Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 6

In Committee on Finance - Agricultural Products (Regulation of Exports) (Amendment) Bill, 1935—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(2) Section 2 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion therein of the following sub-section in lieu of sub-section (1) now contained therein, and the said section shall be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say:—
(1) If the Government of any country establishes any system of restriction or control of the import of any agricultural product into that country from Saorstát Eireann or if the Government of any country has made any agreement or arrangement with the Government of Saorstát Eireann whereby any agricultural product is permitted or required to be imported to a limited extent into that country from Saorstát Eireann, the Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks proper, make an order (in this Act referred to as an export order) regulating and controlling the export of that agricultural product to that country from Saorstát Eireann in such manner as appears to him to be calculated to secure the maximum benefit permitted by such system of restriction and

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (2), page 2, line 38, to insert after the word "Eireann" the words "or whereby the import of any agricultural product into that country from Saorstát Eireann is facilitated,"

It is anticipated that, in some cases, agreements may be entered into between the Saorstát Government and other countries, where facilities may be given for the import of agricultural products to a certain amount or in other ways, without putting on any specific limitation, and in such cases it may be necessary to regulate export so as to have it directed through a particular channel or carried out in the most efficient manner with regard to the products exported. This amendment is necessary for that purpose.

Does this amendment mean that, if we make a trade agreement with any country, whereunder we get a preferential tariff as opposed to the tariff imposed on similar goods from other countries, that agreement will automatically bring the commodities in respect of which we have a preferential tariff within the ambit of this Bill?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

There is no precedent for such an arrangement and, to my mind, and I submit it to the Minister, this is bureaucracy run mad, because if we give this power, it means that any of the items mentioned in the second section of this amending Bill will be made subject to all the powers of the Principal Act immediately a preferential tariff is made available to us by Great Britain or any other country. Surely that is going beyond the necessities of the occasion? Surely it is always easy for the Minister, if he wants to extend these powers, to come in here and propose ad hoc legislation and explain it to the House, without inserting an omnibus amendment of this kind which is calculated to operate very extensively and frequently in a way which neither the public nor the House will be able to keep track of.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is aware, perhaps, that that would have to be done by order, which order would have to be placed before the House. I might mention that, if we take Great Britain as an example, we can, as the original Act stands, regulate any export to Great Britain, seeing that they have imposed quotas on some commodities already.

Am I to understand that, under the terms of the Principal Act, which is here before me, if quotas are imposed on any product, we can then regulate all products under the terms of this Act?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

I did not appreciate that that power was enshrined in the original Act, but I do submit to the Minister that this system of legislating by Order in Council is highly obnoxious and should not be resorted to except where it is necessary for the efficient administration of the law. It is simply pushing the Oireachtas to one side, and it ought not to be made a commonplace of every Bill that is brought before this House that we delegate our powers to the Minister to legislate by Order. It is not urgent; it is not necessary. It is quite easy to do this by legislation if the necessity arises and the sovereignty of this House should not be whittled away by bureaucracy in a Government Bill. I make that case to the Minister from the point of view of constitutional law, rather than from the agricultural point of view. I think he will agree with me that this tendency is manifesting itself more and more in all the legislation we have to handle. I urge on him most strongly not to subscribe to that principle unless and until it is absolutely necessary.

Does the Bill ask for limited time?

Dr. Ryan

No.

I think it is unfortunate that we have a Bill of this sort. Perhaps the Minister is advised that it is absolutely necessary, but there is this aspect of the case worth considering; as long as we have a Bill of this sort there is almost an invitation to people with whom you have trade negotiations or trade relations, as the case may be, to impose those restrictions, on the grounds that there is machinery for dealing with them. If there is no machinery for dealing with them there is that sort of unwritten but nevertheless implied understanding between countries or Governments that they will not interrupt the ordinary flow of commerce in that fashion. To that extent, I think the Minister should consider whether or not he will put a certain time limit to the measure.

Dr. Ryan

As a matter of fact, I have not got in mind any particular occasion where this amendment will be necessary, but I should like to point out that the powers we have are even more far-reaching than those asked in this particular amendment. As I said already, if the Deputy looks at Section 2, sub-section (1) (d) of the original Act he will find that we have power "for regulating and controlling any alternative export to such country," that is, to such country as an import quota has been imposed upon. That has been interpreted, because we wanted an opinion on it in recent cases. We got legal opinion that that entitles us to use that Bill. It can be applied to any export to a country that has put on even one export quota against our imports to that country. As I say, for the moment I do not myself see any case where this amendment would be necessary, and I am not so very keen on it that I want to divide the House on it. I do not think it is very important. I do not think it is going further than we have gone in the original Bill.

Surely, the Minister will agree, if his plea is that he has gone further in the original Bill, that there should, therefore, be no alarm about this addition to the amending Bill. He will also agree with me that if we went so far in the original Bill we went unconsciously. To this moment I never took the meaning from the Act that the Minister's legal advisers have taken and, apparently, he did not take that meaning himself because he sought their counsel before he was prepared to act in that way. Section 2, sub-section (1) of the original Act says:—

If any country to which any agricultural product is usually imported from Saorstát Eireann establishes any system of restriction or control of the import of that particular product into that country from Saorstát Eireann the Minister may by order, regulate and control the export of that agricultural product to that country from Saorstát Eireann in such manner as appears to him...

Observe the words "may control the export of that agricultural product." The sub-section goes on to say:—

without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, by such order provide for all or any of the following matters, that is to say: (d) for regulating and controlling any alternative export to such country which may for the time being be protected.

Obviously, what the House thought that meant was that if you are dealing with quota restrictions on butter the Minister can deal with alternatives to butter. Is not that so? Was not that the meaning the Minister had? By a drafting slip the lawyers have read into this a very much wider meaning. Surely, instead of saying: "By mistake, the House has given the Minister wider powers than it intended to give, and, therefore, having made that mistake let us plunge the House a little deeper into the bog than they themselves unwittingly have gone," the Minister should have said: "The House has conferred on me powers they never meant to confer. I take the opportunity in this amending Bill to withdraw from myself powers I never sought, powers which the House never meant to give me, and to restore the situation to the true position which the House believed it to be in." I submit that that is what the Minister ought to do, and not to accept this error on the part of the Oireachtas for the purpose of building up upon a system which the House never intended to sanction. I, therefore, strongly urge on the Minister that we should at least drop this amendment for the present. Let us reconsider the situation created by sub-section 1 (d) of the original Act, and in the full knowledge of what that means act consciously in some subsequent Bill along the lines upon which the House really desires to go.

Dr. Ryan

I should not like it to be understood that we had got through the Oireachtas a provision unknowingly to ourselves or the Oireachtas giving us that power. We did think we had that power, but this Bill was questioned and we got legal opinion on certain provisions of it, including the definition of agricultural products, as I explained on the Second Reading. That does not occur on the Committee Stage. As I say, we got legal opinion on various matters, and our own opinion was confirmed by that legal opinion. That is what I want to point out. In any case, if the Deputy holds that this House was misled in any way, we would certainly have asked for that power now that is, the power in paragraph (d), Section 2. It does, of course, come into the amending Bill again in paragraph (g) in the very same wording.

It has been pointed out to me just now that there is a case where this particular amendment under discussion may be necessary. In the German agreement it says that the German Government are also prepared to have due regard to Saorstát Eireann's export interest in agricultural produce, and in particular to facilitate the importation into Germany of cattle, wool, hides, skins, etc. In that particular case the quota has applied in a particular way to cattle, eggs and butter. There is 15 per cent. of the full quota remaining over from agricultural products. Although they mention for the 15 per cent. wool, hides and skins, we may for instance, export horses as part of that 15 per cent. It is one of the items that has been mentioned. The difficulty there may arise in this way that, for instance, we might be very anxious to export horses later on in the year, or in the quarter, as it goes by quarters.

Geldings, I hope.

Dr. Ryan

Well, I do not know. However, that is another matter. We may be very anxious to keep part of that quota for horses, and we would like, perhaps, in the meantime, to regulate the export of the other commodities—wool, hides, and so on—so as to keep them from filling the quota. This amendment appears to be necessary.

Would it give the Minister power to insist on the export of geldings as against mares?

Dr. Ryan

It would.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (2), page 2, line 40, to delete the word "that" and substitute the word "any."

This amendment is on much the same lines, although it does not so appear in the wording. I would have to make the same argument there: that is, that in connection with this 15 per cent. residue for Germany we would be anxious, or it might be necessary, to regulate the export of any agricultural product in order to reserve that 15 per cent. for some particular agricultural product.

Does the Minister see where the House is now being led? We are reaching the last stage in which the entire control of the agricultural exports of this country is going to be handed over to the permanent officials of the Department of Agriculture; this House is going to be put completely on one side. The farmers of the country are going to be put completely on one side, and the people who have been associated with the agricultural industry for generations are going to be put on one side. A small body of men in the Department of Agriculture in effect are going to be given power to control every part of the export trade of agricultural products in this country. And that is all done by the insertion of almost one single word. We are going to transfer from this House all its functions with regard to the export trade of the country in agricultural products. To my mind such a procedure is a complete abrogation of the functions of this House. We are not discharging our obligations to the people of this country if we hand over to a body of permanent officials the duty which we were sent here to discharge—that is, to look after the interests of the people we represent. In a few minutes we are going to deal with a Bill of 153 sections to control the production and export of one particular item of our agricultural industry; by the insertion of one word in a short amending Bill we are going to transfer to the Department of Agriculture the entire control of our whole agricultural export trade. That is an amendment I certainly can never accept and I do not believe that any Deputy in this House with any sense of responsibility ought to transfer the functions of this House to the permanent officials with reference to the agricultural exports of this country.

Will the Minister say anything on the amendment?

Dr. Ryan

Every Order made under this section must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and no restrictions or export quotas can be fixed without the Order being made.

Will the Minister read this:—

The Executive Council may at any time by Order amend any Order previously made...

There are no direct causes which might be mentioned in the course of such an amendment as this, which would empower the Executive Council to do that, but it may voluntarily of its own wish and will do it any time.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is speaking of a totally different amendment—of amendment No. 4.

Is the Minister going to make some reference or explanation as to Deputy Dillon's objection? As Deputy Dillon said, this House ought not lightly to pass an amendment such as that. We have had in reference to another Act of this Oireachtas unsatisfactory results as far as some of us are concerned. In the case of another Bill that was going through this House some years ago in reference to the taxation of certain articles some of us thought it might be used in the way Deputy Dillon has indicated. That Bill, after getting the approval of all sections, was hurriedly rushed through, and it was found afterwards that the Ministry had been given carte blanche without any reference to the Oireachtas. Here, in a small amendment, we are going to give the Ministry and its officials power to regulate an entire industry. That is a power that ought not be lightly given by the House to any body of officials. Could the Minister give us some explanation of his reasons for taking this power in the Bill?

Dr. Ryan

I think this amendment does not give us any more power than we had under the original Act. It does nothing except to clarify the position. I take it that Deputies have not the same objection to having these regulations made where agreements are made with foreign countries. I could very well understand the objection about regulating the exports of wool or some commodity like that to Great Britain, where there would not appear to be any great necessity for the regulations. But we have already powers to regulate these things. We have used the power as little as possible; there have been quotas put up by Great Britain and We have not actually used those powers. We have only used them when driven to it. We have used them in reference to bacon but not in relation to potatoes or eggs. We tried not to use them in the case of eggs. We may be compelled to use them by the British if we exceed the quota in the course of the first quarter. Our present policy is that if we can avoid using these powers we will do so.

Am I not right in saying that this section can now be paraphrased as follows:—

"If the Saorstát gets a preferential tariff in any country in respect of any agricultural product, the Minister may regulate any particular agricultural exports to that country under the powers conferred on him by the Principal Act."

Is not that a correct paraphrase of the situation?

Dr. Ryan

I hope it is, but I am not so sure. It arises where we get agreement with a country where they give us a preferential tariff, only I am not sure that we have got the power.

And you want that power?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

You want to control every agricultural product once there is a preferential tariff given in respect of any one of them. The Minister wants to take from this House that originating authority in respect of the export trade of the Free State and place it in the hands of the officials. The Minister is completely coming up to that position, though he began by saying that there is nothing in particular in this section at all.

Dr. Ryan

This particular amendment does not do it.

Is there a single Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches who knew that that was the meaning of this amending Bill? I do not believe there is a single one.

There is.

Deputy Corry claims to have read, dissected and approved of the measure. I have no doubt but that his approval will carry heavy weight with the House. But I propose to test the influence he carries in this House and, therefore, I intend to divide the House on this amendment.

Why did the Deputy ask the question?

I would like to put one point to Deputy Dillon: Since the prices of fat cattle were fixed, we have heard week after week a wail and that wail is partly justified because the price is not being paid. I think the proper way to regulate that price and to see that the proper price will be paid is by giving the Minister power to take over those cattle himself and ship them, if necessary, so as to ensure that the farmer will get the price he ought to get. We have had the case made that only 17/- or 18/- per cwt. has been paid for cattle when the Minister has fixed the price at 25/- per cwt. The farmer is being robbed and the man who is robbing him is the cattle dealer.

Who gets the licences?

I am sure Deputy Belton looks for a few of them for himself and for his friends.

Why should not he?

I am nearly sure if we followed him some day we would find him around the offices. I maintain that the proper procedure is to have some such control as this so that the Minister can step in and say: "I will buy all the cattle in the Dublin market at 22/- a cwt. and ship them," and let the cattle dealer, if he has been a thief, go home with nothing in his pocket.

If this is to be a temporary expedient to deal with the abnormal conditions of the present time why is there not a time limit fixed for the powers that the Minister now seeks to control agricultural produce? There should have been some time limit of three or six months and at the end of that time the measure could be renewed if necessary.

Why not fix a limit of 20 years?

Did Colmcille say anything about that?

I want to enter an emphatic protest against the remarks made by Deputy Corry in relation to what I consider a very decent and very respectable body of citizens, namely, the cattle dealers—he called them robbers and thieves.

Question put: "That the amendment be made."
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 34.

  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Fatrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Good, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

On Section 2 the general question of the extension of the Minister's power to regulate agricultural commodities arises. Under the original Act we had a definition in Section 1 which defined an "agricultural product" as "any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and skins of animals; but does not include intoxicating liquor." That is now to read: "any animal, milk, cream, eggs, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product or from any animal or from milk, cream or eggs, and includes feathers, wool, hides and skins of animals..." In considering the propriety of placing powers of this kind in the hands of the Minister one is bound to examine the Minister's record in administering similar powers on previous occasions. I drew the attention of the Minister to-day in a Parliamentary question to the situation, in which he was acquiescing, which is being created in the egg trade, and I apprehend that if the Minister gets the kind of power set out in Section 2 he will not only acquiesce in situations of this kind, but he will himself actively promote them.

We made a trade agreement with the German Reich whereunder in exchange for trade concessions which we were prepared to afford to them they undertook to take from us a certain quantity of agricultural produce, of which eggs were to form a part. The egg trade is a highly technical business and anyone who is familiar with the business of exporting eggs for a foreign market knows that eggs are divided into grades under two heads. They are first divided into fresh eggs and trade eggs, and every egg, no matter what its size or weight, which is not a fresh egg is relegated to the trade grade.

Fresh eggs and duck eggs are divided by weight into extra selected, selected, medium, pullets and duck eggs. The quality of the eggs in these several grades must be identical and they must be fresh. The retail and wholesale market for eggs finds it comparatively difficult to dispose of medium eggs as compared with selected or extra-selected eggs, and I need hardly tell the House that the market has an even greater difficulty in absorbing trade eggs.

At this time of the year, from the 1st March till the 1st May, the supplies of eggs increase very largely. You are liable to have fowl that were hatched last year beginning to lay eggs at this time of the year, and the result is that you have a heavy proportion of pullets and medium eggs. For other technical reasons into which it is unnecessary to go, you are liable to have at this period of the year an unduly high proportion of trade eggs or, as they are described in the trade, hatched eggs. Egg exporters have always found a very great difficulty in finding a market for those two grades of eggs at this time of the year. They have more or less purchased that market by shipping to the same consignee, who took their trade in pullet eggs and medium eggs, all the selected and extra selected eggs they could lay their hands on. Frequently men in the export trade receive letters of remonstrance from wholesalers in Great Britain or elsewhere complaining that the consignments they are receiving contain an unduly high proportion of trade eggs and small eggs and asking the question: "Are you giving somebody else your extra-selected and selected and passing on the `culls' to us"? You are put on your proof two or three times in the season to satisfy the consignee that he is not getting all the "trade" eggs and somebody else the choice eggs of your collection. That problem is constantly present to those who are charged with the responsibility of the egg export trade of the country.

I questioned the Minister recently as to what he had to do with the Newmarket Dairy Company and he informed the House that the Newmarket Dairy Company was virtually his nominee for the purpose of carrying through certain transactions in connection with the German quota for Irish eggs. On the 9th March the following circular was issued from the Newmarket Dairy Company and addressed from the Department of Agriculture, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin. It says:

Enclosed circular cancels all previous issues and sets out particulars of the grades, quality and marking of eggs and the marking of eggs for the German market. We should be glad to receive on Monday evening next or Tuesday morning by telegram or telephone offers of eggs for Germany in two grades—G.I.A. and G.I.B. No G.I.C. for the present.

Now, the G.I.A. grade are eggs, 120 of which shall weigh not less than 16½ lbs., and the minimum size of egg to be included shall not be less than 2 ozs. 2 drams. That corresponds to the extra selected grade in the statutory terminology of this country. G.I.B. are eggs 120 of which shall weigh 15¼ lbs., and the minimum weight of an individual egg shall not be less than 1 oz. 15 drams. That corresponds to the selected grade. G.I.C. are eggs 120 of which shall weigh 14 lbs. and the minimum size of an individual egg shall not be less than 1 oz. 13 drams. That would comprise "mediums," and possibly pullet eggs. They go on to define the quality, and by their definition of quality they expressly exclude any trade eggs.

We may take it that that circular, which to-day comes from the Newmarket Dairy Company in the Department of Agriculture, would have come from the Department of Agriculture itself had the powers which the Minister seeks under this amending Bill been available to him. At this time, when our whole goodwill in the egg market of Great Britain is at stake, when every wholesaler in Great Britain is on the qui vive to watch exporters in this country lest they should send him the culls of their trade and dispose of the choice grades elsewhere, this circular is issued calling on the exporters of this country to do the very thing which our best customers regard as the most unfair thing any people with whom they are engaged in commerce could do. I think Deputies will agree with me that if you have a body of distributors in Britain who are prepared to trade with you, take all the eggs you can sell them on the British market for the best price they will fetch and give Irish eggs a preference over Danish eggs, Polish eggs or other foreign eggs which are pressed upon them, we should appreciate that as one merchant would appreciate straight dealing with another in the ordinary course of trade. I think we should realise that unless we are prepared to play square with the merchants on our largest market for eggs, in fact our only effective market for eggs, we shall do our goodwill in that market a very deadly damage and we shall lose, not ten, but thousands of times what we shall gain by the German quota. I asked Deputies in this House to remember that it is less than nine months since I read to the House correspondence from merchants in Glasgow informing egg exporters in this country that as a result of activities of the Minister for Industry and Commerce which compelled exporters in this country to ship their eggs in cubicle boxes of native timber——

The Deputy in calling attention to the effect of such a measure as this surely cannot go into the question of the construction of egg cases.

But, Sir, this Bill gives the Minister power to regulate the size of the nails we use in egg cases and further enables him to instruct us as to the type of hammer with which we drive the nails and the angle at which we drive them. He can make regulations——

Section 2 extends the classes of articles to which Section 2 of the original Act is to apply. I am bound, Sir, to bring to the attention of the House the kind of Orders the Minister has made, and to warn it that to give him more extended powers is to jeopardise the whole agricultural export trade of the country. I informed the House that we gravely injured our good name in that market, as a result of the blue mould of the wood being communicated from the timber to eggs of excellent quality, contaminating them with this timber mould. That gave us a great shock in that market. Now, if we are to go on and proclaim to these merchants who have still continued to deal with us—and who deal, in my experience, honestly and straightly with Irish exporters—that we are going to take the cream of the egg production for Germany and ship the skim milk of the trade to them, how, in the name of Providence, can any rational man expect that our goodwill in that market is going to continue?

Deputies must know the value of the egg trade to the people of this country. Deputies must realise how much it means in the everyday life of the people, and Deputies must see the injustice of the Government intervening to secure that nothing will go to Germany—who never bought an egg from us in her life until about three months ago—that nothing will go to her but the top grades we have to offer, while the customer who has been dealing with us for eggs, as long as Ireland has exported that product, has to take whatever is left. If this same principle is carried into the Spanish agreement, the end of it will be that we will be left with nothing but the comparative refuse of the trade, and if that situation arises, those lower grades of eggs will not be disposable at all.

I put it to the Minister that it is unreasonable to ask for these powers from the House when we are face to face with the evidence, that he himself has created, of his incapacity to make advantageous agreements for this country. We were told a couple of months ago that this German agreement, whereunder we were to buy £3 worth from Germany for every £1 worth she was to buy from us, was going to provide us with a large alternative market. Such alternative market as it is only for the top grades, and those we could always sell in the British market and sell three or four times as much as we have got under this agreement. The difficulty is to get rid of the lower grades, and under that agreement these grades, are being left on our hands. With that evidence before us, ought we to extend these powers of regulating trade to all the commodities mentioned in this amending Bill? I urge on the House most strongly that they ought not.

Now, Sir, sub-section (3) of Section 2 provides that "sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section shall have and be deemed to have effect as from the passing of the Principal Act." Is that an indemnity sub-section? Has something been done in excess of the powers conferred upon the Minister by the Principal Act, and is this sub-section to be called into commission retrospectively to legalise what has been done illegally, and if it is, surely the Minister ought to inform the House quite frankly and explain any irregularity that may have arisen by inadvertence, and invite the House to indemnify him and his officials by this sub-section? I think it is necessary that the Minister should explain sub-section (3) to the House fully before he asks it to pass it.

Dr. Ryan

I answered the Deputy's question to-day about eggs going to Germany and I said that in the month of February 22 per cent. of the eggs sent to Germany were of medium grade. It does not suit the Deputy, however, to accept that information. It suits him much better to get up and make a political speech here that might have the effect, if anybody had any regard for what he says, which I am sure they have not, of injuring our trade with Great Britain. However, if the British people know him as well as we do and if they had to listen to him as often as we have, they would not pay very much attention to him. But it is just possible that a speech like this might be quoted in a British newspaper—in fact, it is just the type of speech that would be quoted in a British newspaper—and it is more than possible that a British reader might take the Deputy to be a sane man and might have some regard for what he says. If such British readers did take him seriously, it would certainly injure, and perhaps ruin, our trade with Britain. That is what the Deputy wants. For political reasons he wants to injure our trade with Great Britain so that by any effort or any means he may bring some kudos to the dwindling and dying Party to which he belongs. What other reason could he have? I told him to-day—two hours ago—that what he said was wrong; that in the month of February 22 per cent. of the eggs we sent were medium grade eggs. He does not accept that. He gets up here and makes the same speech about sending all our extra-selected and selected eggs to Germany, and about how hard it is to maintain the connection with Great Britain, and how hard it is to keep the goodwill of the traders in Great Britain. Does a speech like that do very much to maintain the goodwill?

What about this circular?

Dr. Ryan

What about the circular? The circular does not arise at all. If a trader sends out a circular asking for a certain kind of eggs, which they want to fulfil a certain contract, the circular does not say that nothing else will be sent to Germany. In any case, whatever the circular may say, I gave the Deputy the official figures of the grading of the eggs sent out in February, and he ought to have accepted that, and, what is more, if he was really interested in the egg trade of this country, would he not have come to the Department of Agriculture in that connection? I know that the Deputy has been there before—not to see me, however, but he is prepared to see officials there. He went to the Department when it suited himself and when it suited his own business. Is he not prepared to go there on behalf of the country?

On a point of order, Sir, I submit that the Minister is allowing himself to be carried away. The Minister said that I went to the Department when it suited my own business. Would he be good enough, seeing that a question of good taste is involved here, to report to the House the occasions on which I went to the Department on my own business? I submit that he must do me the justice of stating to the House when I went to the Department in connection with my own business.

Dr. Ryan

If I wronged the Deputy in that connection, I apologise. But I think he was in the Department, and if he was not there on his own business I apologise for saying so. However, he had no objection to speaking to the officials as to the point I want to make.

I knew the officials of the Department and co-operated with them long before the Minister did.

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy had the interest of the Department and of the egg trade at heart, why did he not go there and point out to the officials what he pointed out here, that this order is going to injure the trade with Great Britain? If he had done so, he would have found out that he was wrong. He did not want to do that, however, because, if he had done so, he could not make this political speech here condemning this agreement with Germany. He could not make these beautiful points about losing our connection with Great Britain; he could not have made this speech which, I say, is calculated, and deliberately calculated, to injure our trade with Great Britain, if he had been first informed that he was wrong. It is quite obvious that he has no regard for the trade either with Germany or England or any other place. It is quite obvious that his only regard is to make some political points here.

He said that those extra-selected and selected eggs were eggs that we could always sell. We can always sell them. The Deputy should realise that there is a difference since the quota was imposed by Great Britain. I explained last week that we calculated that with the quota we got from Great Britain we would need to export about 500,000 great cwts. of eggs, and we tried to get agreement with both Germany and Spain that they would take that quantity. Provided our trade with these countries is maintained we hope to get that quantity of eggs away. It is not so easy to sell these eggs. In fact if we allowed nothing but "extra selected" and "selected" to Great Britain this year, and cut out our exports to other counties, the quota would not absorb them. If we were to cut out "mediums" and "pullets"—

And "ducks."

Dr. Ryan

I am not so sure about that. They are first class eggs. Some people prefer them. In answer to a question to-day I stated that 22 per cent. of our eggs going to Germany were "medium." We are still sending them there. It does not suit the Deputy's political argument to accept that. He refused to accept it. Who is compelling him to sell "selected" and "extra selected" to the Newmarket Dairy? If he gets a better price in England he can send them there. We have not yet imposed a quota. Any trader is free to send "extra selected" to Great Britain. Why are they not sold there? Because they are getting better prices from the Newmarket Dairy and from Germany. I think it is known that the German market is a little more attractive than the British market; that the Government made an agreement which was a really good one, by getting a good market that is able to pay more than the ordinary trader is able to pay for eggs going to Great Britain. I am not ignoring the British market. I am quite prepared to accept what the Deputy said: that the British market is still a big market for eggs. It is.

It is and always will be the best market for our goods.

Dr. Ryan

I suppose we will not be exporting outside Great Britain more than 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of our eggs, but even these percentages are very useful this year. I said to-day, and the Deputy may accept it, in the interests of the country and in the interests of the egg trade that this year we will not be sending a greater proportion of "pullet" eggs or "trade" eggs than we sent last year. I think I would be quite safe in saying that the proportion of "pullet" eggs and "trade" eggs will be lower than last year. If that is the case I do not think British importers will have any complaint. I am sure they will not complain unless they are encouraged to do so by Deputy Dillon or by some one else. The question has been considered in my Department of completely stopping the export of "trade" eggs to Great Britain. We may have to do that if we find that we have more eggs than will fill the three quotas to Germany, Spain and Great Britain. The first thing we will have to do then is to have a complete prohibition of the export of "trade" eggs. In that case I do not know whether we will have the goodwill of all the traders. We will certainly not have the goodwill of producers. They are certainly first grade eggs, but they will have to be excluded if we have too many eggs to fill our quotas. They are a very small proportion of the eggs sent to Great Britain. The ordinary Deputy who does not know much about the egg trade might imagine that the number of "trade" eggs going to Great Britain is considerable. It is inconsiderable. Deputy Dillon would like to create the impression that the number is considerable. Of course he does not mind if that impression is created on someone who might read his speech which might be published in a newspaper in England. The Deputy does not mind if the impression is given that we are dumping all the "trade" eggs. The whole of our exports to Great Britain represent 10 per cent. They have been reduced and I am certain will be a reducing quantity. The process of reduction will be kept up this year.

What about sub-section (3)?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy asked if that was an indemnity. It is. We are not very sure if the definition in the Principal Act included things we have included. The definition in the Principal Act includes

...any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product...

That may be held by some lawyers to mean that food or drink must be manufactured from agricultural products. It may be held to mean a product of the soil, and, therefore, such things as meat, milk and animals would be excluded. That is the reason indemnity is required.

Either the Minister will not listen to what I am saying or he wants to misrepresent me. I am not talking about what the Minister did previously, but I submit with respect that it would be relevant to this debate if I did. I am talking about the kind of orders that the Minister has made, and that he is likely to make if we give him power to do so. I have before me an order that the Minister made to the Newmarket Dairy Company, and it prescribes that only "selected" and "extra selected" eggs go to Germany.

It does not say that.

Dr. Ryan

Only those selected by the Newmarket Dairy Company.

Another name was mentioned in the debate. He is also shipping to Germany.

Dr. Ryan

Not to Germany.

I got a circular from him yesterday very much on these terms, desiring to get supplies of eggs for the German market. There is no need to give the name. He is not connected with the Government. Clearly this Newmarket Dairy Company is. It stipulates that he will not be shipping anything to Germany but "selected" and "extra-selected" eggs. No damage has been done. There is a danger that damage will be done if this is allowed to pass unnoticed. There is great danger that damage will be done if these orders are made. I raise this question, not for the purpose of injuring the trade, out of which I live, as the Minister clearly indicated. That is silly, childish talk, and the Minister should not let the heat of his indignation run away and make him appear foolish. The Minister asked why the Deputy did not go to his permanent officials and make representations. I did not make him Minister for Agriculture. I think he is a very bad Minister for Agriculture, an incompetent Minister for Agriculture. I think he is ignorant of the fundamentals of the business he is supposed to preside over. He will agree that this is an appropriate occasion for me to say so.

It is privileged.

I said it on public platforms. I said that he was the greatest affliction that came since the seven plagues of Egypt. But I put this to the Minister: the Minister will exchange such courtesies across this floor and that is quite as it should be. But, suppose the Minister found me sitting with one of his permanent officials behind closed doors in the Department of Agriculture and saying: "Well, Dr. Ryan is a poor production, isn't he?" what would the Minister for Agriculture think of me?

Dr. Ryan

He would throw you out.

And perfectly right, as the Minister says, if I went into one of the higher officials of the Department of Agriculture and said that— although in his heart he might agree with me—he would throw me out.

And I would love to be at the job too.

I am proud and happy to think that so high a tradition is stalwartly maintained in the Civil Service of this country. It is none of my business as an Opposition Deputy to be going into the Department of Agriculture criticising the responsible Minister to his own officials, none whatever, and, as the Minister very properly says, if I did they would throw me out, but I insert the innuendo "though in their hearts they would probably agree with me." Now that is the reason that I do not go and raise these things in Government Buildings. I gladly admit, as the Minister implied, that in my private capacity as a citizen of the State if I have representations to make, or advice to seek, I never hesitate to go to the permanent officials of the Department of Agriculture. May I say that I have never gone to them that I did not get all the help and all the advice and assistance that they could legitimately afford. But I have two clear functions: when I choose to criticise the Minister for Agriculture I do it on the floor of Dáil Eireann, and when I wish to avail of the services of the officials of the Department of Agriculture, I go and ask for them as a private citizen. I make the case against the Minister that in taking power of this kind through the Newmarket Dairy Company he shows himself to be an improper person to have the powers that this section proposes to confer on him.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 34.

  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Ordered: That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 3.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 3 as follows:—

Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The Executive Council may, from time to time, by order transfer to and vest in the Minister for Industry and Commerce all the several functions, powers and duties conferred or imposed by the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, on the Minister for Agriculture, so far as such functions, powers, and duties relate to or are concerned with one or more particular agricultural products specified in such order.

(2) Whenever the functions, powers, and duties of the Minister for Agriculture under the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, in relation to any particular agricultural product are for the time being vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce by virtue of an order under the next preceding sub-section of this section, the Executive Council may by order retransfer to and revest in the Minister for Agriculture the said several functions, powers and duties, so far as the same relate to or are concerned with the said particular agricultural product.

(3) The Executive Council may at any time by order amend any order previously made under this section.

(4) Whenever and so long as the functions, powers, and duties conferred or imposed on the Minister for Agriculture by the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, are, so far as they relate to or are concerned with a particular agricultural product, vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce by virtue of an order made under this section, so much of the Principal Act as defines the expression "the Minister" as meaning the Minister for Agriculture shall not apply or have effect in relation to the said particular agricultural product, and in lieu thereof the said expression shall in the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, mean, in relation to the said particular agricultural produce, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

(5) No transfer or retransfer under this section of functions, powers, and duties shall prejudice or affect the validity, operation or duration of any order made or thing done (including an order made or thing done before the passing of this Act) in exercise or performance of such functions, powers and duties before such transfer or retransfer (as the case may be) by the Minister in whom such functions, powers, and duties were for the time being vested, and reference in any such order to the Minister by whom such order was made shall be construed and have effect as references to the Minister in whom such functions, powers and duties are for the time being vested.

This amendment is designed to give the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to make orders under this Bill. Certain semi-industrial products are more appropriately dealt with by the Minister for Industry and Commerce than by the Minister for Agriculture. In some of these cases, the Minister has the assistance of advisory councils. That is so in the case of wool. It would be well that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have power to regulate the export of these semi-industrial products. The effect of this amendment would be that, where the Executive Council transferred the power to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, he would make the necessary order and would be bound in the same way as the Minister for Agriculture with regard to laying the order on the Table, and so forth.

Would the Minister explain what the purpose of this amendment is if the Executive Council have a common policy? I admit that that is a big "if." If they have a common policy, surely it is possible for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to explain to the Minister for Agriculture that it is necessary such an order should be made. The Minister for Agriculture could then make the order.

Dr. Ryan

The point is that the order has to be administered by his Department.

This Bill has to do with agricultural exports, and I recognise that it takes within its ambit hides, wool, and some of the raw materials of industry. All the Minister wants to provide is that, if the Minister for Industry and Commerce wants to regulate an agricultural export, the application for a licence to export, after the making of the order, should be addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and not to him. Otherwise, it would go through the Department of Agriculture to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is that the difficulty?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

I find the same difficulty with regard to this section that I found in respect of the last section. The only order that the Minister for Industry and Commerce ever made with reference to an agricultural export was in respect of the raw materials of fell-mongering. The House will remember that a Fell-mongering Bill was introduced into this House to give the Minister power to restrict the exports of sheep-skins. I put the question to the Minister: "Why do you want power to restrict the export of sheep-skins?" He replied: "Because the exporters are getting too big a price for them. There is a desperate conspiracy to buy all the Irish sheep-skins at too high a price—to pay the farmers too much for them—and, if that went on, it might seriously jeopardise fellmongering in this country." I appreciate the important national function that the fellmongers of Ireland are discharging. I do not know what the industry of fellmongering is worth but I do know that the export of sheep-skins is very considerable and that the proceeds of these exports must inevitably find their way into the pockets of the agricultural community. Yet, the Minister for Agriculture sat silently by while the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in order to protect the section of the community whose interests he is supposed to look after, placed a prohibition on the export of sheep-skins, thus involving in serious loss that section of the community over whose interests the Minister for Agriculture is supposed to preside.

Dr. Ryan

It had absolutely no effect on them.

Does the Minister remember his colleague saying that the object of prohibiting the export of these skins was to ensure that they would be sold at prices less than the inflated prices obtainable in Great Britain?

Dr. Ryan

Even if he did say that— which I doubt—what then?

The Minister is getting a little more cautious than he was. I reminded him once of what President de Valera said, and he said it was too foolish for anybody to say. He afterwards discovered that the President did make the statement. Let me assure the Minister that the Minister for Industry and Commerce did advance the reason I mentioned in justification of his action in seeking power to restrict the export of sheep-skins. The Minister for Agriculture does not even know that his colleague said that. The Minister for Agriculture never paid any heed to the fact that his colleague had announced his intention of fleecing the farmers of the country in order to assist the fellmongers——

And he was skinning somebody else.

The Minister was robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul was the protégé of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and poor Peter had confided his difficulties to the Minister for Agriculture, who now protests blandly that he heard nothing at all about the conspiracy. Now, we are asked to let the Minister for Industry and Commerce make circles around the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Industry and Commerce wants powers to do anything he likes, and then the innocent and uncomplaining Minister for Agriculture, after six months, will get up and say: "If he did that, I heard nothing about it." The explanation of all this is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, having made an Order, wants to have the administration of it in his own hands. The House may think it prudent, from their experience of these two Ministers, to permit that, but the agricultural community are going to suffer in the exchange between the two Ministers.

Dr. Ryan

The position always appears to have been accepted that where you have an exportable surplus, the price of that commodity is ruled by whatever is exported.

Do you accept it?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. Does the Opposition accept it? It was a difficult decision for them to make. If the butcher has to pay a fixed price to the farmer what does it matter to the farmer what becomes of the skin? I do not know whether the butcher or the fellmonger makes the money, but as far as the farmer is concerned it makes no difference to him. If the Deputy had grasped these matters he need not have wasted ten minutes showing how the farmer is placed. As long as the export price rules the home price it makes no difference to the farmer. I do not know whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce made the statement suggested or not, but whether he did or did not makes no difference to me, as Minister for Agriculture.

The Minister says that if the butcher pays the price for the skins it does not affect the farmer one way or the other, but when the question of bounty is discussed he says it must necessarily go to the farmer. If there is a loss it goes to the farmer.

Dr. Ryan

If I argued that the export bounty goes to the farmer, is not that included in the export price?

What about the loss?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy understands the position, if Deputy McGovern does not.

I taught that, but you have not the acquisitive faculty.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 4:—

Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—

All expenses incurred by the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall to such intent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

This is the usual expenses clause which should be inserted in the Bill at the beginning and is now inserted.

Is the Minister without his money for the last two years?

With regard to this amendment are we to understand that it is to be retrospective with regard to the Principal Act?

Dr. Ryan

It need not be retrospective. I will pay anything that is due up to this.

It is not a question whether you will pay, but whether you are allowed to do it, and if so, where is your power?

I take it, in fact, that any additional expenses under this amendment are for the purpose of financing things brought within the ambit of the Principal Act. Is it on account of the additional powers conferred on the Minister, under this Bill, and the additional matters brought within the ambit of the Principal Act, that this amendment is necessary?

Dr. Ryan

I think that is very obvious.

Well it took some time to explain it, but subject to that we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage to be taken to-morrow.
Top
Share