Government amendment No. 1:—
Section 4, sub-section (2). To delete in line 27 the words "Dáil Eireann," and also the words "and Seanad Eireann" inserted in Committee, and to substitute therefor the words "each House of the Oireachtas."
Control of Imports Bill, 1934—Report.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be considered on Report."
Cathaoirleach
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
Section 4, sub-section (3). After the word "Eireann" in line 31 to insert the words "An Seanad Eireann."
I second.
This is consequential on the other amendment. I omitted to introduce an amendment to both subsections where one should be inserted. I think this amendment should be inserted in the same form as the other, and I accordingly submit it.
Section 4. In sub-section (3), page 3, line 31, to delete the words "Dáil Eireann" and substitute the words "each House of the Oireachtas."
Cathaoirleach
This renders Senator Counihan's amendment unnecessary.
Amendment No. 2 (Senator Counihan), by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 3:—
Section 4, sub-section (3). To delete in lines 32-33 the words "it shall not be lawful for the Executive Council to make a quota order" and to substitute therefor the words "no quota order subsequently made by the Executive Council."
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are designed to give effect to the same intention as Senator Douglas has in amendment No. 5 Senator Johnson tried to meet this by another amendment, which he withdrew on the Committee Stage. As the Bill stands, if the Executive Council makes an Order under the Act and revokes that Order before submitting it to the Oireachtas or if, on submitting it to the Oireachtas, it is not approved of by the Oireachtas, then no similar order can be made by the Executive Council in future. It was felt that that was too restrictive. The effect of the amendment is to provide that no similar order can be made without first having been approved of by the Oireachtas so that the situation, therefore, will be: if an Order is made and revoked or not approved of by the Oireachtas, a similar order can be made in the future only if, before being made, it is approved of by the Oireachtas. The amendment provides that it shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which it was approved.
These two amendments quite fit the intention that I had in putting down my amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 4:—
Section 4, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "shall have effect until it has been approved of by each House of the Oireachtas by resolution, and every such order shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been made when it has been so approved."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 (Senator Johnson) not moved.
Cathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 6:—
Section 6, sub-section (2). To delete in line 61 the words "fourteen days" and substitute therefor the words "one month."
This is an amendment to increase from 14 days to one month the period mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 6, which relates to the actual fixation of the quota period and the period for the quota. It is felt that the 14 days is not sufficiently long, having regard to the fact that within those 14 days all applications for licences under the quota must be made and dealt with. It is proposed, therefore, to increase the period of 14 days to one month, and the period mentioned in Section 9 from seven days to 14 days.
Amendment agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 7:—
Section 7, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
(e) a company, not registered or incorporated under the laws of Saorstát Eireann, which has a place of business in Saorstát Eireann and has, curing at least the five consecutive years next preceding the establishment of the said register, carried on the business of importing into Saorstát Eireann goods to which the relevant quota order applies.
This amendment is designed to meet a point that was raised on the Committee Stage by Senator Guinness and Senator Douglas. It provides for the issue of a licence to companies not registered in the Saorstát but which have places of business established here and which have been engaged in the business of importing goods into the Saorstát for not less than five years.
I desire to thank the Minister for introducing this amendment. It meets a difficulty that I anticipated might arise and I am obliged to him.
I think the Minister is confining this amendment too narrowly. It gives a company certain concessions, as requested, but it would not allow a partnership or individual to have the same privileges in this respect. I do not like the idea that a company, formed under the provisions of the Limited Companies Acts and in the manner in which many of them are formed in these days, either to get the money of the gullible people or to evade the intentions and purposes of a statute, should be put in a privileged position as compared with old-established partnerships or individually owned businesses. A company which is not registered in the Saorstát—it may be established in, say, Northern Ireland. England or Germany—but which has a place of business in the Saorstát for five years will have this privilege, but if the business is a partnership of two men, or of three or four men, and not a company, it will not have this privilege, nor will an individually owned business have it. I think we should not agree, without fully understanding the position, to give that kind of business association, called a company, privileges which are denied to individually owned businesses and partnerships. I do not know whether the Minister intends that there should be that denial of right to partnerships and individually owned businesses, but the form of the amendment does undoubtedly deny such a right, and gives a privilege to an imitation company or a camouflaged company that may exist. In many respects such a company may be, and probably is, entitled to this right, but surely it is not more entitled to it than a partnership or an individually owned business, and I hope the Minister will at least extend the concession to cover that kind of undertaking.
The difficulty that was referred to on the Committee Stage only arose in the case of companies. An individual who has a place of business here and has been resident here for five years is already provided for under the Bill. A partnership that has a place of business here, the members of which have been resident here for five years, is also provided for in the Bill. The Bill also covers any person engaged in manufacture or any company registered here. On the Committee Stage reference was made to the case of a company not registered here but which had a place of business established here and which had been engaged in business here for not less than five years. The amendment is intended to cover that particular case only. I do not see that it is necessary to extend the amendment in the way that Senator Johnson suggests having regard to the fact that an individual in the same position as a company is already secured the same rights under the Bill as drafted.
I do not know whether I will be in order in proceeding a little further on the matter.
Cathaoirleach
I should like to allow you, Senator.
An individual who is a national and has a place of business in Saorstát Eireann may secure a licence but if an individual is not a national, lives in Northern Ireland, and has a place of business in the Saorstát he is not entitled; a partnership carrying on a business where more than half the capital is held by a person who is a national of Saorstát Eireann and who has a place of business in Saorstát Eireann or a partnership, of which two or more individuals, each of whom is a national, have a place of business here—that partnership is entitled to be placed on the register of importers. A company which is registered in the Saorstát and a person carrying on a manufacturing undertaking in the Saorstát are also entitled. Now the amendment comes along and says that a company neither registered nor incorporated under the laws of Saorstát Eireann but with a place of business here for five years has a right to be placed on the register. If instead of five persons or seven persons formed into a company under the laws of Saorstát Eireann to get over some provision in any of the Bills that have been passed, there comes forward a trading organisation known as a partnership and not a company, all of whose members live in Northern Ireland or England but who have carried on for 25 years in the Free State, they are not entitled to be placed on the register under this section. I think the Minister indicated that all they would have to do would be to form a company and it would only require a little manoeuvring to have it placed on the register. I think it undesirable that we should lay an obligation on any well-established undertaking to follow that course of action for the purpose of getting on the register. All I am asking is that a partnership should be given the same rights and privileges as a company. I have a feeling that the Companies Acts are being taken advantage of by people who are not at all as worthy of respect as the old partnerships, and I don't think we should go out of our way to give special preference to the company over the old partnerships.
I think the Senator has misunderstood the proposal. The Bill is drawn up expressly to prevent nonresidents qualifying for entry on the register of importers. That is a necessary safeguard, having regard to the provisions of the Bill. It is for that reason that sub-section (2) of Section 7 was inserted, to confine entry to persons resident here, and that will include partnerships of which more than half the capital is beneficially owned by a national of Saorstát Eireann, companies registered here or persons engaged in manufacture. Because of the cases which were referred to, it has been decided to extend that to cover companies not registered here but which have businesses established for at least five years, but it would be going much further than that to bring in individuals not resident here even though they are engaged in business. I think it is undesirable that we should extend the Bill that far, as it would be detrimental to the interests of our own nationals who are engaged on business if the register of importers were to be unduly inflated. The more on the register the smaller the proportion of the quota each licence will obtain. In the case of persons who are not members of a partnership or who are not engaged in business here, we are not asking them to engage in any manoeuvring, but we are asking them to adopt a course constituting certain safeguards for this country and those engaged in the same business, and it is a safeguard necessary in the circumstances.
The company idea could be safeguarded as well as that of partnership.
Amendment agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 8:—
Section 7, sub-section (3) Before, the word "imported" in line 58 to insert the word "not."
This amendment was designed to correct an error in the phraseology owing to the word "not" having been put in the wrong place.
Amendment agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 9:—
Section 7, sub-section (3). To delete in line 60 the word "not."
The reason for this is similar.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 10:—
Section 8, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) If and so far as an application for a licence under this section relates to goods which were actually consigned and in course of transit to the applicant at the commencement of the preliminary period, the Minister shall issue a licence under this section but only for so much of the said goods as will, in the opinion of the Minister, meet the reasonable requirements of the applicants.
This amendment is designed to meet a point raised in Committee and to achieve the same purpose as an amendment moved by Senator Douglas on the Committee Stage. It provides that where an application is made for a licence for goods that are actually consigned and in course of transit the Minister shall issue the licence for so much of the goods as in his opinion will meet the reasonable requirements of the applicant. The aim is to meet the difficulty of persons who have prohibited goods in course of transit at the time the order prohibiting the importation was made. It provides that a licence shall be issued but as a necessary safeguard against large scale dumping it is provided that the quantity of goods in respect of which the licence shall be issued shall not be more than what the Minister thinks is necessary to meet the importer's reasonable requirements.
Amendment agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 11:—
Section 9, sub-section (1). To delete in line 18 the word "seven" and to substitute therefor the word "fourteen."
This effects the change to which reference was made in the course of the discussion. It increases from seven to 14 days the period prior to the commencement of the quota period in which applications for licences must be made.
Amendment agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 12:—
Section 9, sub-section (1). After the word "order" in line 19 to insert the words "or in the case of an application in relation to an additional quota, within fourteen days after the fixing of such additional quota."
As the Bill stands, an application for a licence to import goods under an additional quota which might be provided for during the course of the quota period, must be made before the commencement of the quota period. This is also an indefinite arrangement and the effect is to provide that if an additional quota is provided for during a quota period application for licence to import under the additional quota will be made within 14 days after the additional quota has been fixed.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question:—"That the Bill do now pass."
I should like to make some remarks of a general character in the hope that the House may receive assurances from the Minister before the Bill passes. Since the Second Reading I have been at some pains to make inquiries outside as to the possible effects of this measure, and I must admit that my original apprehensions are not wholly allayed. I must also confess I am not very familiar with what the Minister might call the underworld of economics which is involved in this measure and all of which is working towards the blessed goal of self-sufficiency. But on the special aspect of the quota I should like to place a further consideration before the House. According to the Minister's statement a quota works in two ways. One is to admit under quota such articles as are not made in country and the other is to regulate the country from which the articles shall be imported. I am dealing only with the first aspect. Take it in general terms. We are producing 50 per cent, of a certain article or adjudged to be producing 50 per cent. and the other 50 per cent. is to be put under quota order. Those who desire to import—I am putting it in lay terms—make application for permission to import and if the total of that application is in excess of the amount permitted, the licences are alloted pro tanto that the total shall not be in excess of the quota. I see the Minister making a note and, therefore, assume that I am incorrect. In considering these applications the Minister will have regard to the merits of the various applicants. Presumably, the ordinary method by which he will adjudge them is by their previous trade. Those who have been longest in business and are oldest established will get greater consideration than those who have come recently into the business and cannot show the same following. I suggest that that is anti-democratic—I am sure Senator Johnson will warm to that word. The vested interests are being given certain privileges. The corollary of that is that enterprise is being handicapped —young or ambitious persons who wish to get into the trade are handicapped if those old established are given larger quotas by virtue of their older established connection. What is likely to happen in those considerations? Those who have got the quota orders and permits, not wanting them, may do with them very much what Senator Counihan has said is done with the pieces of yellow paper—given out to the highest bidder. An exporter applies for a permit to export cattle. Weary of waiting he sells the cattle and in the end he gets one permit whereas he wanted 20. Having got this document he is not going to throw it in the fire. To my knowledge, one was sold for £2 10s. and when he showed it to me first he thought he would get £4. That is all very interesting in view of the contention that the home market is as good as the English market and that we are not suffering by virtue of the loss of that market. I am bringing this specially to the notice of Senator Quirke.
If the Senator would put up a serious suggestion of a better system of managing the licences than they are being managed at present I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture would be very thankful to him.
I quoted that instance rather as an illustration of what is going to happen in the opposite direction. These licences will have a certain negotiable value. It is not a desirable state of affairs to set up but I merely quoted it as an example of the clogging effect on the freedom of trade and enterprise. We do not hear very much complaint in the open from manufacturers and those generally in business as to the effect of all these restrictions. I think the answer is fairly simple. Those in business see that they are given a closed market and where they see the elimination of wide world competition and the hope of being able—for want of a better word I would say—pretty well to hold the consumer to whatever price they like to make. Competition is largely eliminated and the worries and anxieties of business largely removed where the consumer is put in the position of having to hold the baby. That is inevitable under this system.
That is inevitable in this whole system, and though they do not talk about it, manufacturers, on the whole, are very happy at present, because they have a closed market, being able to make profits, and have a wider margin there than they ever had before. I suggest to the House that there is a very serious reaction in this system, and that it will be felt more and more in the increased cost of living, the only protection offered being the Prices Commission. It is not necessary to have much intelligence to realise what very inadequate protection that is. It must be slow and amateurish, and by the time complaints are investigated, something else will be on. Those who wish to make large profits at the expense of consumers will be years ahead of the Prices Commission. I suggest that it is a very dangerous state of affairs. For that reason I am not opposing the Second Reading, but I wish to make these general remarks because I feel very alarmed at the portents in the whole of the economic policy, and more especially in the Bill before the House.
From one angle this Bill will be of immense help to people who are now shut out from their old markets, either because of currency or other restrictions. Many of these countries supply us with a great deal of raw material, but we can sell nothing to them. Our main imports of wheat, maize, cocoa and coffee come from countries that buy practically nothing from us, and, with present conditions of trade here, with our main market in England nearly closed down, or left practically unremunerative, the Government must make use of this Bill to get for people here some new markets. I do not say that these markets will ever be as good as the old markets, hut I am sure they will be "Paddy-The-Next-Best-Thing." I am sure the Minister and the Government will administer the Bill with that end in view. If so, it will not do any harm, at any rate.
I do not like to have a discussion on the economic war now, but I would like to say that Senator Sir John Keane's estimate of the value of licences is not correct, being very much under the estimate. It goes to show the value of the market that nobody could take from us, when a licence is worth £3 10s. to £4. Can the Minister explain why we have not got a bigger quota from Germany for the present year, considering that the imports from Germany for 1933 were greater by about £450,000 than in 1932? I understand that representations have been made and, if so, I would like to have an explanation.
The procedure laid down by the Bill is that where the total quantity of goods for which licences are applied exceeds the quota, first consideration has to be given to persons who are ordinarily engaged in the business of importing these goods. From the administrative point of view it would be much simpler to provide for a pro rata reduction of all applications so as to have the aggregate within the quota but it was felt that that would be unfair, and that such a practice would probably lead to applications for licences being made for the express purpose of bartering these licences afterwards. Consequently the Bill was not framed in that way. Certain discretion was given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in these circumstances to confine licences to those he knew were engaged in the business of importing goods in a bona fide manner, and consequently were likely to avail of any licences issued to them. That is the reason for the phrase used in that particular paragraph of the section. Where the total quantity of the applications applied for is less than the quota, then everybody, subject to one modification, gets a licence to import the quantity applied for. It is only where the total applications exceed the quota that the element of discretion is brought in to protect the interests of those engaged in importing the goods ordinarily. It may be argued that that might operate to confine the business to persons engaged on the date the order is made. It will undoubtedly have that effect, but it need not necessarily have it. The tendency will be in that direction.
I do not think that there is any alternative course which would not lead to much greater abuse. I am certain that if the Bill was framed on other lines, or designed to secure that anyone who applied would get a licence, we would have the claims of those ordinarily engaged in the business concerned put forward very strongly. It is much better to operate in this way. That has been our experience with regard to the use of licensing powers under other statutes. Where the quantity of goods to be brought in was substantially reduced, or where it was ultimately intended to eliminate these imports altogether, the business of importing goods in these circumstances was confined to those always engaged at it. It was felt, in view of the fact that their business was going to be terminated in any case, that they should not be subjected to fresh competition during its last years. It is possible that there may be some slight traffic in licences, but I cannot see that that is likely to arise if the Bill is, in fact, administered in the way intended. The effect of the provision in the sub-section I referred to is designed to prevent that traffic originating.
Of course, the illustrations given by Senator Sir John Keane and by Senator Counihan are completely beside the mark. The value of export licences for fat stock has nothing whatever to do with the economic war, and has nothing whatever to do with the penal duties imposed on cattle. The fact that these licences are of value arises out of the restriction on the number of fat cattle that may be imported into Great Britain. The restrictions on fat cattle entering Great Britain have nothing to do with the economic war. I refer the Senators to the extract from the London Times, which was read in the Dáil yesterday by the Minister for Agriculture regarding a meeting in New Zealand between the Prime Minister and the principal representatives of the farmers there, when communications which had passed between the New Zealand and the British Governments were read. The New Zealand Government made reference to the policy of the British Government to restrict quantitative imports of agricultural produce to Great Britain, and asked the British Government if they would remove the restrictions if in turn they were given completely free entry of British imports to New Zealand. The New Zealand Government offered to take off all tariffs if the British Government exempted from quota restrictions the produce of New Zealand, and the British Government replied that they were committed to the policy of quantitative restrictions and that the proposal could not be entertained. The New Zealand Government is on particularly friendly terms with Great Britain, and it is unlikely, as the policy determined on could not be departed from for the benefit of New Zealand, that it will be departed from for the benefit of others, no matter how subservient.
Does the Minister think that it was just to put on such a quota?
That has nothing whatever to do with it. Restrictions on imports to this country, whether by tariffs or by the quota system, sometimes have the effect of raising prices. Sometimes restrictions were designed to raise prices, because the prices quoted for goods imported were entirely uneconomic, and were goods either subsidised or produced under sweated conditions. The main protection against any undue rise in prices, following restrictions, is the element of competition which exists here, and in respect of the greater number of industries protected, competition does exist. In some cases it is quite keen, and is as effective in eliminating undue profit-making here, as in any other country.
How will the quota system be applied in the case of articles of which there is a considerable variety? In his opening statement the Minister mentioned pottery. Seeing that there are various grades and varieties, how will the contemplated quota order be applied?
I did not mention pottery as the class of product which could be easily "quotaed." I referred to it in another connection, when I mentioned that we could not allow goods in transit to be brought in, after it had been determined to restrict imports, merely to convenience traders who ordered them. Restriction of imports was designed to prevent these goods in transit coming here and flooding the market at the wrong time. I said very definitely that there are certain classes of goods which could not be restricted by quota arrangement, and that the only restriction would be by tariff. Goods which are imported in great variety, consisting of articles of different value, shape or design, are obviously of that class. Of course it would be possible to fix the total value of the goods when imported, or the total weight, and to let the importers secure what was possible within that limit. But we would be very slow indeed to operate the quota system, except in respect of goods which are imported in quantity and of more or less standard quality. It is only in respect of certain classes of goods that the quota system can operate easily.
Question put, and agreed to.