Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 1938

Vol. 71 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

I move that this Bill be now read a Second Time. The object of it is to enable the Government to carry into effect Article 5 (2) and Articles 9 and 10 of the Trade Agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom relating to the importation of wheat offals, seed oats, seed wheat, wheat and barley in grain, malted barley, and certain feeding stuffs for animals, and biscuits. The importation of all these commodities is at present subject to control under Part VII of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act of 1933. If this provision under Part VII had been somewhat more elastic no additional legislation would be required. As it is, however, some amendments of Part VII of the Act have been found to be necessary, and as a result this measure has been brought in. It is found more convenient to repeal Part VII entirely and to re-enact the provisions that are necessary than to insert the necessary amendments in the original Act. This is made all the more necessary, because two amending Acts have come in in the meantime.

The fact, however, that this Bill looks rather long does not mean that it contains any more than the necessary amendments to bring this Agreement into force. Under the Act of 1933, certain animal feeding stuffs specified in the Third Schedule of the Act were exempted from restriction on importation, but power was vested in the Minister under the Act to place these feeding stuffs on a prohibited list. If on the prohibited list, they could only be admitted under licence. Since 1933 an oil refinery has been set up in business in Drogheda, and as a result of that certain feeding stuffs were added to the list. As the 1933 Act is drawn, we find that we cannot remove those articles from the list without this amending Bill.

Power is being taken in this Bill to enable the Minister for Agriculture to transfer any commodity, including any commodity produced in a particular country, from the prohibited list to the exempted list, and in that way to have the particular commodity admitted free of duty from the country named. But it will be possible, if this Bill goes through, to make an Order to remove wheat offals produced in the United Kingdom from the prohibited list. At the moment, as the legislation stands, a licence would have to be issued for each individual consignment coming in, but if this Bill is passed, the wheat offals can be transferred from the prohibited list, and thereafter wheat offals will be allowed in without any licence or without any formality of any kind.

In addition to that, power is being taken by the Minister for Agriculture to make an order providing for the importation, without a licence, by farmers living near the Border of the animal feeding stuffs that they may require for use on their own farms. This provision is particularly necessary in the case of feeding stuffs as applying to the County Donegal. For instance, certain feeding stuffs such as linseed cake, were particularly difficult to procure in the County Donegal on account of freight and so on, but under this measure it will be possible to allow a certain amount of trade across the Border where farmers are at a disadvantage under the present regulation.

The new features of this proposed legislation might be summarised by saying that the Bill enables orders to be made for the importation without licence of certain commodities which at present could only be imported under licence, and the re-imposition, should the occasion arise, of restrictions on the importation of such commodities. It enables effective quantitative regulation to be maintained and, at the same time, provides that only the produce or manufacture of certain countries may be admitted without restriction.

That is as far as the feeding stuffs go. Part II of the Bill deals with a matter which really comes within the province of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The only essential difference between this part of the Bill and the existing legislation is that the Minister will have power to make an order providing for the importation, without a licence, of any commodity which at present can be imported only under licence. That power will be used with regard to biscuits which will be allowed in free of quantitative control under the Agreement with Great Britain. Another provision, which is not contained in the present legislation, enables the Revenue Commissioners to require a return by the importer or carrying company concerned of articles which may be unlawfully imported.

The provision in the Cereals Act, 1933, dealing with the exports of certain feeding stuffs has been retained and re-enacted. This provision enables an Order to be made prohibiting the export, except under licence, of any feeding stuffs for animals. That power is being used at the moment in the case of mill offals and of beet pulp. It is intended to re-enact and to use these powers again and to make the necessary order prohibiting the export of wheat offals or beet pulp from this country, as it is considered that we require all the wheat offals that we produce here for our own use. From henceforth, I think, we shall require all the beet pulp that we produce. During the last three or four years we gave a licence for a certain quantity of beet pulp to go out, but the quantity has been getting smaller and smaller. Only a very small quantity went out last season, and I expect from this on no more beet pulp will be allowed to be exported.

I take it that the Minister is candid when he says that this Bill simply implements the Agreement and does not go beyond it?

That is so.

I would like to know if we are bound, by all the restrictions that are in this Bill, to give the implementation that is necessary to the Agreement. I find on looking over the Bill that the system of licences is still being kept alive. We, on this side, generally object to this licensing system, and whether one likes it or not, it is inevitable that there should be dissatisfaction with it. Certain people claim that they cannot get licences, while others are alleged to be able to get them immediately. It is not a satisfactory arrangement. In one part of the Bill the question of permits is dealt with. In both cases, of licences and permits, but certainly in the case of permits, permission is given to import under certain conditions. It is stated in one of the sections that, a licence having been given, it may be revoked. I would like to know from the Minister whether, in the case of the revocation of a licence, an importer will get sufficient notice to enable him to stop the transit of certain articles so that he will not be faced with the cost of them, and, generally speaking, if efforts will be made in the administration of this measure to facilitate, as much as possible, the people who will require to import these feeding stuffs? In view of what the Minister has said regarding the Act being merely an implementing Act, it is not now the time to discuss the limitations in respect of feeding stuffs so far as agriculturists generally are concerned. I am accepting in its full implications the Minister's statement that the Bill does not go beyond merely implementing the Agreement.

The Bill does not actually implement the Agreement, I take it?

It only gives power to the Minister to do it?

And the Minister, technically, may or may not exercise that power, and if he does, it will not be ratified by Act of Parliament.

That Order must be laid on the Table.

That means nothing, because it may never come up for discussion. It is purely a technical point. I am glad to see there are agreements made that will not be ratified by Act of Parliament so far as that is concerned. Secondly, I think the Minister actually does go somewhat further than the Agreement, because there is no particular country mentioned so far as this Agreement is concerned. Therefore, he can give the same concessions to other countries for instance? Can he not?

That is true.

Therefore the Bill does actually give the Minister more power than he requires under the Agreement. Whether or not he can in that way affect the spirit of the Agreement, I am not quite sure.

With regard to the Border counties, would the Minister say whether those permits will be issued to farmers individually?

I do not think that will be necessary. There will be a general Order dealing with that point.

In very many cases, small farmers are unable to buy those feeding stuffs in substantial quantities. The large farmers will be getting the entire benefit of this, while the poor people whose interests the Minister should help will receive no benefit at all. I think it would be much better if some device could be evolved whereby the merchants could import a certain quantity on a quota basis. I am afraid that the benefits which the Minister purports to give those people will not reach them at all. The man who has enough money can get his stuff anywhere. He can buy substantial quantities and get cheaper rates. If he has a lorry of his own he can avoid all the lorry expenses, whereas the benefits which the Minister purports to confer on the small people will not reach them at all. The Minister stated here that he intended to give them to the farmers for their own use. That may seem all right, but the Minister must remember that the small farmers will purchase in small quantities, because they have not the money to purchase in large quantities. It would be better if those permits were given to merchants who are in the habit of importing those feeding stuffs. They could be given to them on a quota basis—on the basis of the quantities which they purchased in previous years.

To my mind there are two points in regard to this Bill which are worthy of special attention. The first has been touched on by Deputy McMenamin, and that is the statement of the Minister that he proposes to make an order which will allow the free import of certain things from Northern Ireland. I think anything which in any way lowers the wall that at the present moment exists between us and the people of Northern Ireland is a thing to be very thankful for. The other point may or may not be a new one, because I have not studied the Principal Act, but under Section 10 it is indicated that certain things may be imported free of duty if they are brought in by an individual or are sent to him personally as a gift. I think that is new?

That is re-enacting an old provision.

It is commendable, in any case, and I think it should be extended to cover other goods, because around Christmas time anyway, it causes a good deal of ill-feeling when people have to pay an exorbitant sum on small gifts.

The Minister to conclude.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave on the restriction of importation under Chapter II, Part III, the principal items dealt with there are wheat, maize and compound feeding stuffs. In this particular case, there is a register, and, before removing a person from that register as an importer, he must get, I think, 14 or 21 days' notice—I am not exactly sure which at the moment. The Minister must be prepared to listen to any points he may put up in his own favour before actually removing him from the register. With regard to the other cases, I think it is hardly possible to deal with them except under that licensing system. For instance, this Drogheda factory turns out a fair quantity of some feeding stuffs, and the agreement which we have with them provides that they must sell at the price which would be prevalent, that is, a certain price related to the Liverpool price. If they exceed that at any moment, then we allow the commodity in fairly freely until they come down to that price again. But if they are turning out a fair quantity of the material required, and if the price is correct, I think it is only right that we should then protect them. It is very difficult to think of any other system except the one we have, that is allowing in under licence.

I quite realise the objection which Deputy Cosgrave has to this system of licensing. No matter how careful the officials dealing with this may be, probably some merchant will think he has a grievance, and perhaps some merchant may actually have a grievance in some cases. It is very difficult, indeed, to see that fair play is meted out, especially when you have only a small quantity to allow in. Perhaps there would hardly be sufficient to go around to everybody. As far as I am concerned I should like if we could get away from this licensing system. I did intend, when the Estimate came before the Dáil to deal with the matter more fully, and try to give the House some indication as to what the future policy would be with regard to feeding stuffs, and whether the time has arrived when we might modify it to some extent at least. At any rate, I think on that occasion we might have an opportunity of considering the whole policy with regard to feeding stuffs. With regard to the matter raised by Deputy O'Sullivan, the point is that we have power under this Bill to give the same facilities to any country as we might give to the United Kingdom. I do not think we intend to do that. I have not come across any case where we would, but, even if we did, it would in no way interfere with the Agreement, because the Agreement does not put on us the onus of imposing a new tariff against any particular country. The Agreement does say that, if there is a tariff already there, the United Kingdom product should have a certain advantage over the products of other countries. At any rate we would naturally keep this point in mind, and see that the Agreement was not in any way broken by anything we might do under this Bill.

If the Minister has finished with that point perhaps he would allow me to intervene for a moment?

There was more than that in Deputy O'Sullivan's point. Obviously, the sum and substance of this Agreement, if I interpret it correctly, is to develop and increase as far as is reasonably possible, in the mutual interests of both countries, the trade of one country with the other. Now, in this particular case, it would be all to the good if, by reason of our purchase of a particular commodity of this class from the British, we lessened the demand—if I might put it that way—for the purchase of industrial goods. Does the Minister see my point now?

In so far as there will be the question of quantity—the safeguarding of our industries, and presumably that will be one of the tests —I think our interests ought to be to endeavour to purchase as much goods from them as will not interfere with our industrial activities.

I quite agree that, if there is sufficiency of a product of a particular kind to be got there, we would not go to another country, but there are certain products of which, I think, there would not be sufficient. For instance, linseed products is one of the commodities I have in mind and that I have examined. I do not think that we could get sufficient products from the United Kingdom, and in that case, we might have to go to another country.

But that would be the raw material.

No. At certain times I think it would apply even to some of the manufactured products also. However, I do not like to be dogmatic about it, but I think that is one of the products that we could not get in sufficient quantities at all times. I quite agree with Deputy Cosgrave, however, that if we could get sufficient of a product from the United Kingdom, we would not go to another country or extend the facilities we are getting here to another country. Deputy McMenamin raised a point about farmers trading over the Border. I think we should be able to get over that difficulty without imposing on each farmer the necessity of coming for a permit. There could be some kind of a general order issued, such as that a product for his own use would be free, and there would be no necessity for issuing a permit in each case. Deputy McMenamin suggests that we might even extend that facility to the merchants with, perhaps, some safeguard with regard to quantity. If that is feasible I am quite prepared to consider it and see if something can be done

I presume that the Minister sees the point in it, that the big farmers across the Border, who have horses and carts, can bring in large quantities, but that all the small farmers in the west of Donegal will not get any advantage?

Yes, I see the point from the point of view of a small farmer living so many miles from the Border, and I shall have that examined with a view to seeing whether or not something can be done. With regard to Deputy Benson's point as to the free importation of wheat products in certain cases, I do not think that, if there has been inconvenience with regard to imports here as presents and so on around Christmas time, it applies to wheat products. It may apply to other commodities, but not to wheat products.

Will the Minister deal with that point about giving notice in the event of a revocation of a licence?

Yes. I said that we must give that in most cases.

I understood that he was going to give notice of the revocation of a licence to a maize importer, but that is not my point. My point is that, where a licence is given, under other sections here the Minister takes power to revoke the licence to import, although he prescribes various conditions, and my point is that the person may not get sufficient notice and that he may only get notice when the stuff is already at the port of Dublin, Cork, Waterford, or some other port. I hold that he should be served with notice before the stuff is put on board, and thus save him the cost of transport.

In practice, that has been done.

But, according to the Act, as it is drawn, it is not so.

Yes, that is true, but, in practice, I think that what the Deputy suggests has always been done.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share