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.