Vol. 20 No. 4
I move the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Lands:
That Seanad Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 11) Order, 1934, made on the 21st day of December, 1934, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).
This Order prohibited the importation of coal, culm, shale and slack into Saorstát Eireann except under licence. The object of the Order was to give effect to the informal arrangement entered into with the British Government regarding coal and cattle. The quota appointed under the Order for the first quota period effects no reduction in the normal imports of coal, but the Order appointing the quota prescribed that out of a total of 1,000,000 tons of coal for the first period, that is from the 1st February, 1935, to the 31st July, 1935, 1,099,000 tons should be shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been purchased in and consigned from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is a slight difference between the working of this Order and the working of other Orders, in so far as it is not designed to reduce the imports but to direct trade into other channels.
In the case of most Quota Orders the purpose is to reduce imports. When making them we contemplated the possibility of imports ceasing altogether. On that account, in the allocation of the quota, preference is given to those who have been in the business of importing this class of goods, so that they may continue to get what is coming out of that business as long as it remains. In the case of this Order we contemplate that the importation of coal and slack will continue, and there is no desire to prevent new people entering into competition, operating for the purpose of increasing the business of one firm and decreasing the business of another. It is, however, very difficult to combine that idea with the idea of restricting imports. Certain difficulties did arise; I think these difficulties have been got over. 75 per cent. of the quota was allocated at the beginning of the period in accordance with the Act. The balance of 25 per cent. was used usually for special cases that arose where the quota allocation would be, say, less than a cargo of coal, and it was necessary to make it up in order to enable the coal to be imported at all, in so far as a small quantity could not have been brought in economically, and similar cases of that kind. It was also operated to give limited quotas to any firms that had come into the business of importing coal since last year. Generally speaking, the coal was allocated on the basis of the importation of last year. The whole quota is now allotted, and it will possibly be necessary to make additional quotas for the quota period, not because the quota was too low, but because of licences not used. I have no means of recalling a licence unused, or of cancelling a portion of the licence that is unused, and that has created certain difficulty in other Orders, but we hope that that difficulty will be obviated by amending legislation which we intend to introduce. We have no powers in that direction after the licence is issued and not used, and our calculations are upset. But in this case there is no difficulty. The difficulty will be met by making an additional Order which will be done in the course of a week or two. In fixing the quota for the next period a liberal margin can be allowed to meet that situation if it arises again. The Order was effective in carrying out our obligation under the coal-cattle arrangement. It was an informal arrangement. It consisted in this: that the British Government agreed to increase the normal cattle quota allotted to this country by 150,000 head, on the understanding that we would purchase coal to a value corresponding to the additional number of cattle exported. The cattle are purchased at the ordinary market price and exported in the ordinary way. It is anticipated that in order to carry out our obligation under this Order it will be necessary to purchase all our coal from Great Britain for this year. Whether it will be renewed or not I am not in a position to say.
Judging by the subdued and unostentatious manner of the Minister's explanation, one who knew nothing of the background of this motion would be inclined to think it was a mere matter of routine and of very little consequence indeed. I think anyone who would draw such a conclusion would assume something that was very inaccurate. The first question I mean to ask is why a motion of this kind has been so long deferred? The period with which it deals expires on the 31st July and is not very far away. This Quota Order was made on the 21st December last year. It is a very belated procedure to introduce an Order for approval, almost at the end of the period for which approval is sought. I make that by way of preliminary comment, but, I think, that comment draws attention to a procedure which is not exactly the most desirable. The Government makes an Order dealing with a certain period. That Order, to be operative and legal, must have the approval of the Oireachtas; and to defer seeking the approval of the Oireachtas until the period with which it deals is almost entirely run out, is a very wrong procedure. It may be a small matter in some cases, but this can hardly be described as a trivial or light matter. When I first saw this motion tabled I was tempted to table an amendment asking the Seanad to defer approval of the Order until the terms of the informal agreement, to use the words of the Minister——
Informal arrangement.
Until the terms of the informal arrangement had been submitted to the Oireachtas. However, I decided not to pursue the idea of moving an amendment for reasons that it might be calculated to be a waste of time. I prefer to rest my criticisms direct upon the motion itself. I think the Oireachtas is entitled to know what are the terms of that informal agreement. Surely that agreement took some tangible recorded form, which is capable of being presented in some tangible way to this House, and to the other House, so that we could see whether that informal agreement is one that meets with our approval. Why should it be necessary to ask for this at all? Is this informal agreement or informal pact something which is not fit for publication? We have heard a good deal about our invisible imports and exports. We have heard something of the invisible benefits of the economic war. We have heard something even of the invisible man who fills the position of Governor-General, and I think we are entitled to know something about this invisible pact. Now when this motion, based upon this invisible pact, or within this invisible pact, was reached—the terms of which never yet have been submitted to the people and the country—it was greeted with pæans of praise from nearly every section. Even the critics of the Government were inclined to withhold criticism in the hope that it was a foreshadowing of the return to values in the major lines and policy of the Government. The organ of the Government itself gave it a conspicuous place of honour. Glaring headlines were displayed on the front page of that paper. The President himself, commenting on it, said:—
"The present arrangement is complete in itself. It is a business transaction based on the mutual interest of the two countries. It is a type of understanding that the Irish Government has always indicated its willingness to make."
The Minister for Land and Forests, in a notable speech where he reiterated his statement that although it took 100 years to establish the cattle trade, with God's help it would not take 100 years to kill it, said:—
"The coal-cattle pact was a pound against pound agreement—what was generally called a fifty-fifty deal. It had been arrived at entirely independent of other and conflicting issues. It was a business deal."
Now I think we ought to know a little more about that business deal. Ministers have been very reticent about this invisible pact—I will not call it a secret agreement. There are certain things that are public knowledge. It has been disclosed that, out of 1,100,000 tons of coal to be imported into this country, England is to get a monopoly of 1,099,000 tons. We know that as a sort of quid pro quo there is to be an increase of 150,000 cattle to be exported. These are the facts that we have been enlightened of. But I would like to ask the Minister can he give us information as to what is going to be the cost of implementing this pact—this informal arrangement, as the Minister calls this, or this invisible pact, as I prefer to call it. For every head of cattle that goes out of the Free State to Britain carries with it a tax or tariff duty, assessed at a figure by some at £5 and by others at £6 per head. Probably it would be safer to assume it at the smaller figure. Will the Minister tell us if I am correct in estimating that 150,000 cattle under this pact that are exported from this country into the British market each will bear this tax? If so, that would amount to £750,000. Will he inform us also what revenue his colleague, the Minister for Finance, will secure as a result of the coal tax that this additional import of coal will impose? We know there is a tax of 5/- per ton. My rather primitive knowledge of arithmetic works out that 1,099,000 tons of coal at 5/- per ton will yield something like £270,000. Will the Minister tell us also what is the cost to the State of the bounty which it will be necessary for the Saorstát Exchequer to pay in order to get the whole 150,000 head of cattle across to the British market? I read in the debates in the Dáil last week one estimate of that figure which put it at £140,000. If that figure is correct, and the other calculations I have made are correct, then this informal pact or arrangement — this fifty-fifty arrangement of Senator Connolly's — is going to cost the taxpayers of Saorstát Eireann anything between £1,000,000 and £1,250,000 to implement. Am I right or am I wrong? If I am right, then I think it is deluding the Oireachtas and deluding the people, for the Minister to come before the House and make such a disarming, disingenuous kind of a speech and not reveal to people that this particular informal arrangement carries with it these implications. If this arrangement does not carry with it these consequences, then, of course, the Minister will be able to show that that is so, but I certainly will be astounded and I think that the country will be astounded if the Minister can show it does not.
This fifty-fifty arrangement is going to cost the taxpayers of Saorstát Eireann, as far as I can see, over £1,000,000, and it is going to cost the other party to the fifty-fifty arrangement not a single penny. On the other hand it is going to secure them a handsome revenue and secure them work for 5,000 miners in the British coal-fields. That is the great fifty-fifty arrangement. President de Valera says that "that is the type of understanding that the Irish Government has always indicated its willingness to make." In other words, an arrangement which costs the taxpayers of Saorstát Eireann over £1,000,000, puts 5,000 English miners to work, costs the British taxpayers not a penny but gives them a handsome subsidy with which to fight the economic war — that is the type of arrangement which the Irish Government has always indicated its willingness to make! This is the most comical economic war carried on since Cain and Abel fell out!
Some people have called it "a gentleman's arrangement." If it were permissible to describe it in terms of American slang, I would call it a "suckers" arrangement. I have no doubt that when Mr. Thomas was making this informal arrangement he was in agreement with Barnum's dictum that there is one born every minute. At any rate, this seems to indicate that on the coal sector of our offensive on the eastern front, the economic war has broken down and the cattle have broken through. It would not be perhaps an accurate simile of this phase of the economic war, or caricature of an economic war, to say that the Government have got another white elephant on their hands. I would be inclined to think, since they discovered this peculiar sort of warfare, that they have got the tiger by the tail. They are afraid to let go; they have got to keep hold of him for fear of their lives. The result of that will be that the tiger will drag them into the economic jungle that this country is approaching where he can devour them at his own sweet will. I have no particular objection to the tiger devouring the Government so long as he is prevented from devouring the people as well.
He is devouring the farmers.
There will be nothing but the bones of the farmers for the tiger very soon. There is one aspect of the question to which I want to refer particularly, and that is the Coal Pact. Before I come to that I want to anticipate the reply which the Minister will possibly make. I can imagine the Minister saying: "Does the Senator want to deny that this has been a great relief to the farmers, that it has given us an outlet for our cattle?" I can imagine his saying that with one eye on the Seanad and the other on County Dublin. It has been. No one denies it but when we consider the circumstances, that something — the export of 150,000 cattle — which would have been an ordinary routine matter in normal times, and in ordinary sane conditions, should now cost the Saorstát over £1,000,000 to secure it, when that is considered a relief to the farmer, I ask the Minister, when he is making his reply, to bear that in mind.
To come back to the point I was making, we should like to hear something about this Coal Pact. I think it is not irrelevant to the matter under discussion but I want to be guided by the Chair. This tax was originally imposed as a war measure against England. The purpose of that particular tax having ceased, seeing that we have arranged a partial truce in that matter — we are no longer trying to keep out British coal; we are to secure that no coal other than British shall come in—why was the coal tax continued? Why was it continued as a tax upon the Saorstát taxpayers themselves? I think we are entitled to some explanation of that. The statement is made repeatedly, and with every appearance of truth, that since this arrangement was made, not only has there been a substantial increase in the price of coal but that an inferior quality of coal is coming in under the new arrangement. If that is so, it is something very curious, something that requires some further disclosure. Of course, the Minister may plead that it is not good taste to display undue curiosity about a gentleman's arrangement, that a gentleman's arrangement should not be judged by the standards of a virago. But the description of "gentleman's arrangement" in that sense does not fit this agreement. It is an arrangement that affects the people of this country vitally, which means an additional impost on it. This arrangement, which will give certain partial relief, throws a flood-light on the position which is thus relieved, a flood-light of disclosure which is not by any means complimentary to those who are responsible for public policy in this country.
Another aspect of the matter is that this additional export of cattle enables the British Government to collect from this country an amount far in excess of the amount they claim in respect of withheld annuities and the other matters in dispute. Surely when that gentleman's arrangement was being made, it might not have been too much for one of the contracting parties to have said: "Well, while a certain amount is in dispute, can we not agree, if you are going to keep on your penal duties, that you will so arrange them that you will at least collect no more than the amount in dispute." But they apparently acquiesced in this. We are financing the British to carry on this war. I think if Bernard Shaw would only apply his mind to this matter and describe how Saorstát Eireann, having declared war against the British Empire, is not only beggaring the people of the Saorstát to keep the fight going on this side but is also financing the British to carry on the fight on the other side, he would have one of the greatest themes for a comedy that could possibly be conceived.
There is another arrangement that the members of the Government have been describing as a thing of shreds and patches. I do not know how far, not having seen the terms of this pact, the description of shreds and patches could be made applicable to it, but I think, surveying the national policy of the Government from the angle that this reveals, one can only come to the conclusion that their policy — economic, political, internal and external — is a thing of shreds and patches, without character, without coherence, without any hope of success, so long as the obsession that at present dominates them prevails. It is a policy which can only lead to a continuance of the farcical tragedy that is being enacted to-day, namely, the driving of the people to destitution and the country to chaos and disaster.
I am not going to ask the Seanad to disapprove of this motion, but I think it is a motion which raises issues concerning which it is right that we should have sober criticism. The time has come for this Government to realise that playing politics with the rights of the people is a gamble which does not pay in the long run; that being dressed with a little brief authority does not justify them, or any set of men, in imagining that the lives and welfare of the people are just pawns on a chess board to be moved according to the political game that the Government at a particular time are playing. Things have reached such a stage in this country that a halt will have to be called to that playacting. I want to say, of course, that I can see a Government that makes a bold departure from the established traditions having to meet with many difficulties and to encounter criticisms which are not always far-seeing or profound. I hope that I am not viewing the policy of the present Government from that angle. There is one thing that, I think, I can take a pride in, and that is that during my life I have done something to try and establish this State. It is because I see that the considered policy of this Government is shattering the stability of the State, is beggaring the people and leading them to despair, that I ask the Government to weigh well what they are doing before they reach the stage when there will be no retrieving the position; when there will be nothing but a state of beggary and misery even though Ministers may be sitting enthroned in Government Buildings.
This is the most audacious of all the motions that the revolving Minister, Senator Connolly, has ever brought before a House which is under sentence of abolition because it stood in the way of the dishonest and disastrous policy that he and his colleagues have adopted. He comes to us to ask us to approve of a dishonourable and a disastrous policy from which even he and his associates have stampeded. In spite of his prayer — I do not want to use the Belfast lingo although it is terse enough — that "it took 100 years to build up the cattle trade of this country, but, thanks be to God, it will not take so many years to break down that system," he comes to this House to ask us to approve of this motion to help him in swopping Irish cattle for English coal. The President ran the Irish treasure ship on the rocks in spite of many warnings from the Seanad and he wants to be applauded because he gets away in the lifeboat with a quarter of beef and a lump of coal. When Senator Connolly was throwing out his innuendoes that the annuities would not be collected by England—the suggestion, of course, was that they would not be collected at all, and that was made for vote-catching purposes — we said that that was a dishonest method of dealing with the matter; that it was a matter more for Scotland Yard than for the English Government. In spite of that the Irish people were invited to imagine that there would be no collection of annuities. His interpretation of the psychology of John Bull was very poor indeed because, at any rate, John Bull has one obstinacy, and that is that he likes to stick to a bargain. When we reneged the payment of the annuities, John Bull at once imposed a tariff on our cattle, a tariff which was not sufficient to bring in the full amount lost on the annuities to meet the interest and sinking fund on the £75,000,000 that had been advanced to buy out the land of Ireland from Irish landlords. This coal-cattle pact has enabled John Bull to get more than the annuities were bringing in. Can the Minister deny that Mr. Thomas said: "Hitherto we were not getting enough from you; now we are getting too much but we will give it back." The President qualified the position with that extraordinary logic of his by saying: "No, we will not take it back; this is a business deal and it has nothing to say to the economic war." What can you do with a mentality like that? An appeal was made to the Opposition not to oppose the President's motion now before us. An appeal was made that this motion should be passed without comment; and why? Because the farmers said: "Oh, for God's sake leave him alone; we can get rid of a few cattle at any rate, and you never know what he will do next." Is that a dignified or an honourable position for the President of a State to be in — to have to be humoured as the Mad Mullah, running amok with the farmers waiting to see when his run will end and the loot drop out of his pocket? We are asked to approve and be grateful for his lucid interval.
This sorry business really began in 1923 when President de Valera tried to break down the Parliamentary seat which he is now filling at a fine salary without paying income tax. He cost Ireland the blood of Collins, he broke the heart of Arthur Griffith, and he has now broken the heart of Ireland itself. I will give you an example. Last month, in Longford, there was a witness being cross-examined. This arises apropos because I want to show you what can happen when a Mad Mullah elects to cut off a country's income and mixes the prosperity of the country with politics. When that happens you bring nearer the Socialist Republican State of Senator Connolly. That gentleman always leaves himself loopholes. He is now in his second Government. He was with Mr. Cosgrave in 1928 and he is now with President de Valera.
On a point of order. Is this relevant to the motion before the House? What has this to do with Senator Connolly's politics?
Senator Connolly's politics are certainly not relevant on this motion.
It is relevant to the point I was making about the country's heart being broken and the people having lost confidence are losing adherence to the old and established foundations of Ireland on the eternal truths of religion. Last month, as I was saying, a witness was being cross-examined in Longford and he was asked this question: "Is it or is it not true that at Mass on Sunday last you interrupted the parish priest because he was talking against Communism and that you rose up in church and called him a liar.""I did not," he said. "I said ‘you are a low scoundrel and a liar'." An old man who was questioned about the incident: "Is it true that that man is allowed to live in an Irish village?" said that 20 years ago such a man would not have been allowed to live here. But now the country's heart is broken. And we do not know which Party will do the most for us. In other words, the Government are indistinguishable from the Communists. Here we are with the most naturally endowed fertile country in the world. The Government have cut off an income of £32,000,000 a year. They have half-beggared and twice taxed us in the last three years.
What is the other side of the picture? It is this: I am full of misgiving because I doubt if there is a man in the Government with sufficient vision to imagine a country wherein anyone can live except as a pauper. In other words, their whole outlook is to reduce this country to a state of pauperism. They are specialists in disasters. They want to reduce the country to such a state of despair that they will be complete masters. When all are paupers, they will be masters of the workhouse. The battle was lost at Ottawa, where John Bull was staged as Public Enemy No. 1 and made to play the part of the great vote-catcher for his opponent, Mr. de Valera — the stage on which President de Valera sets him up as Public Enemy No. 1 of Ireland. Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly was at Ottawa. I suppose President de Valera did not go, fearing that he would have no one to repudiate. If he had gone he should have been able to hold a pistol, or half a dozen pistols, to John Bull and say: "We are buying £38,000,000 worth of goods from you; we are selling you cattle and agricultural products to the value of £32,000,000." If President de Valera said: "We want to take £60,000,000 worth of goods from you and we want you to take as much from us," John Bull would have asked: "Where will I get it?" He could have been told: "You are buying £40,000,000 worth from Denmark and, in return, Denmark is only buying £10,000,000 worth from you. There is a deficit of £8,000,000 or £11,000,000 in what the Argentine sends to you and what you buy from her. We want you to increase your purchases from us and in return we will buy all the hardware that we require from you as well as the goods which your people who live in your Black Country and in Lancashire produce." Of course, that was not done. Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly was not so much concerned with that question as he was as to whether he should wear a tall hat or drink the toast of the King.
The present position is that we have lost most of our trade with the people on the other side. We got promises from the Government about the wheels of industry rolling here, but the true position is that the present Government have destroyed our greatest industry. Nature has endowed this country with a soil that cannot be surpassed for its richness in producing food of the highest nutritive value. Our calves are being killed. The Government are only able to cope with poverty that has been deliberately brought about and all that this motion means is that the Mad Mullah is to be approved and placated. Dean Swift wrote that we should burn everything English except its coal. Now in order to placate the Mad Mullah we have nothing to burn except English coal, since the lamentable loss of Senator Connolly's factory at Navan. That is what we have got from the blind idea of merging politics and prosperity, selling the country to England and putting Ireland on the dole.
I must ask you, Senator, to keep a little more to the motion.
I will keep to coal. The Irish people have been encouraged to cut turf but the turf cutters have been more or less dropped. The same has happened in the case of kelp. In the case of coal. England has been given a monopoly in the Irish market. The Irish people have no say with regard to the quality of the coal that comes from England. They have to take what they get and be thankful for it. They have been left with no alternative. The country was not consulted as to how its wealth should be disposed of. It is being bled to death. The calves are being killed and we have lost the finest market in the world. All that we get out of this pact is that the English coal which has a monopoly here will be 5/- dearer and they are to take 100,000 more cattle from us. That is what we get out of the pact. This is heaping coals of fire on John Bull's head!
There is another issue in this. I do not believe from the manner in which President de Valera started this so-called economic war that he cared whether the Irish farmer lost so long as the battle was joined. He wanted to make the conditions so impossible that he would bring John Bull to heel. Why John Bull should not be brought to deal instead of to heel I do not know, but for some peculiar reason President de Valera seems to think that there can be no settlement by any kind of negotiation. Now he finds himself in a cul-de-sac: in a position of absolute distress. He is attempting now to terrify John Bull into the fear that he will lose extra sources of food supplies in case of war so that the policy of the Government now is to intimidate John Bull by making Ireland into a desert with barely enough to keep the people from starving. That is the position that the country has been reduced to, a country that has been so bountifully endowed by nature. Other countries have to produce intermediate crops before they can raise a beast because the soil in those countries is so poor. But we are offered silk stockings from turf and gramophone records from sand. This is a fight with our best market and, really, with our best friend, because the only thing John Bull has said is practically: "You can have your republic if you like." But not one of the Government is going to touch it. That republic is going to be "far from the land——"
The Senator is again digressing.
We are left with no choice except in one market. We have no outlet for our cattle except through a quota. The farmer is left, instead of paying his annuities to the Suspense Fund of the Government, in a position in which he is paying them three times over. In the first place, he is paying them to Mr. Thomas in the form of a tax on cattle. That is not sufficient. They are, therefore, taken off the quota under the coal-cattle pact, which is over-plus for John Bull. Then he pays the annuities in the form of the duties put on every article and commodity that comes into this country, whether they are raw material or whether they are such things as motor cars, on which revenue taxes are imposed. He pays the annuities in an invisible way also by the descent of the standard of living and the broken heart of the nation. What sort of future or what sort of country or what sort of policy are the Government capable of envisaging? Is it their idea to smash the country by cutting off its income and then try to go round and round making unnecessary commodities or commodities that other people would be better employed in supplying? Is it necessary to swap eggs for Spanish oranges or to sell shamrocks in exchange for Canadian snowballs? Why all this unnecessary farce? If the Government cannot envisage an Ireland fit for anything but a pauper, it is only fair that I should give them my idea. We should have had, like the people of certain Southern States of America, no income tax whatever. We could have lived on the surplus of the countries which do not buy anything from England and who do not require to state that John Bull is their Public Enemy No. 1. My idea would be an Ireland with twice its present income, where, instead of having the so-called greatest betrayal in history, with the gentry running out of the country, the gentry would be able to remain without having their houses burnt. That is an Ireland that might be capable of an education equal to Sweden's, but the Government has stupefied the electors and expanded what they call the Gaeltacht so that they will get undiscriminating and dole-fed votes. On this coal-cattle pact, we have had a most impertinent confession from Senator Connolly. He asked the House, which warned him that dishonesty could only lead to disaster, to approve of his adopting part of our policy by selling a modicum of stock where we told him we ought to have three times the trade. The lifeboat is now off, but where is the treasure ship?
I shall not deal with the so-called speech delivered by the last speaker, except to say that it was the most rambling, the most abusive, and the most ridiculous speech that has ever been delivered on a subject of national importance.
It was all truth.
It reminds me of a little boy who goes to a dirt heap, makes little pellets of mud, and flings them at decent people as they pass. Sometimes the Senator has been witty and, for the sake of his former wit, he is more or less tolerated now. But the day comes when wit ceases and buffoonery only remains. I think he has passed his little hour upon the stage. He is no longer amusing. He is getting old and dull.
Why not deal with the agreement?
I shall deal with the speech that had some relation to the subject matter of this debate — the speech of Senator Milroy. The Senator, in the course of his speech, said that his opponents were "disingenuous." I suppose he meant that they were "disingenuous." I should say that, in his observations, the Senator was disingenuous. In the first place, he complained of the delay in bringing forward these resolutions for the approval of the House. He approves of them. At any time within the last five or six months, if he disapproved of them, he could have originated a debate upon the question. Let us deal with the merits of the motion itself. It deals with what has been described as the coal-cattle pact. We agreed to sell 150,000 head of cattle to Great Britain, and Great Britain agreed to send to us coal of equal value. I think that that was a good arrangement, because, if there is one thing which Great Britain can export to Ireland with the greatest advantage to herself and the greatest benefit to this country, it is coal. In the present state of agriculture here, it is of advantage to us that we should have an opportunity of exporting cattle to Great Britain. Senator Milroy made an allusion to the Garden of Eden. I suppose he has been reading that story. If he studies it closely, he will find that, even after the fall of our first parents, there was, in the Garden of Eden, some balance in our agriculture.
An invisible balance.
Cain was the tiller of the ground, and Abel was the keeper of sheep. We want to have cattle in this country, but we also want to have agriculture. We want to till the soil. We want, if possible, to supply from the fertile fields of this country all the food.
The Senator should confine himself to coal and cattle.
I am following what you allowed Senator Milroy to say. I did not make any objection.
I do not think that Senator Milroy made one statement that did not refer to the coal-cattle pact.
He made statements in relation to the Garden of Eden.
That is quite right.
Senator Gogarty made statements in reference to the President of the State.
Senator Gogarty made many statements which I tried to prevent him from making. I do not think that Senator Milroy made one statement which was not entirely relevant to the motion before the House.
The coal-cattle pact was a reasonable pact and advantageous to this country. Senator Milroy agrees with that.
Who told you that?
He said that the duties arising from this pact are altogether in favour of Great Britain. I put this consideration before the House. It is said that £1,250,000 has been collected upon cattle exported free from this country to Great Britain. I ask Senator Milroy who pays that tax?
The people of this State.
It is a free country where defeatist misstatements of that character are allowed. I say that we do not pay all that tax. I assert, with as much authority as does Senator Milroy, that that tax is, to a great degree, paid by the farmers of Great Britain and would be almost wholly paid by the farmers of Great Britain if there were not so much smuggling from this country across the Border. I hope that that smuggling will soon be stopped. If it is stopped, it will be found that the cattle will fetch their ordinary, economic price and that, if Great Britain puts a tariff of £2, £4 or £6 on cattle, her own farmers will have to pay. I do think that Great Britain would never have imposed these taxes on cattle if they had not been hounded on to do so by the present Opposition — hounded, encouraged and forced to do so by the present Opposition. It is alleged that, in the measures which have been taken by this Government, we are playing politics. I submit to the House that, when this Government came into office three years ago, they found a condition of agriculture which could not continue. They found the land untilled. They found that wheat and other necessary food for the people was not produced in the country. They found a state of things in which the country could not possibly exist. They also found that farmers were simply grazing cattle for one market — a market which might have been stopped at any time.
We have suffered considerably in the last two or three years. But what have been the gains? We have gained in this way — that we have become almost independent of the one market for our cattle. We have gained also inasmuch as we are now in a position to supply a great part of the food of the people and, in a year or two, even with this economic war, we shall probably be able to supply all the wheat and all the flour required for our entire population.
Is that related to the coal-cattle pact?
I think it is.
I should like you to reconcile it.
I have listened to the most irrelevant speeches but now people who are not half as irrelevant are interrupted.
I am trying to preserve order as best I can. I am the sole judge of order, and I will not allow you, Senator, or anyone else to criticise my ruling.
I am not criticising any ruling of the Chair. I must confess that I have been annoyed at certain observations that were made by some Senators on the other side. I do not say that the Chair could have stopped them.
I quite agree.
I am glad to hear that expression of opinion coming from the Chair. I do not say that the Chair could have stopped them. Some people come here occasionally and fling filth and then run. The Chair cannot stop that. I make no objection to any ruling of the Chair, but I make the statement, that three years ago the country was faced with a situation of considerable difficulty. The situation was this, either to submit to the people of the sister island, simply because they were powerful or to pay a debt or an alleged debt that was not due or to assert our rights. The people chose to assert their rights. A conflict has ensued, and in the course of that conflict we have done very well, considering that we had to fight on two fronts. We had opposed to us opponents abroad, and we had also opposed to us unscrupulous persons at home, who have been ready to come to the Seanad and to make disgraceful speeches, such as have been made by Senator Gogarty.
I approve of the pact. As a representative of the farming industry, and particularly of the cattle trade, I am very pleased at the pact. If Senators who comment and object to the pact had cattle for sale at half a dozen fairs or markets and had to walk them home again, they would approve of the pact. They would be very pleased with it and would not try to censure the Government for making it. It has been stated that my attitude and that of the farmers in approving of the pact is like that of a drowning man grasping at a straw. The position of the farmers at present is desperate. The coal-cattle pact has relieved the situation to a certain extent, because we can sell 150,000 more cattle. All I say to the Government is: For God's sake make more of these pacts.
I agree with Senator Comyn to this extent, that I deprecate anything in the nature of personal attacks at any time, and particularly on a question of this kind. I do not agree to a certain extent with all that he thought it necessary to say in his reply. Senator Comyn thought that it would be a good thing if Senator Milroy read the Book of Genesis again. I suggest to Senator Comyn that it would be a good thing if he did the same thing, to see if Senator Milroy's statement was correct, and if Cain and Abel were living in the Garden of Eden.
I said after the Fall.
I want to make it clear that we approved of this quota order. We have before us a large number of quota orders, which may be divided roughly into two categories, one designed to protect and encourage industry here, and the other to encourage the exchange of trade between countries. As far as the second class is concerned, without hesitation, I say it is an excellent thing to make a bargain for the exchange of trade with another country. It is an excellent thing that the bargain should be made with Great Britain. As far as I am concerned I hope that will continue. My criticism is not of this order, but of the conditions that the Government saw fit to attach to this quota order which I consider is liable to injure its continuance in the future. It is liable to create a wrong impression of a bargain of this kind by placing a tax on the commodity about which the bargain was made with another country under which we will take the bulk of our supplies from that country. In this case we had a special Imposition of Duties Act with which I want to deal. I do not want to follow other speakers into what is commonly called the economic war. In my view that is an entire misnomer. Special powers were given and we had an assurance from the Minister that the Government would see that care was exercised so that no undue hardship was imposed on the people. Most Governments would adopt that attitude. As far as the majority of the Orders made under that Act go I think that has been carried out. In the case of coal a tax of 5/- a ton was imposed for the definite purpose of strengthening the position in dealing with England and reducing the amount of coal taken from that country. The proper thing to do would have been to cease that tax as soon as it ceased to serve its purpose. If it was required, like the tax on tea or sugar, it should have been imposed in the Budget. Except as a member of the Government I do not think the Minister for Industry and Commerce was responsible for that tax, but I want to suggest to him that if the Minister for Finance is to continue with this idea it may be very disastrous to his policy.
There was, later, a special quota order dealing with oranges, as a result of which we take a large portion of our supplies from Spain. It would not hurt Spain if we put a special tax on oranges, and it would be an excellent way to get revenue. We are assured by medical people that oranges are very good if there is any juice in them. It would be very nice to put on a little tax and to get revenue in that way. But if that idea was to spread it would have a very bad result in the way of extending agreements of this kind. The group I represent welcome the agreement. We do not worry about the fact that it has not been made as the result of a former agreement. The actual carrying out of it is worth tons of paper, and I do not want particularly to know much more about it. But I suggest to the Government that it will not help towards an extension of agreements by continuing the 5/- tax on our side, and by making our people feel that instead of being a real gain it is imposing a hardship. I do not think it is a hardship on farmers because they may not use coal, but it is a hardship on industrialists who have to pay tax.
I can claim to speak for the farmers, because I represent the class that conducted a balanced economy. I come from a stall-feeding county, and I can say that the praise given to this coal-cattle pact will not be backed up by any farmer who stall-fed cattle in County Wexford last year. The condition of these people is most lamentable. A few extra cattle have been sent over to England, but at an enormous cost to our people. That is nothing to boast of.
150,000 cattle.
What is it out of the millions of cattle we sent in the past, considering that we have to pay a tax of £6 a head to England? I agree with every word that Senator Milroy said about this pact. It is the truth. I am not surprised at Senator Comyn being vexed.
I was not vexed by the argument, but by the form of the speech.
You were vexed because you heard the truth. Both Senator Milroy and Senator Gogarty gave it to you to-day. The real farmers who count are not a bit enthusiastic about this pact. What is it but tinkering, trying to put a sticking plaster on the terrible wounds that have been opened up in this country? Senator Comyn said that the country was not producing enough for the people before the Fianna Fáil Government came into office.
Yes.
The people were producing more than they are producing now. What they produced was then worth an extra £35,000,000 yearly.
There was not that variety that the Senator would desire. There was not flour and other things.
I am not used to any variety. I am used to plain living.
The Senator lives on beef. That is the reason she is so pugnacious.
I submit the people most concerned about the coal-cattle pact know very well the small benefit they have got at such an enormous cost. I can tell the Minister that the dictum of the Government, to turn the bullocks off the land and to put men on it, is a silly policy. The only way to deal with that in the proper way was told by one of the audience at an election meeting, who said: "Glory be to God, we will have to mind the few teeth we have, because we will have to go and eat grass." That was the proper answer to such a foolish proposal. Does not everyone know that the more bullocks there are, the more men must be on the land? Does not everyone know that there is no use in having tillage unless you have a market for the finished article — the fat stock? The tillage policy and the wheat policy which has been so much boosted, have done infinite harm to the land. I saw Irish flour the other day stuck together. It was only on the premises a short time, and it was already caked with the damp that it had absorbed, as well as showing signs of life.
Do you mean milled flour?
I saw it. I got expert opinion on it.
You are going outside the question before the House now.
I back up everything that Senator Milroy said.
I do not know if I come under the designation of a real farmer. As my activities include tillage I was very pleased to hear of the agreement reached with Great Britain in connection with cattle. The situation was a very serious one. I hope we will have a continuation of the agreement next year. Senator Miss Browne is objecting to the Government dealing with 150,000 cattle.
I am not objecting in that way, but I am objecting to the Government selling them at such a cost to the country.
The people must sell the cattle, and it is a very good thing that the Government made the agreement.
What about getting the penal tariffs off?
Farmers know that it is by a series of agreements of this sort that we may get out of the difficulties that we are in. As far as I am concerned, as a representative of farmers, and as a tillage farmer, I congratulate the Government on having secured the agreement for this year.
Senator Milroy said that I introduced the motion as if it were a matter of routine. It is very largely a matter of routine. An arrangement was made, and it was left entirely to ourselves as to the manner of its implementation at our end. The Government decided, as a matter of routine, to use the machinery of the Control of Imports Act rather than some other method of ensuring that the coal required here would be purchased from Great Britain to the quantity that would meet the obligation that the Government had undertaken under the arrangement. Senator Milroy also spoke in criticism of the Government, arising out of the fact that the resolution is brought here close to the end of the first quota period. The Control of Imports Act requires that a resolution of this kind shall be passed by each House of the Oireachtas in respect of each Quota Order within six months of its being made. The fact that we are now approaching the end of the first quota period has no bearing on the matter at all. There is no period mentioned in the Quota Order. The Quota Order continues in operation until it is repealed, but periodically a new quota period is fixed, and for that period a definite quota is announced. It was purely a matter of administrative convenience that the first quota period was for six months. We might have made the quota period for 12 months or three months. But, after consultation with the coal importers, having regard to the nature of the trade, this six months period, being the most convenient, was fixed. The second Order will also be for six months.
At that stage Senator Milroy must have seen Senator Gogarty coming into the House. Senator Gogarty has a reputation for being humorous, I understand, but I have had no personal proof of it. Senator Milroy apparently decided to steal some of Senator Gogarty's thunder by making a witty speech himself, because he proceeded to rid himself of a maze of figures which I could not hope to follow. He preceded his remarks by referring to what he called his primitive knowledge of simple arithmetic. His modesty was unnecessary. This arrangement is going to cost this country nothing. The fact that there is a tax of 5/- a ton being levied on coal is something concerning which Senators may have opinions to express. The coal-cattle arrangement had nothing to do with that imposition. The collection of that tax on coal is an entirely different matter, something that concerns ourselves only. It is a fact that it will bring in £600,000 of revenue this year to the Exchequer, and therefore its imposition avoided the necessity of raising that £600,000 in some other way. £600,000 would have had to be got in any event because Governmental services and Central Fund services were fixed and taxes had to be imposed designed to bring in the amount of money required to meet them.
It was a revenue tax therefore.
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.
On behalf of the Minister for Lands, I move motion No. 10:—
That Seanad Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 17) Order, 1935, made on the 30th day of April, 1935 by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).
I second the motion.
I should like to ask whether there is any danger of the oranges that Spain is sending in being of an inferior nature. I do not know much about oranges, but I know that there is great grumbling amongst some people in the fruit business.
The agreement provides that the Spanish exporters shall provide the type of orange required by the Irish importer. Spain provides various types of oranges, including oranges of the Jaffa kind. The types of oranges that are imported here must satisfy the desire of the importers. I am not sure whether this is a good time of the year for oranges, but the arrangement between this country and Spain contemplates not merely world prices to be charged, but that the type of orange specified will be supplied. It is not like the coal pact. There is a very substantial import not allocated, and under that arrangement oranges can be imported from any other country.
My information is that the oranges from Spain are very bad, much worse than those of South Africa and other countries.
Prices have gone up.
That is due to other causes. The oranges are consigned by the exporter to the importer here. The importer here auctions the oranges and remits the price to the seller. That is the procedure. The only control the exporter has is that if he does not get a sufficient price he does not consign the oranges to that particular agent or country.
Will the money value of our imports from Spain be equal to our exports to their country?
No, in this case it is only a matter of quantities. The agreement is based upon the calculation as to what the value of the quotas is likely to be, having regard to 200,000 cwts. of oranges against certain quantities of eggs. The whole quantity is 330,000 cwts. Of this amount 200,000 is allotted to Spain and 100,000 is free.
My objection is that the oranges are allotted to Spain, which produces the worst oranges. American, Brazilian and Java oranges and so on are very much better. Difficulties, I am afraid, will arise over this.
I move motion No. 12:—
That Seanad Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 1, Amendment) Order, 1935, made on the 22nd day of March, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).
I second the motion.
This particular amending Order is of a different character from the other. The original Order applied to both covers and tyres. This amending Order divides both covers and tyres.
I move motion No. 13:—
That Seanad Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 2, Amendment) Order, 1935, made on the 22nd day of March, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).
I second the motion.
This, I know, is an amending Order. I would suggest to the Minister that he might go a little too far in regard to No. 3, as there is considerable difficulty in getting delivery from Irish manufacturers, and a good deal of scarcity. I know that there has been a vast improvement in the administration of the Quota Order. The improvement, I think, is due to the fact perhaps that people are better able to understand them and to put in their own orders better. There had been, as we know, a great deal of grumbling. Now I find that that has largely ceased and there is more satisfaction at the working of the Quotas. I think that is very largely due to the firms themselves.
I think Senator Douglas is referring to Quota No. 3, but, as a matter of fact, we have not yet passed No. 2.
I move motion No. 14:—
That Seanad Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 3, Amendment) Order, 1935, made on the 22nd day of January, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).
I second the motion.
The purpose of this Order is to extend the quota arrangement to cover children's and infants' boots and shoes. All other boots were previously subject to the quota, and now this brings within the Quota Order children's and infants' boots and shoes. At the same time the whole quota is increased. It is possible that we were, to some extent, unduly restrictive in the first period. We had not data upon which to go in fixing the quota and decided to start with the same percentage as for adults. We have experience now of the operation of the Order, and any demands made upon imports to any extent that it is possible to meet while definitely seeing that protection takes place at home will be met. We can fix additional quotas with more precision in future.
Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that children's and infants' boots and shoes are much lower in price and do not yield anything like the same profit. If you increase the quota without including infants' boots and shoes which give no profit and cannot get into the Saorstát, you cannot expect people to bring them in at the expense of other boots and shoes for which there is a good demand. That is bound to occur, humanity being what it is, and that is why at the moment there is a considerable shortage of infants' shoes.
It might be better if we had two Orders.
I think it would be.
I move motion No. 15:—
That Seanad Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 4, Amendment) Order, 1935, made on the 22nd day of January, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).
I second the motion.
Will the Minister say whether rubber shoes are likely to be made here?
Yes. We will be able to have them soon.
There is a good chance for next year?
I think so.
As we are not likely to have any business next week the House stands adjourned sine die.
The House rose at 7.45 p.m.
