Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

Some time ago I appeared before the Seanad on the question of setting up a Pig Industries Tribunal. There was a fairly long term of reference submitted to the tribunal in connection with pigs and bacon, but before proceeding with that business they took one of the matters submitted to them and issued an Interim Report which has, I believe, been distributed to Senators and Deputies. That report deals with the necessity for setting up machinery to control exports to any country in which a quota is adopted in relation to exports from this country. The matter became urgent, particularly on account of the action of Great Britain in dealing with the entries of pigs into the country for conversion into bacon and pork. It is expected that these quota regulations in Great Britain will come into operation about the 10th September. It is stated that Great Britain will not allot a quota to any country that has not machinery set up to deal with the situation. The machinery necessary is that the Government of a particular country would be in a position to take a global quota and sub-allocate that quota in any way that the regulations might permit in the country concerned. The quota will apply to pigs for conversion into bacon and to pork carcases for conversion into bacon. It will not apply to pork exported, or to pigs for conversion into pork. That is as far as our information goes at present. They mean, I understand, to restrict the supplies of bacon on the home market to somewhere about 10,500,000 cwts. That figure is somewhat lower than the consumption in Great Britain in 1932. They will commence by finding out what is the probable supply of bacon by home producers for the year. I believe that forms have been circulated in Great Britain to the factories and to suppliers asking them to register, for the coming year, the number of pigs they may wish to supply for bacon for the year 1934, and also, of course, for the last quarter of this year. As soon as they have got definite information as to what the home supplies are likely to be, they will then allot quotas to importing countries of quantities based on imports into Great Britain over a number of years.

The Pig Industries Tribunal, in their Interim Report, recommend that special consideration be given to the following points:—

"That powers be taken to make the necessary sub-allocations of the quota allotted to the Saorstát and to regulate exports accordingly; that exporters of bacon and live pigs should be registered; that, for the purpose of tendering advice to the Minister on all or any of the matters concerned, a consultative council or councils should be set up and that there should be power to re-allocate sub-quotas from time to time in the event of individual exporters failing to utilise their sub-quota in full or within some reasonable tolerance."

It is not possible, unfortunately, to anticipate the full scope or extent of any system of restriction at the moment. We are, therefore, in the position that we cannot draw up what we would like, perhaps, to do. The Bill is to meet every emergency. The sections in it are intended to cover the various situations that may arise under this quota system. We are compelled, therefore, to bring in a Bill which gives to the Minister rather large powers to do all those matters by Order. This is to be regarded as a temporary Bill, to be replaced by a more comprehensive Bill as soon as we have some experience of the working of these quotas. In order to ensure that adequate control can be kept of the situation it is proposed to issue Orders from time to time dealing with all the matters that are mentioned in Section 2 of the Bill, so that the Dáil and Seanad, if they have not the opportunity of dealing in anticipation with the measures that may be taken, the members of both Houses will at least have the opportunity of discussing any particular Order that may be made. Nothing can be done under the Bill without an Order and that Order must be placed on the Table of both Houses. Therefore, any Senator or Deputy will have an opportunity of voicing his objection to any Order that may be made or to anything that may be done under the Bill.

Power is given under Section 3 of the Bill to the Minister to go into the bacon and pig trade if he thinks necessary. That provision requires, perhaps, a little explanation. This Bill covers the position of quotas being given by any country for any product.

Mr. Wilson

It does not apply to pigs only?

Dr. Ryan

No. It would apply to any agricultural product and to any country that may have a quota system for that particular product. The urgency of the Bill is due to the bacon quota being brought in by Great Britain. As Senators are aware, where a country allots a quota between various countries, if any one country fails to fulfil the quota over a certain period—the periods are generally stated in these regulations—then that country is permanently and definitely cut down in its quota to the quantity that it had been supplying over that period. There would be grave danger, for instance, if the matter of the export of bacon and pigs were left to traders alone that due to some adverse circumstance, say to price when they might not be inclined to export during the period—we do not know what it will be yet, whether it will be a fortnight or month or quarter —what was the quantity that was allotted. If that happened then we in this country would be in danger of losing the quota. In view of that, it is felt that the Minister should have power to come in and fill the gap himself in case the traders were not doing it. It is only in these circumstances that he would use that power.

Section 4 of the Bill gives power to the officers of Customs and Excise to deal with any contravention, or attempted contravention, of an order. It was thought at one time that the period for a quota would be a fortnight. If that were the period there would be very little time to find out whether the quota was being fulfilled each fortnight or not. We would have to make arrangements with exporters to send daily returns of their exports to the Department of Agriculture. If, say, in the last two or three days of the period we found that the quota was not being fulfilled certain steps would have to be taken. These two or three days would leave very little time to do anything. We think the best check we can have on these returns is the information to be obtained from the officers of Customs and Excise at the ports or at the border as the case may be. We are, therefore, giving these officers power to get the necessary information.

I have met representatives of the trade. In fact every known exporter of bacon and pigs was asked to attend a conference in the Department of Agriculture. This matter was discussed with them and I think that the Bill in every respect meets with their wishes. I also undertook, in consultation with them, to set up two advisory councils, one for bacon and one for live pigs. The representatives of the trade are submitting panels to me, and from these panels the names of the members of the advisory councils will be selected. Nothing material at any rate will be done under this Bill without consulting the members of the trade with regard to the various provisions under the Bill. We feel that a Bill of this sort could not be worked except in the closest co-operation with those in the trade. We have, therefore, given them that undertaking: that these advisory councils will be set up, one from amongst bacon exporters and one from amongst the exporters of live pigs.

As I stated a moment ago, in answer to Senator Wilson, this Bill gives powers to deal with the agricultural products of any country where a quota has been imposed. We would have been very glad, for instance, to have had this Bill last autumn to deal with the export of butter to Belgium, but on that occasion we were lucky in getting all the exporters to agree to have the butter exported through the one source. If we had not got that agreement there is no doubt but that there would have been a cutting of prices, and that this country would not have got the advantages which we did get in the case of Belgium on account of that agreement. In future, if we fail to get agreement of that sort we will have power under this Bill to allocate quotas to those in the trade who would at least give some undertaking to get the best possible price where a quota is being imposed against us.

Mr. Counihan

I do not think there is very much to say on this Bill. As the Minister pointed out, it will be necessary for him, in present circumstances when this quota system comes into operation, to have the necessary powers to deal with it. It is a very serious matter. It is desperate to contemplate what the results will be if we reach the condition when we shall have a quota system for our live stock. These quotas are all the result of the Government's policy.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator, I hope, is not going to deal with the economic war on this Bill.

Mr. Counihan

I am not going to go into that. I just want to say this, that last week in this House the Minister for Finance tried to justify the attitude of the British Government in putting on those quotas. He said that the first duty of the British Government was to preserve the home trade for their own nationals, to try and get the British farmers into a better position than they are in, and that no matter what happened, whether we had an economic war or what Government was in power, that these quotas were bound to come. I want to say that it is not the informed opinion of the majority of the people of this country that these quotas would have ever come except for the attitude of our Government.

Mr. Johnson

But they are against Australia and New Zealand.

Mr. Counihan

There is no quota against Canada for live stock.

Mr. Johnson

"Wait and see."

Mr. Counihan

At all events, if we were living in normal times and such a thing as a quota system was attempted in this country there would be such an agitation, with every class in the country backing up the Government, that it could not succeed. Under Section 3 the Minister is taking power to fill the quota if the exporters fail to do so. That is becoming a rather regular thing with our Government now. I thought in view of the experience which the Minister had recently as regards buying and selling live stock and interfering with the trade—it was not very successful—that he would not venture into anything of the kind again. With regard to the setting up of consultative councils, I think that is desirable. The Minister told us that the members are to be selected from a panel submitted by the trade. I think the Minister should not reserve power to himself to keep those consultative councils in existence at his pleasure. These people may be inclined to insist on their opinions, and therefore if the Minister disagrees with them he need not invite them to meet again. I think the Minister should agree to accept an amendment to that section so that the members of these consultative councils will be independent of the Minister.

Mr. Jameson

This Bill astonishes one and rather terrifies one, too. We know that the present Government propounded the policy that we should be self-supporting and should consume our own products. We were also told frequently that our export trade was not of vital importance; that, in fact, what they were aiming at was that we should make everything we wanted ourselves and be a self-supporting country and that we should practically bar out of this country the imports of other countries. Now, a Bill is introduced by that same Government who say that we shall have to pass it to enable them to assist our exports. As far as it goes it is decidedly gratifying, but it is a very far-reaching Bill. Section 1 states:

the expression "agricultural product" includes any product of agriculture or horticulture or any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product.

That covers practically every produce in the Free State, although the Minister only referred to pigs and such like things. I believe that the provisions in some of the sections in this Bill are such as we have seen in operation in Russia. For instance, it suited the Russian Government at one time when they wanted to pay for manufactured articles which they were buying from other countries, to take hold of the wheat, which was their great article of export, whether it was needed in the country or not, and to sell it abroad and leave themselves with a shortage of wheat simply because the Government thought it was right. Exactly the same provision is in this Bill. The Minister can purchase and export and sell agricultural produce. We are told that the object of that is to keep up the quota so that our future exports will not be diminished. Probably it will be known to the people who own that produce that they could sell it at home at a better price. Look at the interference with trade that can come from such a clause as that. Supposing we had our milling system and everything else regulated, it might be possible to foresee a shortage of wheat in this country and various other things which are needed not only for food purposes but for many other things. If the Minister proceeded to keep up a quota and sold out of the country agricultural material which was really required by the trade, say, of the country, he might create a very serious situation indeed, not merely in regard to the food supplies but in regard to manufacturing.

The whole point of the Bill seems to be to meet the question of countries putting up quotas against us. We are steadily, and as hard as we can, putting up tariffs and even prohibitory conditions against importations from other countries. We will not allow them in at all. Here comes the retaliation that we saw ahead of us. People in other countries are beginning to object to imports into their countries of something that we are making.

The Government, I think, is at last beginning to awake to the fact that we cannot exist without exports. I wonder if this is the right way of dealing with the matter. Why do we apply to practically everything that is made in the Free State the conditions which are applied to bacon and pork? I think we ought to have a much more confined description of what the Bill deals with than is contained in the definition in Section 1. It deals with everything manufactured out of agricultural produce. It seems to me to be far too wide. The Minister can come along and take practically everything we have got. For instance, in my own industry I believe that if he came to the conclusion there was too much whiskey in the Free State he could take away our supply, if he were a temperance advocate, and leave us none at all. I am only pointing to that as an example. If there is any motive in it, why does it go beyond what we consider agricultural products and why is it applied as it is here, to manufactures? I think the definition in Section 1 is far too wide for the purposes of the Bill. There is power to regulate and control the export of agricultural products. I would rather leave that to be dealt with by the actual producers of the products. I think that a Bill such as this, which gives the Minister power to do these things, even with a consultative council behind him, if it becomes an Act, will be an Act that may do serious injury if it is not watched very carefully. There might be tremendous interference with freedom of trade and freedom of production and what people would want to deal in. We are now coming to the point that the whole of our business is regulated by tariffs. We have retaliation on the other side by the imposition of quotas.

This Bill, and everything connected with it, is an absolute denial of the idea that countries should try and relieve each others' burdens and help each other out of the difficulties of the day. All these quotas and tariffs are direct acts by one country in making war upon another, instead of countries trying to co-operate to help each other out. America, of course, is practically the standing instance of the whole thing. The whole world is at present crippled because of one or two countries collaring all the gold. America adopts the principle which, apparently, is the Free State principle of doing business for itself and by imposing quotas and tariffs, importing nothing from other countries and producing all it requires. I really think this Bill should receive very serious consideration before we pass it. This gives the Minister power to buy up what he considers is necessary to keep up the quota, which might be a very large amount, of any product in this country, not knowing—he could not possibly know—the various things that happened in regard to the purchase of any particular article produced in this State. Various people who deal, say, in one particular article may have calculated that there was a balance of that article lying there which would put them over a temporary shortage, and that there was a supply for all their needs. The Minister wants to keep up our quota. He comes in and buys what is necessary to keep up the quota and ships it out of the country. He may buy a large quantity and he may upset every calculation that anybody who knew the stocks of agricultural produce in the country had made. It will certainly enormously complicate business. It may be necessary, but it is an extremely dangerous measure. What sort of a council is going to know enough to be able to deal with such matters as I have been referring to? There are certain stocks on hand. Every man is buying and selling because he has a very fair idea of the stocks in the country. He is balancing his business accordingly and knows what he ought to give for the product. The Minister steps in, because there is not enough going out of the country to keep up the quota which he wants to keep up, rightly I daresay. He ships all that out of the country and upsets every man's private calculations.

Business, of course, both in this and other countries is every day becoming more difficult and a Bill such as this only makes it extremely more difficult, because you have to get a licence to export this or that. I suppose it will come to this, that if I have a dozen head of cattle to sell, unless I have gone through the procedure of sending to the Minister for a licence, I cannot sell them in the Dublin market. An exporter cannot export them, and goodness knows where the cattle market or anything else will go if it depends on that procedure. In our business we use a large quantity of agricultural products and the very article that we make may come under this. That is why I am talking about the definition. You are giving the Minister, or the Consultative Council, control over the products of this country. There is only one idea that makes the Bill worth talking about and that is to preserve our quota in the country that has imposed this quota on us. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. I hold that the Bill goes far beyond what is required to deal with the situation in front of the Government.

Mr. Wilson

I wish the Government had sent Senator Jameson to the Economic Conference, and I wish he had made there the speech he has made here, in the interests of producers all over the world. Whatever sins are on the heads of the Ministers —and there are a lot of grievous sins and mortal sins—I do not think they are accountable for the situation that exists all over the world, and for the system of quotas that has been introduced by the British Government in the interests of the people of England. I do not think the situation has been created by the attitude of the Free State Government.

Mr. Jameson

I did not say it had.

Mr. Wilson

Although I am always against Government interference, this Bill goes some way to meet the difficulties which will arise with quotas. I had complaints from Englishmen in the Dublin market that their Government insisted upon them getting certificates to produce pigs for the people of England. They said that they never heard of such a thing before. These men said that they had to get certificates before they would be allowed to produce pigs.

Mr. Jameson

That is what I am objecting to.

Mr. Wilson

The Government are not led by the people; they lead the people. What do we export and what markets do we require? We do not export wheat. Senator Jameson may make up his mind that there will be no exports of wheat, notwithstanding the Act the Minister got passed because there are only 15,000 or 16,000 acres grown this year. We export oats. A quota might be placed on potatoes. That is a very urgent matter because the Dublin market is over supplied at present. It would be a good thing if we could get a quota for potatoes. We export butter and cream. If the Senator is anxious about the definition of "food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product" he should put in whiskey or beer. Probably the Minister would agree. I am sure that Senator Jameson would be glad to export whiskey.

Mr. Jameson

I would rather sell it.

Mr. Wilson

If the Minister can help I am sure he will put in something reasonable. I am afraid there may be a quota on cattle. That is a serious item for this country. We must export 700,000 head of cattle every year. We have 1,000,000 calves every year of which the home trade requires 300,000, and the rest have to be exported. If the quota for cattle is fixed lower than 700,000 and if we cannot get an outlet we would have to cut the heads off the calves. There is no use producing calves when meat is so plentiful that even the poorest people in Dublin will only buy the hindquarters of lamb. The rest of the mutton is considered not to be suitable by the people. I have that information from a butcher in Dublin.

Mr. Comyn

What is done with the rest of the animal?

Mr. Wilson

The butcher told me that he could not sell the rest to the poor people and that he had to chop it up and give it to his assistants to give to the poor. What is the cause of that? Meat has become too plentiful. If that happens in the cattle trade, where will we be and where will Senator Counihan get his dividends? We will be in an awful state. Whatever quota is set up for cattle, I hope it will not be lower than 700,000 head per year. If we can get that quota, no harm will be done. Our main exports are cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, potatoes, butter, cream and eggs. There is no question of a shortage of food and there never will be in this country. We will always have to import wheat and in case we do not and are forced to substitute something for wheat, the farmers will be able to feed the people with potatoes and salt, buttermilk and eggs and I suppose we will be as well off as we were in 1846 and 1847.

Mr. Dillon

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to a few matters in connection with the pig trade. What is the quota for the export of pigs based on? In the last three months of last year, there was a surplus of pigs owing, in my opinion, to the policy of protection. Rearers and feeders began to regulate supplies until we arrived at the time when there was a shortage of supplies. In the fall of this year, when the trade for young pork opens, there will be a bigger shortage of bacon for export. Before we give the authority that has been asked for here and before the shortage becomes serious, I would like to know if the Minister proposes to regulate the quota that is anticipated.

Mr. Wilson

Eat American bacon.

Mr. Dillon

There are rumours, but they may be only rumours, as to what is proposed to be done with home-cured bacon—that there is to be a levy to maintain the export trade. It is unnecessary to point out how objectionable that would be. It would raise the price of bacon to the home consumers and make it difficult for the producers. The other point has been mentioned by Senator Wilson, that we would have arrived at such a tragic position that we would have to import bacon to fill the quota.

Mr. Wilson

A substitute.

Mr. Dillon

A serious shortage of supplies is likely to occur in the fall of this year. That would seriously affect consumers and producers here. I would like to know whether the proposed quota will be equal to that given to other Commonwealth countries or foreign countries and how the Free State would stand in the matter? I know that it is objectionable to mention the economic war and I am not keen on doing so, but I believe that we are doing a lot more harm and destroying the trade in the export of pigs by protection. I happen to be interested in the co-operative industry in Waterford and we feel that that is the outcome. I would like to know whether co-operative production and curing will be placed on the same footing as proprietary institutions. The object of co-operative methods was to do the best that was possible for the producer and, at the same time, put bacon on the market as cheaply as possible. It is to the interest of the proprietary concerns to buy as cheaply as they can and to sell as dearly, in other words, like good businessmen, to make a profit. We would like to have a little more enlightenment on these matters, and as to how the quota is to be filled having regard to the harm that has been done by protection. I suggest that serious harm has been done and that difficulties have arisen which have created uncertainty with regard to price.

Mr. Johnson

Senator Jameson gave utterance to one principle that I welcome from him and I would ask the Minister to take particular note of it. It was the doctrine that it is wrong to allow food to go out of the country so long as there is a need for it within the country. I am glad to have that doctrine from Senator Jameson, because it is one I have enunciated for a long time and have endeavoured to have effect given to. I do not think the Senator need be seriously alarmed about the dangerous menace of this measure. He built a good deal of his case upon the definition of the expression "agricultural product" but if he had gone further and had read the first two lines of Section 2 he would have found that the danger which he seemed to discern in that definition was very much minimised that "agricultural product" could mean any agricultural food or drink. He will also see that, as far as this Bill is concerned, it will only have effect on any country to which any agricultural product is usually exported which establishes a system of restriction on the exports of that product. It is only when that restriction is imposed by another country upon a particular product of this country that any action is to be taken. Supposing this Bill does not pass and supposing that the Seanad is convinced that it is an extremely dangerous measure, what is the position? A country imposing a quota can make that quota any figure it likes and the Ministry here has no power to assist the normal trade of this country in maintaining that quota. A country may export at one period of the year an unduly large amount and fill the quota in six months, thus destroying its chances at a later period of the year. The whole business of the export of this particular product may be utterly destroyed by the action of a few people who may have a particular interest or who may misunderstand their own interest by exporting excessively at a certain period and destroy the remainder of the business in that particular commodity. All the powers that the Senator seems to think are implicit in this Bill will only be applied to meet the probable consequences of the action of another country. I suggest to the Senator that unless this Bill were enacted, the dangers of the use of the quota system by other countries would be very much greater indeed than any possible risk involved in passing the Bill. It may be true that the quota system, the tariff system and the restrictions that countries throughout the world have adopted are all damaging to international trade, but it is not what the Minister or this House is asked to deal with.

Senator Wilson said that this was not an international conference. I take it we are bound to consider the situation that has been created in the absence of an international agreement. I would remind the Senator and the House that this quota idea was pressed upon the British Government by the representatives of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and in respect of the pig trade particularly to which this is immediately applicable, the British quota system is directed, if against any country at all, against Denmark and not against this country, because the Danes export to Britain 12 to 15 times the quanity of bacon this country exports to Britain. If British pig rearers and bacon curers have any interest in the matter of protecting their own industry—and anybody who has followed the course of events in Great Britain agriculturally latterly will know that they keen on increasing the supply of British bacon—they will be concerned not so much with the Irish trade as with the Danish, the Polish, the Chinese and probably the Russian. Certainly Ireland has a small proportion of the British trade in pig products. I anticipate, it is almost inevitable, I think, that in fixing quotas the British Government will take into account the imports from the various countries for the past years. Let us take the bacon trade as an illustration. Unless it is considered desirable by the bacon trade that the quota, based as it will be on the export of previous years, is to be allowed to get below that figure, then it is incumbent upon the Minister to take some action, in the interests of the trade in future years, which will maintain the level as far as possible that will be fixed by the Governments concerned. Unless the Minister has such powers as are given in this Bill it means that the organised action of the buyers in Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, or other countries is to be met by the unorganised action of the sellers of these products in this country. On the one hand you have a highly organised Governmental control for the protection and the assistance of the producers of these commodities in Great Britain and other countries, and that has to be met by organised action in the exporters' country. If that is not so, you will have the disadvantages that will always ensue from the unorganised, the inefficient and the irrational as opposed to the organised, the efficient and the rational.

That seems to me to be the essential case for this Bill, that some power should be given to the Minister to assist whatever trade is in question. It should also be remembered that it does not come into effect until some action is taken in respect of the particular product by the country concerned. If the Senator is afraid of whiskey or beer, let us say, the provisions of the Bill will only apply in case the British Government or a Continental Government apply a quota to these particular products. Even in that case I think the Senator would agree that it would be desirable that the various interests concerned in the export of these commodities should act collectively and in some kind of unison, so that one firm would not be able to destroy the interests of the whole trade. I think that there can be no question not alone of the desirability but of the necessity of a Bill such as this.

Mr. Jameson

I only mentioned these two industries in dealing with the definition part of the Bill. The rest of what I said had nothing whatever to do with whiskey.

Mr. Johnson

It is quite conceivable that they may be "quota-ed" by another country.

Mr. Jameson

What I was really speaking about had nothing to do with these industries.

Colonel Moore

I desire to mention one instance that came to my notice in relation to what Senator Johnson has stated. It happened that some time ago there was a meeting of representatives of different countries in Berlin to settle the quotas which were to be allowed into that country. These representatives had a good deal of bargaining when settling the quotas. It happened that about that time a very small quantity of butter had been sent into Germany from this country. There was no one there to look after our interests and the result was that the Free State quota was reduced to about one-fourth of the amount that had been allowed in previously. All the other nations represented there got the advantage of the arrangement, but the Free State lost three-fourths of its quota.

Mr. Counihan

Would Free State producers use the quota if they got it?

Colonel Moore

Would they eat it if they bought it? I suppose if they bought it they would eat it. That is what happened in this particular case. It shows the necessity for making some arrangements for meeting quotas when they are fixed.

Mr. Comyn

I dislike very much this system of quotas, but it appears the world is passing through a phase in which each country now regulates the import of commodities from other countries. There are quotas in operation in Germany and in France. I think that while this system of quotas continues it is essential to give the Government of this country power to control its exports. If the imports of France, Germany and other countries are controlled I think it is absolutely essential that the exports of the particular commodities from this country should be also controlled. If you refuse to pass this measure you will be depriving the Minister of the only weapon by which he can meet the quota systems of other countries and you will be leaving exporters open to the calamity of competing with each other in a controlled market without any regulation whatever of the supplies. I sympathise very much with some of the observations which Senators Jameson and Wilson have made. As I understand Senator Wilson's speech, he is not opposed to the measure. He considers it a necessity in view of the evils which are foreseen, evils resulting from the restriction of our exports to other countries. I certainly think it is a reasonable measure. It does not go beyond the necessities of the case and I think the Minister ought to get the powers which he has asked for in this measure.

Mr. D. Robinson

Senator Wilson was much concerned with regard to the exportation of cattle. I think he said it was necessary for us to get rid of 700,000 per year. Increased tillage, of course, implies the raising of large numbers of cattle. I do hope that if an agreement is made, it will be made in terms of live tons, and not in terms of numbers. I do not know the numbers of very heavy cattle that are exported, nor the numbers of lighter stores, but I should imagine there would be a margin between them. If an agreement were made in regard to live tons we would probably get rid of a very much larger number of animals in that way by finishing them off earlier. I hope that if the Government consider that it is possible to make an agreement, as far as cattle are concerned, on these lines, they will endeavour to do so.

Dr. Ryan

I think perhaps I did not make it very definite in my opening statement that we have been almost compelled to bring in this Bill if we want to carry on a trade with Great Britain or in fact if we want to export any other product to any country. Every agricultural product will soon be quotaed in Britain. One of the provisions of their regulations is that the exporting country must have machinery set up for the purposes of this quota. If the Government of the exporting country does not set up machinery, no quota will be given. We had therefore to bring in this measure to set up the machinery. Senator Jameson was glad, as he said, that this was more or less a departure from Government policy. I think that statement is not quite justified. I have always stated, both in Opposition and since I became a member of the Government, that our efforts should be directed towards maintaining our exports and, at the same time, stopping our imports. We have always felt that exports were necessary if we want to import anything. I do not see how we can pay for our imports of certain things such as steel, rubber and tea, which we cannot produce here, if we do not export something. We have said over and over again that we should be as self-supporting as possible and produce everything that we can here and that on the other hand we should increase our exports if possible. Circumstances have forced us to bring in some measure of this kind and we brought in this measure.

I should like to follow Senator Jameson's arguments a little further. I think that Senator Jameson is under the impression that I am setting up only one consultative council under the Bill. If we take the rather far-fetched example of whiskey, if some country were to quota our whiskey, say Great Britain, the first thing I would have to do would be to make an order that whiskey came under this Bill, and the next thing I would have to do would be to issue an order setting up a consultative council for whiskey. Nobody would be a member of that consultative council except those who knew something about whiskey, not those who knew something about pigs.

Mr. Wilson

We would all know something about whiskey.

Dr. Ryan

We all know a little about the trade of whiskey. Senators have said here that the Minister does not know all about these things. Of course, the Minister does not know all about all these things. In fact the less one knows about some of these things the better, but the Minister has his advisers in the Department. Furthermore he is going to set up an ad hoc consultative council on which there will be members having expert knowledge of the matter to be dealt with. He would have to set up a consultative council for Britain, another for France, and another for Germany in respect of each product. He would have to set up a consultative council for each country. These councils might consist of the same people in the case of particular products, but they would still be separate councils.

Mr. Jameson

Will the Minister say where that is in the Bill? Section 5 says that the Minister may establish by order a consultative council.

Dr. Ryan

"And so often."

Mr. Comyn

"Whenever and so often."

Mr. Jameson

Where is it set out that there shall be a series of consultative councils? That is what the Minister is envisaging and I have no doubt that that is what is meant but where is it so set out?

Dr. Ryan

That word "may" gives me a lot of trouble in these Bills because it very often means "shall." I do not know why the draftsman does not put in "shall."

Mr. Comyn

"May, when he thinks fit"—that ought to be permissive enough for the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

The intention, I can assure the Senator, is to set up a consultative council for each product.

Mr. Jameson

Senator Bagwell draws my attention to the two words at the side of the section "consultative councils" and that really answers the question.

Dr. Ryan

I might give the example of pigs. I am setting up one for bacon and another for live pigs, although the two appear very much alike. Senator Jameson also said that the Minister may, in certain eventualities, buy against a shortage. That may be, but there would be no question of leaving our home consumers short. In this matter of pigs, it might be that our pigs could go across to England free of any quota for pork or that pork carcases could go across free of quota, and the Minister might say: "I will buy a few hundred of these, which would otherwise go for pork in order to maintain the quota." There are certain cases, such as those, in which the powers might be used. Senator Counihan objects more or less to the Minister engaging in the trade but, as I have already explained, the Minister has no intention of doing so except where it is absolutely necessary to fill a quota. I got the highest approval in the other House for going into business in this case, so that I have at least some backing behind me in this.

Senator Dillon spoke about the present export of pigs and bacon. I have some figures here which go to show that although exports are down, production is not down. For instance, taking the first five months of this year as compared with the same period last year, exports of bacon are down from 87,000 cwts. to 72,000 cwts.; exports of pork are down from 49,000 cwts. to 37,000 cwts., and live pigs, in number, are down from 121,000 to 31,000. Taking the conversion figure of so much bacon and so much pork to a pig usually taken in these statistics— so far as I remember, it is something like 1.05 cwts. to a pig—the figures would be 257,000 pigs exported in 1932 and 141,000 exported in 1933. On the other hand, however, we had an import for this period of 1932 of 134,000 and, in 1933, only 1,000 so that, deducting imports from exports, our production would appear to be about 17,000 pigs higher in the first five months of this year than last year and the reports would go to show that we reached the lowest point in pig production about three or four months ago and that they are on the up-grade again.

Miss Browne

The quota will be based on these reduced exports.

Dr. Ryan

We are not sure yet. The British Government has not said on what figures they will base the quota— whether it will be on the figures for 1932 or 1931 or a period of three years —but, in any case, I think that whatever they may base the quota on, it would be high enough for us because our exports would naturally be lower as we are not importing any bacon at all. Senator Dillon also raised the question of a levy on production in order to give a bounty on exports. I have heard that referred to before, but the suggestion certainly did not emanate from either the Government or the Department. All such suggestions as that would, of course, be considered by the Pig Industries Tribunal. The suggestion was made, I believe, by some of the people in the trade and it is a suggestion that will be considered, I take it, by the Pig Industries Tribunal, but it would have nothing whatever to do with the present Bill. Senator Dillon also said that the co-operative factory in Waterford had felt adversely the protection policy of the present Government. I have a recollection of seeing the report and balance sheet of last year in the public Press and it said that they had done quite well and better than they had done in the previous year so that the balance sheet did not show the adverse circumstances the Senator speaks of.

Mr. Dillon

Their export trade is practically lost.

Dr. Ryan

That may be so, but the factory has done better as a result of protection. Senator Johnson was quite right in saying that this quota system was practically forced on Great Britain by the Dominions. At several meetings at Ottawa, the question was discussed and Great Britain offered to put tariffs on meats, butter and several other things coming into Great Britain, but the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand in particular, and some of the others also, insisted that, unless this quota system was adopted, it would be no use to them, and Great Britain finally agreed to adopt the system, so that if any Senator thinks that the other Dominions are going to get off under this and that we are not, he is mistaken. I gather that all the Dominions are being treated on the quota system just the same as Denmark or any other country. They may, perhaps, get a little more favourable treatment with regard to getting the full quota at the start off and it remains to be seen whether we are going to get it or not.

Mr. Comyn

Will we be treated as a Dominion in this case?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know whether we are going to be regarded as a Dominion or a foreign country in this case. We will have to wait and see.

Mr. Comyn

Will the Minister answer one question? Section 3, sub-section (1) says:—

Whenever an export order regulating and controlling the export of any agricultural product to a particular country is in force, the Minister may, if he considers it desirable in the public interest so to do, from time to time purchase, sell and export to such country such quantities of such product as he thinks fit.

Before the Minister makes any order under that sub-section of Section 3, will he consult the consultative council to be established under Section 5?

Dr. Ryan

An order is not made under Section 3.

Mr. Comyn

No. There is no order in Section 3. Therefore, the Minister will not have the assistance of the consultative council in regard to that?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Comyn

The Minister is going to enter into the purchase, sale and export of products. What I am particularly anxious about is whether he will have any advice except official advice.

Dr. Ryan

He will consult the consultative council in this way: The consultative council will be consulted with regard to the quotas to be allotted to the various people in the trade, and if the global quota is exceeded by these sub-allocations, the Minister does not go into the trade. Those in the trade know already—I consulted them on the point—that if an exporter does not fill his quota for a period, the Minister or the Department, in fact, would try to get some other exporter to do it. If that fails, the Minister, through some officer of the Department, will have to go out and buy bacon in order to fill the quota.

Cathaoirleach

Committee Stage for the day after to-morrow.

Mr. Douglas

I take it that where the Committee Stage is fixed so soon as that the rule with regard to time does not apply.

Cathaoirleach

That is so.

Mr. Comyn

I do not see how the Bill can be amended.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, July 26th.

Seanad Éireann debate - Tuesday, 25 Jul 1933