Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1936

Vol. 60 No. 7

Spanish Trade Agreement Bill, 1936—Committee and Final Stages.

Bill passed through Committee without amendment and reported.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

General Mulcahy

The Minister, when dealing with this matter on the Second Reading, took exception to the type of criticism that was addressed to the implementation of any part of this Spanish agreement and he attempted to defend the position that he was taking up by objecting to what he called the sneering from Deputies on this side against a certain class of trade agreement which had been responsible, he said, for reducing the adverse trade balance of this country by approximately £4,000,000 during the last year. The Spanish agreement, he said, was one of the agreements that had improved our trade balance to the extent of £4,000,000. I said that this type of proposal, generally, was simply throwing sawdust in the eyes of the farmers. The Minister tried to throw more than sawdust into the eyes of the members of the House when he claimed for this agreement that it had any part in reducing the adverse trade balance last year. He supplied answers yesterday in the House dealing with the trade with Spain and the answers that he provided yesterday show that, so far from improving our adverse trade balance, our trade with Spain last year was responsible for adding £78,000 to the adverse trade balance of the country. I would like to know from the Minister how he expects the House to help him to do any work to improve either commercial or general conditions in the country if he can brazenly tell the House that the agreement with Spain was responsible for an improvement in our adverse trade balance when the facts that he put before us yesterday show that our adverse trade balance increased in the case of Spain by £78,880, and that we paid £18,260 in bounties for the very doubtful privilege of increasing our adverse trade balance by that amount.

Again, the Minister stated that there were very good grounds for having this agreement, and for keeping to it, in that the Spanish market for eggs under present conditions was more valuable and more promising than the British market. The Minister for Agriculture admitted yesterday that, between 1934 and 1935, the total amount of eggs imported into Great Britain had increased in value from £7,051,000 to £7,776,000 while the export of our eggs to the British market fell from £894,000 to £711,000. The total amount of eggs which we imported into Spain was less than one-third of the fall in the value of the eggs we imported into the British market last year, and, for the sake of an export of £51,000 worth of eggs to Spain, we paid £18,000 in bounties. I find it very difficult to find words to describe what I think of a Ministerial attitude of that kind. The Minister treated the House not only with contempt, but, I think, with insolence, and, unless he can do something to get some other kind of agreement with Spain, we could improve our trade balance and save some of the money which is being paid by the taxpayers of this country, by cutting out trading with Spain completely.

Mr. Lemass

I have often in the past had to advise Deputy Mulcahy to keep away from statistics. I renew my advice. They are a source of perpetual danger to him, leading him into wrong conclusions, inducing him to make foolish arguments and generally to indicate that he does not appreciate anything of importance relating to the trading position of this country or of any country. We have imported no more in consequence of the agreement with Spain than we would have imported if that agreement had not been made. Our imports were not increased. The quantity of oranges which we purchased from Spain we would have purchased in any event, if not from Spain, from some other country, but we definitely have increased our exports and our exports not merely to Spain, but generally. Having increased our exports without increasing our imports, there was an improvement in our adverse trade balance. I do not know if Deputy Mulcahy understands that yet.

General Mulcahy

I understand that when we consider the total amount of our exports and our imports with Spain last year, our adverse trade balance with Spain was £78,000 more than it was the year before.

Mr. Lemass

There are two answers to that. One is that we bought oranges from Spain which we would not have bought if the treaty were not made, but we would have bought them from somewhere else. Our total import of oranges was not increased in consequence of the agreement. Our total exports were and, therefore, the adverse trade balance was less. There is, however, more than that in it. When I gave Deputy Mulcahy these figures, I knew he was going to fall into some error like that into which he has fallen now, and I carefully put at the end of the figures a note which I thought would prevent him from making some glaring mistake such as that he is making. I pointed out that the figures for 1934, in so far as they related to imports into this country, were figures for goods imported from the country of consignment, whereas the figures for last year were figures for goods imported from the country of origin and that the figures could not be compared. If Deputy Mulcahy will read again the answer to the Parliamentary Question he has before him, I think he will find that note carefully put in at the bottom of the list of figures in order to prevent him making a mistake we knew he would make.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand the Minister to argue that we exported more to Spain last year than Spain sent to us?

Mr. Lemass

No; that has got nothing to do with our total adverse trade balance. It may have to do with the balance arising out of our trade with Spain, but I said that the Spanish trade agreement reduced our adverse trade balance, and so it did.

General Mulcahy

By how much?

Mr. Lemass

By the amount of the eggs we exported that we would not have exported if we had not made the agreement. The second point is that the egg market in Spain is a valuable market which shows very great possibilities for the future. It is important for us, not merely that we should avail of the opportunities in that market, but should build up a goodwill for our egg trade there. That is what we are doing. We did not send eggs to Great Britain last year in the same quantities as previous years because it paid us better to send these eggs to Spain and Germany instead. That is good business. If the Spaniards are willing to pay us more for the eggs there is no reason why we should not sell them to the Spaniards instead of to the British. There was a very substantial increase in our egg trade with Spain last year, an increase which we hope is going to be continued in the future.

A new market, a valuable market and one that offers considerable prospects of expansion, has been opened up in consequence of that agreement, and no matter what Deputy Mulcahy may try to convince himself of, in relation to these matters, everybody who has any knowledge of the subject knows that to be the case and, in fact, the recent discussion which we had on this matter on the Second Reading of this Bill was followed by a most remarkable publication of communications in the Press from people who did know something about it, pointing out all the errors made by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon during the discussion. Deputy Dillon, I notice, is absent from the House this afternoon. He is not usually absent from a discussion in the Dáil but he made such a complete faux pas here last week, showed his colossal ignorance of the position in respect of the trade in oranges and produced such a volume of repudiation from the people who knew something about it that his absence is easily understood. But Deputy Mulcahy is more insistent. No doubt he is anxious to learn, and I am anxious to teach him.

General Mulcahy

The Minister forgets that I obliged him by giving him the Fifth Stage. Perhaps he was not expecting it.

Mr. Lemass

I am sorry if my controversial methods are hurting the Deputy but I am really anxious to assist him to understand the position. The essence of the position is what I have stated. We increased our exports; we did not increase our imports. Consequently, our adverse trade balance was reduced. When saying this, I am referring to our total exports and imports and not merely to the particular volume of goods that passed to or from Spain.

General Mulcahy

The Minister, I notice, completely forgets the relationship between the additional amount of eggs we sent to Spain and the very large fall in the amount we sent to Great Britain.

Mr. Lemass

The gain has been the higher price we got in Spain.

Question put and agreed to.