Vol. 166 No. 6
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, line 7, Section 5 (3) (a), before "post" to insert "registered".
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are inserted to meet the case made by Deputy Sweetman in Committee, that notice under this section, if issued, should go by registered post.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 4, line 24, Section 6 (3), before "post" to insert "registered."
Amendment No. 3 in the names of Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Sweetman has been ruled out of order.
I want to make certain submissions on that and I appreciate the difficulty of doing so when the ruling was made by the Ceann Comhairle. This amendment and amendments Nos. 5 and 7, I have been informed, are all ruled out of order, on the basis that the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the purchase of tea in the country of origin. If that is so, then may I suggest to you, Sir, that the House is entitled to take a separate decision on the point of whether tea may be purchased by persons other than the company. The House must be given the opportunity of taking two decisions in relation to the Bill and the two decisions cannot be merged into one. One principle of the Bill is that nobody except the company can purchase tea; the second principle of the Bill is that tea can be purchased only in the country of origin. There are two principles in the Bill. If one principle is deemed to be the main principle in the Bill, then it must be allowable to have a decision in the House on the other principle.
We discussed this on Committee Stage and, without in any way imputing anything other than an anxiety to help, we were led to believe that an amendment to delete the whole section would be permissible on Report. Regardless of whether that is so or not, it does seem that when those two principles are in the Bill, the House should be given an opportunity of deciding on them. Of the three amendments I have put down, the last one was to delete the whole section. I can quite see that might involve the principle of the Bill, but the other two amendments I have cover a different point. One principle is that you can buy tea only in the country of origin and the second is that only the company can buy tea. I submit that if the amendment purporting to negative whichever you rule is the principle of the Bill, is out of order, the other amendments must be in order to give the House an opportunity of deciding on a secondary basis.
If the Chair had not ruled this out of order, I would have asked the Chair to do so because, no matter what consequent amendments the Chair may rule on, as far as this one is concerned, it is true to say that Section 7 is the kernel of the Bill and, if Section 7 were deleted, there would be no alternative but to withdraw the Bill.
This is not the amendment to delete Section 7.
No. 4 is to delete Section 7.
I beg the Minister's pardon. I thought that was the last amendment.
I had two amendments down and they are ruled out of order as they involve a proposal of substantial importance which was not effectively before the House in Committee on this Bill. My principal objection was that the import of tea was to be confined to the new company, which I thought was a bad move. It was the Minister's intention that they buy tea in the country of origin—
Is yours ruled out also?
Yes.
Many heads are falling.
There is nothing I can do about it.
The amendments have been ruled out of order because the effect of both the first and second amendments in the names of Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Sweetman would be to negative the principal section of the Bill. The Ceann Comhairle has pointed out that the general principle of the Bill was approved by the House on Second Stage and the main operating section was agreed to on Committee Stage. A debate then on the fundamental issues on Report Stage would not be in order. As far as Deputy Russell's amendments are concerned their subject matter was not adverted to in Committee and, therefore, it would be out of order to raise them on Report Stage.
When we rule amendment No. 5 out of order, perhaps my comments would be more relevant on that amendment than on amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 4 is out of order.
On amendment No. 5, which deals with the principle—
I understand the Deputy dealt with amendments Nos. 3 and 5.
I am asking you to amplify what you said as the Minister has said that Section 7 is the kernel of the Bill. Section 7 contains two kernels. Surely the Chair is not ruling on a section which contains two kernels. The House may not now give a separate decision on each kernel. If there were only one kernel in Section 7, I could understand the ruling of the Chair, but there are two. One is that tea shall not be imported from anywhere save the country of origin, and the second is that no one but the company shall import tea. The Chair must decide which of those is the primary principle. Having decided which is the primary principle, we are entitled to debate the secondary principle.
Does the Deputy not think his amendment is out of order because it does seek to kill two birds with two stones?
Amendment No. 5 is different from amendment No. 7. I am not allowed to throw two stones, but I think I must be allowed to throw one stone.
The effect of amendment No. 5 would also appear to be to negative the principle of the Bill.
With respect, Sir, I do not know if I am in order in reading the letter which I have from the Ceann Comhairle. It says: "The purpose of the legislation is to secure that tea be purchased in the country of origin unless with ministerial authorisation." My amendment does not conflict with purchase in the country of origin. The effect of it is that purchase in the country of origin means that anybody, in addition to the company, can so purchase.
So he can. That, I think, is an argument on the merits.
He can import.
Import, if you like, and/or purchase.
The Ceann Comhairle's ruling is that amendment No. 5, as I pointed out, would negative the principal section of the Bill and, therefore, I fear we cannot have any further discussion on it at this stage.
The Chair is the judge, but I wish to go on record that I cannot accept the absence of logic in the ruling.
It is absurd.
So far as this Bill is concerned, the ruling governs this Bill. I do not know whether I have to give notice that the matter should be considered elsewhere, if that is necessary, but I shall certainly not allow a similar situation in relation to any other measure where there are two kernels and neither kernel can be attacked. That is manifestly wrong.
Amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Russell has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 7 in the names of Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Sweetman has been ruled out of order.
For what reason?
As the Deputy has been informed it appears to destroy the purpose of the Bill, which is to secure that tea be purchased in the country of origin.
Thank you. You have made the case completely why amendment No. 5 should not have been ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 5, lines 25 and 26, Section 9, to delete "or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months."
During the course of the discussion in Committee, Deputy Dillon queried the desirability of having a provision for possible imprisonment at the discretion of the court for an offence under the Bill. I indicated that I was prepared to consider a modification of the provision and this amendment is actually framed for that purpose.
I want to submit again to the House that this whole Bill ought to be abandoned.
Hear, hear!
I have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say about it in the discussions on the various stages of the Bill and the only arguments that I have heard him advance for it are: one, he wants, to put it bluntly, to wreak vengeance on the tea traders in London because the Ministry of Food is no longer there to wreak vengeance upon. It has disappeared. The second reason he advances is that it seems to him manifest that it must be more economical to import tea direct from the country of origin to the city of consumption rather than allow it to pass through an intermediate market and, therefore, he is going to say to every tea merchant in Ireland, many of whom have spent their whole lives in the business: "Whatever your experience suggests to you, I, Seán Lemass, Minister for Industry and Commerce, sustained by the advice of my staff, no one of whom has ever handled a lb. of tea except to go out and buy it for his wife to put in his respective teapot, have made up my mind that, though you, the merchants, who have been handling tea all your lives consider it most expedient to buy it sometimes in Mincing Lane and sometimes in Djakarta, as your own discretion may direct you, you are all wrong and, fortified by that conviction, we are going to enact a statute of the Oireachtas to make your practice conform to our theory."
I have been myself 35 years in the tea trade and I want to tell the House, with the fullest deliberation, that this Bill is a Bill which will impose on our people relatively bad tea at relatively high prices. That is one ground upon which I object to it.
I want to make this point clear: if the Minister is concerned to set up an organisation or to facilitate others to set up an organisation, to buy tea in Calcutta or Djakarta for direct importation here, I have no objection to that at all. All I am objecting to is that, having set up that machinery, he forbids, by Act of this Oireachtas, ordinary merchants in the ordinary course of business doing that business as they think best in their own interests and in the interests of their customers, who are the tea consumers of this country.
There is no justification for an interference of that kind and it is fantastic to listen to the Minister for Finance thundering here last night about the devotion of the Government to the principle of individual enterprise and private enterprise in industry and business and find oneself the following morning engaged on legislation to prevent a merchant procuring his merchandise in the market where he knows he can get it cheapest and best. I want to recall to the House that every penny on a lb. of tea represents £100,000 per annum here. I want to remind the House that it is only a pretty experienced tea buyer who will detect a differential of 4d. per lb. in the quality of teas submitted to him for comparison.
We are, therefore, putting in the hands of a strictly limited number of persons, because it is only a very limited number of dealers who will be so circumstanced as to be able to import tea direct from Colombo, Calcutta or Djakarta, a power to levy on the consumers a charge of up to £400,000 per annum without any conceivable means of anybody checking upon them. Remember, whatever expert opinion there is available in this country to undertake a check of that kind will be within the ring constituted under this Bill as a monopoly for importing tea from the country of origin.
The Minister has stated that this proposal has met with the general approbation of the tea dealers of this country. That is a fantastic misrepresentation of the facts, and if that view has been made to prevail on the Minister's mind, the Minister has been most gravely misled. If he is prepared to submit to being so deceived, he should take very special precautions not to relay his affliction on to this House. There may be a limited number of large tea wholesalers, who have been having a nice time already under the Tea Importers set-up, who do not want to let go and who see in this permanent arrangement an opportunity of retaining their previous position.
I am putting it to the Deputies, of their own personal knowledge, is it not true that over the past ten years, it is the universal experience of us all that we have been consuming poor quality tea at unprecedentedly high prices? Why can anybody believe that it corresponds to the public interest that we should make that a permanency? Far from the Minister's belief that the majority of tea merchants in this country approve the principle of this Bill, I venture to suggest that from 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the tea merchants—by whom I mean those who deal in tea—object most strenuously to this Bill. But if you determine there are only 90 tea merchants in the whole of Ireland, as defined for the purpose of the Minister's contention as registered tea merchants on some register of wholesalers he maintains in the Department of Industry and Commence, I want to make this prophecy. If you accept that as the total number of merchants, not one quarter even of that number will in fact import tea directly under this organisation.
I want to deny most categorically that the 90 persons registered with the Minister represents the tea merchants of Ireland. Ninety per cent. of the tea distributed in this country prior to 1939 was purchased by wholesaler/retailers scattered all over the country. Some of the most discriminating tea buyers in this country were to be found in towns with a population of not more than 1,500 persons. One of the most effective methods of building up a remunerative grocery trade in rural Ireland was to acquire the reputation in the area in which you lived of being a discriminating tea buyer. All that is to be swept away now. The Individual who trusts to his skill to build up his business is now to be delivered into the hands of, I believe, not more than 15 to 20 persons who will become in practice the sole importers of tea.
Here is where the Minister immediately challenges me and says there is nothing in the Bill to prevent anybody being an importer of tea. I am not interested in theoretical calculations of that character. I mean no personal disrespect to the Minister when I say he is not capable of making other than theoretical, speculative calculations of that character. He has not the advice available to him drawn from the pragmatic angle from which I speak. I know that theoretically under the Bill anybody can import tea from Colombo or Calcutta. The only stipulation is that they bring it in through this company. But, in practice, that means that 90 per cent. of the persons who heretofore had effectively operated as tea merchants cannot effectively operate as such hereafter. I ventilated that point before, but I cannot allow this occasion pass without reaffirming the fundamental principle on which I am and our Party are opposed to this legislation.
The Minister on a previous occasion appeared to get indignant when I directed his attention to another aspect of this problem which is of fundamental importance. There is no use pretending that outside parties are so stupid and so blind as not to see aspects of this problem which jump to the eye. On yesterday, the officers of the Department of Agriculture appeared at the British Board of Trade to make the case that it would be unfair discrimination against this country, if Great Britain levied discriminatory duties on our butter.
Mark you where the representations had to be made, at the British Board of Trade. The basis of our argument to the British Board of Trade is that we have been dealing with one another on the widest possible front and with the minimum of discrimination or interference with the free passage of trade between us. We can prove in regard to butter that that has been going on between ourselves and Great Britain longer than between Great Britain and any other supplier. On that ground, we claim we are still entitled to trade in this market as freely as we did in the past.
The Deputy is going very wide on this stage of the Bill. On the Final Stage of a Bill, only matters contained in the Bill may be discussed. Anything else is irrelevant. There is nothing in the Bill about retaliatory action on the part of the British Board of Trade.
I have not yet explained the matter. I have no doubt that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will discern the moment I have.
The very same body in London, the British Board of Trade, is the body that deals with the subject matter of this Bill. If the tea merchants of London feel that this Bill is designed finally and permanently to terminate their market in Ireland, where will they go? Their immediate goal is the British Board of Trade. It is their spokesman in matters of this kind. As certainly as we are in this Chamber to-day, there will be a deputation from the tea merchants of London to the British Board of Trade, informing them that they regard this Bill as an arbitrary interference by our Government in their legitimate operations on our market.
How can it be of advantage to us, who have emphasised in every trade agreement yet made with Great Britain that we want to expand trade between the two countries, what conceivable consideration can justify us in taking a measure of that kind? They are entitled to ask us, as we are entitled to ask them, about any proposed restriction on the import of butter. They are entitled to ask us about any proposed restriction by us of their trade: "What reason have we for it?" We have only two—one is that we want to express our indignation at the attitude of the Ministry of Food in 1941— and I think they can make an unanswerable case that that is not a valid ground for action now—and the second is that our Department of Industry and Commerce believes that it is more economical to import direct from the country of origin than from the Mincing Lane market in London to which the British Board of Trade will say: "You are quite entitled to hold that view and we do not for a moment challenge the setting up of machinery providing special facilities for the import of tea direct from the country of origin. We do not claim the right to interfere in your legislation for the promotion of any particular trade and all we ask is that you do not deprive us by any Act of your Oireachtas of the right to compete in your market."
I ask the Minister what advantage can he conceivably imagine will accrue that will outweigh the dangers here envisaged? If he honestly believes in his plan, what could be easier than to set up his plan and, at the same time, say: "Let anybody else, or let these people, deal in London, if they prefer." I do not object if he is managing this whole idea and if he says: "I am giving a grant to these people to get them started, an annual grant for the first five years to get them into the practice of dealing with the countries of origin, because I am so profoundly convinced that in the long run it will be advantageous to the nation to do so." All I object to is that, having set up the machinery enabling people to deal directly with the countries of origin, he prohibits them from dealing anywhere else, while bearing in mind that I am as certain as I am that I am standing here to-day that we would get better tea at lower prices by being free to trade wherever we like.
I am certain that legislation of this kind will not create the sort of atmosphere I would like to have in the British Board of Trade at a time when it is of such vital importance to us to make it abundantly clear in London that we desire, in the terms of the first Article of our Trade Agreement of 1948, to expand and develop to our mutual advantage trade of every description between their people and our people.
Like Deputy Dillon, I think the Bill is "cracked." I think it was conceived out of the Minister's vindictiveness because of what occurred in 1941. What happened in 1941 was absolutely wrong; this country was treated extremely badly; but in my view it was not the Mincing Lane people who were responsible for that. Yet, because of the wrong that was done at that time, the Minister proposes in this Bill to inflict a further wrong on us here. I cannot discover anywhere the volume of support for this measure which the Minister has alleged exists. I have had many letters about this Bill and about the debates and I have not got a single letter which in any way commends the point of view put forward by the Minister. I have not seen in the public Press any letter or statement by any interested person with the courage to put his name to such a statement, approving this Bill.
On the contrary, I have seen many criticisms and I have received samples of those criticisms, including criticisms by people who took cuttings out of newspapers reporting the debates here. On one paper reporting the Committee Stage debate, my correspondent has written across words that I spoke, words that Deputy Sullivan spoke, that Deputy Booth spoke and that Deputy Dr. Esmonde spoke, "Right." If the Minister will not be too shocked, when the correspondent comes to the Minister's remarks, he just crossed them out and wrote "Rubbish". I think that is a pretty good comment on the case the Minister tried to make in support of this Bill.
I mentioned previously, and I want to repeat now, that it seems to me to be crazy, at the time when we are discussing the question of joining the Free Trade Area, there should be legislation such as this Bill to provide that we cannot buy in that area. The two things seem to me entirely and absolutely incompatible.
The Free Trade Area applies to goods of area origin.
All sides of the House agree that we must increase our exports. How can we do that? How can we get other countries to take our goods, if we show that the countries that are prepared to take our goods will meet deliberate discrimination against them in favour of countries not prepared to take anything from us? The last available issue of the Trade Journal is for December, 1956, and it shows total exports to India were worth £141,807; exports to Ceylon, apparently, are so small that they do not appear to be mentioned at all in this. Yet we are prepared to provide in this Bill discrimination in favour of India and Ceylon. That does not seem to me to be the way to get that reciprocal trade which is so vitally necessary for us, not merely if we are to make progress, but if the country is to survive.
It seems to me that this Bill will give a handle, and a very useful handle, to those people who wish to push us out of markets where we have already a footing. It will give a handle to those people to say that the preferential arrangements that we enjoy in those markets should be taken away.
I do not think there is any advantage in this Bill, but even the advantage which the Minister has suggested and which is so trifling compared with the risks involved of our losing the existing export markets and losing the goodwill in those markets is, on the Minister's own showing, utterly unrealistic and utterly unconvincing.
I cannot conceive of any reason for this Bill, except the reason of ensuring that the whole tea trade will be centred in the hands of a few. Let us be quite clear also about this, that once this Bill is passed, once this company is formed, the directors of the company and possibly others, the members of the company, but, certainly, the directors of the company, will have private confidential trade information available to them, not in respect of their own business but in respect of the business of their competitors. That is highly undesirable.
I will tell the Minister why, because he raises his eyebrows: Only the company can import tea. Anybody who is importing, in order to enable such importation to take place, must have all the necessary shipment particulars. Those shipment particulars must inevitably include invoices, certificates, particulars of supply, prices, all the private confidential information of anybody who is importing and who is not a director of this company. All that information affecting his private and confidential business must, of necessity, be put through this company. If that is not giving an unfair trade advantage to those who are in the trade and directing this company, I do not know what it is.
The whole effect of this Bill, in practice, no matter what theoretical let-out there may be in it, will be for the future to concentrate the tea trade in Ireland in the hands of a very few people. That is highly undesirable and I believe that the Minister, if he were not blinded by a memory of something he should forget, as other people have had to forget far worse things, would also realise that it is highly undesirable and that that will be the only result of this Bill.
I should like to support Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Dillon in the remarks they have made about this Bill. This Bill has been discussed pretty extensively over the past few weeks. It is fair to say that it is unusual that a Bill introduced by a Government should have received so much direct criticism and so little support. We have discussed the Bill at considerable length. It purports to do two things: first, to create a situation whereby tea is to be bought in the country of origin and, secondly, that that tea will be imported into this country by a company. No arguments have been put forward by any member of the Minister's Party in favour of that Bill. No one among the general public outside appears to have any sympathy with the intentions of this Bill.
The Minister has told the House that it is the wish of the tea traders that this Bill should be passed. None of us on this side of the House has been able to discover any such desire on the part of any of those traders, with the possible exception of a limited few who may get some benefit out of the Bill. It is reasonable to suggest that if there were any general desire for this Bill, some members of the Minister's Party would have stood up and put forward arguments in favour of it and would have tried to support the Minister in the dilemma in which he now finds himself. Nobody in this House, except Deputy Norton and the Minister, wants this Bill and in the course of the discussion here, the Minister has not given us any idea of what the arrangements are or as to the ideas in his mind of the benefits to the people of Ireland or even to those who deal in tea as a whole.
All we know is that another control is being set up. Of course, the Minister glibly gets out of that by saying that anyone can buy tea. Nevertheless, we are going to have another of the numerous controls which are strangling this country. A few people will be in control of this company who will have the sole right to import tea.
It is easy for the Minister to say that anyone can buy tea, that anyone can register as a member of the company, that anyone who becomes a member of the company can import tea. The fact is that that company will have a right to bring in that tea at whatever cost they like and will have the power to determine the price of tea and to determine what tea we get. The Minister will answer and say that anyone can buy tea where he wishes, that anyone can bring in that tea. He knows perfectly well that that is not true. My own opinion is that if the Minister could get out of this Bill and save his face, he would probably do so.
As this is the last opportunity we will have of discussing the Bill in this House, I should like the Minister to explain to us what, in his mind, is the purpose of the Bill, why he has introduced this Bill. So far, he has not told us. He has tried to put it across the House that, unless we have a company such as this, we will not have a continuous supply of tea. Does anyone in his senses believe that where there is a tea trade running into £6,000,000, there will not be people interested to see that there is tea in the country and good tea, at competitive prices, sold to the Irish people?
The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech.
I am discussing the Bill as it has been discussed in this House. This is the last time that we will have a chance of talking about it. I hope the Minister will clarify the position with regard to the importation of tea. We are on the Fifth Stage now and that has not been made clear to us. All I know is that there will be a group of people importing tea. I should like, on this Final Stage, to know from the Minister what benefits he suggests will accrue to the Irish people.
Deputy Sweetman very correctly pointed out that the newspapers, the public, the majority of those who have voiced any opinion in Dáil Éireann are against this Bill. The Minister has not shown us any reason for it, except that he does not want anybody to buy tea in London. I shall not go so far as Deputy Sweetman went and say that that is personal spite on the Minister's part against Mincing Lane, but I am suspicious at the same time. That is the only reason that has been put forward for the Bill.
The Minister admits it. He admitted quite frankly it was because of what happened in 1941.
He said what happened in 1941 might happen again. We might not be able to import tea. Will the Minister indicate to the House how, in the event of unfortunate circumstances arising in which we would have another world conflagration, this company would then propose to get tea into Ireland from the country of origin? Has he any plans in his mind? I presume he has had a lengthy discussion with members of the company. I presume he knows who the company will be already—that, I take it, has been long since arranged. Has he had any discussion with them as to how, in the event of a national emergency, they propose to get the tea? I should like the Minister to tell us a little more about this Bill. All we know is that tea is to be imported from the country of origin and that certain people have a monopoly to do so. First of all, I would ask him to withdraw the Bill.
The Deputy is out of order in asking the Minister to withdraw the Bill at this stage.
Until the Bill becomes law, surely we can ask that it be withdrawn?
It is out of order on the Fifth Stage to ask for the withdrawal of a Bill.
May I put it this way? May I ask the Minister not to press the Bill? It does not seem to be very acceptable to Dáil Éireann, and if he cannot see his way to go as far as that, perhaps he will tell us what is in his mind in respect of this futile Bill which is going through the Fifth Stage in this House and will then go to the Seanad, I feel, unwept, unhonoured and unsung.
Let us start by looking at the present situation. There is one company in existence which buys all the tea, imports it and then resells it to the wholesale merchants.
A thoroughly bad situation.
The legislation upon which that situation is based expired in 1956 at a time when there was a Government in office which included Deputy Dillon and Deputy Sweetman.
No, 1957.
Yes. The legislation which maintained that situation expired automatically in 1956 and the Government in which these two Deputies were very important members decided to continue that situation and brought to this House, in 1956, a Bill designed to continue the arrangements under which all the tea for this country was purchased and imported by a single organisation.
But the Minister knows why.
Why?
Because there was a large accumulated deficit that had to be liquidated.
Was that the reason?
There is no question of that.
Does the Minister not know it was the reason?
Would the Deputy accept that as a good reason why the present arrangement should continue?
There is no overdraft left now.
That is the position we have had for 15 years, a situation in which all the tea of the country was purchased and imported by a single organisation. That is the situation which the Government containing Deputy Dillon and Deputy Sweetman in 1956 decided to continue.
For a good and sufficient reason, to liquidate the deficit.
If the Minister would be good enough to have a look at the files in the Department of Finance, he will find my note that I thought it was desirable to continue it until the overdraft was liquidated, and not thereafter.
We are now going to get rid of that situation. We have to change from that situation in which there is a single buyer and importer to a new situation in which anybody can buy tea. That is what this Bill is designed to do.
Can they not buy tea without a Bill?
I want to qualify that. I shall deal later with the advantages to the country of maintaining the practice under which the tea we use here is bought in the country where it is produced and imported direct from that country. This Bill provides that it will be imported by a new company that is to be set up by the wholesale tea merchants of the country.
We went to the wholesale tea merchants and said: "We want to get rid of this wartime situation. We want to restore complete freedom to trade in tea, subject to the maintenance of some arrangement which will ensure that tea will be purchased in the country of origin and imported direct, because we think that is to the advantage of the country." The suggestion for the establishment of this company and the channelling of all imports through it came from the tea wholesale merchants who had a meeting at which the whole proposition was explained to them and at which various alternatives were discussed, and who arranged to take a ballot amongst their members as between the various alternatives.
Following a ballot and a majority vote covering every merchant in the country who was registered as a wholesaler with Tea Importers Ltd., this proposition was put forward to me that I should legislate for the establishment by them of a company which would have the sole right to inspect the tea which they as individuals had bought. They argued that, with that arrangement, they would be able to get the bank credit which was required to facilitate the arrangement, that the bringing in of regular cargoes of tea would represent a substantial saving in freight and that no other way would be effective in ensuring that the smaller merchants who wanted to buy tea in the country of origin and be on an equal footing with the larger merchants would be able to remain in business. That is the reason for this Bill.
They were given no opportunity of voting whether the tea should be bought in the country of origin or elsewhere.
No, that was a question for the Government.
The Government laid that down.
I think the great majority of the merchants would agree it is a far more economic method of trading.
That is not my information.
It is mine, and I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter more recently than the Deputy. There appears to be some impression that there is an international market in tea in Mincing Lane. That is completely untrue. There is no international market in tea there. There is a market there through which tea is auctioned to British wholesalers. The total quantity of tea exported from England through Mincing Lane is not 5 per cent. of the imports of tea into Britain and represents a quantity of tea far less than we in this country consume. Teas go into the Mincing Lane market from many countries other than India. Everybody knows that the Irish demand is for Indian tea. We are not interested in tea from Rhodesia, Tanganyika or any place else because our people have not a taste for those teas. Of the teas that go into Mincing Lane, not much more than half are from India and they go in under quota. The Indian Government dislikes the arrangement of tea being sent forward for auction in London and they have restricted by quota the quantity of tea that may be sold in that way.
Nevertheless, there seems to be some idea that, by going into this restricted market for Indian tea, which is not in any sense an international market, we can do better than by buying in the country where the tea is produced and where there are unrestricted supplies. We are not insignificant in the tea trade. This country is the third largest importer of Indian tea. We buy more tea from India than any other country in the world, except the United States of America or Great Britain. The total quantity of Indian tea exported from England through the Mincing Lane auction would be only a fraction of our supplies and what is being suggested here is that we should give them, through some mistaken conception of our own advantage, an export trade in tea which would mean that their present export trade in tea would be more than doubled.
Not at all.
I shall give the Deputy the figures.
That is not the suggestion at all. The Minister would need to be careful and accurate in regard to his figures so that he and I will not be put in the same category.
The total quantity of tea exported from England——
Exported?
Exports from Britain. I am talking about tea brought in and auctioned in London. The total quantity of tea exported from England was 5 per cent. of imports and that means imports of tea from all sources. As I pointed out, only 58 per cent. of the tea auctioned in Mincing Lane is Indian tea. Tea was purchased from Kenya, Tanganyika, Rhodesia, Ceylon and many other countries, including Indonesia and China. With regard to Indian tea, we have effective arrangements working for the purchase of tea.
The Minister was going to give us figures in regard to the total exports of tea from England in 1957.
I have figures for the Channel Islands, Canada and other Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland—4,000,000 lb.
In other words, the Minister was chancing his arm?
There is no great international market in London. It does not compare with the markets in India in which we have now established an organisation for buying the tea. Deputy Dillon said it will be dearer tea. Except during the period when, as a result of what I would describe as the mismanagement of the tea trade of the country, Tea Importers, Limited, had to recover the losses they were compelled to incur by orders of the then Government, tea in this country, over the greater part of the past ten years, was retailed at the lowest price in the world.
Some of the merchants do not think that.
I do not know what the merchants think.
They would have a pretty fair idea.
I have said that may not be attributable to exceptional brains, experience or knowledge on the part of Tea Importers, Limited. It was, perhaps, not an unexpected situation when the general world price trend was upwards, that any company like this, buying large stocks of tea and carrying them forward to sell gradually over a period, was always in a better position in regard to price than the trader buying and selling at the current price. There were occasions when fluctuations in price made it possible to buy occasional parcels of tea in London at lower prices.
Would the low quality have anything to do with the low price?
Nothing whatsoever. Tea Importers, Limited, bought the tea which Irish merchants wanted. It may be that individual merchants decided to use lower quality teas in their blends but nobody compelled them to do it. Maybe they thought that would be an advantage and then put the blame on Tea Importers but there will be no danger of that in the future. They can buy any tea they like in the future at whatever price they like. They will be responsible for the teas they acquire.
The aim of this Bill is to restore freedom to the tea trade and get rid of the situation which obtained under the previous Government and which the previous Government legislated to continue. The aim of the Bill is to create a situation in which anybody can get into the trade and buy tea provided they do so in the country of origin.
Surely tea was free before the last war and people bought tea wherever they wanted to and imported it accordingly?
That is not quite correct. It is true that this country was emerging from a situation in which we were economically dependent upon England. The trade of this country was largely in the hands of English merchants. That was true in regard to a variety of commodities. The efforts of Irish merchants to change that situation, even though it was to the advantage of the Irish people that it should be changed, made very little progress. We do not have to go back to that disadvantageous position. We have a new situation. There is no longer any reason why we should seek to get back to the disadvantageous conditions which we inherited from the past. We can get into a situation in which we can trade in tea as every other country is doing. Why should this be the only country which should not do that? Why do the Danes, the Dutch and the Belgians not buy their tea in London if it is so advantageous to do so? I am pointing out that the total quantity of tea traded through London on international account is insignificant.
The Dutch, next to the English, are the largest tea growers in the world.
They were—not now. They have lost their Empire too.
I thought Ceylon was second to England?
Ceylon is a country in which substantial quantities of tea are available but the Irish people do-not buy Ceylon tea. The demand here is for Indian tea as everybody knows. Our task is to devise arrangements to ensure that the trade will be continued upon the basis most advantageous to the Irish consumer and at the same time remove the limitations upon new entrants into the trade and the other restrictions inevitably associated with the war years. They are all being swept away now. A new Tea Importers, Limited, is coming into existence because the tea wholesalers of Ireland in ballot voted for it. Even that need not be regarded as a permanent arrangement.
How many voted in the ballot?
As far as I know, every registered wholesale merchant in Ireland.
About 90.
That is all there are. Deputy Dillon spoke about tea traders. The register incorporated every tea wholesaler in Ireland. There was no means by which anybody could become a wholesaler except by buying from Tea Importers, Limited during that period. It will be a different situation in the future. Any Irish person or Irish company can get on to that register and become a tea retailer or wholesaler. A new entrant can become the biggest wholesale tea trader in the country and, so far as legislation is concerned, there will be no impediment to his so becoming.
He cannot be an importer.
He can be an importer of tea except that the actual agency by which the tea is shipped to this country will be this co-operative organisation which the merchants have voluntarily set up.
No matter how big a dealer he is, he cannot import tea himself. He has to do so through this company.
He buys the tea and arranges with this company to have it shipped. It is a more economic and efficient method of handling the importation of tea, according to the advice given to me by the people in the business. As far as I am concerned, it is not an essential condition of the legislation. It was an arrangement they suggested and which I approved. It is a principle of this Bill but it is not an essential condition to the creation here in the tea trade of the conditions which I desire to see. If a review of the situation in subsequent years suggests a better method of handling the tea trade, we can adopt it. I think, however, we shall have ample evidence by then that the policy of direct importation from the country of origin is so infinitely better for this country that nobody in future will ever think of getting away from it.
The only test is to have the two systems working side by side.
I do not think it would be a fair test. We have to work here through a number of Irish companies who have had no opportunity for a long number of years—15, 16, or more years—of gaining experience in the negotiation of their own purchases, in establishing the contacts necessary in India in order to make the best purchases. It would be most unfair to put them, right now, into competition with the giant organisations which have retail establishments in this country and the scale of whose operations are such as to give them tremendous advantages in various directions in this trade. As soon as we have got out of that situation, as soon as we have Irish wholesalers acting independently, acquiring experience and making market contacts, we can have another look at the situation. At the moment, I am prepared to give them a fair chance of survival against the competition to which they would otherwise be subjected—and that requires legislation of this kind.
Why not let those people, who feel they have not the experience about which the Minister speaks, buy and import through that company and let the others, who feel they have the experience, buy separately?
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
I have said all I have to say.
