Mainly a revenue tax. It is true that it has some protective value. It will possibly help to some extent the consumption of turf and of native coal. I am not proposing to defend it on that basis at all. The turf situation will have to be dealt with in a different manner, I think. The tax is being maintained really because it is producing revenue and that the circumstances were such that the revenue could as easily be secured in that way as in any other way.
I might say that the tax is not being imposed on coal used for industrial purposes where that coal is required in connection with the process of manufacture. There may be industrialists using coal who could as easily use electricity or turf. These industrialists are not getting licences to import. The transport industry and industries like grain dryers, lime burners, cement works—if cement works were in operation — and industries of that kind, where coal is a raw material and used in the process of production, are receiving their coal free of duty. The 150,000 extra cattle are being purchased at the market price. The fact that Great Britain has a tax upon our cattle is something we deplore, but the tax was not imposed by us. Whether it was imposed, as Senator Comyn said, on the advice of some members of this House or not, the tax is there. The 150,000 extra cattle, however, are not going to have any effect on the market price. Whatever the market price would be, whether this pact was made or not, it is at that price the cattle are going to be purchased, and the calculation that we are paying Britain another £750,000, therefore, is entirely fallacious. Furthermore, it is not going to involve any extra cost in export bounties. The amount of export bounties for this year is, in fact, lower than the amount provided last year.
Senator Milroy asked us also what were the terms of the agreement. He spoke as if he thought the Government did not think them fit for publication. He must not have been listening to my remarks because I gave the whole of the agreement in the course of the few remarks I addressed to the House before the debate commenced. The agreement was precisely what I said it was, an understanding between the two Governments that the quota allocated to the Free State in respect of cattle for 1935 would be increased by 150,000 head and the Free State would take in return coal to a corresponding value. There was no written document; the agreement was based upon mutual trust. The agreement was published at the time. It was in fact published in the newspapers, — where they got the information I do not know — some days before the date agreed upon between the British Government and ourselves as the date for the release of the information. The newspaper publicity which it received at the time was so considerable that I cannot imagine any person in this month of June, several months later, asking for publication of the terms of the agreement, implying that we were keeping them secret. The only thing I want to say is that there was no written document. The fact that there is no written document is a matter of not very great importance. The whole business was of such a nature that it did not really call for any formal understanding, any formal agreement, because the arrangements necessary to bring it into force were in the hands of each party. The pact was made because it is going to be of considerable relief to the farming community of this country.
Senator Miss Browne referred to a few extra cattle being of no great importance, having regard to the millions we were exporting. I am afraid her information about our export trade is very limited; 150,000 extra cattle represents an increase of 33? per cent. in the quota allotted to us this year. The total number of cattle which will be sent out of this country this year will be considerably higher than the number exported in 1931. In fact, we will have in the course of a very few weeks reached the position where there will be no cattle surplus at all. The requirements of the English market, the requirements of other markets, and the requirements of the home market will absorb all the cattle that are available. The cattle scarcity that has developed in the American continent is keeping Canadian cattle entirely out of the British market and will further increase the demand for our beasts.
Reference was made by Senator Milroy to the price and quality of British coal imported. I do not think that we have any reason to be satisfied with either the price or quality of the British coal that has come in. The people of this country have learned, for the first time, that better coal and cheaper coal can be procured from countries other than Great Britain and, if there is any extension or continuation of this arrangement, we shall have to have a clear understanding with the British Government as to the price at which coal is to be supplied and as to the quality of the consignments sent.
Senator Gogarty spoke on this matter. I could not quite follow him in all his remarks, and I am afraid I learnt nothing from them. I am not quite clear as to what his objection to the motion is. He said he objected to the Government asking the House to approve of it. I do not think there is any reasonable ground for such an objection. We are not asking Senator Gogarty to approve of it. In fact, I would dislike very much seeing any decent member of the House going into the same lobby as Senator Gogarty. We are asking the House to approve of the motion because we are required by law to do so. Senator Gogarty also made some statement which appeared to indicate that Senator Connolly had appealed to the House not to oppose the motion and, therefore, not to cross the Government in this matter. We are making no such appeal to Senator Gogarty. If he wants to vote against the motion he will have an opportunity to do so and we would be very glad to see him do it. Apart from that, I do not think there is anything in his speech that calls for comment. I suppose he has a certain licence, not a poet's licence, but another kind of licence, by which he can refer to the President of the State as the "Mad Mullah." I do not know that anyone would take that very seriously.
Senator Counihan said that he would like to see the Government making some more of those pacts. Well, we hope to do so. It is not a matter entirely for ourselves. We are willing to make pacts of this kind with Great Britain or with any other country, pacts under which the produce of this country will be exported on the one hand in return for purchases by us to a corresponding value of the products of Great Britain or the other countries concerned. The Government has made it clear on several occasions that it is quite willing to enter into discussions for the purpose of effecting arrangements of that kind and it is our hope that the opportunity of doing so will arise. So far as the tax on coal is concerned, it does not properly arise on this resolution at all. This resolution would be necessary whether the tax had been kept on or removed. This whole matter could more properly be discussed when the Finance Bill comes before the Seanad.
There was nothing in Senator Miss Browne's remarks relevant to the motion with which I could deal. She said that she could claim to speak for the farmers. There was a philosopher who once gave the advice that we should try to keep our illusions alive. I do not want to try to destroy Senator Miss Browne's illusions. I would be interested to see the flour that became alive after it was milled, but that has nothing to do with the motion. The only other point concerning it is that I am anxious to ensure that there will be no dislocation in the ordinary run of the coal trade because of this Quota Order. We may have to interfere with the coal trade, for the purpose of encouraging the use of Irish anthracite coal or Irish turf, but in so far as an Irish trader, by enterprise, good business methods, or advertising, may get increased trade, we do not wish to see him unable to avail of it because of this Order. In so far as the other Quota Orders are concerned, as I explained in the beginning, the necessity of reducing imports makes it necessary to confine the remaining trade to those who previously engaged in it. Each trader is given a licence based upon his imports in previous years.
In this case there was no desire whatever to limit the trade in that way. Consequently, we will allocate licences in the next quota period with regard to other circumstances besides the previous year's imports, so that a trader who could get a larger market for his supplies will be able to get an amount of coal supplied to him even if that means a falling off in the business of another trader. There is no limit to other firms going into the business. There is no idea of restricting importation in that direction. If any Senator knows of any case in which the operation of these quotas is such as to prevent freedom of trade in the country I would be glad if he brings that case to my notice. There is 25 per cent. of the quota that need not be allocated at the beginning, and is at the discretion more or less of the Department and can be used for the purpose of supplementing licences issued at the beginning of the period to those on the register.