All the amendments for this stage of the Bill are Government amendments.
Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Bill, 1933—Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Cathaoirleach
I move:—
Section 1. After the word "animals" in line 25 to add the words "but does not include intoxicating liquor."
I second.
I think this amendment hardly requires any explanation. It was debated at great length yesterday. In drawing up this Bill we never had any intention of including intoxicating liquors. In the first place, the Department of Agriculture is not supposed to know anything about intoxicating liquors. That is a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce. If whiskey were to be quota-ed then that would be a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce, and not for my Department, and I presume the Minister for Industry and Commerce would deal with it. But meantime intoxicating liquors are exempt from this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 2:—
Section 2, sub-section (1). To delete in line 33 the word "in" and substitute therefore the word "from."
I second.
There are two reasons for this amendment. The first is that it is not considered to be good English to speak of "exporters in." The phrase should be "exporters from." The second reason is the important one. The point was raised by Senator Counihan that it might possibly be held that an exporter living outside the country could not come in under the Bill if the section were to read "exporters in," but when the section reads "exporters from," then exporters living outside can come in under the Bill. The amendment indicates our intention of giving an exporter's licence to those from outside the country if they are in the trade.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendments 3 and 4:—
3. Section 2, sub-section (1). Before the word "persons" in line 43 to insert the word "registered."
4. Section 2, sub-section (1). To add at the end of paragraph (c) the words "not exceeding the quantity such persons respectively undertake to export during such period or periods."
I second.
It is desirable, I think, that these two amendments should be taken together. We had no intention under the Bill of compelling anybody to export unless they had applied for permission to export, that is, applied for registration. Therefore, we confined paragraph (c) to registered persons. I think some Senators feared that if a person had registered and applied, say, to export 200 cattle per week that the Minister could go to him and say that he must export 1,000 cattle per week. Of course, we never intended to do that. What we do intend is that he must export the 200 cattle per week that he contracted to export. Otherwise, the whole quota arrangement would go. Because of that, paragraph (c) of the section is very important. In fact, I think I might go so far as to say that it is the operative clause of the Bill. If we get a quota from a country, then that country will insist that we should fill the quota as the British Act says "within reasonable tolerance." That means that, say, a 5 per cent. variation would be allowed if we got 5,000 cattle. They would allow you to go 5 per cent. above or below the quota each week, but the total would have to work out at the end of the year at 5,000. In the same way, when we sub-allocate our quota each exporter must stick to his sub-allocation also "within reasonable tolerance." If he does not, of course, it will mean that our quota has not been filled for the period and immediately the country that we are exporting to will tell us that our quota is reduced for all time to the level to which it has dropped. Because of that our exporters must be kept up to their contract. With these two amendments the exporter is protected. He must be registered. We cannot compel him to export any number of cattle or quantity of meat greater than what he undertakes to export during the period. The word "undertake" there has a legal meaning; what he has signed an undertaking to do. When an exporter applies for a quota we send him back a form asking him to sign it and to have it witnessed. He is asked to undertake to export so many animals or so much meat during each period. Having given that undertaking, we are taking power here to compel him to stick to his undertaking during the period.
Amendments 3 and 4 agreed to.
I move amendment 5:—
Section 5, sub-section (1). To delete in line 55 the word "may" and to substitute therefor the word "shall."
I second.
I was asked yesterday about the consultative councils and I said that, so far as I knew the law, the word "may" in the sub-section means "shall." I have since seen the draftsman and he has confirmed me in that view. But he says, in order to remove all doubt, the House can insert the word "shall" instead of the word "may."
May I suggest that it is rather futile to pass this amendment, if we look at the words that follow "whenever and so often as he thinks fit"? The section will now read: "The Minister shall, whenever and so often as he thinks fit," set up a consultative council. What does that mean, but that the Minister may set up a consultative council? I suggest that we ought not to make ourselves look foolish by insisting on an amendment of this kind.
Senator Comyn explained yesterday that the words "whenever and so often as he thinks fit" referred to time, and I believe the Senator was correct in that argument. Personally, I do not feel very strong in arguing points of law.
Neither do I. I think that any commonsense reader would say, taking the phrase as a whole, that it means "may."
I take it that the Minister is bound by what he says— that he means "shall." Senator Johnson thinks that if you take the phrase as a whole it means "may." I think that if we adopt the Minister's amendment, then we shall be bound to get the consultative council. I think the Minister will be bound by what he has said as well as by what is in the Act.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think the insertion of the word "shall" will do any harm.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 6:—
Section 5, sub-section (3). To delete in lines 8-9 the words "retain his membership during the pleasure of the Minister" and to substitute therefor the words "unless he previously dies or resigns, retain his membership for two years only from the date of his nomination, but shall be eligible for renomination."
I second.
This amendment is introduced to meet a point that was raised by Senator Counihan. The wording now is exactly the same as that in the Agricultural Act of 1931, in which there is a section dealing with consultative councils.
Amendment agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
That concludes the Report Stage. I take it the House is agreed to take the Final Stage now.
Agreed.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Before the Bill is finally passed I wish to say a word with regard to the general outlook and as to what this Bill means to the country. I think some expression of opinion should go from this House on these matters. The best informed opinion in the country believes that if a competent, honest Government had been in power here it would have made a good trading agreement with Great Britain, and that this quota system would never have been applied to us. That is at any rate a strong possibility. In this morning's newspapers figures are published which reflect the great decline in the trade of this country during the past year. In fact one may say that they are staggering figures. The trade of this country for the year ending June, 1933, as compared with the year ending June 1932, has declined by over £27,000,000. The cattle trade alone has declined by about 50 per cent. It is highly probable that the quota for this country will be based on the figures for last year: on the number of animals exported and the quantity of produce exported. If that is so, and it is almost certain that it will be so, then the outlook for the country is terribly black indeed, blacker than it has ever been in its history. The people ought be made realise what it means to them.
Cathaoirleach
We are dealing now, Senator, with a quota system that may be imposed by some other country. This Bill proposes to meet that situation. I submit that you cannot discuss the whole question of the economic war on this Bill.
I am not going to discuss the economic war. Take farmers who have a large number of cattle at the present time. At present they can sell them at half their value or less, but when the quota system comes into operation many of these people will certainly be left with a number of cattle which they canot sell at all. How is the Minister going to meet that situation? I think attention should be called to this so that the people may realise what is facing them. At present they can sell their cattle at some price, however unsatisfactory that price may be, but when this quota comes on, then a large number of the cattle in the country cannot be sold at all.
In consequence of your ruling, a Chathaoirligh, it will not be possible for me to say very much on this stage of the Bill. I have considered where all these quota regulations as well as the different Acts passed by the present Government are going to lead to. The Minister is taking dictatorial powers in this Bill to deal with almost every class of producer in the country, and to control him, and to deal with and control every trader in the country. As mentioned by Senator Jameson, there is no record of a Government in any country, outside Russia, taking such dictatorial powers as the Minister is taking in this Bill. I am afraid that the whole policy of the Government is leading up to a dictatorship.
Is this in order?
Cathaoirleach
It is in order, because the Senator is taking objection to the power given to the Minister under this Bill. He is perfectly entitled to do that.
I am afraid these quotas will not be very much required in a short time. With our declining trade, and seeing what has happened to the pig trade, I think the same thing will happen to the cattle trade, and that the quotas will not be very much sought after in a year or two if this continues. I see by to-day's papers that our cattle trade for the first six months of 1932 amounted to £4,974,808 and for the first six months of this year it was reduced by more than half, to £2,000,000. The only way that the farmer will be able to save himself from loss is by not producing and at the present time farmers are beginning to adopt that policy.
I am prompted to refer to Senator Miss Browne's remarks because she assured us that this Bill or nothing of the kind would be required but for certain events which took place. She was referring to the imposition of retaliatory duties. I think if the Senator made herself a little more acquainted with the circumstances, without prejudice, she would understand that, even though the Treaty of 1921 resulted in the setting up of a Government here with fiscal powers, if, in fact, the Free State part of Ireland had remained under the Act of 1920, as Northern Ireland has done, we would be in exactly the same position, because it so happens that it is intended to apply a quota in regard to bacon and pig products to Northern Ireland, even though Northern Ireland has not imposed retaliatory duties upon Great Britain.
Is that certain!
It is perfectly true.
I was not giving my own opinion. I was giving the opinion of those who are just as well informed as the Senator.
I intend in a very few words to take up a different attitude from that taken by Senator Miss Browne. I should like to congratulate all concerned on the manner in which what appeared to be a nasty crux yesterday has been got over. It only goes to prove what can be accomplished by a give-and-take spirit on both sides, free from Party and personal bitterness. That the crux has been got over proves that it would be a great factor in this country if, when a crux arises, the same spirit of give-and-take were displayed. I should like to congratulate the Minister on his excellent handling of this Bill and, in particular, on the way he dealt with the master minds at the conference held yesterday evening. There must be a great deal in the Minister when he was able to win over to his side a financial expert like Senator Jameson, a man of such clear and decisive vision as Senator Douglas, a man so broadminded and having such a great deal of natural commonsense as Senator Wilson, a man of the pertinacity and "stickability" of our friend, Senator Counihan, and, above all, a man with the philosophy of Senator O'Hanlon. When the Minister can do that, the least we can do is to present him with a sprig of four-leaved shamrock. I am sorry that Senator Miss Browne has left, as we might by special request have asked her to pin the four-leaved shamrock on the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.