A Government amendment has been circulated.
Restriction of Imports Bill, 1962— Committee and Final Stages.
That was done only today at my instance. The purpose was to ensure that there would be no embarrassment or difficulty in designating an area as a country, that might well not be recognised as a country. I realise that the time was hardly sufficient, and if I may not move the amendment now, I would ask the House to move it on Report Stage.
The amendment has been accepted by the Chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 might be taken together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1) (a), line 14, to delete "specified country" and substitute "country specified in the Schedule to this Act".
I move these amendments in an effort to restrict the Bill to the function which the Minister stated the Bill was to perform, that is, to regulate exports and imports from the Iron Curtain countries, but the Bill as it stands simply says goods from any specified country. So it is left wide open to be applied to any country that the Minister or his successor may decide. This is an example of a very bad trend in legislation, that of omnibus clause. This type of enabling legislation enables the Minister or his Department to take powers far wider than are given in the Bill. If we think we in Seanad Éireann have any function here as a Legislative Assembly, we should be on the watch against such ill-defined powers and should ensure that such powers are not written into legislation.
When the Bill leaves Seanad Éireann all that remains for interpretation by the court is what is written in the Bill. In the present Bill the Minister has not given guarantees but merely stated his "intentions" and intentions can obviously change with circumstances. The Minister now has the intention that the Bill would not be used except against Iron Curtain countries. But when it leaves here, these intentions are not worth the space they occupy in the Seanad Reports. Neither is anything else that has transpired except what is written into the law and that is how it will be interpreted by the courts of the land.
Consequently, we have a duty to ensure that the Minister's intentions, as presented to us here, are accurately translated into legislative fact by the Acts of this Assembly. And when we have failed to do this, we can see what happens. I need take only a few simple examples. The most recent example of such a flagrant abuse is in the case of the 1d on the packet of cigarettes to balance the £1 million to meet the Bord Bainne levy. That, of course, need not have been done since Supplementary Estimates are not usually provided for immediately by increased taxation
In any case, be that as it may, what instrument was used to impose the additional taxation?—simply an anti-dumping Order which says that if there is a danger to the Irish home market due to the dumping of any product the Government can, under this Order, take action to prevent the dumping by imposing a suitable penal tariff. And, lo and behold, this was used as the means of imposing this recent tariff on cigarettes!
I would like if anyone could produce a more glaring example of the misuse that can be made of wide and unspecified legislation. Again the Minister for Finance in the recent Finance Bill in the Seanad, when attacking Senators who spoke about the recent levy imposition by Bord Bainne, got quite indignant and said that we were the very same people who, less than a year before, had unanimously agreed to the levy and to everything else involved in setting up Bord Bainne.
In point of fact, I was not able to correct him on that——
Is this in order? I do not know if I am entitled to ask.
It is all part of establishing the case as to why we should be specific in our legislation.
Come to the point.
At some time in the future we may have the Minister for Industry and Commerce coming back to chide us in a similar way over agreeing to some omnibus clause. Consequently, I am moving these amendments here to ensure that the Iron Curtain countries are specified in the Bill. I read here from column 772 of the Seanad Debates of 18th July, 1962, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when replying to the debate said: "First of all, it is not for me to designate what Iron Curtain countries are. I do not know what the extent of them is at the moment." I take it that that is not meant to be an admission of such complete lack of knowledge of the state of the world as it is today.
Does Senator Quinlan know them?
Every schoolboy knows them.
Does the Senator know them?
Of course.
Would the Senator mention them?
The Minister continued: "I do not know if the Iron Curtain will recede or expand. I hope it does not expand." The point is that the last country added to the Iron Curtain countries here in Europe was in 1948 when Czechoslovakia was the unfortunate victim. Surely anything that has remained as static as the Iron Curtain does not require very much to specify it?
Can the Senator name the Iron Curtain countries?
I refuse to take notice of the interruption of the Leader of the House who is supposed to set the standard of decorum here. Again, we have the fact that if it becomes necessary to amend legislation, we can do so rapidly. We were assembled here post-haste on 4th September, 1961, and then both Houses, in one day, put through a Bill that was supposed to cope with the ESB strike. That was an example of the type of quick legislative action that can be obtained in an emergency.
The Senator is going very far away from the amendment.
I am making the case why the countries should be specified. I cannot, for one moment, agree with the Minister's contention that he does not know what the Iron Curtain countries are. I take it that it is a simple matter to specify those and, above all, we are only concerned with the countries from which we are likely to get, or are getting, imports and to which we may in some nebulous future have some exports. Consequently, there is no difficulty in specifying those. I specified them in the Schedule attached to the Bill.
All of them?
I specified the only ones that are of any importance.
The question about Laos stands over in it; even with all the Bills in the world, I do not see we are likely to get either imports or exports from Laos. Consequently, I move the amendments standing in my name.
I have a good deal of sympathy with Senator Quinlan's amendments. I might disagree with him on one or two of the names he mentions as Iron Curtain countries, on one in particular, Jugoslavia, to be precise. But I should like to say that I have never in my experience here since 1948 noticed such a wide divergence between what the Minister said and what was in the Bill. That is a fact. He has reiterated this is aimed against the Iron Curtain countries. Very good. But it is surprising then, when we turn to the Bill, to find there is no specification whatever of that kind. I should like to hear his explanation. It may be that it is impossible to define them precisely or something of that kind but I share Senator Quinlan's uneasiness about global legislation, or legislation dealing with the whole world as this Bill does which is aimed at a particular part of the world. I do not quite understand why there is this anomaly and I should like to know the reason.
The Bill as it stands is far more likely to be useful than if you added this Schedule. First of all, we do not know whether this state of affairs is going to last. One country which I would say is hardly within the Iron Curtain at all is Cuba. It is a communist country but whether it is going to remain so is a moot point. If you put a Schedule to the Bill you are bound by what it contains and some of these countries which are now communist may cease to be so. We do not know. The countries there are within the Iron Curtain is a problem which forces the Government to be very careful. This is a mistake for the Senator because he is defeating his own purpose in asking for this Schedule. I do not know if he meant that only Iron Curtain countries should be legislated against. I took it that the Minister should have power to deal with every country where there is a great disparity between exports and imports whether it is an Iron Curtain country or not.
Senator Quinlan should withdraw because it is not serving the purpose which I think he wants to serve. He made a very useful speech last week and I congratulate him on it. If the Government did not know the dangers of trading with these countries he made them clear to them. It was mainly to say that much that I stood up but I also wanted to say that there is no point in tying ourselves to particular countries because the Minister should have power to deal with any country that exports more to us than we export to them.
The most sensational thing about the amendment is not what is in it but what is left out. For years we have been listening to Senator Quinlan rolling along on the bandwaggon and cashing in on the propaganda emanating from the United States against the foreign policy of the Irish Government. Strangely, in mentioning the names of Iron Curtain countries he omits one which is the daddy of them all according to Senator Quinlan's bandwaggon for the past four years—China. What happened to China? Why is it not included in the list of countries with which Senator Quinlan wants to ban trade? Is Senator Quinlan now trimming his sails? Has he changed his mind or was he not able to get an adequate description for that part of China controlled by the People's Republic as distinct from Formosa? Senator Quinlan has been many times in orbit, but he is burying his head in the sand when he refuses to acknowledge the fact that there are a thousand million people in the world who live under different forms of government from those we have in Western Europe and they have to live, to work and to eat. They cannot be ignored. He refuses to recognise the fact that every country in Western Europe is trading with those countries. The country, above all, which has spent her money on them is the United States of America. Not alone do the United States trade with some of the countries mentioned in the proposed Schedule to the Bill but she has poured dollar aid into them with the hope and aim of sustaining their economies. I refer specifically to Poland and Yugoslavia. Senator Quinlan should come back to earth from his orbiting in space and face facts. The facts are that he is asking us to embark on a holy economic crusade which no other country in the world has embarked on. He wants an economic boycott of almost a thousand million people who cannot be blamed for the form of Government under which they live. I would like to know from Senator Quinlan on the basis of his speech here last week and his references today to the dangers of trading with these areas does he think that President Jack Kennedy——
John F.
——or President de Gaulle of France, Adenauer of Germany or Fanfani of Italy are likely to become communist stooges, likely to give away the interests of their country or that their countries are likely to be submerged because of an increasing flow of trade between them and Iron Curtain countries? Does Senator Quinlan take us for fools altogether that we should believe that anything like that would happen in the case of those countries?
In this Bill we are trying to do what Senator Quinlan advised us to do many times, that is, to take the example from the country he has praised so much, the United States of America. We are doing exactly what the United States are doing. If Senator Quinlan finds reason to praise America in so many ways, why should he now depart from his praise on this most important aspect of its policy? I cannot understand the Senator in relation to China and I would like to hear from him why he left it out.
With regard to the countries mentioned in the Schedule he proposes to this Bill it is interesting to note that we bought £18 worth of goods for every £ worth we sold to Poland. Senator Quinlan, I am sure, reads the Irish Independent, which can in no sense be described as a communist stooge or mouthpiece for the Reds. The Irish Independent had a most interesting leading article a month or two ago on the question of trade with countries behind the Iron Curtain. On May 28th this leading article said that trade with Poland seems not only unobjectionable but something to be welcomed. Even Senator Quinlan will admit that the Irish Independent had no communist axe to grind when giving this advice to its readers. Poland was a case in point where United States policy should be followed. This Bill, when it is passed, will enable us to remedy the unfavourable balance of trade. If Senator Quinlan made out in his speech on the Second Reading— and will probably again here today —that it is impossible to trade with those people, that we cannot do it, that they have no interest in trade, I can tell him that the Poles are very much interested in trading with us. To the trade delegation that went looking for markets there they specifically stated the items we had in which they are interested: fish, fishmeal, electric cables, leather board, raw wool, hides, cattle, sheep and pigs.
Are we on the Second Reading or on Senator Quinlan's amendment?
We are discussing the countries Senator Quinlan wants to mention.
Surely the amendment is directed to inserting a list of names and not what kind of exports we should send to those areas?
I am as relevant as Senator Quinlan was.
Perhaps you should substitute the word "irrelevant" in that case, but irrelevance in the case of one person does not excuse it in the case of another. This is a Second Reading debate approach to the question which we have been having but the amendment is much narrower than the question of imports from Poland.
If Senator Quinlan was allowed to ramble all around the globe, I should be allowed to follow him.
It is a well-established principle that if he was allowed to ramble or if he was competent to ramble all around the globe— I do not agree that he did ramble—it is no excuse for Senator Mullins who should know better.
I do not see why there should be a differential in the treatment accorded Senator Quinlan and myself.
I am breast-high for differentials.
Do you say, a Chathaoirligh, that I should depart from that line?
It is in order, but it is time to come away from it.
In that case, perhaps, I may come back to it later on.
On a point of order, might not Senator Ó Maoláin make his observations on the sections?
Senator Ó Maoláin.
I should just like to say in conclusion that Senator Quinlan thought that our trade with China was not of any account, but last year we bought £400,000 worth from China and we exported little or nothing. If there were a way in which we could get the Chinese to buy £400,000 worth of our goods, it would be well worth adopting it.
I should like to say that by and large legislation by Order should not be encouraged. During my short term in this House, it seems to be creeping in to an alarming extent. We already have had the Legal Aid Bill which is practically to be operated by Order. We had the Street and House to House Collections Bill which is to be applied in stages by Order and the Minister has very wide powers to operate that Bill by Order. This Bill is also to be applied to the various countries by order of the Government. That is unsound and it is not an answer to say that these Orders must lie on the Table of each House of the Oireachtas for so many days and that they may be annulled, if a resolution to that effect is passed. Things can slip through in that way unnoticed. That is all I want to say about the provision to apply this Bill by Order.
We are dealing with the amendments.
Yes, but, with respect, I think this is in order because the amendment proposes that it should not be done by Order but by the insertion of a Schedule to the Bill in which the various countries would be set out. After listening to Senator Ó Maoláin, I must say I am no clearer than I was before he spoke. Senator Quinlan wants these countries specified in a Schedule to the Bill. Having heard Senator Ó Maoláin, I am not at all clear about what countries he thinks this measure should apply to. Subject to correction, I think the Minister on the last occasion spoke about this Bill in a very general way. I do not think he told us to what countries he intends to apply the Act when it becomes law. He did say that it was difficult because a country that was an Iron Curtain country today might not be an Iron Curtain country tomorrow. Surely the position is that if we pass this Bill today, it will become law in a very short time and then the Minister will have this instrument in his hands which he will have to operate. Surely when the Minister introduced this Bill, when he brought it before the Oireachtas, he had certain countries in mind and I am sure he has certain countries in mind at present? It might satisfy the Seanad to some extent if at this stage the Minister could tell us what countries he considers to be Iron Curtain countries and to what countries he intends to apply this Act by Order when it becomes law.
I must say I am against this amendment. I remember distinctly since I came into this House members on both sides urging the Minister for Finance to take steps such as are taken in this Bill against countries generally. I should not like to say that Senator Quinlan advocated that but certainly it was advocated from different sides of the House that steps should be taken to impose some sanctions against countries from which we import a great deal of goods and who take nothing, or practically nothing, from us. I am sorry that the words "Iron Curtain countries" were mentioned by the Minister at all because this is a power which the Minister should have generally for every country.
When I introduced this Bill last week, I said that we have the most liberal import régime amongst western countries. The more I examine the import régime of other western countries the more I am convinced of the truth of that statement. We tried to follow the pattern of trade of these countries with the outside world. When I examined the pattern of trade, I found there are restrictions far wider in their legislation than I am seeking here. For example, in Britain, which is a country whose trading methods we understand and with whom we do most of our trade, there is provision whereby they can restrict imports of goods against the whole world and they allow them in by way of what they call an open general licence in the case of goods they declare to be restricted in certain circumstances and in favour of certain countries.
Senator Quinlan, by imputation, at least, accused me of not being able to understand any more than a child would what the Iron Curtain countries are. I did not come here to be educated by Senator Quinlan. I found my education in the same establishment in which he is teaching, and if he tries to come along with that kind of talk, I shall return it, much as I should dislike doing it. He omitted China and, in defence of that, he said he named only the Iron Curtain countries which are of importance, in so far as trade is concerned. Senator Ó Maoláin pointed out that we have a big imbalance of trade with China which, in fact, in 1961 was £333,000 as against £1,300 odd. I cannot for the life of me understand why he seeks to exclude China.
I am not excluding China.
Another activity about which the Senator apparently knows nothing which happened in recent years was the Communist infiltration of Tibet. Why has he not mentioned Tibet either? For all I know, he may have omitted some other places recently infiltrated by the Communists.
How can you import from Tibet?
I am just giving it as an example and in answer to this allegation against me that I do not know what the Iron Curtain countries are any more than a child. I would not like to impute that kind of mentality to the Senator but he certainly leaves himself open to that imputation by omitting countries that have a huge volume of trade with us.
The powers sought here are general powers. No country is designated. That is admitted but for the reason I stated last week, that we can never say to what extent the Iron Curtain is extending or receding. Even at this moment we do not know the intentions of other countries over which there is a certain communist influence. We do not know to what extent those régimes in different parts of the world might become totalitarian and what régimes might cease to be totalitarian. We can only hope many of them who are now under such forms of government will cease to be totalitarian.
For that reason I thought it was only wise that I should seek powers from the Oireachtas to designate countries. I hope to get shortly an extension of the word "countries" to include territories, and that will add force to the case I am now making, that there are throughout the world areas we may not regard as countries in the accepted sense. I might mention in that respect East Germany. There may be other such areas which it would be difficult for us to define now and which might not be very easy to define in any circumstances. It is for that reason that I seek the powers sought, on the understanding that they would be sought only against communist or Iron Curtain countries.
There is another reason, though I did not mention it last week because I did not feel called upon in view of Senator Quinlan's declared intention to put down his amendment, and that is that it is quite possible for communist countries to use an unscrupulous trader in another part of the world to unload their goods for ultimate consignment into this country. Is it the Senator's wish that this House should tie not only my hands but the hands of the Irish people and force them to suffer the importation of goods from such sources and be powerless to do anything about it? I do not think that is the intention or the hope of anybody in this country.
It is for those two reasons mainly that I have come to the House and asked for the passage of the Bill in the form in which it now stands.
Would the Minister tell us what countries he has in mind?
I could indicate to the Senator examples from the trading figures here—the USSR: We have a huge imbalance with them; Czechoslovakia: where the imbalance is not so big; East Germany and China. Those are countries of the kind I have in mind. Finally, while some Senators seem to write off this safeguard for each House of the Oireachtas, every Order made under this Bill must be laid on the Table of each House and may within a period of 21 sitting days after it being so laid be annulled by either House of the Oireachtas. That is sufficient safeguard for both Houses to have to ensure that I or any other subsequent Minister will not abuse these powers. In any event, as has been said by Senator Ó Maoláin and other Senators, a lot of people have been pressing the Government that powers of this nature should be taken against all countries, but that is not the intention.
Is it clear that that is not the intention? Is it right that the Bill could be used, for example, against West Germany? I do not know the present position, but I do know that at one time we had a very bad balance of trade with West Germany, and I think with France. Could not this Bill be used against any country?
It could be, but it is not proposed to. We could provide for that in other ways.
If someone came to the conclusion that such a country should be dealt with could not the Minister make an Order which would be laid on the Table of the House under subsection (4) of Section 2?
He could.
What the Minister has said has only confirmed me in my view of the necessity for this amendment, because some Senators have raised the question that we should have this power to use against any country. I agree that it is proper and desirable from many points of view that such powers should be given, but we want the Minister and the Government to come here and ask for them, and not to tell us that we are doing something to keep Iron Curtain countries at bay and then by a manoeuvre widen it to cover other countries, because if we were to have such a possibility of using these powers against, say, West Germany, France or some other countries there would have to be very many more safeguards than are provided in this Bill. It would mean a big departure from our existing free trade position, and the creation of a whole group of vested interests with people applying for valuable licences and thereby ruling out their competitors in the home market.
I am gratified to hear a person of the standing of my very good friend Senator Boland, who for many years graced the Ministry of Justice and many other Ministries here, expressing his views on the soundness of the case I put up. His view weighs considerably more with me than the ill-informed remarks of the Leader of the House.
Come back from orbit now. Tell us about China.
The Minister in opening his speech on the last day said at column 699 in his very first sentence: "The purpose of this Bill is to give us power to restrict imports from Iron Curtain countries." There it is in black and white. We seem to be heading for a Bill that would be used before very long for a very different purpose. The Minister has mentioned the case of where an unscrupulous trader in another country, say in England, decided to unload over on us here goods which were manufactured in some of the Iron Curtain countries. I take it that unless the Minister can establish the origin of such goods under subsection (a) of Section 2 he would have to invoke the Bill against imports from the country in which that unscrupulous trader resided. Personally, I cannot see why the Minister got so narked when I made a quotation from his speech which spoke for itself.
And commented on it.
If it pleases An Seanadóir Ó Maoláin I will have great pleasure in accepting his amendment to mine, to ensure that it excludes the country so dear to his heart, the Chinese Socialist Republic or Workers' Republic.
Why did you leave out China?
With the Minister's amendment it will not be necessary to mention Tibet, because it says: "countries and territories associated with them"——
Why did you leave out China?
I do not think that to-day we could regard Tibet as having an existence of its own, unfortunately.
Why did you leave out China?
I must protest against the leader of the House harassing Senator Quinlan when he is endeavouring to make a reasonable statement.
I object to Senator Stanford's interjection and his description of my question to Professor Quinlan as harassing. I was making my own contribution to this debate when Senator Quinlan interrupted me and said that he would reply about China. Now he has replied and has said nothing about it. He will not tell us about China.
I have replied twice already that the omission of China was just an ordinary drafting error and if Senator Ó Maoláin wishes to propose that China be included in the Schedule I will be glad to agree with him. It shows that Senator Ó Maoláin has more than a slight knowledge of the Iron Curtain countries.
I cannot understand why, when Senator Quinlan thought of North Korea and North Vietnam, he should have forgotten China, when he has been talking about it for years.
I proposed this amendment, but in view of the discussion which has developed if the Minister wishes to enlarge the Bill we invite him to come back here and give us a Bill which will deal with friendly countries with which you can develop a proper import-export trade and at the same time countries that may need a certain measure of protection to ensure that we get a proper balance.
I would like to say before Senator Quinlan presses his amendment that I am quite satisfied with the Minister's second explanation. This is some necessary safeguard against its use as a catspaw. I regret that I must withdraw my support from Senator Quinlan's amendment on those grounds.
The result of accepting this amendment, if it is pressed and accepted, would be that in order to take a country out or put a country into this list, you would have to have legislation. I should like to suggest to Senator Quinlan that that is not practical. You cannot do it. It would be too much.
Amendment declared lost.
Senator Quinlan will be recorded as dissenting.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 not moved.
Government amendment No. 5:—
To insert "or territory" after "country" in the four places where "country" occurs in subsection (1) and (2).
As I intimated, when the Bill was called for Committee Stage, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Bill would be made effective in respect of goods consigned to areas which may not now be regarded as countries in the accepted sense, countries over which there are Governments internationally recognised. I think there are obvious examples of such areas. I am glad that an intimation has been given from the Front Bench of the Opposition that the amendment is agreed. Therefore, I need not say anything further on it.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On this section I can reply to the points raised by Senator Ó Maoláin, which bear directly on the section. We should, first of all, completely clear our minds of all irrelevancies because it is highly irrelevant for the Minister, or any member of the House, to protest his detestation of communism. We all detest it as a system and, consequently, let us leave aside such protestations.
There was a suggestion that because we might be contaminated by contact, I had suggested that as a reason why under Section 2 of the Bill the Minister's authority should be used to prohibit. I did not for one moment suggest that as a reason to prohibit. I do not think anyone would suggest as a reason for prohibiting that those who would be trading would be contaminated by their contacts. Let us leave such considerations out and come back to the kernel of the matter which is the scheme by the communists for the selective undermining of the economy of the various countries of the free world. Here I might set Senator Ó Maoláin straight, if that is possible, by making him realise why America, England and other countries are trading with the communists.
I am not waiting for the Senator to tell me.
It is simply because those countries have some goods, mainly of a large manufacturing type, that the communists want, and for which the communists are prepared to pay a very dear price in giving to those countries the goods they want. That is trading from a position of strength, and it is trading within a framework in which the countries concerned realise full well the problems. They realise that the trade is being used for selective undermining of the economy provided that country allows itself to get into the power of the Soviet, in other words, allows a vital sector of its economy to become dependent on them. It then becomes a question of a prudential calculus of profit and loss as to whether what those countries are getting from Russia is sufficient to offset what Russia wants from them. What Russia wants is something that will strengthen the Soviet economy and her military machine. There is the situation, and there is the complete answer to Senator Ó Maoláin's obvious retorts as to why we should not do it when the other countries are doing it.
God help the students if that is the limit of the Senator's knowledge.
We have nothing that is of vital importance to Russia. We have no heavy machinery. We have nothing that is vital to her economy. If she takes anything from us it is solely with the ulterior motive that one day—it may not be one day; it may be in a year or two—she will be in a position to undermine a very large sector of our economy.
We have seen in the papers recently that we sold £200,000 worth of wool to Czechoslovakia. On the surface that appears to be quite a good deal. A good price was got for the wool and we have unloaded quite an amount. That appears to be good, but if selling that amount means that some of the markets of wool in the free world which we have cultivated over the past few years are now to be deserted by us—if we are to pull out of those markets having made an investment in marketing there—and that next year Czechoslovakia will probably buy the whole Irish wool crop if we jump at an offer, that means she will be able to get us out of the markets where we sell. In three years' time Czechoslovakia, unfortunately, will not be able to buy a pound of Irish wool, and when we try to get back to the markets we deserted, because we felt that the short term gain was something we should acquire, we will find they are gone. That is what is meant by selective undermining of the economy.
If Senator Ó Maoláin, the Minister or anyone else wishes to know about that, he has on his own benches the very man who knows more about it I would say than any one of us. He has got Senator Boland who has made an intensive study of the undermining practices of the communists. The Minister is a man who relies on authority. He has to rely on authority, as all Ministers must. I am not aware that there is in his Department a specialised section with sufficient knowledge of the philosophical and other implications of communism in its various manifestations and schemes for world domination, and how they are applied in practice. I do not think the Minister has anyone in his Department who can be regarded as skilled in that direction.
I speak having consulted with the leading authorities in the country on that problem. I had consultations for many years with Professor James Hogan of University College, Cork, who is universally acclaimed as a leader in that field, with Mr. Kennedy Roche of the same University, and with Reverend Monsignor Alfred O'Rahilly under whose tuition I was privileged to take a Diploma in this very subject. Therefore, despite what the Minister or Senator Ó Maoláin may suggest I do know what I am talking about. It is something that is far more practical than the Minister's reply where he said: "It is all very well to listen to an ideological lecture from Senator Quinlan but as a member of the Oireachtas I have to face the facts of life." My contention here is that we are not facing the facts of life when we do not understand clearly the pattern of world domination as unfolded and as worked by the Communist movement and the threat it poses to us here.
I would suggest that if the Minister is serious in wanting to go ahead and develop trade with those countries, even though as I said that is highly perilous and I know many other members here share my anxiety, I would implore the Minister at this last stage to set up a small committee. I believe Professor Hogan, despite his many, many commitments in other respects, would be only too pleased and willing to perform yet another of his manifold public services by acting as a member of that committee. But, first of all, let us get the facts straight and see what the hazards are. Let it not be merely the question of individual gain for a particular firm whether it is in Galway, Cork or Dublin, seeking a licence that becomes the main consideration. This must be decided in the context of how it fits into the overall pattern? I implore the Minister in sanctioning exports to those countries, as a first principle, to ensure that not one of the markets we have cultivated over the last few years, at great expense, in the free world is left unsupplied. If we leave those unsupplied, we are putting ourselves in the position in which the unfortunate Egyptians found themselves in 1957. These are the facts. There is not anything ideological about this. The President of the Board of Trade in Russia itself, their Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Mikoyan, has gone on record to say it is far more profitable to trade with the West and a far surer way of undermining them than excessive spending on armaments. I would, finally, on this Section 2, suggest to the Minister that he will find— and I state this without fear of contradiction—when he comes to discuss this arrangement of trading with the communists with the appropriate Ministers in the Common Market, he will find that the view which I have expressed in this debate is far nearer to the reality in Europe than his laissezfaire type of trade approach in which he refuses to see the overall peril. If he consults Professor Hallstein on this matter he will find that he, Professor Hallstein, Chief of the Common Market Commission, would have far greater respect for an opinion of an international authority of the standing of Professor James Hogan than for what the Leader of the House has given.
We are facing the Common Market. Let us face the task squarely and not descend to trying to score petty debating points off one another. I am not here for the good of my health. I am here to do a job. I have been sent here as a representative of the graduates of the National University of Ireland. And as long as I can contribute, by making a close study and by consulting the authorities available in our universities, then I will make that contribution without fear or favour from anybody. In doing that, I do not intend to be intimidated by Senator Ó Maoláin or anybody else in the discharge by me of my duty in this House
Senator Quinlan in enumerating all the eminent personages from whom he got his inspiration forgot to mention the one from whom he derives his whole mentality, the late Senator MacCarthy but Senator MacCarthy did things much better than Senator Quinlan and was much better. If the information which Senator Quinlan has given us with regard to the United States policy is typical of the type of information which he gives to his students, then, as I said before, may God help his students.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Ó Maoláin will withdraw that remark carrying with it an implication upon Senator Quinlan's efficiency in his professional capacity outside the House.
I withdraw any implication on Senator Quinlan's capacity outside the House. Senator Quinlan's interpretation of United States policy in relation to Poland and Yugoslavia shows how little he knows and how much he presumes. He can get that information through any of the international journals which I take it for granted a man of his perspicacity should read. He would know that the reason for the United States dollar aid to Poland and the reason for the United States dollar aid and assistance to Yugoslavia has no relation whatever to the surplus of manufactured goods in the United States but is based on United States interests politically and on those interests alone.
Senator Quinlan found fault with the deal which was executed a couple of weeks ago by private enterprise through which the Czechoslovak Government purchasing agency took £200,000 worth of our wool. Surely he does not grudge the western farmers, who provided that wool, the excellent market they found there for their wool? Surely he does not deny that, as a consequence of that deal and of other exports during the past 12 months, our trade with Czechoslovakia was almost in balance this year?
Senator Quinlan should remember that every country in Europe is seeking markets as well as we are. If we are to turn our faces away from a potential market, surely we are not that impregnable economically that we can afford to do so? Even the National Farmers' Association some time ago were very interested in finding alternative markets, even behind the Iron Curtain, for the dairy produce which they could not sell in Britain.
Surely we are not that impregnable economically that we can afford to turn up our noses at any prospective market? This is an excellent Bill. It will aid the purposes which we have in view, namely, to rectify the imbalance of trade with certain countries. It will thus enable us, in company with every other democratic country in western Europe, to go after a market which is there for the taking.
I find that there is a great air of unreality about this debate, both the last day and today. I refer especially to the fact of legislation by Order. Legal people refer always, in objecting, to legislation by Order. I have some knowledge of legislation by Order. Surely. if this House and the Dáil were to insist that no legislation by Order would be provided for in the various Bills which we enact then both Houses would be sitting every day of the year? I am thinking mainly of public health legislation. The Bills that have been passed entail the making of Orders subsequently. The Diseases of Animals legislation entails the making of Orders subsequently. Could anybody picture the work this House would have to do under the legislation in regard to the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis throughout the country if every detail had to be enacted in these Houses? Every second week, we have Orders dealing with the implementation of the Act and we could not get on without them. I just wanted to refer to that in dealing with the objections to the provision for Orders in this Bill. Then Senator Quinlan who expatiates at such great length—though he could not get anybody else in this House to support him—says the Minister should not enforce its provisions by Order, that we should have them written down in black and white in the Act, but when it came to writing them down in black and white, he could not do it properly. He can come in here and call us lunatics.
I will quote his opening statement on the Second Reading last week:
I think we have the right Bill, and a very much over-due Bill, but that it is presented to us very definitely for the wrong reason. If I understand the Minister correctly, the reason for it is that we want to sell more to the Iron Curtain countries.
He has spoken of that today—
That is, as I hope to show, absolute lunacy, and I shall go into it in detail because I think it necessary to put it on the records of this House that there is a case which proves conclusively that it is absolute lunacy. You cannot sell to the Iron Curtain countries.
That is the argument Senator Quinlan makes. He says it is lunacy to have a Bill which he interprets differently from its wording. He says the rest of us are lunatics and he is the one bright saint among us—one bird alone.
My main interest in the Bill is, as I mentioned last week, the protection of Irish industries. I am not worried about where the product comes from unless it is coming into competition with an Irish product. I made a point about coal on the earlier Stage and I am sorry the Minister did not refer to it in his reply. The coal industry may not be as important as the turf industry, but it is playing its part in the economic development of the country. I come from a district which is very much concerned with it, in view of the fact that 400 people are employed in the industry. We have had the sorry spectacle in recent years of foreign coal being sold in the area at a cheaper rate. I am very anxious that the Minister should take steps against the import of coal, especially from countries east of the Iron Curtain because naturally those countries can produce it much more cheaply than we can at home.
I welcome the Bill not alone from the ideological point of view but from the economic point of view because the Minister, as he pointed out, is endeavouring to redress the balance of trade against us in the countries concerned. No matter where a product originates, some protection should be given against its importation into this country. There will be no excuse when the Bill becomes law that the responsibility is somebody else's, not the Minister's, as was said on a few occasions when the matter was raised during the period of office of this and of the previous Government. We were told that the Minister had no function and that merchants were free to import a product on their own. I would like a guarantee on that, particularly regarding the product of my area; it may not supply the needs of the whole country but it contributes to them. It contributes to the provision of power by the ESB who have erected a coal-burning station but that is not able to consume all the supplies that are mined and there is very little hope of keeping people in employment if they must compete against a product which is produced at a much lower rate, in conditions which, to say the least, are not trade union conditions.
What Senator Mooney has said has raised some worries in my mind about the provisions of the Bill. As I understand it, the position regarding the restriction of imports is that there is another series of Acts under which in a case where this is dumping, imports can be prohibited. They provide for an Order which must be brought before the two Houses of the Oireachtas within a certain period. What Senator Mooney said has raised the worry that—not under this Minister but under another Minister in ten years' time—it might occur to somebody that this Bill would be a much more convenient way of achieving that result because under it any goods from any country can be prohibited without the necessity of the Order being brought to the Houses of the Oireachtas except as is stated in subsection (4) of this section.
That subsection sets out the usual procedure, that the Order is made and can be annulled within 21 days, but if it is not annulled within 21 days, the Order becomes permanent until it is annulled by the Minister. That would be a very much more convenient method of prohibiting imports than under the Acts which cover the restriction of imports now where the Order has to be specically passed by each House of the Oireachtas. In view of that, I wonder would the Minister be willing to amend the subsection so as to have it in reverse, that the Order is made and ceases to be in force after 21 days, unless it is passed by each House of the Oireachtas. That would bring it into line with the position which already exists regarding the restriction of imports and would be more in keeping with this type of Bill.
Senator Ó Donnabháin said—very rightly—that we could not have legislation on health and so on without ministerial Orders, but this is much more than a matter of regulating questions of health. This Bill gives very extensive powers to the Government. It is all right to say that Senator Quinlan or somebody would then say that an Order of this kind should be annulled, but at the same time, these powers are very extensive and I should feel happier if the Minister reversed it to say that the Order will cease to be in force within a certain number of days, unless passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
There are just a few comments I should like to make in reply to the various points made by Senators. When I said in reply to the Second Reading debate that I had to face the facts of life, I instanced the case of a man, a small trader and manufacturer, in a rural part of the country who had bought a perishable by-product of the agricultural industry. He tried to sell it in Britain and in every country of Western Europe, but because there was a surplus of the same commodity in these countries, he could not do so. He gave a small amount of employment but in relation to the size of the town in which he lived, it was a very considerable degree of employment. He was committed to the bank for hundreds of thousands of pounds in respect of these goods that in the ordinary course of trade he could expect to dispose of when they had received a reasonable amount of processing in his plant. Unfortunately, because of a surplus of the same commodity in the countries with which he was wont to trade, he found great difficulty, so much so that he was practically put out of business. In fact, he was put out of business for a time and lost a considerable amount of money.
He came to me for assistance and if I had had a Bill such as this at my disposal, I could have assisted him. I could have maintained the moderate employment he was able to give in his town by the assistance I could give him. There was a market for him in Iron Curtain countries but the State trading agencies of that country were able to snap their fingers at him because they were able to unload all their goods in bulk in this country without let or hindrance. If I had the power that I seek here I would have been able to say to that country: "You may not send in another pound's worth of goods until such time as you take this man's goods, as there is an outlet for them in your country." I am deliberately refraining from identifying the trader in any way. That is just one of the considerations in which I would propose to use the power there, power that at that time I very much regretted not having.
Senator Ó Maoláin mentioned the disposal of our butter surplus. I am sure nobody in this House would have objected to disposing of that surplus at a better price than we otherwise could dispose of it, if we had power whereby to ensure we could sell it to Iron Curtain countries in return for the goods they were permitted to export to this country unhindered generally. On that point, there is no question of neglecting additional markets. Our traders have traditional markets which they are trying to expand to their full limit. As far as wool is concerned we have markets to the extent of almost £5,000,000 in western countries. But it is only in the case of surpluses that it is desirable to export goods to Iron Curtain countries. Without the power of this Bill it was possible earlier this year to negotiate the sale of some £200,000 worth of wool. There will be times again when we will have a wool surplus that we cannot dispose of in the countries with which we traditionally trade and it would be well to have the weapon whereby we can at least have a possible outlet for such a surplus, and other types of surplus, to these Iron Curtain countries. Reference was also made to the fact that I said something to the effect that it was undesirable that there should be contact with Iron Curtain countries. What I did say on the Second Reading was that it might be felt that the measure would result in an undesirable trend in that we will tend to increase our contacts at a commercial level between this country and communist countries. I said that in deference to a volume of opinion that exists. A lot of people believe that we should have nothing to do with the communists but I do not subscribe to that view. Nobody wants this ideological war solved by releasing an atomic bomb because it would wipe out all humanity. Therefore it would be better if we could persuade these people that our system is better than theirs and we cannot succeed in that unless we have ordinary contact at commercial and other levels. I for one am in favour of promoting contacts with communist countries in order to expose to them the deficiencies in their society and the advantages and attractions of the society under which we live.
I admit readily that I have not any expertise on communist propaganda in my Department but we have in the Department of External Affairs all the experts we want in international relations. I think I can claim that in some of the personnel in the Department of External Affairs we have some of the best brains in the international diplomatic scene. I would not decry in any way the knowledge of Professor Hogan or of Mr. Kennedy Roche on these affairs but we have at our immediate disposal within the Civil Service all the expertise we require to tell us, if we do not know already, the insidious hazards of communist propaganda and methods.
In regard to the point raised by Senator Mooney there are certain international agreements in regard to coal which oblige us to take certain quantities of coal from countries other than Iron Curtain countries but in so far as it will be possible to limit imports of Polish coal, or any other type of coal, in this Bill then we hope it will be for the benefit of our native industry. We must always have regard to the fact that coal is such a basic raw material, a basic unit of production, that we must ensure in this competitive world that we are not going to put our manufacturers at any disadvantage in relation to their competitors for the type of goods they have to sell in other parts of the world. The Senator will appreciate that this Government in particular have done very much for the coal mining industry. In so far as I can help, it will be my intention that our coal mining industry will not suffer to any undue extent.
Senator Yeats' point practically brings us back to square one. We have the Control of Imports Bill. That is not flexible enough. The purpose of this Bill is to give us that degree of flexibility which is necessary in the case of bulk imports of goods that can flood a particular type of market.
If such goods were unloaded from communist countries they could flood the market that we have for that particular commodity for a long time and cost a considerable amount of currency and against which we would have no possible advantage. These transactions could take place practically overnight, or certainly within a matter of days, and if we followed the old system of restriction of imports in some watered down provision other than the provisions in this Bill we would find ourselves, perhaps, in the difficulty that would necessitate the introduction of such a Bill as this.
I am satisfied I have got my facts on record and I hope the Minister and his Department will check them with Senator Boland or any other authority and they will find that they are as I have stated. Senator Ó Maoláin was concerned with the western farmers and their increase. Why should they not have an increase? What I am warning against is that the slight increase they got this year may be the means of producing the total collapse of the wool market in two or three years' time when the communist bloc have weaned us away from traditional markets. The amount we have in any line for export is infinitesimal compared with what the communist countries can buy up if they want to. I would urge the Minister to watch out for this deadly trap where the immediate advantage of the small trader, whom we would all wish to help, may be the means by which the communist bulk bloc can undermine that very industry in our country and bring it crashing down. If the communist bloc had bought our butter surplus this year we would have been left without any quota on the British market. That is what can happen. Does the Minister believe that the Government trading agency in an Iron Curtain country would continue over any period of years out of complete altruism for us to pay a higher price for a particular product than is being paid in the world market? Does he believe that a Government agency that places ideologies first would continue to supply a product to us so that we can build up a vital industry and continue to give us trading advantages? I submit that such just does not happen, unless, perhaps, we were to give them something the Soviet regarded as vital like a submarine base off the south coast or something of that order. Then, of course, we could extract monetary advantage due to the advantage that Russia would prize.
I am rather worried and disturbed about the general cleavage here between the Civil Service and the outside. All the expertise is with the civil servants and there is a feeling that we need not consult the outside people at all. I suggest to the Minister that if he goes abroad and asks any authority about the ranking people in this country on communism he will find that they are not in his Department. They are not in the Department of External Affairs——
They are all in the Universities.
They are in the Universities, and they are prepared to co-operate with the Minister because they have a stake in the country, and to co-operate provided they are given the means of co-operation and that they are at least given credit for having given some years of study and for knowing some little thing about what they practise. An Seanadóir Ó Maoláin jibed about MacCarthyism. That is just what we might expect from the Senator, and, perhaps, he would equally apply the same jibe to none other than Cardinal Cushing of Boston, who wrote in the Tablet on July 4th a letter commending the work that had been done by a certain group under Mr. McGovern to educate public opinion in America on the hazards of communism and on its various ramifications. His letter could possibly be studied by An Seanadóir Ó Maoláin and might alter his low approach to this subject. Cardinal Cushing wrote:
"I have brought the facts of the international conspiracy to the people in the grass roots of the country. Like yourself, I have been branded a right-wing extremist, whatever that is, but this I do know, that one of the principal communistic lines at the present time is to attack anti-communist propaganda and organisations of every kind, especially those that prevail among the average Americans."
One need only insert "Ireland" or "Europe" for "America" and, perhaps, that would fit the approach of An Seanadóir Ó Maoláin.
I understand that Cardinal Cushing has changed his mind on a few matters on which he was adamant recently. If Senator Quinlan thinks that by introducing His Eminence into this debate he is starting a new witchhunt, he is making a mistake. I have as much right to think for myself as Cardinal Cushing, Senator Quinlan or anybody else.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I am worried about this section not so much from the point of view of the Iron Curtain countries since the Minister said that the amount of trade we can get from them is infinitesimal. I am worried lest the Minister or his successor should suddenly decide that this shall apply to West Germany or to France, because then there will be five or six million pounds worth of licences to be given out, and how are those going to be distributed? In what way will it be published or otherwise so that we will see how they have been given and what considerations were taken into account in granting them? If that related to prevalent trade it would bring the State completely into the realm of trade, and bring within the realm of the State powers under which millions of pounds worth could be handed out. I am not accusing the Minister or saying that he or anyone in his Department would do anything improper. What I am saying is that any departure that suddenly creates a new industry of licence-holding would have a detrimental effect on the country and would be one more stab at private enterprise. I would like to know what conditions or safeguards could be applied.
This section was made of general application for two reasons which I would submit are very good. First of all, it is likely, as I have said already, that the type of goods that would be imported from these countries would be a bulk commodity and, therefore, a type that would not be imported by the generality of people and hence it would be possible to issue licences to particular people, attaching to them such conditions as might be proper for the time being. They might be of long or short duration and there would be no question of facilitating any trafficking in those licences.
The Senator made the suggestion that it might have been possible to issue licences for commodities imported as from a base year. Again, it was deliberately decided not to include such a provision as a base year, because thought was given to the fact that there might be individual existing importers who would if they applied on a base year consideration, hog all the allocation of licences, whereas some traders who for good reasons of their own desired not to trade with communist countries would have no base year entitlements at all and, therefore, it would be difficult to operate licences such as these on the basis of a base year.
It was for these two main reasons that it was decided to say that all licences should be of a general nature, capable of being limited and restricted if it was thought fit to suit the particular occasion. In general, these will be ad hoc licences. I cannot deny that they might be valuable to the person receiving them, but that is the case in all licensing provisions. People who get licences are usually traditional traders in the particular commodity. In this case there might possibly be a few cases where traditional traders would not want to deal with communist countries and would, therefore, have no base year entitlements.
As far as the issuing of licences is concerned, we can say that, since licensing provisions came into our import régime, there has not been a scintilla of evidence or suggestion made that in the issue of them any issuing authority, Minister or civil servant, gave to anybody any undue benefit.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Section 4 provides that the penalty on summary conviction for an offence shall not exceed £100. There is no provision for making this into a more serious type of offence. Where traders are involved I do not think £100 would mean very much. I would have thought that there should be some alternative like a prison sentence or something else.
If the Senator reads the section fully he will see that the penalty applies to non-disclosure of information, or the giving of false information for the purpose of procuring a licence. Bringing in imports which are restricted and that type of evasion will be dealt with under the penalties provided in the customs law, which I think the Senator will agree are hefty enough to meet the case.
If a person got a licence and it was only discovered at a subsequent date that he had made statements which were false or misleading, he would have had the benefit of the licence for one, two or three years, or whatever the length of time was. A penalty of £100 at the end of that period would seem very little.
I do not know whether there is any provision at the moment for publicising the fact that a licence such as that envisaged in the Bill has been granted. I think that where an individual is given the advantage of a valuable licence under a section such as this there should be a public record of it. I would suggest, if it is not already necessary, that within so many days of a licence being granted, notice to that effect and particulars of the licence should be published in Iris Oifigiúil.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.