Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Mar 1935

Vol. 19 No. 19

Public Business. - Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) (Amendment) Bill, 1935.—Second Stage.

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

The Principal Act in this case was passed in 1933. It was passed in order to enable the Government of the Irish Free State to regulate the export of bacon in the first instance to comply with the quota regulations that were imposed by Great Britain. It also, of course, gave power to regulate any other article that might be quota-ed by Great Britain and it practically was limited to trade with Great Britain, on account of certain words which I will refer to later. The British Government at this time laid it down that a quota could only be taken up by a country which had provided certain machinery for dealing with the quota and that was why the Bill became necessary at the time it was brought in. Now, the Principal Act has certain words which, as I say, practically confine the application of the Act to trade with Great Britain, and confined the application of the Act also to commodities which formed a regular trade between this country and the country which applies these restrictions. Now, the amending Act becomes necessary for other reasons besides these. In the first place, the definition of agricultural products in the principal Act has been questioned. Although not questioned seriously in court, it has been questioned by certain people, whether in the definition bacon, butter or meat is covered. The definition in the Principal Act defining agricultural products says that they shall include "any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partially manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and skins of animals but does not include intoxicating liquor." It is held by some at any rate that a product of horticulture or agriculture would not include live stock; that the definition would only include grain and such things growing from the soil and that we are not really covered for live stock and for bacon which the Bill was primarily drafted to cover. It is held, however, by others that bacon and meat are covered by the Act in that definition but the amending Bill commences by amending the definition of agricultural products and makes it quite plain, in order that there may be no doubt about it.

The second point which is dealt with in this amending Bill is this: that in the Principal Act we can only apply the Act where we had been carrying on regular trade with the country which applied restrictions. Now we can also apply it where the Government of the Free State makes an agreement with any other Government with regard to trade, and that is particularly necessary, as a consequence of certain agreements that have been made. I shall give two examples. In the German agreement we export a certain amount of agricultural products to Germany; a certain percentage will be cattle, a certain percentage eggs, a certain percentage butter, but there is 15 per cent. left for other agricultural products. Now, it is absolutely necessary that we should have power to regulate and say what goes out in that 15 per cent. We can, for instance, send out wool, hides, horses or meat meal as soon as our new factory is going in Roscrea, and a certain list of things like that to fill up the 15 per cent. But it might conceivably be very inconvenient to allow the whole 15 per cent. to be taken up by one exporter, so that the amending Bill would be necessary to give power to regulate the exports of this country so as to divide up that 15 per cent. between different products which we are anxious to get rid of for the time being. Another example I can cite is this: we have got a certain agreement with Spain to take eggs. Last year we had an agreement but we had no power to limit that export of eggs or to limit the numbers who would export the eggs, and the result was that when we started exporting these eggs to Spain—and when we were paying the same bounties on eggs going to Spain as to the British market—three or four exporters tried to grab the market. They cut the prices against one another in Spain, and the result was that we got nothing out of it. We got only 6d. or 9d.—it is very hard to say—in the Spanish market, less than if they had kept up the prices. The only way we can deal with that is definitely to bring in the Quota Act and register exporters to Spain and give a certain quantity to each of the exporters who are registered. In that way there will be no necessity for this cutting-prices competition between them and we could get for this country, at any rate —whether we get a profit for ourselves out of the transaction or not—better prices for the producer. We could not have applied the original Act to Germany or Spain because we had not in either of these cases been carrying on a regular trade in the commodities mentioned. Therefore, the Act did not apply.

The only other point is that there is power to transfer the functions of the Minister for Agriculture to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The reason for it is this: The Minister for Industry and Commerce is dealing with certain trades in all other respects, and the Minister for Agriculture does not deal with them at all. For instance, take the case of wool exporters. The Minister for Agriculture has nothing to do with wool exporters. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has certain dealings with them, and it would be better that he should deal with them in this respect also.

I was asked in the Dáil why could I not make an Order and let the Minister for Industry and Commerce then carry out the administration of that particular Order. That cannot be done under the Ministers and Secretaries Act as it at present stands, because everything would have to be done by an officer of the Minister for Agriculture. Therefore, the whole administration of the Order would have to be done in the Department of Agriculture. The alternative is to have the thing done in the way that is set out here in this amending Bill. That is, in the case of any particular product exported to any particular country where the Minister for Industry and Commerce should deal with it instead of the Minister for Agriculture, the Executive Council can make an order transferring the powers which the Minister for Agriculture has under this Bill to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He has the same powers and functions then as the Minister for Agriculture to carry out business under that item. These are the only points which arise under the amending Act.

I should like to raise one or two points, but not by way of opposition. The Minister is taking power to regulate agricultural exports. It strikes me that as he is going to regulate the quantity of agricultural commodities to be exported he must have some clear viewpoint as to what the aim is regarding agricultural production. It would be satisfactory if we could have from the Minister an indication of what exactly his view is with regard to the quantities which it is desirable farmers should commit themselves to produce. Our cattle population is round about 4,000,000. What is the Minister's view with regard to the future of the cattle population? To what point should that population go? He took steps last year to subsidise the killing of calves and to export hides. What is the Department's view as to the point at which the cattle population should be maintained approximately? With regard to dairying, poultry and pig products, what production is the Department aiming at there? Apparently the Minister has a definite view as to what foreign markets will absorb. Recently the Minister made a statement, to which I alluded on a previous occasion, indicating that in his view we had practically reached saturation point in the production of poultry products, and that it would be inadvisable to increase the quantities available for the markets, either at home or abroad. It is very difficult for farmers to know where they stand in this matter. After reading the Minister's statement, I listened the same evening to a statement which was broadcast by a member of his Department urging greater productivity in commodities, which the Minister seemed to satisfy his audience we were producing to the full.

It is essential, with all these regulations of agricultural productivity, that the Department should give farmers its viewpoint. I do not accept the Minister's aim. I have stressed the view that rather than be prepared to adapt ourselves to a position that apparently outsiders wish to force upon us, I should like to create the situation in which there was a possibility of greater production of agricultural commodities, and to force on people outside the view that we had rights with regard to the consumption and sale of these commodities. Between the two views we ought to be able to get the soundest policy to pursue. As far as I can see, we are going to get into a dead-end if, on one side, we limit cattle production and on the other side limit bacon, butter and eggs. By such a policy we will not be able to utilise the land to the full. The Minister and his Department know what we are heading for, and they should have some calculations approximately as to what our cattle stocks are to be maintained at; what our pig population is to be, and beyond what point they think productivity is going to be a loss. The same applies to butter. I am raising this question seriously because it is in the interests of farmers, so that they will be able to look ahead. Policy cannot be changed in a month. Good farmers know quite well if they are going to till eight, ten or 15 acres, and what part of their farms they are going to till. As they have to look a long distance ahead, they should be helped by the Department giving all the information it can give them. It would be well if we could have the information now or at some other time.

Some Senators stated earlier that this was once a free trade country, but that it was not so now. Any Bill that comes before this House shows how far we have departed from free trade. This Bill is evidently designed to enable the Minister to carry out bargains with other countries that take our agricultural products. Of course, that is the actual outcome of the present Government's policy in restricting imports from practically all countries that we might export to. Therefore it is necessary for the Minister to get control of all our agricultural products to enable him to carry out bargains which he finds it judicious to make with other countries. Probably the Minister for Industry and Commerce is arranging to take the products of some of these countries with special arrangements as to their taxation. Notice should be given to people so that they will not blunder into producing what they cannot sell.

Coming to big industries like the cattle industry or the production of potatoes, we are going to hand over to one Minister power to make regulations, of which the community cannot possibly be kept aware. He may have to issue orders which may put many people out of business, which they had a perfect right to do. Now one individual may find it necessary to say to them: "You cannot sell that,""You are not to produce that,""You must do so-and-so." The amount of any particular product to be exported from the Free State is to be regulated. I confess that I have always been a free trader. When I see that an individual is to be given power over what is to be produced in the way of agriculture, power beyond anything that the producers can know about it, it makes me very alarmed as to what eventually is going to become of agriculture.

Just look at some of the things that the Minister is being given power to do. He is to register the persons engaged in the export of agricultural products, and nobody is to be allowed to export if he is not registered. The Minister is to control exports and to restrict exports to other countries that he chooses to mention. He is to prohibit the export of any specific description of produce. The producers are to have nothing to do with the matter. The Minister has power to tell people they are not to produce certain products or to send them to certain countries with which some of our citizens might previously have had a good business. The Minister is being given power to put an end to an industry and the individual is to be given no chance of making a case. Take an instance, where the Minister can prohibit the export of products to any person without authorisation. We have had experience of licences. I do not know that there are many citizens in the Free State who approve of licensing. I know that along certain lines licences cannot be got for the export of cattle. In this Bill we are extending the control over agricultural production by the Minister. If a person does not get the permission of the Minister he has no chance of getting on with his business.

The Bill states that from time to time quota orders will be issued indicating the quantities of products that may be exported. The position is to be examined by the Minister. If he makes a bargain with another country he will see what effect that is going to have on our agricultural production. What sort of power are we placing in the hands of an individual? It means that a person must be on a licensing list. I know one country in the world where if a Minister were given such powers he would be a wealthy man. Of course in this country we are all above that kind of thing. But, you are laying the ground-work in such Bills as this for what has been used in other countries for private benefit. I wonder whether this country is going to get any benefit out of these bargains, or if it is worth while giving up our liberty, as is being done in the Bill. We are not regulating alternative exports to other countries that might from time to time be permitted. Then, finally, there is the usual provision that if there is any infringement of the orders made by the Minister the offenders may be prosecuted and made liable on summary conviction to the prescribed punishments, etc. So far as I can read it that is what this Bill is going to do. So far as the inhabitants of this country are concerned, the Bill gives one an idea of how far we have departed, not, mind you, from free trade but from freedom to trade at all, or to produce at all. Of course, the Bill is a necessary adjunct to the policy of the Government. We are putting taxation on every single thing that comes into the country, and in order to try to keep up our exports we have to make special bargains with special countries outside. I suppose it is true to say that if we do not give the Minister the powers that he asks for, he will not be in a position to go to one of those countries and say: "I have all the agricultural products of the Free State in my hands; I can stop our producers from sending them into your country or I can arrange that they will only send in a certain quantity. I can give you an undertaking that no more than a specified quantity will go into your country from my country." That is the position the Minister is going to be in and, probably, it is the position which he has to be in. All this comes from the idea that you must, nowadays, go in for complete protection, quotas, and all the rest. That is the system which is virtually killing every country in the world to-day.

Even though we have to give this Bill a Second Reading, it is well, I think, that we should understand what we are doing, and where the ordinary producer of agricultural products in the Free State stands. Whether this Bill represents what one calls freedom, I do not know. It is what is in operation in a great many countries on the Continent. In Great Britain it is not done in this way. There the representatives of industry go to the Government and point out how their products must be protected. The question is argued out and debated, and then the Government say: "Well, we will give you protection against that particular country that will enable you to establish your industry there." That represents a totally different policy to what is being done here. I do not believe that any Minister in Great Britain has the right to go to another country and say that he has the power to stop its production: to make the sort of arrangement which this Bill gives our Ministers the power to make. In present circumstances it may be necessary for the Seanad to pass this Bill, but eventually I think it will be found to put a terrible pressure on our agricultural community. Looking ahead, I should say that under it they will find it impossible to make a decent living for years to come. If we got a Minister who was a bit of a fool and did not understand the thing properly, he might, with the powers of this Bill, inflict untold injury on the whole of our agricultural community.

Bhí iongantas mór orm nuair a chualaidh mé na smaointe a nochtuigh an Seanadóir atá thar éis labartha, ag cur síos ar an mBille seo. Ba chóir agus ba cheart go mbeadh eolas ar leith ag an Seanadóir ar ghnóthaí tráchtála agus, ar an ábhar sin, ba chóir go dtuigfeadh sé go maith gur le congnamh a thabhairt do lucht díolta stuic agus earraí as an tír seo ins na margaí thar lear atá na rialacha atá ceaptha sa mBille seo, agus an cead agus an chomhairle atá tugtha ann don Aire Talmhaíochta. Ba cheart go dtuigfeadh an Seanadóir freisin nach bhfuil, agus nach raibh ariamh, na margaí thar lear faoi n-a gcomhairle ar fad ag muintir na hEireann agus go raibh saor-chead ag muintir na dtíortha a bhfuil na margaí sin suidthe ionta rogha féin de rialachaí a dhéanamh ina dtaobh.

Is fear é an Seanadóir Pádhraic Baxter a raibh meas mór agam air tamall mar gheall ar na smaointí a bhí aige faoi shaoirseacht na hEireann. Tógadh an Seanadóir imeasc daoine gnaoidhiula Chondae an Chábháin agus bhí smaointí cearta aige i dtaobh na tíre agus i dtaobh feilmeárachta gur dhealuigh sé é féin amach o n-a chuid daoine féin agus gur tharraing sé chuige féin smaointí nár fheil dó féin nó don tír. Tá sé fánach ag daoine sa tSeanad labhairt agus a rá go mb'ionann margadh Shasana trí bliana o shoin agus mar a bhí sé le linn aimsir an chogaidh mhóir agus na blíanta goiride ina dhiaidh sin. Bhí margadh Shasana, cómh fada is bhí tairbhe ann do mhuintir na tíre seo, ag dul ar gcúl i ndiaidh a chéile. Le os cionn deich mbliana agus ar ais arís sa gcaoi a raibh sé ní fheicfe aon duine beo iniu é, mara dtaga cogadh mór eile ina mbeidh náisiúin na hEórpe uilig in éadan a chéile. Ar an ábhar sin caithfe daoine breathnú a dhéanamh ar an saol mar atá sé agus gníomh a dhéanamh dá réir. Má bhaineann feilméaraí na tíre leas as na slighthe nua atá ceaptha ag an Rialtas dóibh beidh siad le linn ama i ndán a theacht i ndeisiúlacht arís. Ina chéann sin beidh maith agus tairbhe san athrú don tír, mar bhéarfa an t-athrú sin bealach do níos mó daoine slí mhaireachtála a bhaint amach as talamh na hEireann.

It is now after seven o'clock and I move that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I wonder would members of the House consider whether it would not be more convenient to finish this Bill to-night?

If we had some indication as to the number of Senators who desire to speak on the Bill, perhaps we could arrange to sit on and conclude this Bill.

Issues of fundamental importance have been raised and therefore I think the Minister should be given ample time to reply. As the House is meeting to-morrow I think we had better adjourn now.

I think that we should finish the Bill to-night and then adjourn until to-morrow.

In view of the fact that the House is meeting to-morrow, I do not see why we should depart from our usual practice and sit on late to-night. Does the Minister object to our leaving the Bill over until to-morrow?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The feeling of the House appears to be that we should now adjourn.

Agreed.

Debate adjourned to Thursday, 28th March, 1935.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.15 p.m. until Thursday, 28th March, 1935, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share