Public Business. - Appropriation Bill, 1930—Final Stages. – Seanad Éireann (1928 Seanad) – Thursday, 3 Jul 1930

Public Business. - Appropriation Bill, 1930—Final Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Appropriation Bill be received for final consideration and do now pass."

Mr. Douglas

I would like to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his attention has been drawn to the activities of a body calling itself the Irish Free State Textile Association. This body consists of a number of firms in the general drapery trade, some doing a purely wholesale business, and some large retail firms who also do a wholesale trade. These firms act and work together, and so far as I can learn, their object is to prevent manufacturers doing business with other firms who do not belong to the Association, or who they do not consider should be able to buy direct from manufacturers. The method adopted is as follows: The manufacturing firm is informed that none of the members of the so-called Textile Association will do any business with it if it continues to deal with any non-member of the Association that they disapprove of. In one case the manufacturers, an Irish firm, were asked to submit a complete list of their customers to the Association, and when they very properly declined to do so, their representative was informed by members of the Textile Association that he need not call upon them.

In another case of which I have knowledge, a Dublin firm was informed by the representative of an English manufacturer with whom the firm had been doing business for about 50 years, that the Textile Association was trying to get the manufacturer to discontinue trading with them. To my own knowledge efforts have been made by the Association to get English manufacturers to cease business with a well-known Dublin wholesale and retail house, who are not members, and, I understand, similar attacks have been made on a purely wholesale house who applied for membership of the Association, but was refused.

The principal object of this Association, no doubt, is to prevent retail shops dealing direct with manufacturers and so being in a position to sell cheaply to the public. One may sympathise with the wholesale middleman whose day is fast disappearing, and it is not perhaps surprising that he should try to force retail firms to buy from him, but when you have large retailers, who also have a wholesale department, using methods like these to injure their own retail competitors, it is little short of a scandal.

However, if the Association had confined its activities to English manufacturers, I would not have thought it necessary to draw the attention of the Minister to it. Most goods made in England can also be obtained from the Continent, and foreign firms are always ready to serve any house that can pay for their goods. If English manufacturers are foolish enough to confine their trade to one association it will only injure English trade but will not seriously affect this country. Firms who are not members of the Association can easily buy their goods from Germany or France, and there is no fear that manufacturers from these countries will refuse to serve them.

Now that this attempt at boycott is being applied to Irish manufacturers I suggest that it is time the Minister for Industry and Commerce looked into the matter.

One large Free State factory I know has been placed in the position that if it does not confine its trade to members of the Association or other firms approved by it, thereby losing all its other trade in Ireland, it will be boycotted by the Association, who will no doubt buy goods outside the Saorstát which were previously supplied by this firm. I presume the same treatment will be meted out to all other large Irish manufacturers and, if so, I submit it will be most injurious to Irish trade.

Irish retail and smaller wholesale and retail houses must buy as cheaply as they can, and they will not buy Irish goods if they have to pay a middleman's profit, when they can buy the same goods outside the country direct from the manufacturer. Even where there is a protective duty, the value of the duty in assisting Irish manufacturers to compete will be destroyed if it has to be set off against a middleman's profit, and, generally speaking, the larger Irish retail firms will prefer to pay duty than to be forced to pay a middleman's profit.

I do not suggest that the Minister should interfere as between retail and wholesale houses. They must fight their own battles. But I suggest that the Department of Industry and Commerce should keep in touch with the position and see that it is not allowed to develop on lines which will injure Irish manufacturers. I understand there is a body in England called the Wholesale Textile Association, which is endeavouring to operate on similar lines in England, and I gather from an article in the "Hosiery Times," an English trade journal, that it is realised in England that trade is going to the Continent as a result. The whole question has, I believe, been referred to the "Restraint of Trade" Committee which was set up by the British Government.

Perhaps the Minister might consider the setting up of some such departmental committee here to enquire into the position. It would not be desirable to interfere with the right of any firm to deal with whomever they chose, but it ought not to be legally permissible for individuals or firms to conspire together to boycott manufacturers because they exercise their rights to choose their own customers.

I have just seen a letter from the Irish Free State Textile Association to an Irish manufacturing firm in which they state that they are affiliated with the English Association and demanding that the Irish firm should submit for their approval a list of the English retail firms they do business with. To my mind, it is outrageous that a body of distributing firms in Ireland should actually try to dictate what customers in England an Irish manufacturer should deal with, and I hope the Minister will agree that the matter is one which should be looked into without delay.

Mr. Comyn

It is much to be regretted that Senator Douglas had not the opportunity of circulating that very important statement to members of the Seanad. We have only to judge it now hurriedly from hearing what he has said. No doubt his statements are well founded and can be substantiated. If they can be substantiated, it is a case for prosecution for criminal conspiracy as well as for a civil action for conspiracy. I am sorry to say that this canker seems to have penetrated into other trades as well as the textile trade. At present I would like to confine my remarks to such aspects of the question as bear on the tariffs which have been imposed in this country upon imported textile goods. I think it is a serious question if the tariffs which have been imposed for the purpose of developing the manufacture of textile goods in Ireland are to be availed of for the private gain of individuals, whether middlemen or manufacturers. I think the Minister should at once take measures to see that this practice is put a stop to.

Sir John Keane

I want to ask the Minister when we may expect the Report of the Commission inquiring into piers and harbours? It has been in existence for two years and some interests are much concerned and important developments are expected to follow.

Mr. Johnson

I wish to raise an entirely different question. I thought perhaps it might have been convenient for the Minister to deal with the subject raised by Senator Douglas before I raised the question I am interested in. I want to ask for some information regarding the proposed Imperial Conference to be held in the autumn of this year. The Oireachtas will not be sitting, as I take it that the conference will be well under way, if not over, by the time the Dáil and Seanad meet again, and I think it is opportune and right that some indication should be given as to Ministerial policy on certain large questions, and that the House might be given whatever information is available regarding the agenda for that conference. Previous conferences dealt with a very great variety of subjects. It is not quite clear, to me at any rate, what the responsibilities are of the Free State Ministry in respect to some of these subjects. For instance, in 1923 the question was discussed as to Britain's relations with Egypt, the Anglo-Japanese alliance, and matters connected with the British foreign relations generally, and defence questions. In 1926 a variety of questions of a similar kind were raised and discussed, including, for instance, the way the League of Nations mandates were availed of by various members of the British Commonwealth. Certain decisions were arrived at, or recommendations were made, by the Conference in regard to matters like that. I am not clear what the position of the Free State is in regard to the way New Zealand or South Africa carries out the mandate in regard to the territories which they govern in trust for the League of Nations. We know that there is to be a discussion on another matter that will be the subject of the motion by Senator Gogarty.

A question that probably is uppermost in the mind of the Minister is the Report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation and Merchant Shipping Legislation, which is to be dealt with at the Imperial Conference. One of the subjects which I think it would be well we had some light thrown upon, and perhaps an indication of the line of policy to be adopted, is a question which we have been informed by the Press will be raised by General Hertzog, Premier of South Africa. It will be known to Senators that that report dealt with the question of any future legislation affecting the Throne and the Royal Style and Title. A certain agreement was arrived at by the Conference regarding a proposal that the British Parliament should legislate in a certain definite form, that is to say, that no change shall in future be made touching the law regarding succession without the assent of the Parliaments of the Dominions, as well as the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That subject caused a discussion in the South African Parliament, and the leader of the Opposition, General Smuts, declared that it settled the question which had affected South African politics very seriously; that is the right of secession if they so desired. The response to that assertion of General Smuts by General Hertzog and others of his Ministers was, that they did not recognise that the agreements of the Dominion experts' conference affected the claim of General Hertzog and the Government of South Africa as to the right of South Africa to secede from the British Empire if they desired at any time.

General Hertzog said he would raise this question at the Imperial Conference, and the Assembly approved of the document subject to the proviso that the recommendation referring to the succession to the Crown should not be regarded as encroaching upon the right of South Africa or any other of the Dominions to secede from the Commonwealth. That question will be raised, and I think it is only right and proper to have some expression of the policy of the Free State in regard to so important a matter as that. I hope that on the broad basic principle our Minister will join in the claim that freedom of association within the British Commonwealth inevitably implies freedom to dissociate if and when the Dominions so desire and when they are prepared to consider all the consequences. I think it would be a very good thing indeed for the future of this country, as well as others, if it would be possible to arrive at a declaration that whatever decisions were come to on such questions on the part of any member of the British Commonwealth that no force would be applied to limit its freedom of action. I believe that is a statement of what would be a fact. I do not believe that it is at all likely that any armed force would be used to bind with hooks of any freely associated member of the Commonwealth of Nations to the Commonwealth of Nations if that particular State desired to secede. If a declaration were made by responsible Ministers of the various Parliaments that in such circumstances no armed force would be used to compel any such free association, a great advance would be made towards settling many very knotty problems in this country and probably in South Africa, too. Another question which gives some concern is regarding what is called Empire Defence. We know that in the reports of the previous Conferences a considerable amount of discussion appears to have taken place regarding Empire Defence. I am anxious to know what the position of the Free State is touching that particular subject.

The question has been forced upon my notice owing to something that I read in the recently issued Report of the Simon Commission. That is a very serious State document, and when we learn from very prominent statesmen, what I am going to read to you, the point of what I am saying will be better understood. The quotation is:—"It seems to us that the only possible method would be to recognise that the protection of the frontiers of India, at any rate for a long time to come, should not be regarded as a function of an Indian Government in relation with an Indian Legislature, but as a matter of supreme concern to the whole Empire, which can only be effectively organised and controlled by an Imperial agency. A solution based on this principle would probably have to be brought about by a definite agreement between India and Great Britain acting on behalf of the Empire."

It is that last phrase that I am concerned about. When very important publicists, notwithstanding that four years have passed since the 1926 Conference, prefer to speak in terms of "Great Britain acting on behalf of the Empire," in regard to armed forces acting in India, I am anxious that the Free State position should be made clear, and that we ought not to allow it to go forth without objection that any armed action in the east, west or south, or in any other part of the world, taken by Great Britain, is on behalf of the Empire of which the Free State forms part and to which the Free State is a party. I think we ought to make it clear that we have no responsibility for the use of the British Army either in the frontiers of India, in China or any other part of the world, and that it is not acting on behalf of the Empire in the sense that the "Empire" has been used to defeat the Association of which the British Commonwealth, including the Dominions, forms a part. If that is not made clear, if it is to be assumed that when Great Britain undertakes warlike operations or sends an army into India or China, or builds a naval base at Singapore, it is on behalf of the Empire, and that it is to some degree on behalf of the Irish Free State, then I think it is time that there should be a protest made and some dissociation on the part of the Irish Free State from responsibility for any such action. I raise these points now because I think that they will inevitably arise in the course of the discussion during the Conference that is coming forward in the autumn, and as neither House will then be sitting I think it well to raise at least one voice now to call attention to these very serious problems.

Mr. Robinson

I would like to press upon the Minister, in view of what Senator Sir John Keane has said, the urgent necessity of getting a report from the Ports and Harbours Tribunal or Commission. The Bill has been delayed for two years. At least, the Tribunal has been sitting for two years. There are other things, too, that we may get along with when we have the report, such as, for example, control of our shipping or at least to find out what we should do with regard to our shipping. It is necessary to have that report also in order to get control, or to see what control we can get, over the Port and Docks Board. It seems extraordinary that it should take such a long time to deal with such an important matter. I would urge the Minister to see that this report is speeded up as quickly as possible. I would like if the Minister would now say what progress has been made in that matter or what has caused the delay.

Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister for External Affairs (Mr. McGilligan)

A point has been raised by Senator Douglas as regards the activities of the body which calls itself the Dublin Textile Association. In regard to that, I can only say that the activities of the Association will have to be watched. At the moment, it is impossible for me to say how far they have authority to enforce the claims that they are making. In that absence of information, it is impossible for me to say how far their claims and activities are considered a restraint on trade or something that can be dealt with in that way. I can give a promise that that particular Association will be definitely inquired into, and that its activities will be watched. I cannot say more than that at present.

Mr. Douglas

I can give the Minister documentary evidence of anything I have said.

Mr. McGilligan

In that connection, Senator Comyn has the view that this Association had some adverse effect on the tariffed industries in the State. He could not tell us how that has been brought about. I want to call attention to one phrase which Senator Comyn used when he said that these tariffs should not be allowed to be used for the private gain of anybody. Every tariff is used for the private gain of somebody.

As to the query in regard to the report of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal, I answered a question in the Dáil to the effect that the Ports and Harbours Tribunal had reported, that the report was in the hands of the printers, and would be issued almost immediately. It is a lengthy document, and it has been in the hands of the printers pretty definitely for a month. It is a very big book. I do not at all consider that two years is an extravagantly long period to spend on the work of this Commission. As a matter of fact they have been sitting for some time longer than two years. It was an extraordinarily difficult survey which had to be made over 18 ports. Each of these had to be visited and evidence taken. Notice had to be given of these visits, and evidence had to be taken of the way in which the applicants intended to give their version of the facts. It must be also borne in mind in connection with the report that some of the members were acting in an honorary capacity, and had outside duties to perform. One cannot impose on people who are outside the State service, the obligation of attending day after day unceasingly to work of this kind. One must fit in the work with their convenience. In addition, one of the officials who was concerned in the work was an official of such a type that promotion came to him during the course of the inquiry, and he was transferred from my own Department to the Department of Defence, and afterwards to another Department. That, in addition to other things, imposed certain delays in the drawing up of the report.

Senator Johnson raised two matters with regard to the Imperial Conference, in fact, three matters— the question of foreign relations generally as affecting what is wrongly described as the British Empire, a question arising out of paragraph 60 of the 1929 Report, and certain peculiar comments which individuals have made on the Simon Commission Report. On the whole matter of foreign relations, I would like to point out that the 1926 Report in dealing with them, said:—"Subsequent sections of this Report give an account of particular questions affecting foreign affairs which were studied during the Conference by the representatives of the Governments particularly concerned." The Report said especially on the matter of mandated territory:—"Questions of common interest in relation to mandated territories were referred to a special committee which included representatives of Great Britain, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa." It is only in a foreign relations matter, which is of most general interest, that we would have any say, or would hope to have any say, whatever. We noticed that on the question of foreign relations the one really important phrase that is used is that "the Governments were firmly attached to a policy of peace and to support of the League of Nations as the great instrument of peace." It is in such a matter as that that we would have a serious interest.

On the matter of the Simon Commission Report. Senator Johnson introduced his observations under this head with the remarks that the Simon Commission Report was a State document. It is a State document of considerable importance, but it is not a State document of this State and has nothing whatever to do with us. There are certain remarks which the Senator quoted. These remarks are obiter dicta. If these remarks are translated into formal proposals in a dispatch way the Senator suggests they will get the definite repudiation that the Senator wants. My activities would extend beyond any sphere of usefulness if I had to attend to the remarks of representatives from the various parts of the Commonwealth. If we were to act on the basis that such Reports bind every constituent State of the Commonwealth, we would be acting under a misapprehension. The phrase "Imperial defence" is clearly a phrase used in a sense that might have full and proper meaning and application ten years ago, but it is quite irrelevant in present circumstances.

"Imperial defence" in the Report means the defence that would be undertaken by Great Britain, her Colonies, Protectorates and mandated territories, but it has no relation whatever to the British Commonwealth of Nations. There has never been, to my knowledge, a Dominion regiment in India. There has been certainly never a Dominion regiment for the purpose of preserving internal peace or even for the purpose of preserving the Indian frontiers against attack. The phrases that are used there have to be all considered from the angle that I speak about. That is, if the thing is raised at the Conference as a question of Imperial defence it is a defence matter affecting Great Britain, the Colonies and the Protectorates, but certainly not a British Commonwealth of Nations matter.

On the further matter of the 1929 reports and what is said in paragraph 60 with regard to the alterations of the laws affecting the succession to the Throne and the Royal Style and Title, I would like to go a little bit more into the history of what occurred in South Africa after the report was presented. It is true, as Senator Johnson says, that exception was taken to that paragraph by General Smuts, the leader of the Opposition in the South African Assembly, on this ground, that it definitely marked the end of the secession question. Afterwards, when challenged. General Smuts admitted that if paragraph 60 is read altogether, that the force of his argument is considerably mitigated, but if one portion of that paragraph, which is set out in italics, were taken away from the context of the rest of the paragraph, and were put in the forefront, it might then affect the power of secession. Most of the authorities in South Africa seem to be of opinion that that should not occur. When General Smuts was challenged he said he had been misquoted and that an addition to the phrase he had used had been put in. He denied that he had used these words. He said that whatever was done with regard to the succession to the Throne should be without any repercussion adversely on the right to secede. Apparently they were all agreed on that point, but there was a peculiar division afterwards on the resolution.

With all deference to the judgment of those who spoke in the South African Parliament, I still hold that the two questions of succession and secession are to be taken apart. One has no relation to the other. There is no relation between these two things. Certainly, so far as the 1929 Report is concerned, there is no relation. If any one of the present members of the British Commonwealth of Nations desires to secede, the only thing in my mind that is blocked by Article 60, is secession by way of alteration in the succession. If a Dominion does not want to bother about succession, but simply wants to leave the Commonwealth, Article 60 presents no difficulty. Succession and secession are entirely different questions. If the Dominion wanted to become a Republic and to remain inside the Commonwealth, and wished to do so by changing the order of the succession to the Throne, then, undoubtedly, Article 60 would be a definite bar, but if some one member of the Commonwealth tried to get outside the Commonwealth, Article 60 would have no operative effect whatever in relation to that Dominion. A State which seeks to get outside an organisation which has certain rules and regulations, is careless as to what the rules and regulations are, in so far as they affect those who remain inside afterwards. What happens afterwards has no concern for such a State. Whatever happens concerns only those who remain within the partnership. I cannot understand that there should be any confusion of thought on these two questions of secession and succession.

Apart from Article 60 of the report altogether, Senator Johnson raised a point as to the right of dissociation. He thought that the people had the right of dissociation, and that that should be laid down. I think that is the situation at the moment—I heard it laid down by various British statesmen in control and power in the British Government——

Mr. Johnson

That one of the consequences would not be armed force?

Mr. McGilligan

I cannot say. As far as our country is concerned, our touch with the Commonwealth of Nations is through the Treaty. If the Treaty is broken or if the Treaty is by agreement amended, we can get outside that association. To get outside that association without the process of negotiation would to my mind involve a breach of the Treaty and what follows thereafter is a matter for speculation. People can make up their own minds for themselves. I would much prefer not to have paragraph 60 of this report dealt with from the point of view of the right to secede. Apparently before General Smuts made his declaration they were all agreed that there had been an article of faith for many years that the right of secession was inherent and that paragraph 60 of the report had no repercussion on that good, bad or indifferent. When the point was raised General Hertzog said he would take the challenge and would go with a particular proposal to the Imperial Conference —I think this was in order to meet objections put up by the Leader of the Opposition—that the two things were bound together, the 1926 report and paragraph 60 of the report. The 1926 report gave them an equal position and they were not going to have that position clouded in any way by what happened in 1929. With that general point of view we agreed. As to what General Hertzog said, that is a matter that must be left for consideration when the Conference meets.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator cannot speak twice on the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Jul 1930