shall be moved." To my mind that is a most illuminating statement, because it pictures the Government, sitting there in authority, telling the traders of the country not only where they are to buy their goods, because that is implicit in the Quota Bill, but how they are to transport them. That seems to me to strike at the root of economic freedom and to impose astonishing conditions upon trade. Furthermore, as the House is well aware, our whole economic system is being bound up in the most complicated code of regulations. In the old days, when a man wanted to trade, he had to look to his production and his competitors. Otherwise, he was a reasonably free agent within very wide limits of control. Now his whole attention is on Acts of Parliament. He has to be a perfect expert, or he has to get experts to enlighten him on the whole of these regulations: tariffs, company law, and now quotas, all of which, I suggest, constitute a very cramping code. So that now it comes that a business man is spending only a portion of his time on production. A large portion of his attention and of his energies is directed to lobbying Government, studying regulations, watching to see if further restrictions are likely to be imposed, and how best he can counter them. I know one business man and the Minister knows him too—of course I cannot mention his name—who tells me that he has to spend most of his time in touch with Government conferences and Government committees. That is essential to his business, because he may lose opportunities in his business if he is not closely in touch with all the regulations and laws so rapidly changing every other day.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that, however pure and correct all that may be, it has implicit in it great dangers? That the association of the Government should be so necessary in modern business is a very short way to very great dangers I feel. I do not suggest for a moment that they are present to-day, but I do suggest that all this is fraught with danger in the future.

Moreover, under the whole of our elaborate code, businessmen are so anxious about the future that, naturally, their tendency is, where they can get the opportunity now, to make all the profits they can while conditions are favourable, and conditions naturally under our new system are specially favourable. The only weapon, and I suggest it is no weapon, that the Government have to counter this very natural avarice on the part of manufacturers is that of the Food Prices Commission. That Commission has produced, I understand, nothing of any importance yet, and I very much doubt that it will, particularly when you consider who are the contestants on each side—a certain number of self-sacrificing citizens unpaid for the work pitted against alert business brains who can afford to employ the best advisers. Is it likely that a body of that kind will ever really protect consumers as the Minister hopes they will be protected?

I am glad to see that Senator Comyn is in his place to-day because he challenged me yesterday. In fact he put into my mouth words that he wanted me to say, but skilful as he may be as a cross-examiner he cannot quite get me this time. He asked me to suggest that the tariffs imposed by Great Britain against Irish produce are fair—that is a step forward anyway that they are fair—but that while the tariffs may be fair the quotas are manifestly unjust.

Do you not agree with that?

I would be glad if the Senator would allow me to go on in my own way. In examining a problem of this kind one likes to get back to the origins of the whole thing and there Senator Comyn and I are in opposite camps. There is a philosophy of this kind: never give the first blow, but for every blow you get give two. Senator Comyn may do that as he likes.

I hope they will not be heavy.

Apart from the question of national sentiment the Minister I have no doubt justifies his economic policy—quotas and the rest —as part of the benefits that have been brought to industrial labour. I would suggest that at present that case is absolutely lacking in proof. We have heard various charges thrown across from one side and countered by the other, but so far we are absolutely in the dark as to the positive results of this new economic policy. We are told, on the one hand, of the large increase in unemployment books taken out. We also know to our cost as ratepayers that there is an alarming increase in home assistance expenditure. How does the Minister explain that?

Commonsense and a study of the external trade figures tell us that there must be an alarming decline in the volume of shipping. In the case of Waterford port, the one with which I am most familiar, there used to be five or six ships a week. The figure at present would be about one. That must represent a very large amount of unemployment in the docks and in transit facilities. I do not think the Minister is entitled yet to claim that the advantages from his policy outweigh all the restrictions that are being imposed daily on the public. In all this talk about our new economic policy we hear little or nothing about the poor gentleman we call the consumer. I suggest that in the long run this whole policy must be borne on the ability of consumers to buy these goods. The body of consumers reminds one of a form of Chinese torture. It consists in death by 1,000 slices. I suggest that the consumer, without probably knowing it, is being slowly cut to pieces in that every day his life is getting more and more restricted and more and more full of petty annoyances.

We began with the petty annoyance of the postman wanting 6d. on every parcel he brings along. We passed, then, to that of the poor person who visits England and leaves behind pyjamas or a dirty handkerchief, which are posted after him, and on which he has to pay a minimum duty of 6/- on the poor pyjamas. Then, we passed to the fond parent in England who wants to send a photograph of the latest infant, perhaps to a daughter here, on which a similar amount has to be paid. A poor person in Cornwall wrote to me that she was asked to pay that amount for a photograph. I will give an instance within my own experience. I wanted to import a few special articles of marble which one could almost put into one's pocket. As there was plenty of time, I told my secretary six weeks before the articles were to be brought here to take the necessary steps. The writing began and went on, and we were finally told that if we got an architect to certify that the marble was to be used for the purpose for which it was to be imported, it would be allowed in. The marble consisted of little ornaments for a mantelpiece which had become detached. I am sure Senators can reinforce that by their own experiences. They know how life now has become a perfect torment, full of petty annoyances. The women will tell you that they cannot get the clothes they want except at enormous prices. They can get clothing, of course, but not what suits female taste or what they fancy. All that is cumulative, and I suggest might resemble the Chinese form of death by 1,000 slices. But while the process is going on the ordinary people are being doped to the point that it is all in the interest of national sentiment, that it is all for national glorification, and to secure a balance of trade which will make Ireland an industrial country. I suggest that remains to be seen.

With regard to the more direct principle of the Bill, the Minister has justified it, in part, by saying that everybody else is doing it; that it is part of the whole continental system, and why should we not do it? I understand that the military spirit is growing everywhere else. I understand that is the very reason why we are trying to counter it by the policy here. Is it not possible that the whole system of economic restrictions is also bad? Why should we not also consider the countering of that here? With regard to the application of the quota system the Minister stated that the one reason why he wanted these powers was that tariffs in themselves were not sufficient. As far as I could follow him, the Minister did not explain why tariffs are not sufficient to protect home manufacturers. There is a danger, if tariffs are made high enough, of what is practically an invitation to home manufacturers to put up prices to the level of the tariffs. That seems to be implicit in any system. I would like if the Minister would explain how the quota system can keep the avarice and the greed of home producers in check. Of course this measure is only part and parcel of a policy which I suggest has been long since overdone, the evil fruits of which are becoming daily more and more felt. It is a very hard thing, if I may say so, for a respectable orthodox economist to argue about it, because we have got into the sort of atmosphere in which it is almost impossible to do more than to deplore it, and to wait until the Government drinks it to the bitter dregs, and until the country begins to realise that this sort of thing cannot go on, except at a cost of untold suffering. I ask the Minister whether the time has not come to cry "halt," and to have the whole question seriously examined. He seems to be perfectly satisfied that everything is all right, that everything is blooming, and that we are going to get more prosperous industries in the country. These portents seem, to my mind, to be utterly lacking. I know that the Minister is a magnificent salesman and that, whatever he may be, he is always optimistic, and if he has any dud stock he keeps it very much out of sight.

With our experience, is it not reasonable to say that if we were to carry on the traditional policy of the previous Government things would be very much better to-day? We would not be involved in this unfortunate conflict with our best customers. I presume we would be developing the tariff policy slowly and deliberately, after having heard all sides on the basis of a close and scientific examination. I suggest that our foreign trade would not be halved, as it has been in the last few years, and while it is only a matter of surmise, the country would be more prosperous, business would be freer, while prices would be lower than they are to-day. The only constructive suggestion I can make is that this system is all part of the momentum we have acquired by the trend of economic laws. Is it not time to have an inquiry to see whither we are going and to see if it is not time to cry halt?

We have had a very interesting discussion on this Bill, and we heard some extraordinary statements made. I would not join in the debate only that I wish to support my friend, Senator Comyn, who appealed to Senator Keane and other Senators for support for his statement, that England was justified in putting tariffs on our cattle, but that she had acted unjustly and unreasonably in putting quotas on our exports. It is very interesting to see one of the leaders of the Government's supporters in this House realising at last the justification for tariffs on our exports. I am in thorough agreement with Senator Comyn's statement that England is justified in putting tariffs on our live stock to obtain the money which the Government here retained, but which it was believed was honestly due. I am also in thorough agreement with Senator Comyn in saying that it was unjust on the part of England to impose quotas on our exports when the amount of the debt had been secured. The imposition of quotas was a vindictive policy, and an unreasonable policy as far as this country is concerned. It is contrary to the declared policy of England as being in favour of reciprocal trade. It is the policy of the big stick, a vindictive policy, and it is going to smash this country. It is all very well for the British Minister for Agriculture to say that quotas were put on in order to give some relief to British farmers. The keeping out of Irish produce gives no relief to British farmers when the market is glutted with foreign imports. The British Minister for Agriculture knows that perfectly well. During the past month the price of chilled meat in England fell 1d. per lb. That reduced the price of home produce there by the same amount, so that the keeping out of our cattle by quotas and half of our fat stock has been of no benefit to British farmers. Senator The McGillycuddy said he approved of quotas but that he did not see how they could benefit this country.

If this policy of the Government is to continue the point I want cleared up is this: Where will we get money to buy from any other country? Where will the money come from? The farmers here, and the agricultural industry, which is our only source of wealth, are being gradually knocked on the head, and if every move of the Government is to wipe out agriculture, which brought money into the country, where will we get money to pay for what we have to import? If it is the policy of the Government to do away with the cattle trade they will be doing away with an industry that in 1932 brought 12 millions of money into this country. About 400,000 consisted of beef or store cattle which will have to be scrapped if they are kept out of the British market. These 400,000 cattle were value for about eight millions of money. Labour would be represented by about £3 per head. I am not counting in the £3 the cost of food. I am taking only the actual cost of labour in the production of food and in looking after the animals. About 20,000 agricultural labourers would be employed looking after these cattle at an average wage of 25/- a week or a total of £1,200,000. It will take a good many of the Minister's toy industries to employ 20,000 people. Does the Government understand the real plight of farmers even at the present time?

I will give the House an instance that occurred at a South of Ireland fair during the last week-end in order to illustrate the plight of some farmers. At Ennis fair on Friday last a respectable farmer begged me to buy a beast from him. I told him that the beast did not suit me. The man said: "Give me something for it. I want to sell." I made a bid for the animal, although it did not suit me. I told the owner I would only give the price I offered if he could not dispose of it otherwise. The man came to the hotel later and said that he wanted to sell and that he had not been bid 1/-. When I was paying him I said: "Surely things are not so bad with you as you suggest." The man replied: "I do not want to talk about it, but my wife, my family and myself have not had tea or bread for the past ten days. We have cattle, potatoes, butter and eggs but we have not a shilling in the house to buy anything else. We have to do without bread or tea and, if I had not sold that beast, I do not know where I could get a shilling to buy anything." That is one of the harrowing tales I have heard from farmers, particularly in the South of Ireland. I could recount a number of tales of the same character. The Government must be aware of these facts. What are they going to do? Carry on the policy of exterminating the cattle trade? Where are we going to get to then? I see by this morning's paper that that policy is going to be put into effect. The Minister for Agriculture has issued a statement that he is going to give bounties on the export of calf-skins, with the feet attached. It was not stated what the amount of the bounty would be but, so far as I can see, this is a bounty to encourage the slaughter of young calves. It is a policy designed to cut out the cattle trade. When the cattle trade is gone, we shall find how badly off the country will be. The cattle trade is going quickly enough without the slaughter of the calves. At last Ballinasloe fair, there were 200 wagons less than there were this time 12 months. That would represent about 1,000 cattle. If that continues for a short time, the cattle trade and the live-stock production will disappear. I ask the Government to realise the position in which they are placing the country and the plight in which the farmers are and to do that before it is too late.

On a point of explanation, I submit that Senator Counihan has unconsciously misrepresented me. What I said was that a man who knew the subject as thoroughly as Senator The McGillycuddy or Senator Sir John Keane might have continued and said that so far as the tariffs, pending the settlement of the dispute, were concerned, they were fair enough, but that quotas were unjust in any circumstances. Those are the words which I endeavoured to put into the mouth of Senator Sir John Keane. My contention always has been that we are not bound, in law or in justice, to pay the annuities. Therefore, any measures taken against us for non-payment must, of necessity, be unjust.

I should like to endorse what Senator Counihan said about the effect of the Government's policy on the farmers. I come from a county which was the best producing county in Ireland so far as agriculture was concerned. If Senators look at the Government's statistics they will see that a quarter, if not more, of the crops and cattle of the Province of Leinster was produced in Wexford. I have witnessed some most distressing scenes arising out of the Government's policy and I know of very distressing cases amongst the farmers. As I was leaving the station to come to Dublin I met two farmers who, a couple of years ago, were well-to-do and employed five or six regular hands and as many casual workers. These men had, respectively, 30 fat cattle and 40 fat cattle in their stalls. They had one licence each. They were in a state bordering on despair and wondering what would become of them. They were allowed to export one beast each out of the 30 and 40. They were living in hopes that they might be allowed to export another beast each next week. Their whole year's work was in those cattle. All they produced on their farms— roots, corn, hay, and straw—with the exception of the potatoes which they and their families at themselves—it is no longer profitable to grow potatoes for sale—had gone into these stall feeders. There those men were with no money to pay their hands, and their food running short. I ask the House to picture the state of these people. The case of these two men can be multiplied by the hundred all over that county with which I am familiar.

I do not agree, have never agreed and never will agree with Senator Comyn that the annuities were not justly due, or that the farmer was not bound to pay his honest debts. He has lost his title to the land and he has lost his living through that dishonest step of the Government. I do not care who may put on tariffs or what retaliation may be indulged in, it is only what this country will deserve so long as it backs up a Government which does such dishonest actions. A number of honest people did not approve of that step and these are the people who are paying for it all. We have the craziest things included in the Government's policy. Let me give an example. Loans are being given to farmers to rear heifers for breeding purposes——

Cathaoirleach

We are considering now the Control of Imports Bill and we must confine ourselves to the subject matter of the Bill.

I am trying to illustrate the effect of the Government policy.

Cathaoirleach

I am sorry to interrupt you because your speech is very interesting, but the subject under discussion is the Control of Imports Bill. That has nothing to do with loans for heifers.

Can I not illustrate the position by referring to the encouragement given to farmers to buy heifers, while at the same time it is proposed to kill calves? It is very interesting to place these two items of policy side by side. We are told that the killing of calves was introduced in other countries, notably the northern countries and Denmark particularly. In these countries, cattle are kept entirely with a view to milk products and it is almost impossible to fatten the class of cattle kept. Take the case of these Friesian cattle, which are bred entirely for milk production. You might as well try to put meat on an iron gate or on a bicycle as on one of those. These people do kill them to get them out of the way. To put conditions in this country on a par with conditions in those countries is childish in the extreme. I believe that we would have had no retaliation in the way of quotas or otherwise from Great Britain and that we would have had at least favoured-nation treatment if it were not for this pastime of twisting the lion's tail, which is so pleasing to the present Government. That is, evidently, their chief delight. Out of their insolent conduct with regard to their neighbours, with whom they ought to be on the best terms, all this quota business has come, to the terrible detriment of the people of the country. If it would not be outside the rules of debate, I could enlarge on the hardships of the people, due to the Government's policy.

I join with Senator Counihan in condemning the Government because of that policy. Evidently, experience is of no use to them. They see the country going to the dogs and everybody becoming pauperised. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the other Ministers, nevertheless, go on with their bluff and draw glowing accounts of the prosperity of the country, due to the new industrial policy. That industrial policy will not save the country. It is doing nothing to decrease unemployment. It is doing nothing to relieve the farmers. It is doing nothing to lessen home assistance. Unemployment and home assistance are increasing and the Government deserve the strongest condemnation for their policy which has led to this state of affairs.

I wish to join in the protest regarding the treatment of our cattle trade and live stock industry by the Government. The attitude of the Government is very foolish, so far as the interests of the country are concerned. The agricultural industry should be promoted in every possible way. So far, it has been accepted that profitable stall-feeding made for successful tillage farming. These two interests go hand in hand. Profitable stall-feeding is out of the question now. Stall-feeding has gone from bad to worse and it is now out of the farmers' control. This last arrangement regarding a quota system is crippling the industry altogether. Cases of hardship have been mentioned here. I can corroborate what has been said regarding these cases. We had 51 cattle stall-feeding and we applied for a quota. We got a quota for one a week. It is almost impossible to see how the country can carry on when there are no customers for the cattle. It was bad enough to have a reduction in their value but now there are no customers for them at all. In consequence, the cattle will have to be kept for a further period and we shall have to try to get rid of them in some shape or form. The position is, however, really deplorable. To offer any suggestion in face of the surrounding circumstances, is impossible. You cannot encourage anybody to do anything. Whatever you do you will be disappointed.

Going back to the relations between the two countries, I blame very strongly Mr. Thomas for refusing the offer of the present Government. I think that the offer of arbitration should have been accepted. We had, on one side, Senator Comyn and a number of other legal gentlemen who held that these annuities were not due. A number of other legal luminaries gave the opinion, when the last Government was in power, that the annuities were due. It would be far more satisfactory to have the matter settled by arbitration definitely than to have it the subject of further argument. It is the same as having in a law case legal gentlemen offering an opinion on one side and legal gentlemen offering an opinion on the other side, both believing that they are right.

Then the learned people on the other side took up the opposite position so that a judge and jury have to decide the matter. I would like to see the whole thing thrashed out, and all this trouble removed. I mentioned some time ago in regard to the position into which the country was being driven that we were heading for bankruptcy and almost rebellion. I think the Minister for Agriculture took me up too literally. I said that we had almost reached a state of bankruptcy and that that would likely lead to rebellion. The Minister said there was no likelihood of a rebellion as if to reassure me. What I meant was really resistance to the law——

Cathaoirleach

We are dealing now with the Bill about import quotas, and not about export quotas, or farmers' prices, and we cannot allow ourselves to stray too far away from the real issue.

I thought when we were discussing import quotas the question of export quotas was bound up with it and corresponded with it. At any rate, apart from that, I say with certainty that there will have to be some change from the position which we are in at the present time. Farmers have not been able to make in some instances 5/- a head on their cattle. So far as I can see, in whatever measures we are taking, we are only going from bad to worse. I would like to see prosperity restored to the people and if prosperity is restored to the agricultural industry the prosperity of other industries in the country will follow.

I believe we may infer from the last three speeches, those of Senator O'Connor, Senator Miss Browne and Senator Counihan, that they are all in favour of this Bill; because they have not directed any criticism to it, and have discussed other matters that are almost wholly apart from the Bill. Senators Sir John Keane and The McGillycuddy dealt with the Bill as part, and as the accompaniment or partial fulfilment, of a general economic policy. They both, in one way or another, asked us to take into account the origins. I think it is almost inevitable that we must, in fitting this in with the general economic policy, have regard to origins. Quite apart from the immediate economic situation, as affecting agriculture in this country, I cannot get away from the fact that the origins of this Bill can be found in the demand that was made a good many years ago, for fiscal autonomy. It was not merely the Republican Party that advocated fiscal autonomy when it became the Government here. The Home Rule Party demanded fiscal autonomy and it became part of their policy. I cannot help thinking that those who advocated fiscal autonomy must have anticipated the possibility and had at least thought that if fiscal autonomy was to be exercised it would have some effect upon another country, and that that country was likely to be Britain; and also that the exercise of that autonomy would bring some retaliatory effects. The case the two Senators have made is quite consistent with their opposition to fiscal autonomy, and quite in favour of the reunion of this country, fiscally, with Great Britain; but apart from that I do not think it has any validity at all. It is consistent with that position, but it is not consistent with the assumption that this country has a right to exercise its own fiscal powers.

Surely the Senator would regard freedom to make arrangements as implicit in the right. You can have the right; how you should use it is quite another matter.

True. If you have that right, and make a promise, beforehand, that you will not use that right, the right has no value. If the right was demanded I assume it was to become effective, some time or another; if ever it was to be effective it would be effective regarding imports from Britain, and with the probability that there would be retaliation. Now, once you make the plea for fiscal autonomy you assume the possibility of retaliatory tariffs, and if preparations were not made to meet the new conditions, which retaliatory tariffs would bring about, then the promoters of any such claim as fiscal autonomy would be very short-sighted indeed. This Bill, as I see it, is the inevitable outcome of the system of international commerce developed in recent years. If we had been still part of the fiscal unit, known as Great Britain and Ireland, we would still have been in the field of import quotas, because, internationally we would be part of Britain and there would be import quotas in respect of other countries. I say, therefore, now that we have adopted the policy of fiscal autonomy and are exercising that autonomy even though we were to do so in the manner of the previous Government, whose policy Senator Sir John Keane asks us to revert to, we would have still been obliged to introduce an Import Quotas Bill.

This Bill itself, I believe, is necessary, and, as the Minister claims, it is better than the other method of controlling imports by the use of licences as he had to do heretofore. Licences are for the free import of particular articles, or for reducing or abolishing, for particular purposes, the tariff that has been imposed. But I think it is well we should realise that this Bill does lead to a great deal more national control of imports. I think it will have effects that have been clearly stated and that, I think, are bound to lead eventually to something in the nature of general control by national authority of the imports of this country. I see, for instance, implicit in this Bill, almost inevitably, a single authority importing a certain group of articles. It may be one of those corporations that are envisaged that will be empowered with the right to control imports of a particular character, but I do see implicit in this Bill the likelihood that a group of commodities that will be "quota-ed" will be imports by a single importing authority. I believe it would be advantageous to the House if the Minister would outline, in general, what he has in mind with regard to the description of the goods that are referred to in Section 2. A certain description of commodities are prescribed. There is, and has been, a good deal of apprehension amongst country traders, for instance, who have been in the habit of purchasing articles of general commercial value from British exporting firms. Questions have been asked whether they are expected to know here beforehand, how much of a certain quantity of a particular article would be required.

I think the Minister could remove some misapprehension if he would indicate what, I think, is intended in the policy, that quotas can only be made to apply to a group of commodities, necessarily of a general description, and especially either raw material or semi-manufactured materials. I have been looking through the lists of the kind of things that I imagine to be possible of control by quotas, and I cannot think, apart from some very few commodities—articles of commerce— that manufactured goods are likely to be within that category. The Minister would remove apprehension from the mind of some Senators, if he indicated clearly the class of articles envisaged in his mind as possible of being prescribed in this manner.

There is a small item, though it may be important, that perhaps the Minister would tell us his mind upon. I refer to Section 4, sub-sections (2) and (3). The Bill has been described as intending to avoid the necessity of limiting imports from particular countries by way of remissions or tariffs or duties. Now, in respect to duties, the Dáil is primarily and almost entirely in control; but in respect of these quota orders they have the effect of legislation, and in regard to groups of commodities they are not financial in any direct sense at all. Therefore, I doubt whether we should agree to approval by the Dáil only being required in respect of orders made by the Executive Council. I think the approval of both Houses is called for, unless the Minister can adduce a very good reason, from the administrative point of view, against that suggestion. I think it is inevitable that these powers will be used, and must be used, to affect imports from Britain. But I think it is also necessary, in view of the prevailing circumstances in international commerce, that powers should be available for diverting trade or attracting trade in respect of other countries. Whatever may be the dangers, as pointed out by Senator Sir John Keane in this whole body of legislation handing over authority to interfere with trade and commerce to the Government, I think that the Senator will have to content himself with the facts as they exist and that it is impossible to avoid handing controlling powers to the Minister, no matter what the circumstances in politics may be. The same complaint has been made everywhere. One cannot read a newspaper without seeing complaints of the same kind that the Senator has advanced here, in England, in France, in Germany, in Italy, in America—almost in any country in the world. I do not think there is any use at all in suggesting that this kind of policy could be departed from, if the Government would only revert to the traditional policy of the former Government, to use the words of the Senator I do not think he would have any reason to believe that this interference with industry and commerce could be avoided. I know that there has been no objection at all raised to the Bill except such as is contained in the speech of Senator Sir John Keane.

I only mentioned one bad egg.

Exactly, and I think there again the bad egg was laid when fiscal autonomy was demanded by the old Nationalist Party.

This Bill was not introduced in consequence of the economic war. It has, in fact, very little bearing upon the financial dispute with Great Britain. If that financial dispute had never arisen, this Bill would still be necessary. I do not contemplate then that any Order made under this Bill will be designed to effect some tactical move or to achieve some tactical advantage in that dispute. I do not think that any Order will be made except for one of two reasons—firstly, to assist development of some industry at home or secondly, to implement some trade arrangement beneficial to the Saorstát with some other country. Most of the Senators who spoke, therefore, were in a sense away from the main purpose of the Bill although I admit that it was quite proper to consider it in relation to the whole policy of the Government because it is an integral part of it and on the Bill the whole economic policy of the Government was undoubtedly open for discussion. The impression I want to remove, however, is that the sole idea in the minds of the Executive Council in preparing this Bill was the acquisition of an additional weapon with which to hit Great Britain. That idea was not there at all. On the contrary, as I have said, the Bill would have been just as necessary in present-day circumstances, if the dispute with Great Britain had never commenced.

Before dealing with the general questions that were raised in the course of the discussion, there are matters of detail which I had better perhaps try to dispose of first. I should say that following the introduction of this Bill in the Dáil, a number of statements appeared in the Press which were entirely unauthorised and without foundation. Statements concerning the intention of the Government to import all the coal requirements of this country from the United States of America and other statements of that kind were the product of the imaginations of the journalists who wrote them and were not in any sense authorised by the Government nor inspired from any official quarter whatever. The manner in which the powers in the Bill will be utilised will be determined by circumstances and will arise either from the requirements of industry and agriculture at home or negotiations with other countries brought to a successful conclusion.

Senator Douglas raised the matter of the interpretation of sub-section (2), Section 2, which states that for the purpose of this Act, importations shall be deemed to take place when the importing conveyance is reported under the Customs Act. It is necessary to have some such provision of that kind in order to prevent a difficulty arising out of a case where a ship comes to a Saorstát port with a cargo of goods on board, which may be subject to an import order, but which are not consigned to a Saorstát destination, these goods being part of a cargo consigned to a port in another country. The ship may have to discharge other goods consigned here. If some such provision were not there, the owners of that ship would have broken the law when they entered the territorial limits of the Saorstát with these goods on board, even though it was not intended to discharge them at the port here. Similarly, a customs post on the Border may not be on the exact geographical border, but perhaps a mile or two inside the Border, and it might be deemed that there was a technical breach of the law if somebody brought prohibited goods into the country, even though he had to bring them into the country to report them to the customs station. I do not think that interpretation of the section which the Senator fears is likely to arise. There is ample power to inflict punishment on anyone who succeeds in smuggling goods into the country without reporting them.

Even if the goods are not dutiable?

In any event, it is the importation that is prohibited.

Well then, importation means a certain act.

The phrase that is used here is: "For the purposes of this Act importation shall be deemed to take place when the importing conveyance is reported under the Customs Act." The importation of goods that are subject to a quota order is prohibited except they are imported in accordance with the Act and under licence issued under the Act. The point raised by the Senator relates to the drafting of the Bill and, therefore, it can be considered before Committee Stage. The second point raised by the Senator related to sub-section (2) of Section 5. The effect of sub-section (2) is to empower the Revenue Commissioners to confiscate goods illegally imported, and I gathered that the Senator's point in that connection was that prohibited goods brought in after the quota order had been made were, in fact, imported unlawfully and, therefore, could be confiscated.

I think I made my point quite clear. My point related to the drafting and not to the principle at all. It had relation to the difficulty that arises because importation is deemed to take place when the goods are presented to the customs authorities. I wanted to make it clear that a person, when bringing in goods and having them stopped, was not liable to have them forfeited under the law.

I do not think that could arise under sub-section (2). Sub-section (1) of the same section says that it shall be unlawful to import goods, the importation of which is prohibited by a quota order, otherwise than under and in accordance with a licence issued under the Act. So that goods which are not being imported under a licence are not being imported lawfully.

My point was that the person without a licence may be placed in a difficulty. You have agents acting for you in such cases, mostly railway companies. In my own case, it frequently happens that goods consigned to me are presented to the customs before I have actual knowledge of the fact. That does arise often, and there is a difficulty in knowing exactly whether goods are subject to a particular rate of duty or not. The same difficulty may arise where the goods are goods the importation of which is prohibited under a quota order, and I want to make it clear that the person presenting them to the customs authorities is not liable to have them forfeited. My reading of Section 42 of the Act of 1876 is that they may become liable to forfeiture. When you go back to sub-section (2) of Section 2, you find that the goods are deemed to have been imported when an importing conveyance is reported under the Customs Acts. I want to make it clear that a person who presents them quite bona fide to the customs officials should not render himself liable to forfeiture of the goods.

I shall have the matter examined and we can discuss it more fully on the Committee Stage. A point of greater import raised by the Senator related to a question discussed at some length in the Dáil, namely, the difficulties that may arise for some traders who have goods in transit when a quota order is made and who might have some difficulty in importing these goods. I want to state frankly the difficulties so that Senators can appreciate them in considering the possibility of amending the Bill. We are anxious that goods in transit, in the ordinary course of business, should be allowed in, and that no difficulties should be created for traders by the making of a quota order which would involve them in loss arising out of orders placed in a bona fide manner before, the date of the quota order. The method we have devised of meeting with that situation is to give a discretion to the Minister of a wide kind to license imports of any goods the subject of a quota order for a period of six weeks following the making of the order. Certain goods may be in transit for a longer period than six weeks, and because of that difficulty may arise in connection with such goods.

On the one hand, there is considerable objection to extending the period of six weeks for obvious reasons. On the other hand, there is the fact that at the end of the six weeks' period there are very clearly defined regulations which govern the issue of licences and traders might find that they could not, in fact, under the law, get a licence for the particular consignment they had in transit. I think we can get over the difficulty in respect of goods that may be in transit for a longer period than six weeks by an arrangement made in connection with the first quota period. Where goods of that kind are concerned I contemplate that the first quota period will be of short duration and the quota fixed for the period will be on the generous side, so that anybody who wants a licence to import goods need not go without it. The duration of the period, and the quota to be fixed, can be matters for discussion during the six weeks' period with the interested parties. It may be said that a section could be put into the Bill authorising the Minister to give a licence automatically for any goods in transit on the date on which the quota order was made. The objection, however, to that is that the making of the quota order may be the direct result of knowledge that has come to the Government that these goods were in transit. If information leaks out that a certain industry is going to be established here and that it may be protected by a customs duty, or the making of a quota order, persons very frequently try to forestall the intentions of the Government by importing goods in considerable quantities. It would be unwise to put the Minister in the position that he would be compelled to issue licences for the importation of goods imported in that manner after the making of the quota order when, in fact, the quota order was mainly designed to ensure that they would not come in, except in limited quantities.

I gave in the Dáil the example of pottery. As Senators are aware, a pottery industry is being established in the Saorstát. Information to that effect reached a newspaper which published it. In the two or three weeks that followed the publication of the report not merely were considerable quantities of pottery imported but information came that very large quantities had been ordered and were being brought into the country as quickly as possible in anticipation of tariffs being imposed. Under the existing powers for the imposition of duties by emergency order, a very high rate was imposed on pottery imported into the country, with a licensing provision under which we are permitting normal quantities to come in until we are able to supply our requirements. If this Bill were on the statute book at the time that that emergency customs duty order was made we would have preferred to have acted under this Bill and made a quota order. It would be preferable to do so from many points of view, not merely from the point of view of the Government but also from that of importers who would then be in the position that they would know the precise manner in which licences were to be applied for and the regulations under which they were to be issued. But at present there is a complete discretion in the issue of licences. It is true that licences are being issued in precisely the same manner as they would be issued if the Bill were on the statute book, but it is not always easy to convince traders of that fact. If an application for a licence for a large amount is refused, they frequently think that they are being harshly treated. I would be very anxious to dispel any such ideas by having an operation of that kind carried on with the fullest possible publicity. That is the difficulty, and I cannot see any way out of it except the method envisaged in this Bill. I will be very glad to consider any suggestion made in that connection.

There was another point of interpretation raised by Senator Douglas relating to paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 2 in connection with the phrase "a person born in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now comprised in Saorstát Eireann." A person born in Saorstát Eireann is a person who was born in the area now comprised in the Saorstát after the establishment of Saorstát Eireann, and a person born in the area is a person born in the Saorstát prior to the establishment of the Saorstát. There is the possibility that persons born in the Six Counties after the establishment of Saorstát Eireann, but before the Six Counties opted out, may come within the definition. However, I do not think that need cause us any embarrassment for some years to come.

Senator Johnson also raised some points of interpretation. The descriptions of goods under quota orders will be in the same form as they are in respect to customs duties. There is frequently considerable difficulty in getting a description of goods which will cover certain classes of goods and exclude other classes. In that connection, if difficulties arise, we will have to face them as and when they do arise. But the type of description which will be utilised will be similar to that now used in finance legislation. I agree that there are many classes of goods in respect of which quota orders would be completely impracticable. I gave, as an example yesterday, machinery. One could not quota machinery under any system. I do not think one could even quota particular classes of machinery like grain-milling or textile machinery. On the one hand there is such a great diversity of machinery possible within any definition, and on the other hand the importation of machinery fluctuates so considerably that a quota system would be completely impracticable. A quota system can really only be applied to goods which are imported in considerable quantities, more or less continuously, and which permit of a general description being applied to them.

Senator Johnson raised a question with regard to the provision in Section 4 requiring that quota orders must be approved by the Dáil, and not by the Dáil and Seanad. I have explained that one of the reasons why this Bill is necessary, in fact the main reason why it is necessary, is because we desire to replace for the existing system of regulating imports by licences a more orderly system such as is envisaged by this Bill. Under it we secure the control of imports quantitatively. The present system is within the control of the Dáil. The Bill merely improves upon a method of doing something which is being done at the moment. There is, however, another consideration. Whether any Government that is in office has or has not a majority in this House is very largely a matter of chance. A Government must, of course, command a majority in the Dáil. I think it was at one time contemplated that the ordinary party divisions would not exist here, but that has not quite materialised. It is very desirable that it should be generally known that when a quota order is made it represents Government policy in relation to the classes of goods concerned: that people should have reason to believe that that policy is going to persist so long as the Government remains in office. The Government may lose its majority in the Dáil. It may be defeated on the resolution confirming a particular quota order. In these circumstances an entirely new situation arises, but so long as the Government is responsible for national policy it is desirable that there should be confidence in its ability to implement its policy. That applies particularly where matters relating to trade and commerce are concerned.

There are a number of industrial propositions under consideration at the moment all of which will largely depend on the passage of this Bill and of the intentions of the Government to utilise the powers conferred by it in order to regulate imports during the development stages of these industries. If there were any doubts in the minds of those proposing to invest capital in these industries, in some cases the amounts involved are very substantial, and as to the ability of the Government to secure the continuous operation of an order made under this Bill there would naturally be considerable reluctance on their part to proceed until that doubt had been removed. The situation which exists at present is likely to continue to exist, no matter what Government is in office, except chance should give that Government a majority in this House as well as in the other House. For that reason I felt that it was desirable that the Bill should provide for the confirmation of orders by Dáil Eireann. Otherwise, it is inevitable that this Government or any other Government would be tempted to proceed under the old method of imposing a high rate of duty and of regulating imports under a licensing system rather than under this Bill. That is something which, in my opinion, would be undesirable.

Would the Minister deal with a matter that I overlooked in connection with Section 4? If he does, it may avoid a good deal of discussion on the Committee Stage. Would the Minister explain why he is debarring the Executive Council from making a new quota order if, perchance, the first quota order has been revoked by its own action or by the non-action of the Dáil? It seems to me that sub-section (3) of the section is making it impossible for the Executive Council, whether the original Executive Council that imposed the first order or its successor, even in new circumstances arising out of new conditions of trade, to impose a second quota order in any circumstances.

That section is designed to prevent the Executive Council dodging the Dáil by making a quota order which it believed would be unpopular in that House and revoking it after the expiration of the five months, then making a new order to the same effect and doing that indefinitely. Under the section as it stands if the Executive Council revokes an order without having it considered in the Dáil it cannot make a similar order to the same effect without new legislation. If, however, it gets an order approved by the Dáil and then revokes it, it can make a similar order again at some later date. But if an order has not been approved of by the Dáil and it ceases to have effect on that account then the Executive Council cannot make a new order to the same effect, thereby defeating the wishes of the Dáil, without new legislation.

How will this affect orders in which errors are found?

There is no provision for that. An order is made bringing certain descriptions of goods subject to the Act. That is the quota order. The only error that would arise would be. perhaps, in the description of the goods, and in that connection it is clear that a new order made would not deal with the same description of goods.

The words of the sub-section are "substantially the same."

I think the only course for the Executive Council in such a case would be to go to the Dáil, which had given its approval to the original resolution, with a view to seeking revocation of it and have a new order made. I may say, as a member of the Executive Council, that I would not object if that section were taken out altogether.

Does it not bind the Executive Council too much? It not only prevents the present Executive but its successor from acting under the Act.

I wonder would the Minister accept an amendment?

The matter can be considered in Committee. I think I should now deal with the more general questions raised in discussion.

I mentioned a specific question that the Minister overlooked with regard to a branch firm in Northern Ireland.

It is clear they are not covered. Companies not registered in the Saorstát but with branch houses here are not covered in any paragraph of Section 7 (2) unless in the case where the manager of the concern is a national of the Saorstát and could arrange to have the licences issued in his own name. It is a matter I would like to consider to see whether it is possible to alter the provisions of the Bill. The main reason for having such a section is to ensure that applications for licences will only come from people with business interests in the Saorstát, and that we would not have to deal with applications from people who were never in the country, and who have no concern in it. I have explained that the Bill has no direct bearing on the economic war position. As Senator Douglas pointed out, it is correct to say that the development of trade with countries other than Great Britain has nothing to do with the economic war at all. It is something desirable in any event, but in present-day conditions, when such trade has to be opened up and continued, it is necessary for the State to be equipped with the powers contemplated by the Bill, because every other State has them. Trade agreements now being made between different countries are all, as a rule, based on the exchange of definite quantities of specified goods. In the absence of these powers here it would be difficult to effect a satisfactory trade arrangement of the nature which European or other countries are now in the habit of making. The powers in the Bill can be used also to open up trade possibilities in a manner which the present system does not permit of.

Senator Sir John Keane criticised the section of the Bill which enables a condition to be attached to a licence that goods must be imported by a specific route. One would assume that under ordinary commercial conditions and with the free play of competition, uneconomic elements would be eliminated from trade and that goods would come to this country by the cheapest possible means. In practice that has not resulted because not merely is there Government interference with the free play of trade, but there are international combinations, cartels and monopolies and in respect of many classes of goods it is completely untrue to say that they are reaching this country under present conditions by the most economic routes. That is not happening. In many cases they are reaching this country by routes which are entirely uneconomic and representations have been frequently made by traders, manufacturers and others that the Government should take some action to eliminate these uneconomic elements. I need not here specify any class of goods but Senators, no doubt, can think of many goods which are imported to Great Britain, warehoused there and then exported to this country. The price which we pay includes not merely warehousing but British commission agents' fees and not merely British agents but there are frequently concerned in the transaction the agents of other countries. Some classes of goods do not reach here until they have passed through four or five hands even where direct importation is justified having regard to the volume of imports. There is another consideration which I should mention. There are many countries with which we might be in the position to do an export trade if we can get satisfactory shipping freights. Our inability to get satisfactory shipping freights arises from the fact that there are no return cargoes to offer. Under existing methods many classes of the goods we import come via other countries. It may be possible to open up new trade by ensuring that there will be full cargoes inwards and outwards by the use of the powers given by this Bill. I do not say that these powers are likely to be used in more than one or two exceptional cases, but it is considered desirable to have these powers so that any possibility of using them can be availed of.

Senator Sir John Keane spoke as a respectable and orthodox economist. So far as I have been able to discover a respectable and orthodox economist is one who is 50 years out of date. In fact, in the mind of some people nothing becomes respectable or orthodox until it is 50 years old. Respectable and orthodox scientists were still proving the earth was flat long after some adventurous explorers had sailed around it. Every country in the world is equipped with powers similar to those we propose to have in this Bill. Disarmament is a subject of international controversy at present but very few nations have decided to give an example by disarming first, and in the economic strife going on we are not likely to gain by merely setting an example of disarmament. As the only disarmed nation in the midst of others all equipped with powers to control their economic activities and to protect themselves, we would be likely to suffer. We merely propose to secure for ourselves the minimum of armament to enable us to protect our own interests. It is perhaps open to say that the trend of events is towards economic dictatorship. The economic dictatorship to which Senator Sir John Keane referred exists in a number of European countries at present. The executives of these countries have got wide powers to regulate economic activities in all respects and are using these powers very considerably. A somewhat similar situation exists in the United States of America. I do not think it is possible to avoid that. The period of laissez faire is past and the tendency is for more and more State regulation of economic activities. That may be good or bad. It is impossible to avoid it, if under present conditions any single nation is to protect its position. We have not got to the point of establishing in this country anything which could be properly called dictatorship. In all the legislation which has been enacted the power of the Legislature is preserved and over the greater part of the field of economic activities there is still free play for individual enterprise and very little Government interference. It is true that in the national interest certain economic activities have had to be controlled and regulated, but a mere recital of the different Acts passed and the regulations made merely tends to conceal that the greater number of our economic activities are still uncontrolled. The fact has been the subject of public criticism. Senators who read the newspapers know that various speeches have been made by people interested in economic activities, and that resolutions have been passed by different trades and kindred organisations, in which the demand is always for more and more regulation, and the Government is continually on the defensive in justifying its refusal to adopt some form of regulation which individuals or groups of individuals are demanding.

Senator Sir John Keane described the policy of the Government as an example of some kind of Chinese torture which consisted in killing an enemy by cutting him by 1,000 slices. I think the Senator misunderstood the position. I would describe the policy of the Government as a method for securing the recovery of the patient by regular doses. The Senator asked what proof there was that the policy of the Government is producing beneficial results. I could produce a whole host of statistics which would seem to prove that the policy of the Government has produced substantial beneficial results. No doubt someone else could produce statistics to prove the contrary. The main consideration, however, that arises when that question is asked, is the extent to which the policy now in operation has produced better results than any alternative policy possibly might produce. Senator Sir John Keane made the amazing assertion that this country might be better off and more prosperous if the policy of the Government was reversed and if there was complete or almost complete freedom of trade in all directions.

Did I say that? I did not mean to do so. I intended to say that if the policy of the Government's predecessors was continued, and if we were to work towards national self-sufficiency more slowly and in a more deliberate way it would be more correct.

If the attitude of the Senator is that the policy is right "but not yet," it is understandable, but in my opinion it is unwise. If it is desirable to secure these results here then the sooner we secure them the better. I submit, in fact, that we have not been moving too fast. My feeling in the matter is that we have been moving too slowly, and that the situation that exists here would require even greater activity than has been shown up to the present. It may not be possible to do that having regard to our system of government and to our system of public administration and a variety of other matters. The urgent needs of the country for industrial development and for a reorganisation of the agricultural system so as to keep in conformity with modern conditions is, I think, obvious. The number of people employed has increased. The available statistics prove that. It is true, of course, that the population of this country has also increased. Emigration has stopped. I pointed out in the Dáil that if we had had since 1927 until the last year emigration at the same rate as in 1926, the population of the country would be more than 150,000 less. That is an important consideration having regard to the fact that those who might have emigrated are mainly young people between 18 and 25, and also that they live in areas in which it is very difficult to provide new employment. They are mainly in the west and south, and it is not very easy to provide in these areas either industrial activity or employment of another kind which would absorb their labour. They constitute the unemployment problem in this country, and the whole plan of the Government must be to secure, not merely the development of economical activities so as to absorb those who were unemployed on the date we came into office, but also the number of other people who might have emigrated during this and other years, but remained at home believing that they would have a better chance of getting a livelihood here than could be obtained abroad.

Has the Minister attempted to take any account of the unrecorded emigration to Great Britain? My opinion is that it is very substantial.

That may be so, and one must take that into account, but the fact is that the population has shown that definite increase, so far as the Registrar General has been able to measure it. What our unemployment really is we shall know shortly. There have been all sorts of arguments based on the unemployment register figures. Some people have used those figures to show that unemployment was never worse, and others have used it to show that employment was never better but, as soon as the unemployment assistance scheme comes into operation, we shall have a very accurate figure, indeed, because it may be assumed that every person who can qualify under that Bill is going to claim the unemployment assistance available to him. You will have, therefore, statistics made available arising out of the operation of the measure, which will give a clear picture of the number, the geographical location and the degree of destitution of all the unemployed persons in the country.

You will get a shock.

Up to the present we have been astonished that the number of applications for assistance has been far short of our own anticipations. We have been forced to advertise in the Press that the assistance is available to ensure that all those that are eligible will apply. I saw where the Daily Express stated some days ago that every male and half the females in West Cork had applied for unemployment assistance. I got a shock when I saw that, and I got out the exact figures. I found that 1,150 applications had been received from the whole constituency.

I agree entirely with Senator Sir John Keane that the success of the economic policy of the Government depends upon the ability of the people to consume the goods produced here by our industries and by agriculture. There is, I submit, no evidence of any falling off in the ability of the people to consume goods. I know that individual cases of hardship can be adduced —the farmer in Ennis who had not got tea for ten days and the case referred to by Senator Miss Browne—but similar cases can be found in every community at certain times. Last year's statistics showed that there had been an increase in the importation of tea. Recent statistics show that the imports of tea have increased and not only imports of tea but imports of other commodities of the same kind, the consumption of which is usually taken as an index to national prosperity. Nobody pretends—I should be the last to pretend—that the economic conditions existing in this country are all that could be desired. They are not. They are bad. They are so bad that the Government has been forced to take almost revolutionary steps in an effort to improve them. The one claim we do make is that they are improving and all the available economic indices point to the fact that they are improving. But we have a long way to go before any member of the Government, or any member of the Government Party, will be satisfied with the conditions.

Does the Minister assert that the conditions of the farmer are improving?

I had intended to deal with the position of the farmers in my concluding remarks. The worst possible service that Senator Counihan, or anyone else, can do the farmers is to pretend that the quota system for cattle instituted in Great Britain arises out of the economic war and will disappear with the termination of the economic war. Senator Miss Browne has said that. I am not going to take the word of Senator Miss Browne for that. I do not believe that she has any inside information. In the absence of proof to the contrary, I am going to accept the word of the British Minister of Agriculture, who made it clear that the institution of a quota system for cattle had nothing whatever to do with the dispute between Great Britain and this country and who made that clear in a manner which suggested that he was thinking of the economic war terminating at some time and was ensuring that, with the termination of the economic dispute, this quota system was not going to end.

Why is there not a quota with Canada?

The position is that the Canadian Government has a treaty with Great Britain which ensures for it certain privileges. The British Minister of Agriculture has made it quite clear that he regards that treaty, and certain other treaties made at Ottawa, as utterly unholy things which must be brought to an end as soon as possible. He has not been able to secure their legal termination earlier-than the date mentioned in the treaties but he has been able to ensure that the same result would, in fact, be achieved by a restriction of exports from Canada to Great Britain as might have been achieved by a quota. Senators may believe that the British Minister of Agriculture was only humbugging when he made that speech in the British Parliament. They will find it difficult to convince us of that, because the quotas fixed for this country have not been unfair. We have no real ground of complaint as regards the quotas. In so far as the quota system, necessary for the implementation of the policy of the British Government, has been brought into operation, in allocating amongst the different countries quotas in respect of bacon or any other goods, we have had no occasion to complain that we have been unfairly treated. It is true that goods sent from here under quota orders have also to pay the emergency duties but that is another problem.

Does the Minister assert that the import of chilled meat into Great Britain is reduced by half?

I think that the British Government is beginning to find out that its policy in respect of meat products is not working out as it intended. There may be a change of policy in that regard, but that is not the point with which I am dealing. The point I am making is that, in fact, as regards the quantities of goods that may be imported under quota orders from this country and other countries, we have had no reason to complain. We have been treated in precisely the same manner and on the same principles as any other country has been treated.

Would the Minister agree that we should have better terms than other countries as we are the largest purchasers of British goods, with the exception of India?

As, at some stage, there may be negotiations between Great Britain and ourselves for a trade treaty, I must agree fully with what the Senator has said. Under present circumstances, we cannot dispose of all the cattle we are capable of producing and are producing. That is the fact. There is no use in deploring that fact. Obviously, the wise thing to do at the present time is to ensure that the dislocation which arises from that fact is not going to continue into the future. That is the explanation of the announcement in this morning's paper of the intention of the Government to pay a bounty on calf-skins exported. That is to ensure that production will be kept down to the level at which it is possible to dispose of the goods produced. If we can increase the markets abroad—no matter where they are—for our agricultural or industrial products, we shall increase production. But if we must contract the volume of any class of goods which we export and cannot increase the consumption of those goods at home, we have, obviously, to decrease production. While there is more difficulty in doing that in relation to agricultural products than there is in relation to industrial products, nevertheless, it is time that steps to that end were being taken. They are being taken. It is not the policy of the Government to destroy the cattle trade. The policy of the Government is to try to make the cattle trade a profitable one by keeping the organisation of the trade here in proper relationship to existing market conditions.

What is going to be done with the increased tillage?

I do not claim to be an agricultural expert, but I do know that tillage continuously declined over a number of years while cattle exports were increasing. I know that, in 1931, the acreage under tillage was the lowest on record, and that since then it has gone up.

That is all wrong.

Those are the statistics. No doubt the Department of Industry and Commerce has cooked them.

The more tillage the more cattle.

The farmers were buying maize instead of growing turnips.

We have a lot of agricultural experts.

The land annuities were referred to. I take it that there is no necessity to go into that question but I think it is time, in order to preserve the decencies of public life, that such terms as "dishonesty", "dishonest action" and "pilfering of the annuities" should cease to be used. It is inconceivable that a member of the British Parliament would use similar phrases in relation to the failure of the British Government to pay its war debt to America or that a member of the French Parliament would use such phrases to describe the failure of the French Government to do likewise.

There is no analogy.

The Senator and others might consider the advisability of describing whatever ideas they have on that subject in some other form.

The Minister did not explain the point about which I was puzzled—why the Government cannot work under the ordinary tariff system. Why not put on a reasonable tariff to protect the manufacturer and let imports come in freely?

I shall deal with that. Where an industry which exists in the Saorstát is capable of supplying nearly all the requirements of the Saorstát in the class of goods it produces and is capable of developing rapidly to the point at which it will be able to supply all our requirements, the simplest method of affording protection to that industry is to impose a customs duty and leave the situation at that. Where it is desired to establish a new industry or where an existing industry is only capable of supplying a small part of our requirements and needs protection for development, then the customs duty does not always work fairly because it means that a considerable quantity of goods must be imported and either duty paid upon these goods or else a licensing system operated in respect of that customs duty. In some cases we have allowed the customs duty to operate, even though we know goods must be imported and duty paid. In other cases we have imposed a customs duty but we have operated a licensing clause. That is working all right. In my opinion, it is working quite satisfactorily but one or two persons have made statements to the contrary. That is a system which is completely at the discretion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. As the law stands, he can, in the most arbitrary fashion, grant a licence to one person and refuse it to another or impose any condition he likes on any of these licences. That is not being done. In fact, these licences are being administered by a branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce which is acting upon general regulations laid down for them. Consequently, they are acting in a manner precisely similar to the way in which they would act under this Bill if it became law. But everybody is not convinced of that. There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction and a certain amount of suspicion that undue influence is being used to get licences where they should not be issued. I am anxious to get rid of that whole atmosphere by substituting for it a system defined by law, a system which prescribes the precise manner in which a person shall apply for a licence and his rights in respect of a licence. That is what we are proposing to do under this Bill. I do not say that it will be necessary at once, in every case where there is a licensing provision, to substitute for the customs duty in operation a quota order, but we would tend to move in that direction and to operate under this Bill, in respect of any new provisions of the same kind, in preference to operating under a licensing provision.

A number of these licensing provisions were inserted for a different purpose—to meet the difficulty of definition. Very frequently, the only definition that could be devised brought within its scope goods of a class which it was not intended to make subject to a duty but which could not be separately defined in a manner which would enable a Customs officer easily to distinguish them. The licensing provisions were used to get over that difficulty. Licences are used for getting over that difficulty, because under a licence you can do what it is not possible to do in an Act of Parliament, that is you can describe goods by their names or by the names of their manufacturers, which is the usual system of description used in trade circles. In certain cases it is easier to protect industry by customs duties; in other cases it is easier by the quantitative restriction of imports, such as is contemplated in this Bill. In respect to a certain class of goods, one cannot protect them under this Bill, because the quota system does not suit. There are others of a different class. There are goods against which it is very difficult to afford protection by customs duties, and for which quotas are required. These are cases that we are now trying to deal with by the imposition of minimum duties, where goods are imported without any consideration for price, and with the object of selling them at any price. In such cases as those an ad valorem duty system is of no value. We tried to meet the case by imposing duties; it was not satisfactory. The aim was to secure that any quantities that were considered reasonable should come in and all others should be excluded. The adoption of this is to support, and not to replace the system of protection by tariffs.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 20th March, 1934.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.5 p.m. to Tuesday, 20th March, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share