Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Nov 1931

Vol. 40 No. 7

Financial Resolutions. - Customs Duties (Provisional Imposition) Bill, 1931—Committee.

SECTION I.

Whenever the Executive Council is satisfied, on the report of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the immediate imposition or variation of a customs duty on any particular description of goods is necessary to prevent an expected dumping of goods of that description or an expected importation of goods of that description, in either case arising out of financial or other events in other countries and occurring in circumstances which would occasion industrial injury, the Executive Council may—

(a) if no customs duty is then in force in respect of goods of the said particular description, by order impose, whether with or without qualifications, restrictions, or exemptions, a customs duty of such an amount as they think proper to specify in such order on all goods of the said particular description imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after a day (not being prior to the day on which such an order is made) specified in such order and (if the Executive Council thinks fit so to specify) on all goods of the said particular description landed in Saorstát Eireann on or after the said day; or

(b) if a customs duty is then in force in respect of goods of the said particular description, by order vary, in respect of goods imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after a day (not being prior to the day on which such order is made) specified in such order and (if the Executive Council thinks fit so to specify) in respect of goods landed in Saorstát Eireann on or after the said day, the said customs duty in all or any of the following ways, that is to say, by increasing the rate of the said duty by such amount, or by imposing such conditions or restrictions or by terminating such exemptions as the Executive Council shall in each case think proper to specify in such order.

Mr. Lemass

I move:

In lines 25 and 26 to delete the words "in either case arising out of financial or other events in other countries."

It seems to me that unless these words are deleted this Bill cannot be possibly operated to prevent the dumping of Polish suits, Russian sweets and Chinese bacon, or anything else which Deputies spoke of. The Minister has made it quite clear in his concluding speech on the Second Stage that it is not intended that the Bill should be used to prevent the dumping of articles of that kind which does not arise out of financial or other events in other countries. I am proposing, however, that the scope of the Bill should be extended by the deletion of these words so as to confer upon the Executive Council the power to use it to prevent the dumping which Deputies on both sides of the House have been deploring during the past hour. I hope these Deputies will support my amendment if the Minister decides to oppose it. If the amendment is defeated and these words remain in the Bill, I am not at all clear that the Bill can in fact be made effective to deal with any dumping that is likely to occasion industrial injury here. What the exact significance and effect of the words are is not clear. I should like the Minister to make it clear. I am quite certain that if they are deleted the meaning of the section will be clear. It will confer upon the Executive Council power to deal with dumping at any time, no matter from what cause that dumping may arise. I am very strongly of the opinion that the Executive Council should have that power and therefore I propose the amendment.

Mr. Blythe

We do not want power to deal with dumping except dumping that will arise out of some situation such as you have in England, or perhaps dumping that might arise out of a sensational collapse of currency in some country, or some special thing like that that would lead to dumping on an altogether unprecedented scale, on such an extensive scale that immediate action would be necessary. I do not know how far any variation in the words would actually tie or loose the Executive Council in the exercise of their powers, because the words are put in here more as a headline. They are rather vague words and put in more as a headline than as precise words that will actually tie up the Executive Council. They are fairly loose. They are meant to tie us to action when there are unusual events outside operating. If they were not in, and if we were left perfectly free to deal with any sort of dumping, I would be afraid that it might injure the efficiency of the machine for dealing with the sort of dumping that we do want to deal with, which might come suddenly, on a great scale, and if not checked do great injury to our industrial machine. Undoubtedly it would prevent us having to turn away all those people who are going to come with all the unfounded or ill-founded stories of dumping which it would be difficult to refuse to investigate, and which might occupy, to the exclusion of the things they ought to be considering, the officials who will be appointed to watch events in this particular matter.

The present Executive Council are fully determined not to deal with these ordinary allegations of dumping under this Bill, and if we do not put some phrase in the Bill cutting them out from consideration, then, as I say, we are going to have officers held up by these applications; we are going to have the wheels of the machine really impeded, and the things that we mean to deal with, the things that are a real danger, the things that there is no other method of dealing with, cannot be as well dealt with as if we were able to reserve the time and energy of those who will be dealing with the matter for watching these particular dangers.

Mr. Lemass

Might I point out to the Minister that he could achieve the purpose he wants to achieve much more effectively by defining the word "dumping"? I think that much of the misunderstanding arises from the fact that everybody appears to attach a different meaning to that word. The Minister himself gave a definition that I would not accept. He said that a manufacturer who sells goods at a reasonable profit to himself cannot be said to be dumping.

Mr. Blythe

Not in the ordinary course.

Mr. Lemass

In the ordinary course a manufacturer might be in a position to sell goods at very much less than they could be produced here and make a profit for himself by the simple process of reducing the wages of his workers and paying them what is called a starvation wage. That is, in my opinion, dumping.

Mr. Blythe

If it came down to what could be properly called a starvation wage, I agree.

Mr. Lemass

We are up against a certain proposition, that the Executive Council anticipate certain industrial injury may be caused here as a result of goods being diverted to this country if a tariff is imposed on these goods in England.

Mr. Blythe

Or if there is a suspicion that there is going to be a tariff.

Mr. Lemass

Industrial injury is being caused, we are assured by Deputies Byrne and Anthony and others, by the dumping at present of Polish clothing, Russian sweets and Chinese bacon. Deputy Byrne told us that this Bill will stop that. The Minister made it clear that it will not. We are anxious that it should, and that the industrial injury which is being caused by such importation will be prevented without the long delay that any application to the Tariff Commission involves. We are not asking that the Executive Council should take hasty action or irreparable action. If the Executive Council decide to act on such an allegation of dumping under this Bill, then they can review their action within ten days before coming with the motion required under the Bill to the Dáil, and if they decide that their action was taken hastily and without proper information as to the circumstances they can undo what they have done. But, in any case, we think that power to prevent industrial injury arising out of dumping should be in the possession of the Executive Council, whether that dumping is caused by public events in other countries or a policy adopted by particular manufacturers.

Mr. Blythe

In practically all other countries as I have been able to get information from about their arrangements in such matters, I found that the machinery is that there is an investigation by a Board or Committee or Tariff Commission or some such body, and then, if it is found that there is dumping, action is taken by the Government. We are proposing here in certain cases to dispense with that because the dumping may suddenly commence and be on such a scale that it would be no use acting after we had received a report from the Commission. In that sort of a case we may act under this Bill. In cases that do not seem to be of that character we have the machinery of the Tariff Commission and, while there is not just the same power as some other Governments have, there will be speedy action in dealing with ordinary dumping.

Mr. J.X. Murphy

I would have thought the Minister would rather have welcomed Deputy Lemass's amendment, because it certainly does not weaken his powers.

Mr. Blythe

It makes them too strong.

Mr. Lemass

It widens his powers to act.

Mr. Murphy

It is rather curiously worded:—"Arising out of financial or other events in other countries." What is the meaning of "other events"? I should think that if the Minister accepts Deputy Lemass's amendment he need not use these powers unless he likes.

Mr. Flinn

I rather agree with Deputy Murphy. I have got a sort of feeling that I must be wrong. I rather hesitate to go on for fear I might be under misapprehension. But it seems to me the words themselves are very strong. The words are "arising out of financial or other events." As far as I can see the words "other events" would cover nearly anything and, but for the explanation given by the Minister, I would be inclined to think that the particular amendment was unnecessary but, having regard to the statement of the Minister, it does seem to be necessary. As far as I can see the Minister does not know what the words mean and he does not want us to know what they mean. But we know what we mean and, therefore, we want the wording to mean what we do mean.

Mr. J.J. Bryne

That is involved enough.

Mr. Flinn

Entirely too involved for the intelligence of the Deputy. It is for reasons of this kind that I hesitate to believe that Deputy Murphy meant what he said when I found myself in agreement with him. The Minister apparently wants to take certain powers, that is powers that he is not prepared to use but powers that he can use. That is what he wants. He wants the whole thing to be entirely indefinite. Rightly or wrongly we should know what we mean in our Act. As far as I can see the Minister wants to have a sort of power of binding or loosing as he likes and not as the Bill says. Whatever may be the intention of the Minister this Bill when it becomes an Act will have to be construed by lawyers after he is gone. And it is for that reason that I call attention to the fact that this is only to remain in force for nine months. The intention is that the Act shall only be in the possession of a Government which does not know what it means by the Acts which it draws. We object to this Act being confined to nine months and we object to its being in such a vague form that the Minister does not know what it means. For this reason I am in favour of an amendment which will make it absolutely and precisely clear that the power which, in my opinion, is given in it is the power intended to be acted on and the power intended to be used.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister denies that this is panic and rushed legislation. I cannot see any reason why this Bill should not be discussed to-morrow or next week in Committee Stage. I cannot see any reason why it should be introduced to-day and that we should be given from 3.30 to 7 o'clock to see the Bill, put in amendments, and then have the Bill passed to-night. The Minister should give us time to consider what he means. If he would read the series of speeches he made upon the Bill he would find he made three different speeches. On the introduction of the Bill he gave particular reasons why it was necessary. On the Second Reading he gave another reason and now again on the Committee Stage he referred to different matters. I ask the Minister what he is keeping back? By other events does he anticipate some country would be in the state of war and that that might be an event that might entitle us to say we will stop their goods coming in here? China might be in a state of war with Japan and the Minister might say that by virtue of this section we are entitled to stop the dumping of Chinese goods in this country.

Deputy Lemass asked the Minister to try and define the word "dumping." The Minister defined it in his own way. Some of us might consider that if a country subsidised the manufacturer of a certain commodity, and that commodity being produced under these circumstances in a particular country, might give us the right to consider that that commodity was dumped by reason of the fact that it was subsidised in the country in which it was produced. I do not know whether the Minister could get a definition of dumping that would meet with the approval of everyone, taking into consideration the various views we hold as to what creates dumping. You might have a country where a manufacturer was producing at a reasonable profit to himself and paying a reasonable rate of wages according to the conditions there, but the money of that country compared, say, with this country might be so depreciated that we would have to call it dumping if they sent goods in here, owing to the low value of their currency as compared with ours. You have various points of view. The Minister says he does not think this will be put into use immediately. It will be a slow process. If that is so, why should the Bill be rushed through the House? Why not postpone the Committee Stage for a few days and give us an opportunity of thinking things out or, at least, digesting the Minister's explanations? I think there is something sinister behind the use of the words "or other events." There is something more than meets the eye, and the Minister has some other reasons that he does not want to give the House.

Question—"That the words to be deleted stand"—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Cole, John James.
• Conlan, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doyle, Edward.
• O'Leary, William.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kent, William R.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Boland and Allen.

Question declared carried.

Mr. Lemass

I move to add at the end of the section the words:—

"Provided that no such order shall be made in respect of any particular description of goods which are not, at the date of the making of such report by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, manufactured in commercial quantities within Saorstát Eireann."

The purpose of inserting that proviso is to ensure that this Bill can be used only for the protection of Irish industries and not for the protection of British industries, in other words, so that the Executive Council could not operate to exclude, for example, the importation of German goods—a class not manufactured here, for the benefit of English importers, or to exclude Russian goods for the benefit of American exporters, or to use the Bill in any way except to protect Irish industries against dumping of the class described in the section. It seems to me that if some such proviso is not put in, the Bill can be used for other purposes than the protection of Irish industries. After all we cannot protect industries that do not exist, and therefore I am sure the Minister can have no objection to the insertion of these words if, in fact, the sole intention in the Bill is to give him the power he asks to deal with dumping likely to cause industrial damage here. Deputy Byrne talked at length about using this Bill as a means of retaliation in the event of a tariff being imposed on Irish goods in other countries. I take it that there is no such intention as Deputy Byrne suggests. I would like to be assured also by the insertion of these words that there is no intention to use the powers conferred on the Executive Council as a counter in a bargain with England in relation to protective duties.

Mr. Blythe

The point the Deputy raises is covered by the phrase in sub-section (1) before the two paragraphs "which would occasion industrial injury." That makes it clear that the purpose of the Bill is to deal with the importation of goods which would tend to close up some industry here. The objection I have to the Deputy's amendment is that a great many disputes might arise as to what were "commercial quantities." You might even have an order challenged on that particular basis. You might have people with a relatively small industry—shall I say the leather industry or some other industry like that?—but still one well enough rooted here, who might challenge what were "commercial quantities." There might also be a question of substituting goods. You might have a class of article in general use manufactured here. You might have some article which could be used as a pretty general substitute for it not manufactured here. Nevertheless, it could be used for the same purpose as the goods manufactured here. You would be shut out from dealing with the substitute by this amendment as it would not provide for the substituted article. Generally I think the situation is sufficiently safeguarded by the indication in the first part of the sub-section to prevent industrial injury, and secondly by the provision that the whole matter must come before the Dáil within ten sitting days, and must be confirmed in the ordinary way. If it is not a matter that the Executive Council feel sure will commend itself to the Dáil it cannot take the risk of acting. If it is a matter that would commend itself to the Dáil, supposing all the manoeuvres that Deputy Lemass fears take place, then it is not a matter of great urgency and a resolution could be introduced. The whole purpose of the Bill, is to deal with something that must be dealt with within two or three days to prevent big and sudden importations. I think certain difficulties might be occasioned by these amendments and that the wording of the Bill and the general provisions for dealing with these proposed tariffs sufficiently safeguard the decision.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister stated that the words in the amendment "manufactured in commercial quantities" are much too loose and general, but surely they are much more precise than the words which the Minister relies on to justify the rejection of the amendment. He says that the words in line 29 "which would occasion industrial injury" would safeguard the position which Deputy Lemass has in mind. I think that the words "manufactured in commercial quantities" are a much more precise term than the words "which would occasion industrial injury." They are much less liable to abuse. After all, we have got to remember that we are placing a very great power in the hands of the Executive Council and that the words "which would occasion industrial injury" are capable of very wide interpretation. First of all the injury might be an immediate injury, injury to an industry immediately concerned with the manufacture of goods which are being dumped here, or it might be an injury to an ancillary or subsidiary industry. It seems that the words are capable of far too great an extension if they are allowed to stand in the Bill as at present. The avowed purpose of the Bill is to prevent injury being done to native industries. If there are no existing industries which would be so injured, then there is no occasion for the Bill and no reason for the wide powers which the Minister asks.

Again, I do not think it any safeguard to say that this matter would be referred to the Dáil within ten sitting days. We know that if the Executive Council make up their minds to take action under the Bill and if they come to the Dáil within a period of ten sitting days, they would make it a matter of confidence and they would compel their usual Party majority to go into the lobby in support of it, particularly if the action which they had taken gave rise to any serious contention here, and if there was a grave difference of opinion between the Government Party and the Opposition on the merits or as to their justification for acting under the Bill. We would have the Party Whips put on the other side. In that case it would only result in this, that the Executive Council would act as dictators in this fiscal matter and the country or the people affected by the action of the Executive Council would have no hope of having the decision of the Executive Council reversed or revised in any way.

I think that, the amendment which Deputy Lemass proposed is one which ought to be accepted by the House. It is much easier for the general public to ascertain that goods were being manufactured in commercial quantities than to specify that the importation of certain goods was going to occasion industrial injury. With regard to the question of substitute goods if the principle were once accepted a verbal alteration in the amendment would cover that.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Deputies cast their minds back to the first Report of the Tariff Commission dealing with an application for a tariff on woollen goods, they will find there stated on behalf of the manufacturers that there was a class of goods that had affixed to it a well-known trade description—"shoddy"—into the manufacture of which they were not going to enter. It was suggested by the Tariff Commission that by co-operative effort the millers might establish one or two factories for the manufacture of shoddy. They said that they would not do it, and so far they have not made any attempt to do it. Shoddy is a trade description. Is the Executive Council to be precluded from preventing the importation into this country of immense quantities of articles that would come under the heading of shoddy even though that might do tremendous industrial injury to the woollen manufacturers?

Mr. Lemass

That is a matter of the description of goods. It seems to me that the Government are trying to avoid the real issue here. The Minister for Finance talked of the ten days within which an order must be approved of by the Dáil, that is ten days on which the Dáil has sat and which might in fact be six calendar months so that the safeguard is very slight. The point the Minister for Industry and Commerce has made, even though I grant there is some substance in it, avoids the real issue. I want to be satisfied in the wording of the Bill that it can only be used to protect Irish industry and for no other purpose. If German electrical machinery were dumped here in a strict sense and sold below cost of production, could this Bill be operated to exclude that for the benefit of the British electrical machinery industry?

Mr. McGilligan

It could not under the Bill.

Mr. Lemass

The answer would be that the dumping should be such that it would occasion industrial injury. Who is to be the judge? Could the German importer go to the court for a declaration that the importation of these goods did not cause industrial injury, or is the Executive Council to be the sole judge as to whether or not the injury is caused? Can their judgment be questioned in any way?

Mr. Blythe

I do not think it can be questioned, but there are three ways of dealing with this. You can adopt some machinery like the Tariff Commission, which will investigate first, and the Executive Council will act afterwards. You can insist on all the ordinary legislative processes, or you can believe that the clear intention of the Dáil, the pledged word of the Executive, the power of the Dáil to agree with it afterwards, will be effective or not.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think that any legislature is entitled to take into consideration as a factor in determining its attitude towards any Bill that they are going to have the pledged word of the Executive, because this Executive might disappear in twelve months and another Executive might interpret it in another way.

Mr. McGilligan

Their pledged word would not be so valuable.

Mr. MacEntee

The less the Minister says about broken pledges the better.

Mr. McGilligan

Particularly about the future.

Mr. McEntee

Deputy Lemass raised an important point. He said suppose electrical machinery was being sold here at a price below that which British or other manufacturers could sell such machinery, could the Bill, with Section 2 as it now stands, be operated to prevent the sale of such machinery here on grounds like these, that a certain agreement had been entered into between this country and another country whereby Jacob's biscuits or Guinness' stout were to be given preferential treatment in that market, but that one of the conditions was that the manufactures of that other country were to be sold here? Supposing the German stuff were to come in, and the British electrical manufacturers were to protest against that, and were to close their markets to our biscuits or stout, the Minister and the Executive Council could say that the dumping of this machinery which was being sold here below the cost of what the British manufacturer could sell it is causing grave industrial injury, and under the Bill they could prohibit its import.

Mr. McGilligan

But there is no such agreement.

Mr. MacEntee

But if there were, and we do not know what is in the offing, we do not know what commitments the Minister entered into in the last Imperial Conference.

Mr. McGilligan

There cannot be any commitments without coming here.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

As between Deputy Lemass's amendment and the provision made in the Bill, my liking is for the wider powers which are contained in the Bill. I believe that the wording here which gives the Minister power to take action on the occurrence of circumstances which would occasion industrial injury is wider and more extensive than the suggestion in Deputy Lemass's amendment, which, in my opinion, would limit the Minister's power. I can conceive cases where very great injury would be done to industry here by the importation of an article which is not manufactured here, but which might well be used as a substitute for an article which is manufactured here, and which might be bought by the general public in substitution for an article that is manufactured here. If Deputy Lemass's amendment were adopted, I think it would tie the hands of the Executive Council and prevent them from stopping the dumping here of such an article. We would not be manufacturing it ourselves here, but we would be manufacturing some article for which this was intended to be a substitute, and in that way grave injury might be done to industry.

Because of that my preference is for the wider power which is given in the Bill. If it is a question of giving power to the Executive Council by passing the Second Reading of the Bill, we have, in fact, given power to the Executive Council to take action when in their opinion action should be taken.

Mr. MacEntee

With regard to the question of substitution, surely that would be met by adding the words "or are substitutes for articles so manufactured." That would protect the situation Deputy Lemass's amendment was designed to cover. Again, we have it on the words of the Minister for Finance that there would be no power of appeal to any court under this Bill, that once the Executive Council had issued an order, the order would stand until it came to the Dáil. In that case the addition of the words I have suggested would cover the whole position of the Minister.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Lemass

On Section 1, I should be glad if the Minister would tell us what exactly is the difference between "goods imported into Saorstát Eireann" and "goods landed in Saorstát Eireann."

Mr. Blythe

Goods are imported as soon as they enter the limit of the port. We thought that there might be cases where the ship would have got within the port before we were aware of it. The tax in that case could be collected before the goods were actually landed.

Section agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to know what exact significance the words "immediately upon the making thereof" have in this section. The section states that the order shall come into effect "immediately upon the making thereof." Does that mean the precise hour of a particular day or merely a particular day?

Mr. Blythe

What we would have to do is what we really do in the case of resolutions—we should have to say as from four o'clock on Friday or from, say, 15th of August or whatever date was in question. If the order comes into force on a particular day it comes into operation at the beginning of the day—at 12 o'clock midnight. Suppose we got word that there were ships with goods to which this Bill would apply coming into Dublin and we made an order at three o'clock, we would probably state in the order that it was to take effect as from 3.5 o'clock, so that any goods that had not been landed before 3.5 would be liable to tax.

Mr. Lemass

It may be necessary for the Executive Council to take that power, but I am sure the Minister realises that it establishes a very undesirable precedent. An order made by the Executive Council could come into operation before anybody except the members of the Executive Council knew of its existence. The Secretary of the Executive Council could 'phone the North Wall and say that the order was made at three o'clock.

Mr. Blythe

That is contemplated as a thing that may have to be done. I know it is a thing which should not be done without grave reason.

Mr. Flinn

Can the order be made retrospective under this clause?

Mr. Blythe

I do not think so.

Mr. Lemass

Under sub-section (2), it is provided that if the Dáil passes a resolution making modifications in the order, such resolution shall operate to modify the order as from the passing of the resolution. Subsequently, in Section 4, provision is made for repayment of duties collected which would not have been collected if these modifications had been always in operation. There appears to be a certain conflict there, because it would appear from sub-section (2) of Section 2, that the order without modifications held force until the resolution was passed by the Dáil and was then changed, whereas Section 4 seems to imply that the resolution of the Dáil would have the effect of modifying the order as from the date on which the order was first made.

Mr. Blythe

As soon as the resolution is embodied in the Act, which would ordinarily happen, the duties would become repayable. The Dáil might, perhaps, alter its mind again.

Mr. Little

Does the Minister consider that the period set out in the Bill —four months—is sufficient? The number of sitting days of the Dáil might extend over a longer period. If four months elapsed before the matter had been dealt with in the Dáil, would the Minister consider that the Government would have power to make a further order in the same matter?

Mr. Blythe

We could make a further order but any money that might have been collected under the first order would have to be repaid. It would be possible to make another order and the Executive would probably do that if it happened to be necessary. If the duty was sufficient, very little of it would have been collected, so that all that would happen, if we had to make a second order, would be that whatever small amount was collected would have to be repaid to those who paid it. A further order could be made that would prevent the dumping. That four months is the period provided in the Collection of Taxes Act and it has been found sufficient up to this.

Sections 2 to 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Sub-section (2): "This Act shall continue in force for nine months from the passing thereof and shall then expire."

Mr. Lemass

I move to delete sub-section (2). I think that the powers conferred by the Bill are powers which the Executive Council should possess permanently and that the Bill should not be limited in its duration.

Mr. Blythe

I have said practically all I would like to say in regard to that matter. We do not want to have those powers if the emergency which occasions them passes. If the emergency should continue longer than this period, it would be possible to renew the Act.

Mr. Flinn

Are we to understand that the period of gestation of this emergency is nine months?

Mr. Little

Will this clause prevent the Act being renewed under the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act?

Mr. Blythe

We made the period such that if it was determined to renew the Act, it would have to be renewed by specific legislation.

Mr. Little

Would it not be better to do the other thing? Or does the Minister anticipate that nine months is the period of life of the present Government? Does he want nobody else to have those powers?

Mr. MacEntee

What is the significance of the nine months? Would the Minister let us into the arcana of the Governmental secrets? Does that period fix the date of the general election in this country or the date of the next general election in Great Britain?

Mr. McGilligan

Both.

Mr. MacEntee

We are going to have a general election before the next twelve months and the Minister does not expect to come back.

Mr. McGilligan

That is another point.

Mr. MacEntee

And Fianna Fáil will have an opportunity of introducing a better Bill.

Mr. Reynolds

Not in this country.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps Deputy Reynolds is one of those who support the Vice-President and think that Fianna Fáil is only going to operate with the permission of the Army?

Mr. Finn

The assumption is that we are going to be fair, and that if a Fianna Fáil Government, or any other Government, comes in here they will be able to introduce legislation immediately they require it. Is it not a fact that for a certain period under the Constitution, as it at present is, and under the Constitution of another House, as it at present is, an alternative Government might not have the power to do immediately the thing which this power ought to remain in their hands to enable them to do? That seems to me to be a distinctly significant thing. Having regard to the fact that another House can, for a period of twenty months or more, hold up legislation, it is very significant that this Government should deliberately try to put this new Bill out of the power of another Government.

Mr. Little

It even puts it out of the power of the present Government.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a shame.

Mr. Blythe

I may say that in the first draft it was six months, and we increased it so as to have an ample margin.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Cole, John James.
• Conlan, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, William.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kent, William R.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Leary, William.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Allen and G. Boland.

Motion declared carried.

Section 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported without amendment.