andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Agriculture whether the recent embargo on Irish butter is in breach of (a) the 1938 or (b) the 1948 Trade Agreement; if so, what are the relevant sections; and what action the Government propose to take in order to establish this fact and to force the British Government to adhere to the Agreement.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Embargo on Irish Butter.
42.
I am advised that a formal breach of the letter of these Agreements does not appear to be involved. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
May we take it now that it is quite clear that as far as perfecting our exports are concerned in the matter of butter or bacon in this regard the 1938 and 1948 trade agreements are not worth the paper they are written on, in spite of all the trumpeting and blowing by the political Parties in this country about the wonderful provisions brought about through these agreements?
That is not a question.
Of course it is. We heard a lot about the two different agreements.
May I ask the Minister how a proposal to restrict our butter exports to Great Britain below the stipulated quantity of 20,000 tons set out in paragraph (g) of the Annexe to the 1948 Trade Agreement can be reconciled with the heavy punitive tariff put on butter exports from this country?
I think Deputies will concede that I and my Department would be tremendously anxious to produce evidence that a breach of the letter of the agreements since 1938 had taken place. I do not think there should be any need for us to have any contention across the House on that subject because all of us would wish to establish that point. I have replied to the question and all I can say is that while we feel there is no formal breach we believe that the action of the British Government has not been in accordance with the spirit——
Hear, hear.
Is it a fact that the Government sincerely thought that the 1938 or 1948 trade agreement safeguarded them in this respect, until this happened?
It is not.
Deputy Corry.
Mr. McQuillan rose.
Other people have rights in this House besides Deputy McQuillan.
I did not hear the Minister's reply.
The Minister is replying to several questions which were asked.
The Minister did not think so.
In other words, the Minister felt that the 1948 and the 1938 trade agreements were foolproof?
The Minister felt as he explained to the House in his reply to the question.
Deputy Corry.
That is very interesting.
Can the Minister say what change in that position the 1956 levy on sugar brought about?
That does not arise under this question.
Go up for the Seanad.
Is it not perfectly clear, reading the Preamble to the Trade Agreement of 1948—the relevant paragraph of the agreement itself, paragraph (g) of the Annexe—that there is a complete violation of the spirit of the agreement which was made between our Government and the British Government on that occasion by a proposal to restrict us to a quota of 4,000 tons and the alternative action of imposing a duty of over 200/- per cwt. on imported butter from Ireland?
So far as I can see the question addressed to me on the Order Paper was: Had Britain committed a breach of her several agreements with us since 1938? My reply is that no formal breach has taken place but we feel that the action she has taken is not in accordance with the spirit of these several agreements.
It is all in the small print.
As one of those who participated in the negotiations I believe there is both a formal breach in the letter and a grave breach in the spirit.
Naturally we should all be delighted to establish such an accusation to our satisfaction——
I hope you sought to establish that.
——and the Deputy may take it that the fact that I am conceding the point that we cannot establish such a breach is something that I feel a sense of disappointment about.
I hope you sought to establish it. Did you seek to establish it in the discussions with the British Government?
Deputies must surely realise that in matters of this nature the Minister who is responsible, his Department, and the Government of which he is a member will not fail to take every action possible on the best advice available to them, in order to establish for ourselves the most favourable circumstances.
I want an answer to this question—was it sought on our behalf to establish that this was in breach of the letter and of the spirit of this agreement? If it was not, it should have been; and if it was, you have made a hash of it.
The letter of the agreement is one thing and the spirit is another.
I submit it is a breach of both, of the letter and of the spirit.
The plain fact is that you have made a botch of it.
The Deputy would say that no matter what he did.
(Interruptions.)
Did he make a botch of it?