This is a continuance Bill, of course, and the original Bill was introduced by the late William Norton. The then Opposition raised no objection to the Bill and whether there will be any opposition here will rest on whether or not the Minister is prepared to give full information on the Committee Stage on everything he might desire to do apart from what he has given us on the Second Reading.
The Minister has the power to prohibit the export of any industrial goods and the reasons given are quite valid, that we must conserve certain supplies of raw materials. I would like to deal with the example given by the Minister at subparagraph (a) of the Minister's circulated speech, namely, scrap metals. This has been discussed in the House in relation to the price of scrap metals to Irish Steel Holdings. It was my duty as spokesman for my party on Industry and Commerce to examine that situation and to consider the representations made to me and to others in relation to the suggestion that the price of such scrap metals was inadequate and that there was a closed shop in respect of one supplier.
I came to the conclusion at that time that the assembly and the separation of scrap metals into their various items was a highly expensive operation and that Members of this House would have great difficulty in deciding whether or not the prices given were in fact unjust to small suppliers. However, these provisions are to be used for a different reason, that is, to stop the people sending scrap metals out of the country to provide a better price for themselves rather than send them to the only place to which they could send them here, namely, Irish Steel Holdings.
The question then arises—and I make this point not in any spirit of criticism but in a spirit of mature examination—as to whether or not the assembly of scrap metals perhaps in England and shipping them to Irish Steel Holding might be an operation which would be so costly that it would not be practicable and that we must conserve our supplies of scrap metal, notably scrap motor cars, which is a great source of supply for use by Irish Steel Holdings.
That immediately raises the question, if it is prohibitive to buy scrap metals at the going price around the city of Liverpool and ship them by coaster to Irish Steel Holding in Cork, why is it not prohibitive to assemble them here and ship them to a company in Britain operating on the same basis as Irish Steel Holdings? This is a question that I cannot answer, because I am not qualified to do so. It is a question that somebody with a technical knowledge of the trade would have to answer. If you ask me about drying wheat, handling grain or about various other aspects of industry I would be able to give an opinion here which, whether right or wrong, would be based on a certain amount of experience and knowledge of a particular business. In this matter all I have to go on as spokesman for the Opposition is the Act of 1956, the debates in the bound volumes on that particular Act and a momentary examination of the intentions of the Minister as outlined in his opening remarks.
This matter must be examined clinically and both the Government and the Opposition must consider the representations made to them and make their judgment upon them. They must then come in here on the Committee Stage and state honestly their opinion on this question. Of course this Bill is tied up with the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and must go in 1974. We must decide whether or not it is wise to take the Minister's example and use it as a headline in relation to his activities under the Control of Exports Act which we are continuing.
I note from subparagraph (b) the Minister wants to ensure that strategic materials are not exported from this country to undesirable destinations and that this country is not used as a base for such trade from elsewhere. This is entirely acceptable to anyone. What might or might not be acceptable would be the definition of an undesirable commodity. The State might be at variance with the Government in this respect. My view is that the Government, with all their shortcomings, have been elected by the people. Therefore, if we are operating as a democracy in relation to subparagraph (b), the Government must make that decision. It is for the people to decide whether or not it is a fair decision and at the next election they can cast their vote against the Government if they are not satisfied with their decision and if they consider the matter is serious enough to merit changing their vote, namely, whether they, in respect of any commodity, stopped the export order from here on the basis that it was going to an undesirable location or was a commodity that was undesirable to go to any location, then let the people decide. It is for the Opposition to uncover any action that might attract criticism.
Point (c) is something that must be considered in a more serious manner. At the moment, there is redundancy in our textile trade. There is also rationalisation but as we approach the end of the term of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, we must accept that rationalisation is necessary. It may not be pleasant but it is necessary. Because of redundancy in the textile trade, I would ask the Minister whether he has considered items in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, notably the item whereby we can impose tariffs, if we so wish, on 3 per cent of our industrial imports. This is something that might help. Also, a further section where, bilaterally, there could be a change. I would ask the Minister, too, whether it is correct that every section of this agreement, which was signed some years ago by people who were so brilliant, which gave power for adjustment has not been invoked on even one occasion? I speak in no sense of criticism of the various people who signed that agreement. The former Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs were involved, as was the Taoiseach. However, while I am not criticising these men in any way, they are not infallible. They did what they considered was best at the time, but if it is true that there are sections of that agreement which give opportunity for bilateral or unilateral adjustment and if it is proved that the estimates made were incorrect, should these not have been used by the Government, particularly in our situation as a small trading nation as far as industrial goods are concerned while Britain is such a large trading nation, and when we are in the position of being one of Britain's best customers? Therefore, I wonder about the automatic application of a section of that agreement through the continuance of this particular piece of legislation, without considering whether the provisions signed on the first occasion should not have been varied by the other sections of the agreement that permit of unilateral or bilateral adjustment.
We subscribe to the United Nations and, therefore, I presume we must take our policy from them and decide not to export goods to Southern Rhodesia. I have no fault to find with that. There may be people in the House who have but it is my opinion that, as the world becomes smaller, we must involve ourselves and commit ourselves. Indeed, we have already done this by our various trading, economic, social and other associations with the UN as well as the EEC, by the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, the European Free Trade Association and other international agreements. Therefore, I suggest that point 5 (d) is one that we must accept because since we have subscribed to the mandatory resolution of the United Nations Security Council, we must act accordingly. I should not like to see this country shirking its international obligations.
Point 5 (e) is an interesting one. This is that we are:
to have immediately available a means of dealing with any emergency which might denude the country of essential materials before corrective legislation could be enacted.
That was a wise provision. I suppose it is not really a provision but merely indicates what powers are in the Control of Exports (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1956 which it is proposed here not to amend but merely to continue until 1974. We might have had the Sheiks of Araby denying us oil during the last few weeks and, in such a situation, it would be imperative that the Government would retain all the oil that is in the country, also, that our stock of oil would be directed towards essential services.
This Act does not deal with the direction of essential commodities, such as oil, towards essential services but, of course, there is such legislation on the Statute Book. However, the position is that the Government of 1956—I note that the Bill was acually introduced in 1955—did not find an Opposition at that time that was critical of the Bill. Rather, they found an Opposition that let the Bill through without amendment. However, we are living in different times; we are living in the time of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and surely there should have been changes in certain of the Articles of that Agreement? However, I mention this merely in passing.
As spokesman for Industry and Commerce for the main Opposition Party I want to say that we have examined the argument in relation to scrap metals and have found that there is no great dishonesty or great advantage resulting to anybody in this regard and that the assembly of scrap metal and the taking of one type of scrap metal from, say, a wrecked car is a highly expensive operation. However, it seems to me that if we are to regulate the supply of scrap metal to our one and only large steel foundry and if we are then to place the supply of that metal in the hands of one agent and if we are to follow that up by invoking the powers of the Control of Exports (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1956, and if the Minister indicates that scrap metal is one of the commodities that will not be allowed to be exported surely then the question arises as to whether scrap metals are becoming available to one of our nationalised industries or semi-State industries at a price less than world price. I am not quibbling with that. I am not even saying it is wrong.
Recently in a debate here relating to Irish Steel Holdings I said that the Fine Gael Party were 100 per cent behind the full employment of every worker in Irish Steel Holdings and would take legislative action if the Government wished or would, in fact, instigate legislative action if we felt it necessary to defend the last job there. The example given by the Minister poses that question and I should like to have it answered on Committee Stage, if not tonight. If it can be answered in a satisfactory manner tonight, I see no reason why this cannot have the same passage through the House as it had in 1956.
I agree completely that we cannot have this country used as a point of transfer of undesirable goods or goods to undesirable sources. That would fall within the ambit of our international obligations anyway. I knew when I read this Continuance Bill that the phasing out of this legislation in 1974 is a result of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. I want to know now if any other legislation within the ambit of that agreement is contemplated by the Government in order to provide whatever protection is humanly possible within that agreement for existing jobs. I am not asking too much and I am not being too difficult, I am not being querulous when I ask for these undertakings, because we are in an era of redundancies.
I met a businessman today who said to me that we are at the top of the league again, that we have lost 1,000,000 work days through strikes. I said: "Yes. It is dreadful. I hope it will not be the same this year." He said: "What I fear is that this year, 1971, will not be the year of strikes but the year of redundancies." If one were to take the period from 1st January until almost the end of March of this year as a headline in this regard, one could say that it has been the quarter of redundancies as opposed to any other quarter of any other year, perhaps, since the period when the Government got us out in 1957 when the international difficulties of the Suez crisis and the Korean War were used for a nefarious purpose, not beneath the Government opposite, who, like a certain lady in a play, are always prepared to stoop to conquer.
I agree with paragraphs (d) and (e). I want undertakings, and I want assurances, and I want explanations.
