Will the Minister be attending?
Emergency Powers (Importation of Fabrics) Order, 1942—Motion to Revoke (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That Seanad Éireann is of opinion that the Emergency Powers (Importation of Fabrics) Order, 1942, should be revoked.—(Senator Douglas.)
No; I understand he is engaged in the Dáil.
Before the debate on this motion concludes, it might be well to recall that Senator Douglas moved to revoke an Order made by the Minister for Supplies, which restricted the importation of fabrics on a price basis. The defence made by the Minister was that he desired to have fabrics imported which would be of a cheaper character, suitable for the lower paid classes of the community. Senator Douglas, as usual, made his case in a very calm and clear fashion. It was well documented and concerned a matter on which the Senator is necessarily an expert, as, since he left school, he has been making a living in this particular trade. I do not profess to have any special knowledge in this matter, but I listened to the Minister for Supplies, as I have often done before, and it struck me that he was more than usually assertive and more than usually inaccurate, and that he departed more than usual from what seemed to me to be the obvious truth of the situation.
How did he meet the case made to him? He met it by stating he would not yield an inch. Now, having said with great vigour that he would not yield an inch, he in fact yielded an ell in this particular matter. His case was, in the first instance, that Senator Douglas had misunderstood most of the facts, that an attempt was being made to organise a ramp in this matter, and that it would appear that the ramp was being organised by traders and importers who were desirous of bringing in higher-priced fabrics so as to make a higher profit on them. The Minister further stated that the assertion that he had not consulted representatives of the trade was completely unfounded. I would like, briefly, to take up these points on the basis of the Minister's own statement. Is it not rather an insult to a House of this kind that the Minister for Supplies should tell us that a member of the House of Senator Douglas' standing has completely misunderstood the facts dealing with the importation of fabrics for his own business—that having had 20 years' Parliamentary experience, and having been all his life in this particular business he is unable now, in 1942 to understand the simple facts upon which an Order is made and its effects.
It would appear to me, on the face of things, much more likely that the Minister himself has rashly rushed into an action which he will eventually have to repair. The statement that an attempt is being made to organise a ramp—a ramp meaning an attempt to get from the purchasers extortionate prices, or, according to the dictionary, a swindle—suggests that Senator Douglas was either a willing participant in a swindle, or else, presumably, the swindlers had succeeded in pulling the wool over his eyes. It will be very difficult to convince those of us who have known him for some time, and even members who have heard him since the inception of this House, that if there are traders in this city who have been trying to swindle the public, they have been successful in deceiving Senator Douglas into pleading their case. The truth is that the words of the Minister were used recklessly and with no regard for their truth and accuracy.
The other case the Minister made was that this ramp was being organised by importers and traders in the high-class trade. One does not need to have close acquaintance with Dublin to know that the trade of Wexford Street is not what is normally called a high-class trade, and that if there are importers and traders in this city who desire to import nothing but high-priced fabrics, it would be a most extraordinary situation if Senator Douglas were one of them, because he would surely be cutting the throat of his own business. The Minister told us that the sale of the dearer fabrics is the more profitable. I wonder if that is true. He told us in another part of this debate that he wanted to compel the importers to import fabrics suitable for the poorer classes. He told us, as reported in column 1232:—
"The agitation organised in that connection is, I think, based on selfish, sectional interests, and it has been supported by theoretical arguments about certain dangers."
How a person of Senator Douglas' experience, as contrasted with that of the Minister or his advisers, could be charged with "theoretical arguments" on this question, baffles me. I would imagine that the "selfish sectional interests" of traders and importers in this city would be all in favour of bringing into this city, and this State, for sale the cheaper-priced fabrics for which obviously the turnover must be much greater than that for dearer-priced fabrics. As a matter of fact, the Minister played his usual card. He played it on bread rationing and he made a muddle of it, and he applied it last week in clothes rationing—the making of class distinction between the rich and the poor, and posing as a champion of the poor.
He told us that he was concerned not for the people who had well-stocked wardrobes but for those who could not stock them at all. Surely the people who have well-stocked wardrobes are the people who can afford to pay for high-priced stuff. Surely the position is that, if there is a real scarcity, the rich can compete for the poorer fabrics, whereas the poor can never compete for dearer fabrics. One comes to the conclusion that the Minister is deceived and led away by his own undoubted capacity for debate. He can make a wonderful case in debate, and he has given up thinking and working and tries to make his case in the Dáil or Seanad in a skilful but completely inaccurate and untruthful manner. Senator Douglas stated quite calmly that as far as he could find out, and he, presumably, is in touch with both importers and traders, no consultation with the representatives of the trade had taken place. The Minister's reply was that the assertion was completely unfounded. But the Minister himself went on to say that discussions were held with representatives of the trade who were best able to give the advice that the Department required. That was on column 1,219. On column 1,221, he said: "Representations were received from practically all the importing interests, to the effect that the prices published were too low, and that it would be impossible to procure any considerable quantity of supplies within those price limits." He wants us to believe that he first consulted representatives of the trade, that he then made the Order, and then found that, in his own words, practically all the importing interests were against him. It is difficult to believe that he did consult people at all, or certainly if he did consult them then they gave him astoundingly bad advice. The Minister, therefore, immediately mended his hand and raised the prices.
Since then he has taken a step further. He has said that he will grant all the licences asked for up to the 31st July. In other words, if there is a ramp he has himself yielded to that ramp. In a sense he is not making the Order operative until after the 31st July while giving the traders concerned all the trouble possible. In dealing with very important matters of this kind where trade is concerned, and not only trade but employment, there should in the first instance be consideration for the views of the people who know the business. Necessarily in an emergency, and even before this emergency, Governments interfere in a great many spheres with which they previously had no contacts at all. How are they going to be sure that they are not going to do harm unless they consult the interests concerned? Nobody will maintain that every particular interest consists exclusively of angels who will give advice in the public interest and not consider their own interests, but certainly they are entitled to be heard before their business is interfered with and before employment and supplies are reduced.
In this particular instance, it would appear the Minister made the Order, in spite of what he has said, before consulting representatives of the trade, or if he did consult them, they are certainly very difficult to find. Again if he did consult them, they gave him, on his own showing, advice that was totally contrary to the right advice. He certainly should adopt the principle of consultation before he acts, instead of what he seems to be doing at present, namely, acting in haste, then mending his hand, having further delays and, finally, having caused considerable trouble and dislocation in business, coming to the point of view which he might have adopted with greater profit to himself and to everybody else in the beginning. He defends himself always, and in this instance in particular, by making gross charges and vigorous misstatements about anyone who ventures to utter one word of criticism. He professes always to be right, always to have consultations and never to deviate from his path but, like many strong-worded people, he does of course deviate, he does of course give in and he has done so in this particular instance. But really from the point of view of the nontechnical person, knowing nothing of the business and merely taking an interest in the debate here, it would appear that the remedy is that the Minister should consult the interests concerned. He should do it because no Minister, no matter how able, could possibly have a knowledge of all the varying supplies with which he has now to deal, and no Civil Service, no matter how recruited, could possibly be expected to be in a position to deal with them. The remedy would appear to be to have consultation beforehand and then to come to a conclusion when the interests concerned had been heard—not after selected persons had been heard, but after genuine representatives had been heard. That, from the point of view of the public, the consumer, the taxpayer and the members of this House would be a much better course to pursue than to take hasty action and then to try to patch up a very ill-constructed plan.
Might I ask the Senator if he is aware that the majority of the purchases of the higher priced articles in the City of Dublin at present are made by people, not alone who are well off, but who live outside the jurisdiction of this State?
Mr. Hayes
I do not know of any such thing, but if the position is that people outside the jurisdiction of the State are taking things out of the State which we need, that seems to be something which should be met and I would support any steps, no matter how drastic, to meet that position. I do not think, however, I could accept the Senator's view. I am not in a position to speak with authority on this matter. I have heard something of the kind mentioned, but I think you should not rely on some fact, if it is a fact, of that kind to interfere with the ordinary trade or to prevent people from making purchases which they require when it would appear that there are ample stocks of these requirements. Traders, I submit, should not have been prevented from importing fabrics when and where they could get them.
When the Minister consults people before making Orders he is accused of consulting them, and if he does not consult them he is accused of not consulting them.
I know the Minister perhaps longer than Senator Quirke and I do not think many people have abused him for consulting people. That is not his line.
It is a good job he has some virtues.
I do not propose to follow Senator Hayes into the question as to whether or not I am particularly gullible, easily misled, or easily fooled. I am not a particularly good judge of my own failings, and even the most stupid person will not admit that he is easily fooled. Therefore, somebody else must be the judge, and I do not propose to follow Senator Hayes in his remarks on that aspect of the matter. With regard to what Senator Quirke has stated, I can tell him that the fabrics and clothing that have been brought outside this State for some time past were not the highly-priced articles as he said. The fact is that there has been a certain amount going out but they have not been only the highly-priced goods by any means. I may tell him also that if our fellow-countrymen who do not live within the borders of this State were only taking away such clothing as was not suitable for the needs of our own people I would not attempt to stop them. The reason that I am in favour of some action which would prevent goods necessary for our own citizens being removed from within the State is, that I do not believe that such goods are all highly-priced goods. Therefore, I do not think that Senator Quirke is on the right lines in making that suggestion. At the same time, while I admit for some time past, particularly in the last few months, there have been very considerable purchases by people living outside the State, I do not for a moment suppose that these purchases represent one-half per cent. of the total sales in the trade. I do not put that forward as my own experience. This is a matter which has been under consideration recently by a trade committee. This may not be relevant to this motion but it would be relevant to another motion on the Order Paper in my name which I am not moving at the present sitting but which I may have to move at a later stage. All reasonable people on either side of the Border would agree that the needs of our own people must be met before allowing any goods out of the country at the present time. It is not a question of ill will towards anybody outside. It is just a question of plain necessity.
Since this motion was moved on May 20th, the Minister has again mended his hand and has announced that while the Order must remain and licences must still be asked for, it is not the intention of the Department to refuse licences for the importation of fabrics imported before the 31st July. At the outset, the date was fixed as the 20th April. It was then extended to 30th June and it is now being further extended to 31st July. That is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough because the position on the other side is such that until the utility programme is in full force, there is no possible ground that I can see for not taking whatever fabrics may be available. That means that the date should be extended, at any rate until the 30th September. I think, personally, that it is very probable that by slow instalments it will be so extended judging by what has happened already. It is, of course, a matter for satisfaction that we have got an extension to the 31st July. By doing that the Minister is really admitting that his action on the 30th April was altogether unjustified, at any rate in so far as imports up to the 31st July are concerned. It is obvious that the Minister does not realise, though there is no one in the trade who does not realise, that this Order has caused considerable chaos and inconvenience and very considerable resentment amongst exporters on the other side. I know, personally, of cases of people who used to trade here and who are now saying that the Éire trade is too much trouble and they are not going to bother about it in future. There was a considerable fear when it was announced that the Order would be enforced after June 30th, that goods on order would not arrive before that date. Exporters on the other side pointed out that while they were prepared to send out goods ordered before June 30th, they had absolutely no control over transit. I can tell the House, and there are many others who can also tell the House, that while sometimes it is possible to get goods in ten or 12 days, it takes on other occasions from six to eight weeks from the date on which the goods are despatched. If there are members here who are in business they will know that what I am saying is absolutely correct and is in no way exaggerated. In view of recent statements on behalf of the Government it is surely obvious that it is extremely bad policy, when you are facing—and I agree we are facing—a probably acute shortage of certain types of fabrics, to do anything whatever that would place difficulties in the way of exporters. When we find that that was done, and then withdrawn and extended, that in itself, to my mind, is an absolute condemnation of this Order which I moved to revoke.
In the first sentence of his speech on this motion, the Minister for Supplies showed very clearly how much he is out of touch with manufacturers and traders who are affected by the Order. He said it was obvious that an attempt was being made to organise a ramp. I am not as clear as Senator Hayes seemed to be as to what exactly a ramp is; I am certainly not at all clear as to what the Minister meant by it, but he did undoubtedly convey to me the suggestion that he believed the opposition to the Order was not sincere. If he still thinks that, I can tell him that he is absolutely wrong, but it may explain to some extent why he used the occasion to make some completely unjustifiable and I think very extraordinary attacks not only on distributors in this country but also on British exporters. When you are trying to buy goods from people, I do not think you should make reflections on them. That is putting it mildly. I could say a lot more about it. The Minister said—and I want to quote his actual words—
"The danger was that the shortage of supplies in fabrics would be exploited both by the British exporters and the Irish importers to the detriment of the Irish consumers. The shortage is such that there is temptation to importers to use the limited import facilities available to get in the most expensive classes of goods in order to keep up their turnover and to the British exporters, whose profits on the home market have been seriously curtailed by the restrictions, to make up by their export trade."
He also said:—
"Importers here have been advised by British merchants that they were not prepared to use up their quotas for the importation here of fabrics which yielded only small profits."
I cannot find any justification for either of those statements. I myself have had goods delivered to me recently which were ordered 15 months ago without even a request for a farthing a yard advance over the price that had been agreed on. I asked questions at a recent committee meeting of the distributive trade, and I was given several instances where contracts were kept even though the market price had gone up 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. before goods were delivered. If that is being done, the House will not be surprised when I say that when I was in Manchester recently endeavouring to get further supplies, and the Minister's speech or portion of it having been shown there, I was asked for an explanation. I could not give one except to state that as far as I was concerned I was prepared to say publicly that I and other Irish traders had got a square deal. Even if there are some abuses, it is very bad policy to draw attention to them in public at this time. If there was an abuse, approach the Government on the other side and take steps if possible to have it adjusted, but do not make general charges against honest people from whom it is essential that we should get as much supplies as possible at the present time.
I have made careful inquiries and have not come across any case where United Kingdom exporters stated that they would not supply cheaper goods because they yielded only small profits. I am aware that in some cases manufacturers stated that they would expect buyers to place orders over the range of cloths available, and include in such orders some of the dearer cloths as well as some of the cheaper cloths. That is not an unusual practice, and I think it quite reasonable. As I stated in my opening speech, it is ridiculous, to my mind, for the Minister to state, as he did in the Dáil, that there is an inducement for importers to use the most expensive class of goods because on these they make the most profit. Generally speaking, the retail trade is divided; some cater for the better class trade and some for the poorer classes. I myself would gain if the Minister could get the same total of fabrics and it was all of the cheaper classes; more of it, probably, would come to me, as it would be less use to some of my higher class competitors. But that, of course, is not the issue, as he just cannot arrange it that way. Each retailer will buy, as far as he possibly can, the goods his customers require. If he does not, someone else will buy the goods required by the public, and he will not do his trade. A retailer catering for the lower class trade will buy the cheapest fabrics he can get and, if he is forced to buy fabrics at a high price, the probability is that he will get a lower profit owing to the keen competition which still exists in the drapery trade.
There is no evidence whatever to show that Irish importers have placed orders for an undue proportion of higher priced or other fabrics which came outside the prices or types set out in Circular I.F. 5, issued by the Minister. In fact the Minister himself gave the House evidence to the contrary. He said that the cloths for which he had refused licences represented only 1 per cent. of the total area of cloth for which applications had been received. This means that of the fabrics on order on April 20th only 1 per cent. were a type or price which the Minister considered should not be imported. Surely this proves out of the Minister's own mouth that there was no real foundation for his suggestions that the position was being exploited either by Irish importers or United Kingdom exporters. I am inclined to think that his figures— though I do not question their accuracy—are somewhat misleading. His total of 3,430,000 square yards for which he issued import licences probably represents the total which importers hoped to get, not the total of which they were certain of delivery. But even if he is right, it does not alter the validity of any argument that the proportion of fabrics on order outside the price or type approved by him was relatively very small indeed.
I think I made it very clear that I was not opposed to the object which the Minister states he had in view. He admitted that this object cannot be fully achieved without some measure of agreement with the authorities in the United Kingdom. If the Importation of Fabrics Order was based on any agreement which had been made, I need scarcely say that I would not have moved a motion that it should be revoked. The Minister's speech left me under the impression that he had been endeavouring to secure some agreement since August, 1941, and that so far it had not materialised. I do not, of course, expect him to disclose any Departmental correspondence of a private character, but I am strongly of the opinion that he should not have made this Order until he knew beyond doubt that there could be no danger of a diminution of the total fabrics imported as a result of his action.
The Minister made more than one reference to discussions with the Secretary of the Cotton Board, and he attributed statements to him which greatly surprised me. According to the Minister, the Secretary of the Cotton Board suggested in December, 1941, that the Irish Government should regulate the imports of cotton piece goods so as to secure that the most essential types of goods would be imported here. The Secretary of the Cotton Board, according to the Minister, thought that it was possible to arrange that our import licensing system should be wedded to the British export licensing system and he is also stated to have agreed that, if imports were left unrestricted, merely expensive and non-essential fabrics would be supplied and that he, the Secretary of the Cotton Board, had already noticed a tendency to export the higher qualities of piece goods in preference to cheaper goods.
The Secretary of the Cotton Board is further stated to have informed the Minister's Department that he saw no reason why British merchants, advised of the type of goods for which there was an import preference here, should not use their market allocations to have these goods made up for export to this country. If these statements attributed to the secretary of the Cotton Board were a full and correct statement of the position, and if the United Kingdom export licensing system had been in fact satisfactorily related to the import licensing system set up under this Order, then I would be the first to admit that the Minister's case for the Order would be a good one.
Unfortunately I do not believe that they are a full and accurate statement of the position. I do not believe that it is practicable under present conditions to make any arrangements by which the United Kingdom export licensing system can be wedded to our licensing system nor do I believe that it is possible for British merchants at the present time to use their market allocations to supply exactly the type of goods most desired. As I stated in my speech proposing this motion, I believe that it would not be impossible to make our imports here fit in with United Kingdom production arrangements if proper steps were taken to bring these about, but it is very clear to everyone in the trade that any such arrangements could only become effective some three or four months after they were made.
I am in a certain amount of difficulty with regard to the Minister's statements as to these conversations with the secretary of the Cotton Board. As many members of the House are aware, I find it necessary in the course of business to visit Manchester frequently and to keep in close touch with the cotton trade in Great Britain.
I have known the secretary of the Cotton Board personally for several years, and he is a man for whose ability, experience and integrity I have the highest possible regard. Statements made by him with regard to exports of cotton or artificial silk fabrics would carry very great weight indeed, not only with me but with importers generally, as no one could be in a better position to ascertain the facts than he. The House will, I am sure, appreciate my difficulty. On the one hand, I am sure the Minister would not attribute statements to the secretary of the Cotton Board unless he believed them to be true and, on the other hand, I am certain that this gentleman would not make statements which were not accurate. When, therefore, I find that the Minister quotes statements from the secretary of the Cotton Board which simply do not fit in with the position as I have found it on a recent visit to Manchester, I am forced to the conclusion that there has been a serious misunderstanding somewhere. I would like to ask the Minister if notes were taken of the conversations to which he refers, and if so, if such notes were approved by the secretary of the Cotton Board. If this was not done, I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should get in touch with the secretary of the Cotton Board and ascertain if he agrees that the Minister's speech accurately represents what he desired to convey in the conversations to which the Minister referred. I feel that it is important that this should be done. My experience of the cotton authorities in Manchester shows that they have been very ready to appreciate our difficulties and to help in every way in their power. As I stated in my previous speech, I consider that they acted in a generous manner in allowing such large exports of rayon fabrics when cotton fabrics were not available. It would be a tragedy if the goodwill existing between United Kingdom exporters and Irish importers should be impaired by any misunderstanding. I am convinced that the supplies to this country not only in this trade but in most, if not all, other trades can be maintained best by personal contact in the course of trade and that the less Government interference there is the better, except on supplies of goods which are completely controlled by another Government.
The Minister stated that he did not know where I got the idea that his Department did not consult with parties interested before he made the Order. I propose to tell the House why I made the statement that, as far as I was aware, he did not consult experienced representatives of importers before he made the Order. I did not make that statement without having inquired from responsible officials of associations likely to be affected.
In view of the Minister's statement, I have since written to all the organisations that I could think of which were likely to be affected, in order to verify the information I had previously received. The Minister did not tell us whom he consulted. I can now tell the House definitely whom he could have consulted but did not consult, and the House can judge for itself whether or not I was justified in the statement I made.
I have here a letter from the Secretary of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers written in reply to a query from me, in which he states that none of the following groups of manufacturers was consulted before the Order was made:—
(a) Mantle and gown group, comprising women's costumes of woollen and worsted cloth, art silk, and cotton, and silk.
(b) Shirt group.
(c) Made-up household cotton piece goods group, comprising overalls for men and women, aprons, uniforms of cotton, etc.
(d) Underwear of silk and art silk group.
(e) Glove manufacturers' group.
These are all groups within the federation which would be at all likely to be affected by the Importation of Fabrics Order, and the secretary tells me that none of them was consulted, and he is unable to find any individual case in which there was consultation. If individuals were consulted, they did not tell the association they had been so consulted. The secretary of the federation also adds that, as far as he knew, the mattress makers and the upholsterers were not consulted. I wrote also to the Secretary of the Irish Woollen Merchants' Association, and he replied that his association was not consulted as an association, and he can find no evidence that any of the members were consulted individually. The Secretary of the Irish Merchant Tailors' Association wrote that, as far as his association as a body was concerned, they were not consulted before the Order was made and that, as far as he can gather from extensive inquiries, none of the individual members of the association was consulted.
I have also been definitely informed in writing that neither the Federation of Boot Manufacturers of Ireland, nor the Association of Woollen and Worsted Manufacturers of Ireland were consulted, nor had the secretary any knowledge of individual members being consulted. This also applies to the Linen and Cotton Textile Association, of which I am chairman. The secretary of the Irish Clothing and Cap Manufacturers' Association, Limited, wrote to me that his association was not consulted, nor was any individual member as far as he is aware. The Drapers' Chamber of Trade, which represents a very large number of the retail importers, replied in some detail to my inquiry, and I propose to read the letter in full:—
"In reply to your letter of the 27th instant enquiring whether the chamber had been consulted by the Minister for Supplies before he issued Emergency Powers (Importation of Fabrics) Order, 1942, the first intimation the chamber got of this Order was through its publication in the daily Press, and subsequently copies of Circular I.F.1 were received through the post without any accompanying communication, and the chamber was not asked to express its views on the prices set out in the circular."
Circular I.F.1 is the circular that was withdrawn and substituted by Circular I.F.5. The letter continued:—
"The chamber sent a letter protesting against these prices to the Minister on the 10th of April and a reply was received from him on the 18th April"—two days before the Order was to come into effect—"in which he made the following assertion. ‘I understand that when copies of this circular were furnished to you, it was indicated that the price limits shown were tentative and that observations on them would be welcomed. I understand, furthermore, that the Drapers' Chamber of Trade have neglected to take advantage of repeated invitations extended to them to come to my Department and discuss the matter.' On the 4th May the chamber replied telling the Minister that he appeared to have been misinformed when he stated that the Drapers' Chamber of Trade had refused repeated invitations to come to his Department to discuss the matter, and setting out the facts of the case, as shown in the first paragraph of this letter.
Neither the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, nor any individual member, as far as I am aware, was consulted by the Minister for Supplies before he issued Emergency Powers (Importation of Fabrics) Order, 1942, or Circular I.F.1."
These letters represent associations which, taken together, are fully representative of importers of fabrics, and while I cannot prove that the Minister did not consult any person in the trade—and in any case I do not want to prove it, I am prepared to accept his word—unfortunately I am not able to agree with him that the persons he did consult were the persons able to advise. If you have any doubt about that just read his own speech. I have produced proofs that he did not consult those representatives of the trade best able to advise him. I simply do not know why he did not consult them.
This Order was published approximately three weeks before it was to come into effect, and there was no question of secrecy. They could easily have been consulted before it was made and I cannot ascertain why he did not seek the help of responsible organisations. I want to say here, carefully and deliberately, that I think there is going to be resentment, trouble, and, not infrequently, chaos, until the Minister is prepared to reverse his present policy, and consult responsible people before he makes orders that are going to interfere with trade. The resentment and chaos is not going to be a matter affecting the trade alone, but the public as well. It has been suggested by the Irish Press, and I think in other quarters, that the obvious reason why the Minister cannot consult the trade beforehand is that secrecy is absolutely essential. I want to tell the House that I do not believe that the traders and manufacturers of Britain who are consulted by the Government are a bit more honourable than our manufacturers. I do not say that every manufacturer or trader has as high a standard as everyone else, but it is absurd to say that you could not get a consultative committee of people who, after giving their word to secrecy, would not keep it. I do not say that the Minister has said that, but it is implied in his attitude. At any rate, the experiment is worth trying.
In England, when it became necessary to ration clothing, a committee was appointed and there was no forestalling as far as I could gather. There was no rush on the shops—no one knew about it until a Sunday morning. That scheme was brought into operation after consultation with experts chosen from the distributive trade. I remember the circumstances well because I was in England at the time. Here, we had no consultation beforehand, but we all know what happened in the ten days before rationing came into operation. I think there is an important principle there and that, in the interests of good government, the Government ought to change its present policy. I am convinced the Minister is on the wrong line, and he has been on the wrong line in this matter with very serious effects.
The Minister stated in his speech that not one yard of fabric was lost to this country as a result of this Order, but he admits by implication that 30,000 square yards might have been lost if he had not mended his hand and he speaks with equanimity of a possible loss of 10 per cent. as if it would not be very serious.
Why cannot the Senator accept that figure?
I cannot accept that we can look on a loss of 10 per cent. of fabric with equanimity in view of an actual shortage.
Are we questioning the Minister's statement that ultimately there would be no loss in the matter of area?
I definitely do so, and I am prepared to show to the Senator a case which I am now about to quote. The Minister says that not one yard of fabric was lost to the country. I can tell him it is not correct, and I have not gone into details of all the cases. One firm, to my own personal knowledge, cancelled orders for fabrics after it had been refused a licence. An appeal was made to the Department and a letter was received in reply that regrettably they could not change their view, and unfortunately the order was cancelled. When the Minister changed his mind and said that anything might come in, the firm concerned telegraphed immediately to the exporters on the other side to see whether they could get the goods put on order again. The exporting firm were quite decent about it, and were actually able to give them approximately half of the original order—the rest had gone and it was impossible to replace it. I do not want to make too much out of that, but if the Minister makes an attempt to show that not one yard was lost, I am entitled to give him one case. I know there were other cases, but it does not matter. He did his best, after a time, to remedy it, and you may take it that the traders did their best to get goods which they had cancelled. To say that not one yard was lost is putting me in an unfair position, and I can produce letters if he wants to see them.
The Minister argued that if Irish importers do not make it clear that they can only buy the cheaper classes of goods from British merchants, the ratio of dearer goods as against the cheaper articles will grow higher. This and other statements made by him show that he is quite out of touch with the position in the United Kingdom. I would like to know how many officials of his Department visited England in order to ascertain the facts, before this Order was made, which would enable him to frame it accurately from that point of view. I doubt very much if a single one of them was sent across. There are plenty of able men in the Department and it would have been a wise step.
British fabric production is now controlled in all types of fabrics and is being concentrated on utility fabrics. But production control takes time to operate and the bulk of the fabrics which have been available during the past few months and those likely to be available until in or about October next are fabrics in making now or which were in the making before production control was in force. In normal times it takes from three months in the case of very plain fabrics, to nine months in the case of fancy or printed fabrics, and the British control of production has to start from the beginning. In peace times control would not have effect for from four to eight months, and in war time that is nearly doubled. Preference must be given to essential articles required for the war and, as a result, items for export or for the civilian population must take second place. It is obvious to anybody that, in times of this kind, it would take longer than in peace time. I am still of opinion that this Order should be revoked and a new Order, based on agreement with the British authorities, substituted which would come into effect in or about October. Properly framed, it should not mean any loss in fabrics.
I think the House will agree that I did not bring this matter forward because of any personal grievance. I need not go into that further, in view of what Senator Hayes has said. I am not sufficiently interested in the items excluded to make it worth my while bothering about it. I brought the question forward because I was aware of the serious difficulties the Minister had created for importers, and because I fear that, unless new methods are adopted in so far as any new Order is concerned, there will be a loss of fabrics. That point can be raised again, in connection with another matter, but need not be dealt with now.
I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation as to why he stated in the Dáil that exports of art silk fabrics from the United Kingdom to Éire were rationed. He admits he was wrong, but he explained it by telling us—I am quoting from his speech—that in September, 1941, he was officially advised that rayon fabrics would be restricted in export from Britain. Apparently, he did not take the trouble to find out if, in fact, this had been done before he made his statement in the Dáil. The Minister apparently fails to realise that it is a very serious matter for him to make statements in the Dáil which have not been properly verified. This is particularly so when the inaccurate statement relates to important supplies which importers here are endeavouring to obtain. Not only does it confuse the position for traders but it creates a want of confidence in other statements made by the Minister.
During the last few days the Minister has made a number of statements about another Order, the Rationing of Clothes Order. While I disagree to some extent with them, I think they were mostly correct, particularly those with regard to future supplies. I am speaking now of statements of fact. I was asked in all seriousness by a trader if the Minister's statements were any more reliable as to future supplies than was his statement to the effect that imports of rayon fabrics were restricted in export from Great Britain when, in fact, they were not at the time he made the statement. I do not think he realises that statements of this kind do not do the country or the Government any good, and I am not saying that from any Party point of view. If he had even taken the trouble to look up the figures for rayon fabrics, he would have seen that enormous quantities were coming in, and certainly he would have known that the statements made in September, 1941—where he says that the British intended to restrict the quantities to the 1940 level— were not borne out in fact.
I do not propose to reply in detail to the other arguments put forward by the Minister in his speech. Most of them were against the statements made by me in my original speech, and it would be wrong to take up the time of the House in dealing with them. If Senators here are sufficiently interested —and the issue is one of importance— I would ask them to read my original speech carefully, and the Minister's reply, and to consider them purely on the merits of the criticism I have made now.
In conclusion, I still cannot see what case there is for requiring licences for goods which the Minister says he will let in anyway. If he says that everything of a certain class will come in without question, why should there be the expense and trouble, the time of officials and the customs delays, taken up through insisting on licences? There may be a case for requiring licences for fabrics which the Minister will not let in generally, but only exceptionally. Why should there be a licence for fabrics in respect of which he says that we may order them freely and that licences will be issued? I do not think he made a case for that in his speech. He referred to boot and shoe linings as fabrics which would require licences. However, those are not among the fabrics which he has agreed to admit freely. They are not on the list. I do not know why he brought them into this argument or why he was shy in refusing the request of the boot and shoe manufacturers, asking that the British be asked for an extra amount. He refused even to pass on their request. I have a certain amount of experience in trade and have not been a bit shy in asking for more. I have not always got it, but I had no hesitation in looking for it.
I am sorry for having taken up so much time of the House, but these matters interest not only me personally, but a large number of people whom I represent. Having carefully considered the matter, I still think that the most honourable and most frank way would be to revoke the Order. It has no real effect until July 31st, except that one cannot import without a licence. I would advise that a new Order be issued after some sort of agreement with the British authorities. I think it is quite possible to have that done, to take effect in or about the 1st October.
Question put and declared lost.
Votáil.
Would the Senators challenging a division please rise in their places?
Senators Baxter, Douglas, M. Hayes, Joseph Johnston and McGee rose.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 23.
Tá.
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Cummins, William.
- Douglas, James G.
- Doyle, Patrick.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Johnston, Joseph.
- McGee, James T.
- Tierney, Michael.
Níl.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Goulding, Seán.
- Hawkins, Frederick.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Johnston, James.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Peter T.
- Kennedy, Margaret L.
- MacCabe, Dominick.
- Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar
- (Cú Uladh).
- Magennis, William.
- O Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Donovan, Seán.
- O'Dwyer, Martin.
- Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Ruane, Thomas.
- Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Baxter and Doyle; Níl: Senators Goulding and Hawkins.
Motion declared lost.