Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Mar 1935

Vol. 19 No. 20

Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) (Amendment) Bill, 1935—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I agree with what Senator Jameson said with reference to the dangers of the licensing system, which is embodied in this Bill and in many other Bills. This system means that issues of great financial importance are decided by the Minister or the Minister's officers without the safeguards that ordinarily attach to the decisions of financial importance they have been accustomed hitherto to make. For instance, when contracts are being entered into, a choice has to be made between one firm and another, but generally the amount of the tender will decide that issue. When the question is one of the actual expenditure of money, there is the safeguard of the audit system. In this licensing system, which involves issues of financial importance, there is none of these types of safeguard. Everything really depends on the discretion and integrity of the official concerned, and, to some extent, on the possibility of a big row being kicked up and exposure taking place if anything unjustifiable be done. There are bound to be a great many border-line cases, and if the system continues to be carried out on a large scale with the amount of privacy that at present attaches to it, one would fear that a certain demoralisation or growth of unsatisfactory practices would arise. Although this Bill deals with licensing only in a very small way, I think it right to take the opportunity of asking the Minister whether the Government does not consider that there should be a very wide measure of publicity if this licensing system is to continue. I do not say that the licences given to each person and the quantity covered by the licences should be published in Iris Oifigiúil, but I think it should be possible for any interested member of the public to get any information he requires in regard to licences which may be issued under this Bill. Certain administrative difficulties might arise out of that measure of publicity, but these difficulties would, I believe, smooth themselves out. The extra claims and complaints which would arise would be settled and a sort of routine would be established. Possibly, after a time, there would be no more difficulty in administering that portion of the Bill with a wider measure of publicity than there is in administering other measures under conditions which make it difficult for a person who desires to make a complaint to get the necessary data.

I think that this matter is important because I cannot see an end to this system of licensing If we were finished with the economic war, there would be a great deal less of it but, as the world is developing at present, it seems as if there will be, for as far ahead as we may care to look, a system of restriction of imports. We are not going to get back to the freedom of trade which existed before the European War. If we settled the present dispute, many of the existing restrictions would disappear, but some of them would remain. It would be necessary to regulate exports, and the regulation of exports means, as Senator Jameson has pointed out, a certain regulation of imports. That sort of work is of the greatest financial and economic importance. If it continues on any considerable scale, it will touch the lives of great numbers of workers and other citizens. The whole question of procedure and machinery requires, in my opinion, a great deal of study.

In connection with the Estimates, it was pointed out that we have a great increase in the number of officials. I am not speaking from that point of view. I am thinking of the many undesirable factors that will arise if this matter is dealt with in a bureaucratic spirit and according to bureaucratic methods. I have as high an appreciation as anybody of the integrity, ability and zeal of the Civil Service, but I do think that, in these matters, it is undesirable that the point of view of the civil servant and the Minister only should be effective. I think that it is necessary to develop some sort of system which will identify more closely with the administration the people who are engaged in the industries affected by the restrictions or the representatives of those people. It may not be possible to do more now than set up a number of advisory committees, but I do think that it is undesirable that this system, which I call, for short, a licensing system, should be administered with the amount of privacy with which it is now administered or that it should be carried on, so to speak, in the dark. Taking the long view, it is, I think, undesirable that it should be run by departments without any direct, constant and well-regulated system of consultation with the people engaged in the industries affected. It is all very well to call in a deputation or representative group from time to time, but something of a more permanent character than that is requisite. I do not know whether the Minister would, on this Bill, which is, after all, an amending Bill, be prepared to consider amendments on the question of publicity or on the question of affording information with regard to licences. Perhaps he would tell us—this matter was put to the Government in the Seanad before—if the Government are inclined to modify the view which they originally had with regard to the question of publicity as affecting the issue of licences.

We have had the advantage of a very interesting and varied discussion on this Bill. Nobody can complain of the spirit in which the matter has been discussed by our friends on the opposite side or by Senators on this side of the House. With regard to the speech we heard last evening from Senator Jameson. nobody could say but that he was extremely courteous and considerate to everybody who differed from him. Having said that of his address, I think that it leaves me free to say something more by way of criticism. The Senator frankly declared that he always has been, is now and is likely to remain a free trader. In his college days, he was probably impregnated with the doctrines of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. He has not forgotten those doctrines.

It is quite likely that he has never had to bother about economic problems ever since and that his reading on these subjects stopped short with the cessation of his college days. But it is interesting to find somebody who is still a free trader. It is very interesting to find that. Everybody who professed Liberalism, or friendship for the people, or interest in the masses in England, at one time was a free trader, from the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws down to very recent times. It is obvious why they were free traders, being an industrial, and not an agricultural country. It was obvious in another sense, because they were a great carrying country who carried the produce of the world to their own country and became the distributors for Western Europe for the products of half the world or a great deal more. Therefore, they were free traders and they remained so from the repeal of the Corn Laws until comparatively modern times, that is, professedly free traders, but whether students of economics remained free traders or not depended upon whether they stopped short with reading John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith, or whether they kept themselves up to date by reading the doctrines enunciated by more modern economists than those distinguished men. Anybody who has studied economics can trace the history of protection. First, by following it through the advocates of free trade and then by the advocates of out-and-out protection. Now we have come to this stage: we have protection in England; we have everything that is indicative of protection from the free trade or dumping methods of other countries that have an excess of products over those required for their own consumption, but still, the learned Senator confesses himself a free trader. I would like to follow him, of course, in his views, in trying to understand them, and I am sure a great number of Senators would agree with him in some of his conclusions, if it was possible to do so, but when I listened to his ideas and reflected on them, I could not fail to remember once seeing a play called "Rip van Winkle." It was described as the adventures of a person who fell asleep and remained asleep for a great number of years and one day woke up suddenly and went out and saw great changes in the streets, all of which amazed him. I have been thinking since that if, instead of waking up at that period the character remained asleep until the present day, and heard telephone bells and loud-speakers and radios and all the rest of the things we are now familiar with, what would he think of the free trade doctrines that were prevalent when he fell asleep and remained prevalent for a good deal of the time he was asleep? Therefore, though we must all be grateful and very much appreciate the courtesy and spirit in which the remarks of the Senator were addressed to the House, I regret that, having made that comment, I cannot agree with most of his other conclusions. I come to my friend Senator Baxter, who addressed the House on this subject with great skill, as he always does. I endeavoured to follow him as well as I could—I hope I have followed him correctly—because I would not like to do him an injustice in any criticism I make upon his remarks. He has always stood forth, and very properly, as the advocate of the claims and of the wrongs and injuries of a class. He seems to think that he alone is privileged to speak for that class and that nobody in the House is interested in the welfare of that class except himself. He may be erroneous in coming to that conclusion. There may be on this side of the House people who are just as interested in the welfare of that class as Senator Baxter or any other person on the other side of the House.

I have been endeavouring to follow the ideas of Senator Baxter, and in the first place, I would wish to point out for his correction that this is not a Bill to limit production—it is a Bill to control the quota of distribution, an entirely distinct and different thing, and when the Senator says that it is due to those in the agricultural industry, if the Minister wants to get this measure through the House, that they should get an assurance from him as to the amount of agricultural produce that would be required for the supply and the filling up of quotas of exports that that is a draught upon the prophetic powers of any Minister.

I think it is without precedent. Having said that that ought to be done by the Minister, he stops and leaves it at that. I was wondering whether he would indicate what penalty or punishment should be imposed on the Minister who professed to be able to prophesy that there would be a dearth or a plenitude of agricultural produce and who called upon people in the industry to regulate their operations for 12 months by his prophecies. There are tipsters of all kinds who advertise their wares in various papers, I am told, but that is a form of tipping never required, as far as I know, from any Minister. However, it has the novelty of my friend's suggestion and I hope the Minister will consider it and deal with it in his reply.

There is one other matter which the Senator forgot and it is this. It is an elementary truism in economy that price is regulated by demand and supply, assuming that things are normal. Of course, it is possible that price would not be regulated by demand and supply if anything went wrong with the people who were in control of purchasing, but I think this is out of the question in this country. It is impossible that such circumstances should exist in this country but I will adopt the principle as being, I believe, that price is regulated by demand and supply. Now, if it is regulated by demand and supply, what I would like to know is this: how is it prejudicial to the interests of the section of the community on whose behalf Senator Baxter speaks, that the demand for agricultural produce should be increased, duplicated or triplicated perhaps, by the efforts of a Minister in seeking agreements with other countries? I would illustrate my point. How does it strike anybody as being prejudicial to the production of beef, say, if the Minister were able to make arrangements by which products could be exported to countries who had bound themselves to take 600 or 700 cattle a week out of this country? Is that prejudicial? My friend the Senator, who addressed the House with such clearness, did not explain how that was prejudicial, but he seemed to think that this method of quotas was mysterious, and, that having said that there was something mysterious about it, you could leave it at that.

I should like to emphasise this on behalf of those whom my friend the Senator represents, that there is nothing more in the interests of the farmers than the establishment of those quotas with foreign countries that the Minister is trying to secure. In other words, there could not be anything more in the interests of the farmers than to prevent foreign countries clearing out thousands or millions of money year after year and buying nothing from us. But if, on the other hand, the Minister for Agriculture makes a tour of people who are dealing with this country and says to them: if you want to sell £1,000 worth or £10,000 worth of your raw materials in this country, you must buy something of a value corresponding to what you send in. I say that it is more in the interests of the farmers and the agricultural community than sitting down and doing nothing, which was the policy adopted in this country from 1922 to 1932, and when the Minister, who is a person who knows something about agriculture, takes up this subject and deals with it in a practical and reasonable way that would commend itself to anybody outside politics, all he gets is the captious criticism of people who say that the proposals of the Minister should be scanned with the closest scrutiny. Nobody can complain with what Senator Blythe has said, though one might be disposed to ask after his expression of apprehension as to the consequence of issuing licences, what Senator Blythe fears? His suggestions are, however, worthy of consideration and I am sure will receive it, though in the matter of dealing with these licences, it will be done with the greatest care and, if necessary, the opinion of a committee of producers interested in the particular article should be considered when issuing licences to purchasers of those particular articles. That is a matter which, I merely venture to suggest, is worthy of the earnest consideration of the Minister, and I am sure it will receive that consideration. There is one other matter I would like to say a word on. I have heard it in this debate and in some other debates. Some people seem to be obsessed with it because they bring it into every debate, like the man in the novel who brought the head of Charles I into everything he was writing. There are some people who think, apparently, that they would experience great difficulty in changing the method of farming from the practice or method they have carried on to a different practice, owing to the apprehension that if they employed labour the labourers would refuse to work or pretend to work or both. The only answer or comment I will make on that is: if they have that apprehension as to the fact that labourers will refuse or having promised to work, will not work, I will say these words to them: "try them; give them a chance." They are entitled to live as well as people in better circumstances.

Is this in order?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not strictly in order, but seeing that other Senators have wandered, I am allowing it.

This was dealt with on the Central Fund Bill.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have been considering for some time the course which this debate has taken and I have got the original measure. Certainly, this would be very appropriate on the original measure, but seeing that the Bill before the House aims only to clarify a definition in the original measure, and to transfer the functions of the Minister for Agriculture to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the debate has wandered somewhat. However, I did not stop Senator Lynch because I did not stop Senator Baxter. I was very much interested also in Senator Jameson's speech, which was on the general principles of the Bill.

On a point of explanation, may I say that I took it that I was quite within my rights and also in order in referring to the matter to which I did refer, namely, the question of agricultural products in connection with which the Minister is taking power in this amending measure? I did not introduce any matter other than that. That was the point I made, and Senator Lynch had either misunderstood it or he is trying to misrepresent me.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is another matter. The Senator is quite right in regard to a portion of what he has said. What happened in regard to this measure is this: there was in the original Act of 1933 a definition of agricultural product, and Senator Jameson said nothing until I pointed out to him that agricultural product might include whiskey and stout. Then he got this amendment put in: "but does not include intoxicating liquor." It was found in the working of the Act that that definition was not sufficiently comprehensive. The Minister has now come to the House to ask it to extend the definition so that agricultural product might include cattle, cream, milk or things of that kind. However, the debate has proceeded over a rather wide field, and I do not want to stop Senator Lynch at this stage.

I was nearly finished. All this has been scarcely worth the time and energy expended by the learned Senator in asking for a ruling as to whether what I was saying was relevant or irrelevant. I was very much affected by the observations made by some Senators who spoke on this yesterday about the grave apprehensions felt as to difficulty that will be experienced in bringing about the change that will be necessary to give effect to what the Minister proposes in order to fill a particular quota. To do that it will be necessary for people to change their present methods of farming. Some members seem to have very grave apprehensions about that. These are matters that have been discussed a good deal here, and I am not going to throw the apple of discord amongst my friends. But I do say that when an amendment comes before the House from a Minister which, on the face of it, appears to be reasonable and moderate, and that when, in discussing it, my friends roamed into all sorts of fields and discussed various topics I, unfortunately, was induced to follow them. I apologise to the House for having done so, but I offer by way of explanation that I was misled by the so-called arguments to which the House was treated by some of my friends last evening and to-day.

Under ordinary conditions nobody is in favour of having any more restrictions on trade than are absolutely necessary, but at the present time, both here and in the country which is our principal surplus market, things are not normal. They are abnormal. I think that also holds true of the potential market which the Minister is now trying to develop, and for that reason this measure is justified. However, I would like the Minister to consider if he would not agree to put a time limit to this measure, say of five years. If at the end of that time, a greater degree of normality had not come about, then the measure could be re-enacted.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

It might be appropriate to do that in connection with the Principal Act. Is the Senator suggesting that there should be a time limit to the Principal Act or merely to this measure?

If it were necessary at the end of the five year period this measure could be re-enacted or, possibly, you could have a co-ordinating measure of the Principal Act and of this Bill.

I imagine there will be many measures of this kind before the end of five years so that if the Senator's suggestion is adopted the co-ordinating legislation will be of considerable magnitude. I think that the argument of Senator Jameson was directed against the whole principle of regulating exports.

That might be sound as an argument in a world where freedom of traffic prevails, but in present circumstances, unless it is to be decided that there should be no agreements made with other countries regarding trade, some such measure as this is, I think, imposed on the Ministry. The facts and the circumstances prevailing make it inevitable that some such legislation as this shall be enacted, but I am in general agreement with Senator Blythe in his desire that the system of licensing and of giving permissions to certain people, and of prohibitions to other people, in respect to these trading operations should be limited as much as possible, and whatever is done by way of prohibition and licence should be made as public as possible.

I notice that in the amending clause —Section 2 of the Bill—it speaks of specific articles of any specific description, of giving the Minister power regarding specific persons and specific articles and of prohibitions and permissions which are a considerable extension of the powers in the original Act. That is probably necessary in virtue of the new purpose which this Bill is intended to serve, but it emphasises the need for publicity and of making clear to the public, not merely the rival firms concerned, but generally, what is being done by the Ministry under the powers that are given.

I want to touch on a matter that will probably arise on another Bill: the fact that the Orders that are to be made under this Bill and under the existing Acts are to be made by the Executive Council or, in this case, by the Minister. They are required to be laid on the Table and, during the next subsequent 21 sitting days the Oireachtas has power to annul any Order made. I think it is very desirable in this group of enactments that the powers given in the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act should be inserted: that is to say, that the Orders shall not merely become operative and remain operative unless the Oireachtas annuls them, but that it shall be obligatory on the Ministry to seek specific sanction within a certain time. The system of legislation by Order is, of course, being extended very widely, and while a good deal of it is necessary I think that the other side of the picture is that when an Order is made it should not be allowed to remain operative simply because nobody takes action to annul it. I think that an Order which has the effect of legislation should be brought for specific sanction before each House of the Oireachtas, and I think that if that procedure were adopted in regard to this class of legislation— legislation by decree—it would be somewhat of a safeguard. At least, it would be an assurance that all the facts could be examined by the legislature and not simply left in the archives on the chance that nobody will notice them.

In the present good-humoured atmosphere of the Seanad I may, perhaps, be excused for saying that the wind has been, more or less, taken out of my sails by the speech of Senator Johnson. I listened with considerable interest to the speeches made on this Bill. I derived considerable pleasure from, so to speak, my ramble from field to field with the various speakers. Senator Blythe opened his speech by saying that he agreed with Senator Jameson. I was anxious to discover on what points they were in agreement, but having listened carefully to his speech I failed to see that there was very much agreement between the two Senators. The impression that I have gained from listening to the various speeches is this, that there is very little genuine opposition to the Bill. I believe that Senator Blythe's difficulties might be solved by a change of Government in this country, but I am afraid that Senator Jameson's difficulties would only be solved by a change of Government, not only in this country, but in several other countries.

It must be obvious that the present measure is necessary partly because of the policy of our own Government and largely because of the policies adopted by the Governments of a number of other countries with which we are trading at the present time. I believe that it is a ridiculous thing for anybody in this House or outside of it to try and obstruct the activities of our Minister for Agriculture with regard to this or similar measures. Senator Jameson has expressed himself as being a confirmed free trader. Even though that is so, and even though he believes that that would be the best policy for the country, as I am sure he does, he should at least take into consideration that we are dealing with countries the people of which have decided on a policy of protection for themselves. Therefore, it will be necessary for our Minister for Agriculture to have the powers which he is seeking under this Bill until such time as, not only we, but the people of those countries change their policy. I believe this Bill is designed to benefit producers, and I believe that those who are interested in farmers, and in producers generally, should wholeheartedly support it.

Senator Quirke stated that no one should harass the Minister in his efforts on behalf of the agricultural industry, and particularly in this Bill. Nobody has tried to do so. No one wants unduly to prevent the Minister carrying his policy into operation. If the Minister seeks these powers, and wants the Seanad to bring it about that there shall be an amendment in the form of an extension of the Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Act of 1933, I think the House is going to give those powers. It was quite unnecessary to make some of the comments that were made. For instance, there was one comment made by Senator Lynch which would not add very much to the friendly understanding which we seem to have brought about. Senator Lynch had high words of praise for the present Minister's efforts on behalf of the agricultural industry. He stated that the present Government were entirely different from their predecessors, who had sat down from 1922 to 1932 and did nothing. I could not possibly allow that comment to pass without making a few remarks.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

You have great experience, Senator. Do you think that arises now?

If the learned Senator who spoke made comments of that nature and if you, Sir, tell me that you do not find that the question arises now, are you going to prevent me from replying?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am not preventing you, but do you think it is necessary to do so?

I think it is.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Then you may proceed.

If you think it is not necessary I will bow to your ruling, and say no more. If I am told that I may proceed I will proceed.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Certainly.

I do not differ with Senator Lynch when he says that the Minister for Agriculture is making great efforts on behalf of agriculture, He is. The Minister is doing his best for the agricultural industry in the position in which he finds himself. It is because of the position in which he finds himself that we are going to allow this Bill, in so far as we can act in the matter, to go through. I used the words "in the position in which he finds himself." The position in which he finds the agricultural industry is largely of the Government's making, and I have to say a few words on that by way of comparison. The present Government has brought about a condition of things where certain measures of this kind have to be enacted, and in the position in which the Minister finds himself he is doing his best. The Minister's predecessor in office found a free and an open market in a friendly country. Friendly relations were maintained, and the entire of our surplus products found a ready and open market in that country. What did the Minister do?

Does this arise out of the Bill?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has asked a question rather indirectly. I am expecting that Senator O'Hanlon will keep to the measure before the House. The King Charles's head of the economic war is coming up again.

I am the only Senator who has been called upon——

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Do not think I am making an exception of you, Senator. The Minister is asking for additional powers to prohibit the export of a specific description of exports. He is also asking power to prevent the export of such products from Saorstát Eireann by any person other than the Minister or such persons as he may from time to time authorise. He is asking for an extension of the definition to carry out the original intentions of the Bill. The Minister is the only person who has really spoken to the measure up to the present.

It is strange that you, Sir, should remind me of all this at the end of the debate. If the Minister requires these powers I think the House will be very happy to give them.

I did not intend to make any remarks on this Bill but, seeing that certain statements were made by Senator Lynch, that the Minister and the Government are doing their best for agriculture, I cannot agree with them. When we consider the inter-trading position and the loss on imports and exports since the Government came into office, I certainly do not agree with such remarks. No farmers would agree with them. If we take the position of those who live by farming, those who run may read. Having regard to the present condition of farmers and labourers, I do not agree that the best is being done for the agricultural industry. I am not going to deal with the economic war now, but I will refer to what was described as the great policy of high protection. It was dealt with by some Senators, especially by Senator Lynch. As far as agriculture is concerned, I say that high protection has been the ruin of farming since it was instituted here. As farmers, we know that from experience. I challenge any Senator with any knowledge of farming to contradict the truth of that statement. In any country that has had experience of high protection, America and Australia, for instance, the farmers are the poorest of the poor and are in a struggling position. I do not agree that the powers asked for in this Bill should be given to the Minister. There should be no quotas or licences for farming products. Senator Lynch stated that farming products had not diminished by the changed conditions. It looks as if the Senator was a Rip van Winkle in that matter. What has been done with regard to cattle? Has not the cattle population diminished and have not calves been slaughtered after birth? Does not that mean a diminution of production? Another Bill is to come before the House to reduce the production of pigs. Notwithstanding our resources, climate, and the soil, our production, when compared with any similar-sized country, is the smallest, while we have the best market in the world at our doors. These advantages are being destroyed. I suggest that our great cattle trade and other farming products, owing to quotas and other restrictions, is coming to an end. There is no use in saying that butter and bacon and other things are desirable products. We must have livestock. Can we have butter without cows? We must also have calves. Every farmer depends on live stock more than on any product so that he may be able to pay his way at the end of the year. This Bill, in imposing quotas, is differentiating between one class of agricultural product and another. It is differentiating in favour of butter against cattle, and in favour of bacon against something else. Above all, it is differentiating agricultural products against other products, perhaps whiskey, stout, and other commodities. Have the exports of the other commodities diminished? It is only farming products that have diminished. When Senator Lynch said that agricultural labourers were being unfairly treated by farmers I will not say that the statement is a lie, but it is beside the truth.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I did not hear Senator Lynch say that agricultural labourers were being unfairly treated by farmers.

I thought the Senator implied that. If he did not I withdraw my remark. I suggest that the interests of agricultural labourers and the farmers who employ them go hand-in-hand. Whatever may be said against farmers they never forget the interests of their labourers. If they can they pay them to the full extent of their capacity to do so. I say that this class of Bill is objectionable because it ties up farmers above any other class. When I say that I do not forget the interests of the State as a whole. I have never done so. I say that the liberties of producers of cattle and beet are being tied up because they have to get contracts and licences to carry on their business.

The last speaker said that the Minister hopes to increase the output of pigs as a result of this but if this goes through he will have to increase the pig-headed population of the country. Now, I think that the wrong trend was given to this discussion by Senator Lynch. We are not seeking to consider the issue of free trade or protection which had been raised by Senator Jameson. I think that there was an entire lack of appreciation of the point Senator Jameson raised. It was not a question of free trade or protection, but whether there was to be liberty of the individual to trade at all or not. I think, Sir, that it is not relevant to this Bill to consider it merely as free trade and protection. This Bill is to amend the original Bill in certain details and to consider the implication of the policy underlying that and the original Bill is desirable. If the issue were simply free trade or protection I would know where I stand, but there is no use ignoring the tendency of State policy which is to regulate production and to create undesirable monopolies. There is a tendency to set up monopolies, to limit production, to have State control, State direction and State ownership of the sources of production. I say that that is all implied in this Bill and in the Bill which it amends. I believe, Sir, that the function of Government in regard to production, in regard to commerce and in regard to trade, should be not to interfere in regulating activities of any individual except in so far as they should see that the activities of those individuals are carried on along human and rational lines. The function of the State's authority should be to remove from the path of the individual obstacles that stand in the way of efficient production and liberty in so far as it can, to leave the individual free to operate these sources and that they should not be limited by the State telling them to stand aside and tell them how much they are to produce. But I think it cannot be overlooked and I think that Senator Jameson raised very serious matters when he drew attention to the undesirable tendency to have State ownership and State production. That tendency is growing very definitely. There is a tendency to have legislation by order instead of legislation by statute, a tendency to give over to the control of the State Departments functions for the welfare of enterprise and making them dependent upon what may be the caprice of individual Ministers or civil servants. I think that is an undesirable tendency and I am not prepared to admit that it is an inevitable tendency and one that we must regard as inevitable.

Senator Lynch took exception to something Senator Baxter said when he asked the Minister to indicate in some way how the individual producer was going to regulate his production, what is the scope of his production, what is the amount he would be expected to produce. Senator Lynch seemed to think that Senator Baxter asked for something wrong, or was pursuing a wrong line of thought when he asked the Minister to say how the individual producers would know what they are to produce. I say it is essential that the producers must know what they are to produce, and that is what this legislation is leading up to, and when the Minister, or his Department, takes the control of production export and import, they must be able to tell individuals their ration, the amount they are expected to produce, and if there is any miscalculation in the forecast of the Department or of the Minister, it should be open to the producers who have relied upon the Minister's forecast and information for their quotas, to have an action against them to compensate them for their losses. That is the tendency of this legislation, and we must not close our eyes to it. If this kind of legislation is to continue the Minister and his Department must be in a position to give forecasts to the producers, and Senator Baxter's question is one that should be answered and not overlooked.

Very big issues have been raised in this particular debate which I did certainly not anticipate. I think that Senator Lynch said that this Bill would limit production. It does not limit production, but a number of Senators have spoken here as if this Bill would limit production. It has nothing at all to do with production. It should be looked at in the other way. It has been said that this Government is bringing in a Bill to limit production, whereas, in fact, it has been necessary to introduce it by the legislation of the United Kingdom Government and we would not be able to export at all if we did not pass it. This Bill has absolutely nothing to do with production. Whether the Senators who said that it would limit production really meant that, or knew that it did not limit production but merely wanted to raise a point, I do not know. But I state that it is the action of the United Kingdom Government in fixing the quotas which has caused us to introduce this legislation. The similar quotas of the United Kingdom Government apply to potatoes, tinned milk, eggs and cattle. In regard to cattle, the quota order applies in another way, which I shall deal with separately. But if we did not bring in this Bill we could not at the present moment export any bacon, tinned milk, potatoes or eggs to Great Britain. Now, again, some Senators made the point that it was due to Government action that we brought in this legislation. That is not so. As I have already said, it is due to the action of the United Kingdom Government and there is no foundation for the point that the Senators have been making. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce brings along quota orders here limiting imports, then, of course, that is due to this Government's policy, but it is not the Government's policy to curtail exports to any country.

Senator Baxter asked a question which would involve me in a very long answer and would take more time for a full reply than the Seanad would be prepared to give, and I probably would not be allowed by the Chairman to go into it, as it is outside the scope of the Bill. Senator Baxter asked me what is the Government's policy with regard to production. Well, the answer to that is this: that there is no limit on our exports in so far as we can find a market for them whether at home or abroad, and we have done everything we possibly can to get markets, and as far as these markets go, we will encourage production, but I will agree that any Minister who would encourage production of things for which there is no market would be putting producers in a very invidious position, producing for a saturated market. At the present time, I will say that there is no great prospect of finding a larger market for any of these commodities. Now, regarding the allegation that we are restricting pro duction of commodities, let me say that we are producing more eggs than before this Government came into power. In the case of dairy produce, we are producing more. We are producing a calculated increase of 10 per cent. of eggs this year. At the same time as we have increased our production, we have expanded considerably in tillage, so that there is no reason for saying that our production is lowered. Senator Dillon said that we have brought a Bill in the Dáil to limit the production of pigs, but he should read the Bill. We brought in a Bill of 153 sections and that is exactly what it was not intended to do. That is the sort of criticism we have to meet here.

I suggest that the Minister should read his own speech on the Second Reading.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I should have pulled you up, Senator Dillon, when you referred to the Bill, as it was not relevant to what is before the House.

We will leave that point until the Bill comes before this House. Now, I want to say a word about cattle. There are more cattle in the country as a result of the restriction of exports. If you take the years 1931 or 1930 or what better suits my purpose, the year 1931, you will find that there are more cattle this year than there were in those years, both fat cattle and store cattle. There is no foundation for the argument that we cannot use our surplus crops because live stock has gone down. Senator Jameson began his speech by saying that this Bill is due to Government policy. I think it will be clear to the Senator that that is not so, but I suppose that I shall have to repeat the same refutation again here, because like every other House of this kind, Senators have the habit habit of using the same arguments over and over again whether the truth is pointed out to them or not. Senator Jameson says that the producer cannot sell or produce under the Bill. Of course, that is an outlandish statement. Senator Jameson said he has always been a free trader. He forgets that the world is not free trade now. His arguments would be quite good if there was a single country in the world free trade at present. But no country will take any goods from us now unless there is some agreement about quotas and tariffs. We must, naturally, make regulations to meet those conditions. I might be a free trader myself if every other country was free trade and if we were allowed to be free trade here. But we are not allowed to be free trade and we must accept the position as it is. I do not think we should lose time arguing whether we are free trade or protectionist because, whatever we might like to be, we must meet conditions laid down by other Governments before they will allow our goods in. That applies not only to Great Britain but to other countries. Germany will not take goods from us unless their export is regulated by the Government here. The same remark applies to Spain. If agreements were made with other countries, they would lay down similar conditions. I think that the United States is the only country which has not got a strict quota system. They have there what is called an open market, but it is an open market with extremely high tariffs. There is no limit to the amount of goods we could put in there—butter and bacon, for instance— if it paid us to send them in but the tariff is extremely high.

The question of licences was raised by Senator Jameson and Senator Blythe. So far as my Department is concerned, the position is that we have to issue licences under these quotas and, in addition, issue licences under the cattle quota. The cattle quota is not administered under the principal Regulation of Export Act. In the case of the cattle quota, the licences come direct from the Board of Trade in London and are merely distributed by us. In the other cases—bacon, tinned cream, tinned milk, potatoes and so forth— the licences originate here and are issued by us. We may have to do the same with regard to eggs in the near future. In the case of bacon, we are told, for example, that we are to send 40,000 cwts. in the month of April. We issue licences to the various curers to send out that quantity of bacon. The case of bacon may be considered, particularly, because it is on the same basis that anything done under this Bill will be done. We took, for the purpose of allocation, the year previous to the Act coming into force —from about the middle of 1932 to the middle of 1933. On the basis of the exports during that year, licences were issued to the various factories which are exporters. A consultative council, representative of those factories, was set up. That council was consulted with regard to the list. The list was laid before the council showing the allocation we proposed—the percentage to each factory out of each month's quota. There were certain objections. A certain factory stated that for one reason or another they had not been as much in the business that year as they would ordinarily have been. In some cases, the other factories agreed that this factory's allocation should be a little higher than that which we had allowed. Eventually, we got as near agreement as possible.

That arrangement held up to the end of 1934. In 1934 we had some difficulty in filling the quota during three or four months. It was a losing proposition for the factory to fill the quota during three or four months. Some factories did it; others did not. In order to induce them to fill the quota, we stated that the year 1934 would be taken as the basis of further allocations. Some of the factories, taking that into consideration, faced the loss and filled the quotas. Since then, from the 1st January, 1934, to the 1st January, 1935, has been the basis. The list is open to the members of the consultative council at all times. Each factory knows it must get a certain percentage of the quota each month. The same would apply in the case of potatoes, tinned cream and tinned milk. There is only one exporter of tinned cream and milk. In the case of eggs, similar steps would be taken. A basis would be taken in respect of the previous year, a consultative council would be set up and the consultative council would consider complaints from individual exporters. If there is a case of hardship, the consultative council recommends that some leniency should be shown, and eventually we get down to a basis which we stick to unless a factory goes out of business. We have got to the stage in respect of the bacon quota in which we never get a complaint. The factories know that they are entitled to a certain percentage. They know what they get and there is no complaint. That has been the case for six months or so.

In the case of cattle, there is a different position. In that case, we get the licences from the Board of Trade. We had to take some basis of allocation. We decided that, from the 1st January, 1934, we would give out the licences on the basis of the shipments of each exporter for 1933—each month against the corresponding month of 1933. That appeared to us to be the fair way of dealing with the matter. It was the obvious method—that we should hand the licences to the people who had been in the habit of exporting. There were grave complaints about exporters not giving the price they should give and, during the year, we had to depart from that system with regard to fat cattle. We gave the fat cattle licences entirely to feeders and producers. We continued to give the store cattle licences to the exporters. There, again, we had a consultative council and we had various meetings representative of the trade during the early months to see if we could get a basis. The great majority of the licences were distributed on the basis of exports during 1933, but even the consultative council urged that a case could be made for two other classes. One class was the exporter whose exports were low in 1933 for reasons over which he had no control— for instance, illness or, as happened in some cases, the trader dying and his sons not getting properly into the business until two or three months afterwards. In those cases, exporters got somewhat more than the quota to which they were entitled. The second class for whom a case was made for exceptional treatment were buyers in remote districts—not for the sake of the buyer but for the sake of the remote districts. That applied to the whole, practically, of Connacht, to Donegal, Clare, Kerry and West Cork. Exporters from these areas got more licences than they were entitled to, so as to help those areas as far as possible. We had, however, a residue which had to be got rid of. We had, say, 3,000 exporters. When you divide 3,000 into 15,000 or 17,000, there are always from 50 to 200 licences over which must be distributed somehow. These were, if Senators like to put it that way, at the discretion of the Minister.

I should like to explain how exactly these remaining licences are dealt with. I get letters from people who think they have very great grievances— producers throughout the country. Deputies and Senators get letters of complaint and they write to me. All these letters are examined so far as possible, although it is a very big job. From 2,000 to 3,000 letters are dealt with each fortnight by a junior officer. The work has to be done by a junior officer because a higher officer could not be spared. The junior officer goes through these letters and picks out what he believes to be about 200 of the most deserving cases. Eventually, they come up to the higher officer and he sends the list along to me for my sanction. I admit that, if I get a letter from a person I know or from a Deputy recommending a person, these letters go down to the junior officer and junior officers, I admit, are inclined to please the Minister. In that way, perhaps, the letters that pass through me get more consideration than others but not always. Time and again, I get letters from the country asking why it is that such a prominent opponent of the Government should get licences while the writer of the letter, who is a supporter of the Government, cannot get a licence. I find, on investigation, that the name has been put on this list quite rightly by this official because he considered it was a genuine case. That is how matters are dealt with. I do not know any other way by which that residue of licences could be disposed of. There is a list of about 3,000 cattle licensees. It is a huge volume with names, addresses, numbers, and reasons why they got the licences, with the figures which qualified them for getting them. That list was open to members of the consultative council but they got tired examining it. They came along very enthusiastically during the first few months but they got very tired of the job and did not trouble to examine it any more.

I should be very glad if the distribution of cattle licences could be carried out otherwise than by my Department. I do not think that there is any great danger of—to put it bluntly—corruption. Senator Blythe said he had great faith in members of the Civil Service and I think what he wanted to convey was that he did not desire to put great temptations in their way. It would be unfair, of course, to put great temptations in the way of some of these officers who are on rather low salaries but Senator Blythe knows that it is very hard for an individual officer in any Department to carry off anything on his own account. These lists pass through four or five other officers before they reach the top, so that nothing improper could be done except the person concerned was in collusion with the others. The list may not always come by the same route either, so that there would be extreme difficulty in carrying through anything improper. If an officer were inclined to be corrupt—very few of them would be so inclined—it would be extremely difficult to issue a licence to which he was not entitled to an exporter or producer in return for a bribe. I think that it would be practically impossible for him to do that even if he were so inclined. I agree with what Senator Blythe has said that, if possible, we should get out of this system. In the bacon system, we have reached a stage at which anybody in the trade is entitled to see the percentage a person is getting. Some bacon factories do not want other bacon factories to know exactly what quota they are getting but they know one another's percentages. If we have 40,000 cwts. for distribution and if a man gets his own percentage, he knows he is not being wronged. If we could reach in respect of other exports the same stage that we have reached in the bacon trade, I think the system would be absolutely fair, and nobody could have any complaint against it. It would be difficult to have a system like that in respect of cattle because there is so much change in the number of licences. The number of licences varies very much every month. There is also this position—that there are many exporters who did business in the spring and autumn and did not do any business in the summer, so that some months you would have men on the list who would not be on it at all for other months. It would not be a case of having an exact percentage the whole year round, as in the bacon trade.

Senator Dowdall suggested that there might be a time limit. The Cathaoirleach said that that provision would have to be made in the Principal Act. I think that that is so. I do not think that there is any necessity for a time limit in the case of any of these Bills dealing with economic matters because it is now almost impossible to frame a Bill dealing with economic affairs that will hold for five years. We are practically certain to be here again with this Bill for amendment within the next five years. When Senator Dowdall made a point I was jotting down that particular Act on which my Department is working has been amended since I came into this position. The Horse Breeding Act was amended here some time ago—and the Creameries and Dairy Produce Act has also been amended, as well as the Diseases of Animals Act. These Acts were passed by my predecessor and the Fresh Meat Act which was also passed, during his term of office, will need amendment in the near future. Even Acts brought in by me, the Cereals Act and the Dairy Produce (Prices Stabilisation) Act had to be amended twice in each case since they were brought in. The last Act, the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, will, I am fairly certain, have to be along here shortly for some small amendment. If each one of these Acts has to be amended sooner or later, a term of five years for this one is hardly necessary. In regard to Deputy Johnson's point, about having orders confirmed by these Houses, I am afraid I would have to be here very often. There is an Order to be made in respect of each period, setting out the amount of each article for each country. A period is usually a month, sometimes it is fortnightly or quarterly. Bacon is a monthly period, cattle a fortnightly period. For practically every article and every country, we would have to take up a considerable time of the Seanad, particularly if Senators continue to be as interested in agriculture as they have been up to this. They do take the opportunity of talking about agriculture in general when I come here. If I had to come here 14 times each month it would be very hard to find time. I don't agree with Senator Milroy that there is a tendency to regulate production—I would agree there is a necessity to regulate production under present conditions—but I do not think there is any great tendency. There is no Government Department inclined to do more than they have to do in that direction and I don't know if any Minister is inclined or induced by his Department to take any further step in that direction.

We do find necessity in certain directions more as a result of world conditions than of any condition that might be in this country as such. I do not know if Senator Milroy has established his contention that we are creating undesirable monopolies. I did take power under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act to establish certain monopolies, but they were in businesses which nobody would take up. For instance, in the making of meat meal, no ordinary person who wanted to make money would go into that business. He could not possibly take it up unless the Government gave him guarantees of the price at which he would get the cattle and the protection which it would secure him in the market. He would want to get these guarantees and several other things before he would go into the business, and if the Government was going to give these guarantees they would want the power to give the monopoly. The same would apply to the canning of meat and the production of meat extract. It is not an economic proposition on its own, and no ordinary capital could be got, as matters stand, unless the Government would come forward with a guarantee with regard to the price of cattle and impose a quota or tariff on competing articles. No firm could go into it, and a Government would not be in a position to give guarantees unless they also gave a monopoly. No genuine trader would go into these businesses under any circumstances, and no genuine trader would object under these circumstances. I have tried to deal with all the points raised and to answer all the questions, and I hope I have satisfied Senators.

Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, April 3rd, 1935.
Top
Share