Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 1938

Vol. 70 No. 5

Sheepskin (Control of Export) (Amendment) Bill, 1938—Committee and Final Stages.

Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Would the Minister remind us what the actual purpose of this amending Bill is?

It is more usual on the Fifth Stage.

It will not take a minute.

It arose out of a prosecution which was instituted under the Sheepskin (Control of Export) Act. It was determined by the court that the Act prohibited the exportation of sheepskins without licence, but not attempts to export without licence, and consequently the prosecution failed. This Bill is designed to make it an offence to attempt to export them without licence.

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

On the Fifth Stage will the Minister be good enough to tell us particularly the history of the enforcement of orders made under the Principal Act? What exact purpose was achieved by prohibiting the export of sheepskins? To what extent has he used his powers under the Principal Act, and how long does he think it will be necessary to restrict trade in the export of sheepskins?

It is not possible to give the Deputy all the information he desires. The reason why the exportation of sheepskins was taken under control was to foster the fellmongery industry, or at least to secure its preservation and development, with possible further development in the tanning of sheepskins. The fellmongery industry has been revived. A number of firms are engaged in it, and a considerable number of persons are employed thereby. Unless the industries could be secured a supply of raw material, they would not be established or permitted to grow. The exportation of sheepskins is regulated only to the extent necessary to secure that supplies of sheepskins are available in whatever quantities are required by the fellmongery industry. It is considered to be better, in the national interests, that the processing of those sheepskins should be done here, rather than that they should be exported in the raw state, and the processing done abroad. The only interference with the actual control which is undertaken by the Department from time to time is whenever there are indications that the price here has been unduly affected by the orders in operation. In such circumstances, usually following consultation with all the interested parties, a new price is arranged, or different regulations are brought into force. Generally speaking, I think it may be said that the Act is at present worked mainly in consultation with the interested parties. They are frequently in touch with the Department, and are called into consultation whenever any question arises. Following those consultations, whatever steps are necessary are taken in order to give effect to the main intention of the Act. The main intention of the Act was to secure the development here of the industry of processing sheepskins, for the purpose of ensuring that the article exported would be a semi-finished article rather than raw material.

I note the Minister has stated that, from time to time, he has called into consultation the interested parties, with a view to seeing that their rights and interests are adequately catered for. Has he called into consultation the Department of Agriculture? I apprehend this difficulty, Sir. A sheep is a beast which commands a modest price. A substantial part of that price is in the fleece. If you have a good cow which makes £18, and the hide makes 17/6. you cannot say that the price of hides is radically going to affect the value of cattle. But the price of a fleece represents a much larger percentage of the total value of a sheep. If the only people effectively consulted are the butchers, the hidemongers and the fellmongers, they can protect their interests by ensuring that the fellmonger will be guaranteed a moderate price on his operation, and that he will pay the hidemonger such a price as will leave to the fellmonger that moderate profit; but the hidemonger or the man that deals in fleece must proportionately reduce the price he is prepared to pay to the butcher or the abattoir for the fleece in order to enable him to sell to the fellmonger at the price the fellmonger is prepared to pay. If that price becomes unduly depressed, the man who deals in fleeces and the fellmonger are all right, but the price of sheep down the country falls proportionately, and if you, by agreement between the fellmonger and the fleecemonger, reduce the price of fleeces by 5/- a fleece, that means 5/-off every sheep sold and that, off the price of a small sheep, is a very important consideration indeed. Is it right, even for the purpose of preserving the fellmongering business, to withdraw from the agricultural community the best market available for the disposal of their fleeces? I do not think that procedure can be defended unless the Minister is prepared to say: "We will insist on the fellmongers being prepared to pay in Dublin the average price obtainable for these fleeces in Great Britain, and if they are not prepared to pay those prices, then I will not use my powers to restrain the exporters from sending fleeces to Great Britain where they can be sold to greater advantage." That is immensely important from the point of view of any Deputy here who represents a sheep-rearing community. I see a Deputy here from Donegal, where many people depend for their livelihood on the rearing of sheep.

On a point of order, Sir, I was prepared to listen to the Deputy discussing the terms of the Bill before us and the amending of the Act, but I submit that that is somewhat different to initiating a discussion on whether the Principal Act should have been passed or not.

Oh, no. It is not a question of whether the Principal Act should have been passed or not, but of whether the Minister should use his powers or not.

It seems to me that the question raised by the Deputy who has intervened on the Fifth Stage of this Bill would invite other Deputies to intervene in the same manner. The main Act does not arise for discussion, except in so far as it is proposed to amend it. The proposed amendment of the Principal Act is a minor one — it is to decide whether or not it shall be lawful to attempt to export sheepskins, and to make such an attempt punishable by law.

On a point of order, Sir, I respectfully submit that that is what the Minister says is in the Bill, but I direct the attention of the Chair to sub-section (1) of Section 2, which reads as follows:—

"It shall not be lawful for any person to export or attempt to export sheepskin in contravention of an order made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under the Principal Act."

That is positive legislation——

It is not.

——which, I respectfully submit, I am entitled to debate in this House; and no representation by the Minister to the Chair deprives me of my right to discuss legislation set out under this Bill.

The only matter that may be discussed is the proposed alteration of the Principal Act, that is that any attempt to export shall be an offence.

That is what the Minister says. All I can read here, however, is the Bill brought before us, Section 2 of which says that it shall not be lawful for any person to export or attempt to export sheepskin, and I want to debate that issue. All I know is that that is what is brought before me now. The Minister may argue that it is unnecessary to discuss this.

On that point, it is not within my province to enter into the merits of the Bill. I have heard the discussion on the whole Bill and I have read the Principal Act, and as to what this Bill contains I must be guided largely by the Minister. The Minister has assured the Chair and the House that the only new matter in this Bill is that it shall be punishable to attempt to export.

But surely, Sir, the Chair does not expect us to accept as gospel whatever the Minister says. I say that the Minister is wrong. I argue that the Minister's interpretation of this Bill is wrong. If that is not so——

There was an Act passed by the Oireachtas which prohibited the export of sheepskins. That Act has not been repealed.

Section 3 of the Principal Act is repealed by this Bill.

That Act has not been repealed, and as not repealed, is merely put in another form containing the prohibition of the attempt to export.

This Bill prohibits certain things. Section 2 says that it shall not be lawful to export or attempt to export sheepskin. I submit that it is not what the Minister says is in the Bill. He frequently says that things are in a Bill which are not there, and he denies that things are there which are manifest even to an imbecile.

On a point of order, Sir, I submit that the Deputy is entirely out of order in making such an accusation.

A Minister may not be accused of deliberately misleading the House.

Oh, no, Sir. I did not say that. I said that the Minister frequently says things which are not true — put it down to folly, imprudence or anything you like — but I absolutely refuse to be bound by what the Minister says. I do not believe 50 per cent. of what he says, and very few people do. I submit that, without going a hair's breadth outside Section 2 of this Bill, I am entitled to submit to the House that any Deputy interested in a sheep-raising constituency should be on his guard to see that sub-section 1 of Section 2 of this Bill does not operate drastically to reduce the price of sheep in his constituency and as raised by his constituents whom he is supposed to represent. I apprehend danger unless the Minister is prepared to give me an undertaking that, before he issues an order under this Bill or under the Principal Act, he will require the fellmongers to satisfy him that they are prepared to pay as high a price for sheepskins as is obtainable on the open market in Great Britain.

The Minister to conclude.

I have nothing further to say, Sir.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share