I do not rise at this stage to object to the Bill or to offer any adverse criticism with regard to its provisions. The Bill is necessary to give the Minister powers to carry out the pacts which he has made with countries outside Great Britain. My main object in rising is to refer to some statements which were made on the Second Reading debate. The Minister stated that the quotas and the provisions relating to restrictions were imposed by the British Government—that our Government is in no way responsible for these regulations. That is certainly true but it is also true that the restrictions, in the first instance, were caused by the attitude of our Government.
Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) (Amendment) Bill, 1935—Fourth and Fifth Stages.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Leas-Chathaoirleach
May I remind the Senator that this is an amending Bill and that this question arose on the Committee Stage. I thought it was generally agreed that, on this Bill, which seeks merely to clarify a definition in the principal Bill, a general debate on the economic situation would not be in order.
I merely refer to the economic war to try to show that this whole matter could be eliminated if our Government had the commonsense to settle up the whole question with England. If you say that it is not in order I bow to your ruling and I will pass over that point.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I was not asking the Senator to stop.
With regard to the other matters the Minister referred to, the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, he said he intends to bring in an amending Bill. The sooner he brings it in the better because the present Act has been flagrantly disregarded. It has been disregarded by the exporters, the butchers, and the greatest offender of all is the Minister himself. There is a clause in the Act which says that the Minister when fixing the minimum price for stall-fed cattle shall take into account the cost of production. Has the Minister complied with the Act in that respect? Does the Minister consider 22/- per cwt. live-weight enough to meet the cost of production of stall-fed cattle, for that is the figure which the Minister himself has ordered to be paid for the cattle that he is buying for export to Germany.
There may be some excuse for the exporters who are compelled to pay 25/- per cwt. live-weight because at the time that price was fixed there was a duty of £6 per head but there is no excuse for the butcher because during my time, which is fairly considerable and long, I do not remember when first-class quality beef could be bought at 25/- a cwt. The butchers in those days were selling at a lesser price than they are to-day. I have made enquiries and I find that there are not more than three Dublin victuallers paying the minimum price in the Dublin market and all the money which has been expended on inspectors for this whole Act has gone by the board. I am sure it must be a very serious disappointment to Senator Wilson, who was very enthusiastic about the Act. Since January the 1st, when the price of these cattle had fallen considerably, the Minister has reduced the bounty to 20/- for aged cattle or for cattle that paid the £6 duty and no bounty for any other class of animal, and no bounty for sheep. We have to pay also 5/- per head to the butcher for every sheep he slaughters and £1 for every beast. I say that money is coming directly out of the farmers' pockets and not out of the butchers'. I would ask the Minister to seriously consider raising the bounty on cattle for export at least to 30/- a head. I mentioned the matter to him before and it is not a pleasure to be always coming here supplicating the Minister to do something for the farmers, but if the Minister wants to carry on and not to be knocked out even this year he would do something to raise the bounty and he would assist the farmers in Kerry, Mayo and Galway.
The distribution of export licences has been referred to. It is an unenviable job for the Minister or the officials and in fairness to the Minister I would say that the export licences were not all given to Fianna Fáil, his own supporters. I believe they were distributed honestly and fairly and as honestly and fairly as the Minister thought fit, with very little regard to the political colour of the applicant. At the same time I would ask the Minister to consider the suggestions made on the Second Reading by Senator Blythe. If there was more publicity and a wider knowledge of the people who are interested in the export trade and what considerations are taken into account when the licences are being allocated, I think it would allay all fears which are at present held that people are getting licences who have no right to get them.
I hope I will not be restricted in dealing with this as if it were merely an amending Bill.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
We have dealt with it more generally than that.
I will try not to be too long and not to bring in the economic war. It is not easy when you are listening to a speech to assimilate it all so I read over what the Minister said quietly and tried to see what it implied and what were the objects in the Bill. I came to the conclusion that it appeared to be a genuine effort to get sale and market for our agricultural produce in countries other than Great Britain, and if that is so it seems we are to look at the Bill as a whole and to look at the question of the sale of our agricultural produce and see how far this Bill goes towards increasing the sale of our agricultural produce before we finally put it on the Statute Book. If that is the object of it I have some things to say. The Minister I thought told us that as far as the Act of 1933 is concerned it was settled by Great Britain and I thought at first that the other countries which he is now trying to get power to deal with also had put in restrictions and that the powers the Minister seeks in this Bill must be placed in his hands before he can deal with these other countries. As far as I can read from his statement he never said that at all. He is taking these powers over the other countries really and truly with the object of being able to trade with these countries and not because of the restrictions Great Britain imposed upon him. As far as I was able to judge from reading it this Bill is to secure trade with countries other than Great Britain. The Minister has come to the conclusion that the sales of our agricultural produce in these countries are not sufficient. He thinks that if he takes the power to control the sale of agricultural produce to these particular countries he will be able to do a great deal better than the people who are now selling our goods in these countries. That may be so but you know the Minister is taking a lot on himself when he thinks that, because as far as my experience in business is concerned it is the traders who are trying to sell and the people who are producing goods who know best how to manage the market. The Minister may be dealing with Germany, France or Spain and if he proposes to take in his hands complete control of the sale of our agricultural produce to these countries I must say that it is a very difficult matter. He is taking great responsibility upon himself. I believe now honestly that he is making a genuine effort to increase the sale of our agricultural produce to these other countries. He instanced the case of eggs in Spain and said that with restrictions in his hand he could prevent the sending of too many eggs to Spain. prevent the cut-throat competition and get better prices on a restricted market. But, you know, there are many other countries producing eggs besides the Free State and if enough eggs were not sent into Spain the price might not be low enough and the market might be cut from under our feet by some other country. Last winter I happened to be in Tangier and we went to lunch with some residents one day and we were given some roast beef. We were told "That is your own Irish beef" and we said "How does it come over here" and they said "It is the cheapest beef in the market we can possibly get at the present time." Whether if we tried to raise the price of beef in the market of Tangier we would not lose our sales there is a point that the Minister will have seriously to consider. Our exports of agricultural products to countries outside of Great Britain are at the present time so low that I see no reason why we should not let the Minister have a run for his money.
There is another point of importance. The Minister for Agriculture is taking power in this Bill to hand over certain of his functions and powers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The reason for that is not clearly stated in the Bill. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, of course, is engaged in making business arrangements with various countries. If he can make an agreement with another country to take more of our agricultural products, then it would be an excellent thing that he should have this power. In view of the fact, however, that he is the Minister responsible for the tariffs that have been raised against nearly everything coming in from other countries, he would not appear to me to be the best individual to select for making any sort of business arrangement with those other countries. I am not at all sure that our Minister for Agriculture, if he were in the position to disassociate himself from the heavy tariff restrictions which are creating a great deal of enmity between countries, would not be more favourably listened to by the representatives of a foreign Government than our Minister for Industry and Commerce. If the latter attempts to negotiate business arrangements with foreign countries he may not be very well received, as he has tariffed almost everything coming in here from those countries. However, if the Minister really tries to increase the sale of our agricultural products in countries outside of Great Britain by making bargains with them, I am afraid he will have to reduce the tariffs that operate on the goods which they are trying to send in here. If the tariffs are reduced with that object in view, and if there is an increased export of our agricultural products, the citizens of this country will be very glad of it.
I was accused in the House the other day of being a free trader. I think even the Minister himself said that I had forgotten all about "free trade being a dead horse," or words to that effect. In the last ten or 15 years I have travelled over almost the whole world trying to sell the article which I produce. In nearly every country I found a policy of violent protection in operation. Therefore, I was hardly likely in this late debate to hold the view that one could trade with any country on purely free trade principles. I am afraid that when our Minister for Agriculture tries to make trade arrangements with foreign countries he is going to meet with a very difficult state of affairs. I say that from experience. He will find it very hard to increase the sales of our agricultural products. From the words he used on, I think, the last occasion he spoke here he must be of the same opinion himself, because he said "there is no greater prospect of finding a larger market for any of these commodities at the present time." Now, I think the Minister and myself are much of the same opinion on that matter. I believe that both the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture are really trying to see if they cannot find an increased sale for our agricultural products abroad, but I cannot see how this Bill is going to help them. If it does not, where do we stand? So far as one's investigations go, they lead one to the belief that there is not going to be any very great increase in the sale of our agricultural products to countries outside Great Britain.
There is this point, which some people are inclined to forget: when we were in the United Kingdom, whether they had protection in Great Britain or not, Ireland was able to carry on with her on full free trade principles. I ask Senators to think what that meant to this country and what the position is to-day—to think of what protection has done for this country. There are many people, of course, who say that free trade is dead in Great Britain. But when we were in the United Kingdom free trade was not dead so far as we were concerned. We know the amount of prosperity that came to this country during that time. Now we have no free trade, but we have tremendous protection both on the British side and on our side. I doubt very much if the great advocates of protection are particularly pleased with its results, especially so far as the Free State is concerned. I do not think that England likes the results either. The end of these free trade relations caused a grave dislocation of trade between the Irish Free State and Great Britain and the results have been extremely damaging to both countries.
I am not now referring to the economic war. I am referring to the economic fact—the fact that we have lost our free trade standing with the best customer that this country ever had or ever will have. There is no use in saying that I do not recognise that the whole world has gone in for protection and that free trade is all over. In America they have free trade over a whole continent, and because of that they are able to stand the shocks they experience when they do protect themselves. In this little country we are not able to do that. We have no free trade now with any country. We are living under a policy of full protection and I do not know that it is doing us much good. At any rate, if we are not able to increase the sale of our agricultural products, with conditions as they are here, our position will be extremly serious. We are very large importers of a great number of things from countries which buy nothing from us. We import sugar, iron, rubber, tin, motors, and quite a lot of things that we cannot do without. How are we going to pay for them? The correct way, of course, would be by exporting our industrial and agricultural products. We have very few industries with an export margin. You could count them on the fingers of two hands. In fact, what those industrial exports would realise is a mere bagatelle compared to the amount which we spend on imports. There are, of course, the dividends our citizens receive from their investments in outside countries. The amount which people are receiving in that way is dwindling. In addition, a great many of our rich people are gone. The amount which our citizens receive in dividends from money invested in outside countries is small compared with what it used to be.
There is another sad fact and it is that there are a great many people in the Free State who, because of present conditions, are beginning to spend and have been spending their savings. There is one good bit of business that we do. It is in connection with the Sweep. Of course, so far as the Irish contributors are concerned the Sweep is no good. It is a wash out. The Government, of course, get something out of it. As far as Great Britain and the United States are concerned, where the millions come from, it is quite an excellent thing. The Government make several hundred thousand pounds a year out of it. I have no doubt that a good many of the promoters are also making a comfortable thing out of it. But, speaking of the money that comes into this country in the way of dividends and thinking of all that we have to pay for our imports, we find a huge margin against us on balance. That balance can only be rectified by an increased sale of our agricultural products. This country always had a very large exportable surplus of agricultural products. Up till recently our exports were able to pay for our imports. We had not a bad balance of business. Unless this Bill helps us to increase the sale of our agricultural products very considerably, then we are going to go steadily down the hill. We are going to rush into debt and we will not be able to pay our way.
I do not know when that state of affairs will arise. The only way to arrest it is for our Minister to increase, as I believe he intends under this Bill, the sale of our agricultural products in foreign countries. That is the only salvation for this country. I wish our citizens would wake up to the fact that, as we are going at present, we are steadily heading towards the bankruptcy courts, in which so many countries are involved, as the time is not far distant when we will not be able to pay for imports. Our credit will then be such that we will not be able to get credit because other countries will know that we cannot pay for imports. That is going to happen within a reasonable time, if we do not do something along the lines of increasing the sales of agricultural products abroad.
In the Dáil the Minister made what I might call a cryptic remark in regard to the coal-cattle pact. I should like if he explained what he really had in mind when he mentioned that, so far as he was concerned, he did not consider it one which he favoured as it reduced his liberty to carry on. The greatest difficulty in this country is to sell our cattle, and selling 150,000 of them, even at a bad price, was an opening for the trade. I cannot understand how the Minister could have expressed himself in the way I mention. Perhaps there was something about the pact that was not understood. The Minister's statement appeared to me to be a wrong one to be made by the Minister for Agriculture.
The Minister for Agriculture might take the trouble to go to his own constituency and to go into the yards and the houses of farmers. These people are the best of farmers, and as a result of the tillage there they turn out the raw material in the form of fat cattle. After being fattened during the winter these cattle had to be turned out into the fields where they lost the flesh that was put on them. The Minister will see the most pitiable conditions in his constituency.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is not that an additional reason why a Bill to regulate exports should pass?
I hope the exports will not be like the Minister's other transactions. I hope his dealings will be something better than those that have cost the taxpayers such a very large amount of wasted money. Regarding what Senator Wilson said about the coal-cattle pact, that pact has, of course, made a little difference but not a great deal. Although what Senator Counihan said is not strictly relevant to this Bill, it turns upon it and I suppose I am entitled to refer to it. I hope the new Meat Bill will be brought in as soon as possible, because the other Act has been an absolute failure. I have undoubted evidence of cattle being bought at fairs at 18/- per cwt. within earshot of the inspectors. Senator Counihan mentioned 22/-. Cattle have been bought under the Act at 18/- and in a few places as low as 16/- per cwt.
The Minister's price is 16/-.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is under another Act.
All these Acts have a bearing on the one thing, and they are failures as far as the industries of this country are concerned—one failure after another. Butchers who have bought cattle at 18/- per cwt. are selling meat at 9d. and 10d. per lb.
With regard to the coal-cattle pact, I do not think Senator Wilson quoted me correctly. As far as I remember the circumstances under which the remark was made, I was dealing with surplus cattle. What I deplored were the circumstances that compelled a Government to have to make an agreement such as the coal-cattle pact. Under the circumstances I think it was a very good agreement. If we had no surplus cattle we would not be compelled to take coal from England. We could take it where we liked. As we had surplus cattle we had to make that pact and under the circumstances I suppose it was as good as we could make.
Does the Minister not want to bring about a condition when there would not be any surplus cattle?
What I mean by surplus is the surplus over what we have been finding a market for, either at home or abroad. I find it extremely difficult to reply to anything that was said in the debate because, with all due respect to the Chair, I am afraid the same debate could arise on anything concerning agriculture. If I brought in a wheat agreement the same debate could take place. One question was asked by Senator Jameson which was relevant, and I should like to answer it. He wanted to know if we had been compelled by countries other than Great Britain to implement legislation of this kind. We were. I may not have made that clear on the Second Reading. For instance, the German Government in their agreement stipulated that they must not get more than a certain amount each month. The German Government are the buyers in each case. In a case of that kind, we cannot send a certain number of great hundreds of eggs each week, as we should do under the agreement, unless we could control exports. It is not intended that the Minister should do it. We must at least be able to control and be able to say to exporters: "You must not export more than a certain number." This Bill gives power to do that. There are other agreements, perhaps somewhat different. For instance, the agreement with Spain gives us a quota for so many eggs over a longer period—for three months. It would be possible in that case to let the eggs go in the ordinary way, not to have any control over exports, but to let the Spaniards tell us when the quantity was filled, and to let them stop the eggs going there. But that would not give us the best possible price. It is almost inevitable that any exporter who got a penny or twopence more for eggs going to Spain than for eggs going to Great Britain, would take the penny or twopence and competition would become so severe that they would eventually take the lowest price. The price would become as near as possible to the export price in Great Britain, although they might be able to get, say, 1/- a hundred more if they held out. That is the case I make with regard to the Spanish market, because I felt I could get more if they were not undercutting one another.
The example which I gave was with regard to the export of fresh cream to Great Britain. They were quoting against one another. Last year we found that the creameries recognised that the export of fresh cream to Great Britain was a slightly better business than the making of butter, and a number of them turned to the export of cream. Some creameries, not in the market previously, had to get markets from other creameries. They got them by undercutting, and gradually they got the price down until it was smaller than butter and the market was no good to anyone. We have powers under two or three Acts to deal with that position, under the Stabilisation of Prices Act and the Dairy Produce Act. Consequently we were able to tell the creameries that no more cream could be exported unless under permit. When we got the creamery people together we told them we would give permits all round, provided they took not less than a certain price. In that way we got them better prices in Great Britain than they were getting and that saved the position. It was not of any great gain to the creameries, but it saved the Exchequer certain bounties and there were certain savings of general funds. Had we not had power to interfere, that could not have happened and there would be no saving of the public purse. It is something the same with regard to eggs going to Spain. It is not that they will get more, or that they will be told to hold out and they will get 1/- more. What we say is that they must hold out and get more or we will reduce the bounty so that we can save money on the bounty funds. These are some of the cases where this Bill is necessary, when trading with countries other than Great Britain, and where it is not taken for granted that the Minister must go and trade himself or intervene to regulate trade.
A few points with regard to the Cattle Act can be discussed on the amending Bill that is to be brought in after Easter, to deal with certain defects of administration. I think Senator Counihan was wrong in accusing the Minister of not taking into account the cost of stall-feeding cattle. A Senator told me that he thought the people who were stall-feeding cattle made as much as ever, because they bought cattle at a certain price, sold at a certain price, and the margin was as good as ever.
On a point of explanation——
Leas-Chathaoirleach
You have no explanation to make, Senator.
It is not right that the Minister should be allowed to make statements like that.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am the judge of order. You are quite wrong, Senator.
I deny the statement which the Minister has made; it is not true.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
It was not the Senator who made the statement.
The Minister had no right to make such a statement.
Our rights are defined under the Constitution. I was told that the Cattle Act was ignored by the exporters, by the butchers and by the Minister, and I took this occasion to say that at least the Minister did not ignore it, whatever about anybody else. Senator Counihan is incorrigible in some ways. I thought I had convinced him during long discussions on the Cattle Act that if we had a levy of £1 on butchers it does not come out of the farmers' pockets. It is almost impossible to think that anybody could believe that. It is the same with regard to sheep.
Does the Minister say that 2d. per 1b. on spring lambs does not come out of the farmers' pockets? There is no export trade.
If there is no export trade I agree. I have always been told by the economists on the opposite benches that it is the export trade regulates the price all round. I agree with that.
That is so. What about the 10/- levy?
If a butcher goes to the Dublin market and if exports regulate prices the butcher must buy sheep at that price, and if he gives 3/- to me it does not come out of the pockets of the farmers.
I will be very brief in what I have to say.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Very well; having regard to that we will hear you.
There are sheep in this country which are not exported. These are of the mountainy kind and I maintain that the 5/- levy imposed on these sheep should not be maintained.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
But, Senator, you said all that before. I am putting the question.
Before putting the question perhaps the Minister would answer the question I put to him as to raising the bounty on cattle by 10/- a head considering that they have to pay £6 tariff in Great Britain.
I am afraid that does not arise on this matter.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.