Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Apr 1958

Vol. 49 No. 4

Tea (Purchase and Importation) Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

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

The purpose of this Bill, as the House is no doubt aware, is to make provision on a permanent basis for the continuance of the policy of importing this country's tea requirements direct from the countries in which the tea is grown. That policy has been in operation now for over ten years.

During that time, it has been implemented as a temporary arrangement through the organisation known as Tea Importers, Limited, which is a central purchasing and importing organisation, established, at the instance of the Government, by the tea trade, as an emergency measure during the second World War. Tea Importers, Limited, is a non-profit-making body and its operations are financed by banking accommodation under the guarantee of the Minister for Finance.

It has always been intended that that temporary monopoly should be terminated as soon as circumstances permitted, that is to say, as soon as arrangements could be brought into operation which would restore to individual traders the right to purchase tea on their own behalf, according to their particular requirements and subject only to compliance with the policy of purchasing those requirements in the countries in which the tea is produced and importing their purchases direct to this country. Accordingly, discussions were initiated with the Wholesale Tea Dealers' Association which was a body fully representative of the wholesale tea trade. These discussions centred around the arrangements which should be made for the purpose of restoring freedom to the tea trade, subject to the policy of purchasing in and importing direct from the country of origin.

In the course of these discussions, it was urged by the Wholesale Tea Dealers' Association that it would be necessary to include in the permanent arrangements suitable provisions which would ensure that the competitive position of the smaller trader, vis-a-vis the larger trader, would not be more disadvantageous than it was before the second World War began, when practically all this country's requirements were purchased in London.

The reason urged by the association in support of that claim was that, because sales in India of the grades of tea which formed the bulk of this country's requirements are limited by the seasonal nature of the crop to a period of four to five months in each year, it is necessary to purchase 12 months' requirements of these grades of tea within that limited period, and that small traders would not have the necessary financial resources to enable them to pay for stock on that scale.

In order to meet that position, the Wholesale Tea Dealers' Association proposed the establishment, by the trade, of an organisation that would provide the necessary financial assistance for the smaller trader and which would also function as the sole importing agent for the purchases made by all traders. The association contended that the conferring of sole importing agency rights on the proposed organisation would put that organisation in a strong position to obtain the requisite banking accommodation so that they could assist traders to make their purchases, and it urged also that the centralising of all imports would undoubtedly result in a very substantial economy in freight. I regarded that proposal as reasonable and it has been enshrined in the Bill now before the Seanad.

Before going into the provisions of the Bill in greater detail, it may be considered necessary to emphasise that the policy of purchasing the country's tea requirements in the producing countries has been, as I said, in full and satisfactory operation since the end of the war. During that period, Tea Importers, Limited, purchased the tea requirements of traders in India, Ceylon, Indonesia and elsewhere, and succeeded in passing on its purchases to traders here at prices which compared favourably with the prices prevailing on intermediate markets for similar grades and, on occasion, at prices which were substantially lower than those prevailing on the intermediate markets.

While it is satisfying to record that satisfactory position and to pay tribute to the directors of Tea Importers, Limited, for the services they have rendered, it will, I think, be generally agreed that, in present circumstances, the continuance of a State-sponsored monopoly to purchase and import our tea requirements can no longer be justified. The main principles of the Bill are that the policy of direct purchase of this country's requirements from the producing countries should be continued; that the business of purchasing these requirements should continue to be retained in the hands of Irish citizens; and that within these limits, and subject only to these conditions, the greatest possible freedom should be permitted to individual traders.

With regard to the first of the principles which I have enunciated—that of direct purchase of requirements from the producing countries—the experience of Tea Importers, Limited, during the years it has operated has established that adequate supplies of suitable quality tea can be purchased in the producing countries on better terms than they could have been purchased on intermediate markets and can be landed in this country at prices which compare favourably. There has also been the advantage that this country has established unquestionable claims to quotas of tea in each of these countries, which may obviate a recurrence of our unfortunate experience during the last war, when we were denied a reasonable share of the available supplies from the intermediate markets on which we were dependent.

Finally, there is the very important consideration—the aim of developing Calcutta and Colombo as the world's tea markets. The Governments of both India and Ceylon restricted the quantities of tea which may be exported to other countries for re-export sale. Evidence of the effect of that policy upon the intermediate markets of the world is contained in the British trade returns which show that the re-export of tea from Great Britain last year represented less than 5 per cent. of British imports of tea for the same year.

It seems clear, therefore, that, apart from any other considerations, on account of this policy of the Indian and Ceylon Governments to which I have referred, tea purchasing countries must, in order to get best value, deal direct from these countries, or in certain intermediate markets operating on limited supplies. That is borne out by the fact that all the large tea consuming countries, including Canada and the U.S.A., buy practically all their tea requirements from the producing countries and many European countries buy substantial quantities direct from the same source. That, in outline, is the case for continuing the policy of importing this country's tea requirements direct from the countries of origin.

In regard to the second principle which I mentioned, I consider it necessary to explain, in order to avoid misunderstanding, that the provisions of this Bill which are designed to ensure that the business of purchasing tea shall be retained in the hands of Irish nationals simply continue a position which has been in operation since 1947. Those provisions of the Bill involve no interference with the position of existing traders and they are designed solely for the purpose of preventing the re-entry into this country of external trading concerns which never performed the function of a bona fide tea wholesaler and which were, in fact, an unnecessary link in the chain of distribution. The provisions specify that entrants into the business of purchasing tea for importation must be Irish citizens, but otherwise they do not preclude any person whatever from engaging in that trade. The aim of the provisions is to ensure that all existing wholesale tea merchants and all new entrants who are Irish citizens will have complete freedom to purchase their requirements of tea in the producing countries.

With regard to the financing and importing agency mentioned in the Bill, I should like to make it clear that it is not proposed that the monopoly at present enjoyed by Tea Importers. Limited, should pass to the new company. The new company will have no functions in the purchase of a trader's requirements of tea. The company will act simply as an importing agent for traders who will purchase their individual requirements of tea and, where necessary, will assist them in the financing of such purchases. The Bill, however, contemplates that, in the event of a threatened emergency making it desirable to build up stocks of tea, the Minister may authorise the company to make the necessary purchases, but the Bill does not create a tea-purchasing monopoly, as was suggested in discussions elsewhere.

The draft memorandum and articles of association of the new company which have, I understand, already been made available to the House, show that the share capital will be £250,000, divided into 100 shares of £2,500, that one share only may be allocated to each shareholder, and a share may not be allotted or transferred to any person, unless he is a tea trader registered under the Bill. These provisions are intended to ensure that control of the company will be in the hands of Irish nationals.

Another provision in the articles of association will restrict the amount of dividend that may be paid to shareholders. That provision is designed to ensure that the company, which will, of course, serve both shareholders and non-shareholders, will not have any inducement to overcharge for its services and thereby benefit shareholders by returning the overcharges in the form of dividends. The memorandum and articles of association of a company can, as Senators know, normally be altered without any difficulty by a majority of the shareholders. In order to ensure that the articles to which I have referred may not be so changed, the Bill provides that the articles of association of the company shall not be altered without the prior permission of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

It will also be observed that the Bill provides that the proposed company will act as an importing agent for any registered tea trader, whether or not that tea trader is a shareholder in the company. The purpose of that provision is to safeguard the position of small traders and to ensure that the small traders, however small, will have the way open to them to purchase from the producing countries supplies of tea to meet the requirements of their own businesses.

Tea Importers, Limited, the existing organisation, holds substantial stocks of tea at present, stocks which were purchased to supply to the tea trade, and which were financed by bank accommodation secured under guarantee by the Minister for Finance. It is necessary, therefore, to provide for the orderly disposal of these stocks, so as to prevent the risk of trading losses which would have to be met by the Minister for Finance on foot of his guarantee for these borrowings. The Wholesale Tea Dealers' Association has agreed on behalf of its members that each member purchasing tea for importation will enter into a binding undertaking that, for each consignment of tea imported on his behalf in the transition period, he will purchase also an appropriate share of the stocks of Tea Importers, Limited. Suitable provision is made in the Bill to implement that undertaking and to ensure that the same conditions will apply to other tea traders who propose to purchase tea for importation.

This Bill had a somewhat difficult passage through the Dáil, mainly, I think, because of misunderstanding of its provisions and implications. In essence, the Bill is a simple measure, the principal objects of which are maintenance of the claim which we have established to quotas in the producing countries in the event of a recurrence of emergency conditions, and the application of common-sense methods to the procurement of our tea supplies in the primary markets where our experience, and the experience of other countries, have demonstrated that the best value can be obtained. It is on these grounds I recommend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the Seanad.

I have heard the Minister speak in the other House and here this afternoon, and I think I can divide his reasons for this legislation into three main parts. The first is that we should not buy tea from Mincing Lane or Amsterdam, because it is cheaper and better to buy it in the countries of origin; the second is that it will save certain handling costs and enable us to secure certain insurance rewards for the transfer here of that tea from the countries of origin; and the third is that all traders will be placed on an equal footing. I hope to indicate to the House and the Minister that such results will not accrue from this legislation; that the Minister has been misled by those advisers of his in the tea trade; that the small trader will certainly suffer but that the consumer will suffer more grievously.

The Minister referred to the ignorance he had encountered in another place. I must say that when I sat behind the Minister listening while he was piloting the Bill through the Dáil, I was surprised at the amount of ignorance there was about this matter. It is a highly technical business and one cannot really be surprised if there is ignorance about it. At any rate, the Minister can be quite sure that there is no misunderstanding in my mind about what this Bill means. I hope to make that quite clear before I sit down.

There has been a lot of talk about this place called Mincing Lane. I want to tell the House what Mincing Lane is. It is not a collection of English dealers selling their wares to other English dealers or Irish dealers. It is the world's largest tea market. When I tell the House that of last year's exports of tea from all the exporting countries in the world—the quantity amounted to 1,060,000,000 lb. —582,000,000 lb. arrived at the London docks for sale at Mincing Lane, it is quite obvious that there is nothing else to compare with it in the world.

The amount of tea that remains in India even for sale is limited. The amount of tea available for purchase is very small. What we are doing by this Bill is that we are by-passing what I have said is the largest market in the world. I want to make it quite clear to every Senator that British tea dealers do not bring that from the East to England. The tea is sent there by the producer for sale. Why do these very big tea interests in the East do that? For the reason that they are going to the big market. They are going to oblige the biggest customer.

The tea comes from the East and is not invoiced in price. It comes here under what is called an auction invoice. In other words, whatever it makes under the hammer in England, it will be taken at. Sometimes they get the worst of the deal. They might sell better in the East. It is much more important to keep on supplying the requirement which the British market represents. To keep all figures in proportion, I want to point out that our internal consumption is only 24,000,000 lb. The tea is invoiced from the East in what are called "breaks". I am going to be somewhat technical, but I hope the House will bear with me because very few members of either House of the Oireachtas understand this business as I hope I do.

A "break" is made up of something from 40 to perhaps 60 or 70 chests of tea. The important thing about the "break" is that every spoonful of tea in those chests—a "break" is never more than 70 chests—is identical. It is very important for the skilful tea buyer to have access to tasting samples of that tea. That cannot be done from Colombo, Calcutta or Djakarta because tea is shipped in packages containing a great number of "breaks". This is one of the reasons why the English and Irish market have loomed so large in the tea business in the past. It was because we dealers sold exceptionally fine tea. Senators will remember the tea they drank in 1939 and most Senators know the tea they have been drinking since 1949. It is due to the fact that we are compelled to import tea as a "paper" article of certain type and size without tasting it. It means that the tradesman is denied the only tool he has—his own skill. Tasting is much more important than anything else. If you cannot taste tea before you buy it, you are going to buy badly and not selectively. You will provide your customers and consumers with a poorer article. All that has been demonstrated very clearly during the past ten years.

The Minister mentioned—I am not sure if he did so to-day—that Tea Importers, Limited, has been in operation for the past 20 years. It has been in operation effectively only since 1947. Up to that time, we got almost a full ration from the British. Tea Importers, Limited, have been supplying us for only ten years. In fact, we got almost a full ration. They must buy tea by telegram and you cannot buy tea by telegram. If you wire to Calcutta and say you want 50,000 or 100,000 chests of a certain grade of tea, you will get anything the seller likes to send. The people who bought the tea for us, the people who invoiced the tea to us, were exactly the same people we were buying tea from in London. We know quite well that if this Bill becomes law the dealing we will be doing in the East will be with precisely the same people who operate in Mincing Lane, with this disadvantage, that only the very big man can go there.

I will have to be a little more technical. The Minister spoke about the limited season for gathering or plucking the tea. That is complete rubbish, of course. In every tea garden in India and Ceylon, plucking or flushing starts in the beginning of March and goes on until the end of November. In Indonesia, that plucking goes on all the year round. That was one of the reasons the Minister's advisers put up to let him feel that this was a frightfully vital thing which could be done only by certain people. Of course, that was completely stupid. Tea is plucked for nine months of the year in the major countries in which we are interested and for 12 months in Indonesia.

The Minister spoke about the lists Tea Importers, Limited, had provided. Does the Minister know that there are 2,000 tea gardens in Assam alone and that any one of those would produce maybe 600 to 1,500 "breaks" in a plucking or flushing season?

I want to talk about this matter of the plucking again. Tea is gathered at the end of a day. That finishes that particular day's crop. It is put on wire mesh, dried, rolled and allowed to ferment, and finally fired, and when all that is done, it is graded into different strengths and sizes and it is impossible to make a common and uniform article. It is quite obvious that this will only be a very limited part of that season's output by that garden, and it is equally obvious to any tea buyer that that part will never be equalled or likened by any other portion of the crop of that garden for the whole year, though it is only a very small amount of it compared with the entire output. In two consecutive days, the result will be quite different, depending on the weather, the climate on the day of flushing, and many other factors which will give the tea quite different characteristics. There is no use in the Minister talking about the crop of a particular garden. Every day's output is different in quality.

That is why it is important that you have to taste tea before you buy it. The dealer must taste to buy well. If you want to know the reason for the difference in quality, all you have to do is to go from here to Belfast, or even to Newry, and ask for a cup of tea at a good hotel there, and ask for a cup of tea in Leinster House. You know what you are getting here in Leinster House. It is as "good" as a dealer is able to supply.

I have had to let tea into my premises at the beginning of this scheme that I was ashamed to sell. I will tell of my experiences. When this Tea Importers, Limited, system started, there were something like 50 or 55 primary wholesalers, and I was one of them. You had to sell something like 100,000 lb. of tea in a given period to qualify for coming in on the ground floor, and you bought well on the ground floor, if you could. But after two deliveries I had to cease dealing with Tea Importers, Limited, because I would not sell the tea that was coming to my premises. I had to pay other wholesalers a very substantial profit of 2d. or 3d. a lb. for bulk buying of 25 or 30 chests of tea a fortnight, in order that I would have the privilege of testing a whole lot of samples which I could not do because of the Tea Importers, Limited, system. The paper buying system would not work for me and will not work for any man proud of the trade he is in.

"All traders will be on an equal footing." I think the Minister has his tongue in his cheek when he says that. Has he thought of the money that will be involved in this matter? Take the very smallest wholesaler, the man selling about 1,000 chests a year or 20 chests a week. He must meet roughly £15,000 to buy several months' supply of tea, and he must buy several months' supply because of the time the tea takes to get from India into his warehouse. The man who buys that tea, which he buys blindly, must put down 20 per cent. at least. He does that out of his own pocket. There are credit facilities being arranged by the new importing group. When the tea arrives here, you may take it from them, and, at the end of the three months' period, complete your transaction, and the tea will be barely in the country when the time has arrived when they will have to give further credit for a further purchase. That is the smallest man in the trade.

Then there is another fellow who handles 3,000 chests of tea. He is not a very big fellow, either, but his transaction comes to £45,000. There is another fellow above him, and he does about 20,000 chests. He is very near to the kind of fellow who is advising the Minister. He is not in this for fun or for love of tea. His transactions will cost £250,000 for one shipment that will be here in time for him to do at least two months' trade. The moment it is on the water, he must start buying again, another £250,000, involving 20,000 chests. When you think that our entire trade comes to something like 240,000 chests, it is quite obvious that there are bigger men about than the 20,000 chest man.

To talk about the small fellow being able to compete in the open market or to get his hands on that kind of money is, I think, just cynical. I do not think any small or medium wholesaler can survive under this system. It is devised by the few to keep out the many. The only way they could keep them out was by saying: "You must buy in the East". I reckon, as I think it was stated in the Dáil, that roughly 20 people will begin operating this new scheme, but that is going to diminish to 12 or 14. You are handing over the entire trade, £5,000,000 in money and 24,000,000 lb. in weight, to those 12 or 14 people.

The Minister must agree with me that if forty-ninetieths of the existing wholesalers could not put up £2,500 each, there must be quite a number in the remaining fifty-ninetieths who are only a very small margin line below. It is only the big fellow who is going to survive. I know a smallish wholesaler in Cork. He was a primary wholesaler. He is closing down this week and taking a job as a tea buyer for one of the bigger buyers here. He is being hunted out, and many will be hunted out, if the Minister's Bill is passed. It is going to be inevitable monopoly. The small man will be squeezed out because in the first place, the money is too big and, in the second place, he will have to buy blindly. His only chance of buying against the big fellow is to buy on his skill and his mouth—to taste the tea before he buys it. If he does that, he may fight for his trade and keep it. The bigger fellow can afford to buy blindly.

I want to remind the Minister of something that happened in this Parliament House about four years ago, when he was previously Minister for Industry and Commerce. There was a very large parcel of tea bought by Tea Importers, Limited, not in Calcutta or in Colombo, but in Mincing Lane, over 1,500,000 lb. I knew it had been bought there because I know the wharf marks when the chests arrive, and I knew that it had not come direct from India. I had a question asked in the House about what that tea cost. The Minister replied that it cost 1/2½ per lb. in Mincing Lane. I got a supplementary question asked as to what that tea was sold at, and the Minister was unable to tell me. He had not that information.

When I later became a member of Dáil Eireann, there was a discussion on this tea business and I reverted to that series of questions. I said: "Minister, that tea that was bought by Tea Importers, Limited, for 1/2½ a lb. was sold to the biggest possible buyer at 3/- a lb." The Minister replied "Rubbish." He was then Deputy Lemass. I wonder will he reply "Rubbish" to-day when I repeat the challenge to him that it was bought at 1/2½ and sold at 3/- a lb. That tea went from the primary to the secondary wholesaler at probably 3/4 a lb. The secondary wholesaler blended and distributed it to the grocer, who probably paid at least 3/10 a lb. What did the housekeeper pay for it? She paid the best part of 4/9 or 5/- a lb. for tea that had cost 1/2½.

I am not grumbling about Tea Importers, Limited, taking what seems to have been a very big profit, because I knew precisely the reason they had to take the profit. They took the profit, because, in some buying previously, they had lost very badly. They are a non-profit-making company and they had lost a good deal of money in the previous buying. But if there was no monopoly there then, if there was complete freedom to purchase, there would be many traders who would have been able to sell that tea to the public at about 1/9 instead of 4/9. The fellow who bought badly would either have to go to the bank or go out of business, but he could not foist his losses on the consuming public. When you develop a monopoly of any kind— and this is a near-monopoly—that will happen and it is certain to happen again.

I tasted tea a fortnight ago in Cork which was bought on the London market. The current situation is that the tea priced for 4/6 here has a London price of 3/-. If you pass this Bill, you are passing a very bad Bill. As was mentioned in the Dáil, and let it not be forgotten, every penny on a lb. of tea in this country represents £100,000 per annum—and, in one case alone, you have 18 pence of a difference. Are you not doing something that you will find it very hard to justify afterwards? Is the Minister happy about this picture?

There were some fallacies in the arguments in the Dáil, but I want to refer in particular to some of Deputy Norton's fallacies. Obviously, he knows nothing about the business. He talked about handling charges, about packing in London and sending the packets over here, rather than employing girls on the work here. The Minister knows that there has been no such thing in the tea trade for the past 30 years. The tea comes into this country unopened just as it left India. All the opening, blending and packing is done by Irish nationals.

I hope the Minister will answer this question. Does he know what this new company propose to estimate as their charges for bringing tea from the East to Ireland? Have they indicated to him what the figure is supposed to be? I got the figure of 8d. a lb. The corresponding London figure for bringing tea from the East, wharfing it, storing it and shipping it, is 3¼d.— compare the figure of 8d. with that of 3¼d. I should like the Minister to send for them about this matter. If they are allowed to make a charge like 8d. to cover all kinds of foolishness in buying and other losses that might accrue from a company that will not be very satisfactory from the beginning, it is dreadful on the consumer.

Several of the men engaged in this business—the biggest men in it—have erected very large warehouses in this town for storing tea. As far as I know, we have been able to store 240,000 chests of tea effectively enough for the past ten years. We were able to deal with 24,000,000 lb. yearly but these gentlemen do not want to give a living or a profit to anybody else. They do not want to give so much as £1 for storing it. However, 240,000 chests of tea come into this country. There will be exactly the same labour content except that if it goes through different ports such as Limerick, Waterford and Cork, as well as Dublin, that labour content will be more diversified. We should consider whether that would not be desirable in this country. All the blending and packing will be done here, the same as it has always been done.

I will not go into the technicalities about the board—the election—because I do not mind who is on it. However, I object to the principle of the thing, which is wrong. I know some of the boys will be on the board. Already they have shelved two men who were put on for window-dressing purposes a few years ago because now the top men are coming into the open.

The Minister says the trade is in favour of this measure. He knows that, in 1953, when a ballot was taken, out of 83 members of the Wholesale Tea Dealers' Association at that time, only 33 voted for these proposals. The Minister is also aware that the remainder were advised from Kildare Street that they would not get permission to buy anywhere except in the East. The average small fellow, particularly the small and the middle-sized fellow, feels there is a gun to his head. He knows he might be left out, that somebody might get an advantage which he will not get and he will try to keep in the race as long as he can. If the Minister thinks the tea trade want this measure, would the Minister undertake now to have a secret ballot of the registered tea wholesalers of this country and let anybody he likes supervise it, and I will abide by the result?

There is a good deal of hypocrisy about the word "nationals" in this connection. The Minister knows that at least two or three very big English firms are in the tea trade in this country and that they will probably be the biggest operators. I do not care what names they have on their boards of directors. I will not mention names, but I can say they are substantial people in the tea trade.

The Minister said that if he did permit freedom of market, these people would at once go to London and buy. Why would they go there? I never met an Englishman yet who went anywhere except where the easier shilling was to be found. If there was a penny more profit in Calcutta, he would go there. If he is compelled by us to buy in Calcutta now, his organisation will make some of the smaller men in this country have a very uneasy and unsafe future. I beg the Minister to reconsider this matter. I beg him to have a secret ballot of every member of the wholesale trade. He knows them all. He would be quite surprised at the result. The only reason for this policy of going to the East is to eliminate the competition from the smaller man and the man at least as skilful.

I will go to the East because I am quite sure that some of these English firms in Mincing Lane now—these dreadful people—probably buy and stock teas in the East and probably sample them by airmail, and I would be able to buy it after tasting it because I will not buy it any other way. The Minister is compelling me to go 4,000 or 5,000 miles further east. If I have to go to Tea Importers, Limited, I will be charged 5 per cent. I should like to know what the 5 per cent. is put on. Is it on freight and handling charges alone or on the bulk cost of tea? I do not know if I have other points to make because this subject has become rather tiresome to me. I will just sum up the remarks I have made.

Selective buying of tea is much more economical than bulk buying. I defy anybody to contradict that axiom, particularly when you are a small country on the threshold of the biggest selling market in the world. You are by-passing that market with 24,000,000 lb. and you are leaving a £6,000,000 market behind.

Secondly, if you want to buy good tea and stop buying the type of tea which we get, for example, in the restaurant downstairs, you must get the tea dealers of his country to buy by taste, because you cannot buy tea on paper.

Thirdly, will anybody say I am wrong in my assertion that ten years of bulk buying have proved conclusively that what you get is poorish tea at a rather high price?

Fourthly, there is not equal opportunity for all dealers any more than there is in this world for all people. Those with more money can do better than the fellows with less. That applies in particular to the tea trade. You are creating a monopoly. You are injuring the small man and benefiting very few.

Fifthly, there is not one pennyworth of extra employment in this new system, and in fact there is no national principle in it. In fact, I found it nauseating to find a few people who became directors of banks, who were sailing to the East with Tricolours flying bravely from the mast. It was a wonderful thing to do, but it did not deceive me in the slightest. It confined the sales of 24,000,000 lb. of tea to very few people who could insure themselves. They could get together, though they were a handful only, and if they did buy badly they could ensure that they would recover their losses out of the public pocket. As a final result, our people will be denied good tea at fair prices, because those people who are able to do so will be prevented from exercising their skill in a competitive manner. This is a bad Bill, which will enrich a few at the expense of many.

I listened with great interest to the speech of Senator Barry, and I speak perhaps in one way in contrast, because I cannot claim any special knowledge of the tea trade, except from the consuming end —and I am not too sure even that I would be able to distinguish between what he condemned as the very poor quality of tea to be got in bulk buying, from the "very best quality" guaranteed us by specialised traders.

In the main, I felt a great measure of sympathy with what he said, viewing it from the point of view of the consuming public. He put one question which I do not think the Minister answered—what is the purpose of this Bill? The Minister put up a few reasons for it, but he did not give an answer that would warrant the passing of this legislation. He told us that he wants to abolish the present "temporary monopoly." The Bill is setting up, if not the same kind of monopoly, at least another kind of monopoly. The importing agency will have a complete monopoly on the importing side, as I understand it from what Senator Barry said. I am aware, of course, that tea traders will have the right to ask the company to act as their agents in importing tea which they have bought in Calcutta or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the agency will have the monopoly of that importation, it will be the only agency through whom the importing can de done, it will be the only importing company, in accordance with the terms of the Bill before us.

The Minister is concerned to abolish a temporary monopoly set up under emergency conditions, but he is setting up a permanent monopoly. Why does he consider it necessary to restrict the importation of tea to one company, however freely its services may be, in theory, at the disposal of individual traders? Then he used a phrase, something to the effect that the other object of the Bill was to restore to individual traders the right to buy tea individually. That is true, to some extent. He is restoring freedom with one hand and establishing the abolition of freedom with the other. He talks about restoring freedom to the trade, but I do not think he is entitled to refer to this Bill as restoring freedom. It is abolishing one form of restriction and putting on other forms of restriction. He says he is restoring freedom to the trade but that the trade will have "freedom" to buy only in the country of origin. He is restoring freedom, but a freedom that does not extend to buying tea where they like. Therefore, it would be fairer if he were to talk about restoring some freedom, but retaining the right to interfere with other freedoms.

Then he told us—and if I understand Senator Barry correctly, he seemed to agree with the Minister here—that he was concerned to protect the small traders vis-a-vis the big traders. I wonder why. As Senator Barry said in another part of his speech, in certain circumstances, in business, if the businessman cannot carry on, he goes out of business; and it is not the function of the State to put up a little barrier around him and keep him in business at the expense of the consumer. I know that in many trades in this country that principle is observed: to get State interference in order to maintain and keep going some of the smaller and less efficient businesses; but I wonder whether that is, from the point of view of the consumer, really good business. Who is paying for it ultimately? The Irish consumer, of course, in the price of the lb. of tea.

I do not feel that the Minister answered satisfactorily the question— why should Irish tea traders not buy tea anywhere they like, why should they not have that freedom? I should like to hear him justifying his refusal to give the Irish tea trader the right to buy tea anywhere he likes. It would be unfair to the Minister to suggest that he did not offer any explanation of this. He did. He referred to "our unfortunate experience"—that was his phrase—during the last war and he said that the insistence in this Bill that we buy it in the country of origin will obviate the possibility of a recurrence of that "unfortunate experience" during the last war, that it will maintain our right to a certain quota of tea in the markets of the country of origin.

I cannot believe that the Minister is successfully deceiving even himself on that issue. Does he really think that, if we have a theoretical right to a quota of tea in Calcutta during war time when ships are being bombed and torpedoed and destroyed, the tea merchants of Calcutta in some obscure way will see to it that the tea gets to Dublin, whether Ireland is or is not involved in that war? How is the maintenance of a theoretical quota going to affect us, if in fact we do not get the tea? The Minister thinks we will have a right to a quota maintained in the country of origin, but I would ask him who will run the blockade for us, if there is a blockade, any more than during the last war?

Irish Shipping?

Irish Shipping may do its level best, but in point of fact there is no nation and no shipping that will be prepared, on the basis of a theoretical peacetime quota, to run a blockade for our sake, if there is a blockade. I suggest, with respect, that to envisage that, as the Minister seemed to do, is nonsense. When the Minister refers to "our unfortunate experience" during the last war, in relation to Mincing Lane and so on, and the fact that Britain did not give us the quota that she thought originally she could give us, I cannot help feeling that the Minister is concerned more with his own prestige, and with a certain feeling of pique, and with the effect of some of his own blunders at that time, rather than with any realistic view of the situation as it was then, as it is now, and as it may be again in the course of another war.

We all remember an appeal by the present Minister towards the end of 1940 to stock tea. He appealed to all the Irish public to stock large quantities of tea. It is quite obvious that people with the capacity to store quantities of tea, and with the money to buy it, behaved quite rightly in storing tea. The wealthier and more privileged sections of the community were in a position to follow the Minister's advice: the ordinary poorer tea-consumer could not. Then, from early in 1941, if my memory does not betray me—within a matter of weeks—the Minister suddenly said: "Crisis! We will be short of tea, but we will play fair; whatever is left now in the hands of wholesalers, and what we can get in future, will be divided evenly between rich and poor alike."

The Minister was not altogether to blame because it is true that Britain found itself in a position of being unable to fulfil a commitment—given under certain circumstances—when those circumstances had changed. I feel, however, that the Minister is being a little petty in taking vengeance, as it were, on Mincing Lane now, for what they were forced to do by reason of the blitz and the blockade, when at the time things were not all that easy in Britain. I feel the Minister is still annoyed by his own past blunders in relation to tea and storing tea, and the "meticulous" rationing of what was left at a time when some State-sponsored company should long ago have been doing the storing, and not the more privileged sections of the community.

I think perhaps a case might be made —the Minister did not make it, I think —for not going direct to the British market. He might say we would like to help the people of Ceylon, the people of India, the producers, that we would like to establish more direct links, and that we do not see why we should buy through London. But I am afraid the Irish consumers will ask: "Is it going to cost us more for this token of political friendship towards tea-producing countries? How much per lb. is it going to cost us?" The Minister may say it is not going to cost us anything more. If in fact, however, we are going to get better value in Calcutta and the countries of origin, why does the Minister have to prevent the traders from going to Mincing Lane, if in fact, financially, they are going to get better value in Calcutta?

Is it not, rather, a fact that this Bill aims to guarantee that we must avoid buying in Mincing Lane even when the Irish consumers would get far better value there? That seems to be the central point, from the consumer's point of view. It is a point which the Minister has not met by producing figures. I would differ from Senator Barry on bulk-buying. I think there is a strong case for bulk-buying. I think Tea Importers, Limited, have done wonderful work for the country and deserve the Minister's tribute. They have done unselfish work, and their work was not for profit.

I think a case for continued bulk-buying, as at present, can be made. We talk as if we consumed a lot of tea, but while per head we have a large tea consumption we are in fact small fry in the tea markets of the world, and, therefore, it is in our interests as a community to buy in bulk. This Bill is not for the purpose of buying in bulk, it is for the purpose of allowing us to bid against one another in the countries of origin. I do not think even the Minister, with all his powers of persuasion, could persuade us that by going there and bidding against one another we are going to get better prices. It is like a man bringing his wife to an auction to bid against him for a particular article under the impression that he will get a better price that way. It is ridiculous. It would be far better if we as a country were to buy tea as one entity, were to continue some system of bulk-buying.

We are, under this Bill, to be made quite free to bid against one another in the markets of India and Ceylon. I see no advantage in that. I see no advantage in refraining from buying tea in Britain for evermore simply because of the way they treated us during the war, because they cut our tea quota under the "pretext" that they were bombed, blitzed and blockaded. If we are in an economy which is run for the purpose of supplying goods under the best conditions to the public I think we should be prepared to indulge in bulk-buying from the cheapest market.

The Minister went on to give—again I thought rather unnecessarily, at any rate I did not see the need for them— the reasons why we are concerned to prevent the re-entry of certain "external traders" into the tea trade of this country. Why? I do not see why. I think it might be good. The Minister believes it might be good in other industries, and we are sending people around the world to persuade Americans, Canadians and Germans to come in here with the "know-how" and the capital to start this business and that business because we think it would be good for us, but such foreigners are to be kept out of the tea trade. What is there so sacred about the tea trade that at all costs we must keep out external foreign investors, that foreign investors must be anathema? Surely the test is, if you are behaving in that way in relation to the rest of the economy, would they be giving good value to the country or not? It is almost as if the Minister is afraid that if they came in they might make competition a little too hot for some of our less efficient traders at home. I see no point in keeping out the foreign investor, the foreign trader, from the tea trade, when we are welcoming with open arms all kinds of other foreign investors in practically every trade you care to mention.

The new company will act, the Minister tells us, as an importing agency— an expensive and monopolistic agency, in my opinion. I do not think I have to develop that point because it seems to me to have been amply made by Senator Barry in his speech. This Bill aims, as I see it, at placing official trade restrictions on the whole tea trade. To be frank, you might just as well call it the Tea Trade Restriction Bill. Usually, when we bring in a trade restriction Bill, it is for the purpose of preventing unfair trade practices, but this Bill is for the purpose of officially setting up unfair practices. For whose benefit are these restrictions? Restrictions as to who shall buy the tea—a list of registered traders; restrictions as to where they shall buy the tea—in the country of origin; restrictions as to the very nationality of the buyers of our tea.

I have stressed the fact that in his other capacity—I will not say his dual capacity because I do not think the Minister confines himself to having just a dual personality, I think he goes well into triple and quadruple personalities, and talks in public about free trade, free enterprise, the value of competition and all the rest, but in one of his many capacities—he will be coming before us very soon to tell us it is necessary now to modify somewhat the provisions of the Control of Manufactures Act in order to admit more foreigners if possible. That would seem to be the new trend in the present Irish industrial situation. A new trend admired and praised by the present Minister in one of his other capacities. But to-day with this Bill he is defending a Bill which asks us, under Section 4, to give him the powers to restrict entry to the trade, to regulate tea traders about whom the Minister is satisfied that—I quote paragraph (i) of Section 4:—

"the applicant is not financially assisted by a person ordinarily resident outside the State"...

and paragraph (ii)

"in case the applicant is a company —all the shares of the company are in the beneficial ownership of Irish citizens"...

—"all of them", not just 51 per cent. or 75 per cent.—and paragraph (iii) which states:—

"the business will be managed and controlled by an Irish citizen"...

and so on. Obviously, this is restricting very closely this trade to our own nationals. I am puzzled by that, and I should like to hear the Minister's comment on it, in the light of his own view that we want to encourage foreign investors, to get the foreigners in with their know-how, drive and initiative, to help put stimulus into our trade and commerce.

I would comment, in passing, on this phrase that the Minister must be "satisfied the applicant is not financially assisted by a person ordinarily resident outside the State." I think it is going to be rather hard to determine by whom one is being "financially assisted", and I should like to hear the Minister's comment on the interpretation of that. I notice under another section he has even power to cancel the registration of a person who suddenly becomes "financially assisted" by a person outside the State. In all that, we are having further restrictions, and I ask the question: For whose benefit are these restrictions being imposed upon this trade? Is it for the benefit of the community, or for the benefit of the favoured few, the privileged inner circle in the Irish tea trade?

The Minister, in winding up his speech, said this Bill was the way in which we will get "the best value." The Minister is very good at keeping a straight face, but I find it astonishing that he could say that by putting on all these restrictions, the price of tea will be considerably reduced. If we were to continue bulk-buying and if we were to be allowed to buy in the cheapest markets, then we should have the best value; but with a perfectly straight face he comes before this House and says that this Bill will ensure "the best value". Obviously, he does not mean it is the best value for the consumer. For whom then is it the best value? I suggest it will be, as happens all too often in this country, a privileged and favoured group of Irish traders who will succeed in remaining on the inside of the charmed circle which this Bill is setting up.

The purpose of this Bill is the establishment and maintenance of restriction and privilege within the Irish tea trade. Those are the people who will get "the best value" of which the Minister speaks. Who will be the losers by these restrictive practices, if this Bill becomes law? The losers, of course, will be the public, the consumers, and I would regard this Bill as another example of legislation for the protection of the chosen few, at the expense of the patient, the all-too patient many, and for that reason I shall vote against it.

There is one point I should like to make in relation to what Senator Sheehy Skeffington said in reference to Section 4, that is, the section which the Minister stated keeps the tea trade in the hands of our own nationals. I should like him to consider that section again, in the light, or in the possibility, of a branch of a big company in Mincing Lane or anywhere else starting up as importers, and the possibility of an Indian firm coming over here, sending representatives over here, and starting off as an importing firm in this country. Not alone would they have the expert knowledge of both sides of the business—that is not my chief point—but, in addition, such a firm starting a business here might possibly lead to a greater interest, though maybe only in a small way, in our trade with India.

I think it would be a pity not to leave a way open by way of licence from the Minister for such a firm as that coming over and starting business in this country. They could import tea and might import other things, and this might possibly lead to a greater export trade with India. This is quite possible at a time when we are looking to get people from abroad to take an interest in manufacturing in this country. In any case, it would be a possible outlet for some of our manufactured goods. If a national of India were encouraged to come here and start a trade, it might lead to greater things in the future.

I was considerably intrigued to hear Senator Sheehy Skeffington pleading the case of external middlemen, as he is a speaker who usually so assiduously defends the cause of monopolies in this House. It seems very strange that he is now engaged in defending the claims of external traders to handle our tea trade, to make a profit on it and to sell tea to us here cheaper than we can buy it ourselves in the countries of origin. He talked about 1940 and 1941 and said that this Bill is doing away with the system that obtained during those years. This Bill is drafted to ensure that we shall have for the future reserve stocks of tea, if such are required in any emergency that may arise.

Why not have bulk-buying as at present?

Whatever alterations may be made in the structure of the company will not prevent bulk-buying. The Bill is designed, as anyone who reads it will learn, to continue the system of buying from the countries of origin. As has been stated, both here and in the Dáil, the purpose of the Bill is to bring to an end the arrangements for the importation of tea which began during the war. For our part, we believe that the policy of purchasing directly from the producing countries is the best. I do not claim to be an expert like Senator Barry, but I do know that Tea Importers, Limited, was a non-profit-making concern set up under emergency conditions with a guarantee from the Minister for Finance regarding its bank accommodation. Now that conditions are normal, or are regarded as such, the temporary arrangements are being replaced, as I read it, by this measure.

Most businessmen who have had experience of emergency conditions will readily agree with the arguments put forward by the Minister in the Dáil in support of this measure. He said, and I quote from the Official Report, Volume 165, No. 2, column 248:—

"I regard it also as a matter of prime importance that the permanent measure should provide that the smaller traders will not be in any more disadvantageous trading position vis-a-vis their richer competitors than was the case before the war when both operated on the London market. This Bill is the outcome of discussions which were initiated as far back as 1953 with the Wholesale Tea Dealers' Association of Ireland, an organisation which is fully representative of the trade. The association are taking steps to form and register a company which will be known as Tea Importers (1958), Limited, and the terms of this Bill must be considered in relation to the memorandum and articles of association of that company.”

He then went on to outline the financial structure of the company and he put in a qualification regarding the alteration of the articles of association which says that the permission of the Minister must be sought before any alteration is, in fact, attempted. That could be described as a wise decision. It is also to be noted that there are about 90 wholesalers in the country and that new entrants can register, provided they can show the necessary qualifications. This provision gives to those genuinely interested a chance to become a tea dealer.

The Bill has been attacked because, as has been said, it rules out buying tea in the London market.

It rules out buying tea by taste. That is the subtle difference.

I am not inclined to accept the Senator's suggestion. If he will pardon me, no tea buyer will buy tea except by taste. He would be a terrible fool if he did because he could get turf mould.

Ask the Minister. He will tell you.

If the Senator thinks that the Indonesians or the Indians are prepared to bark their shins running around the tea plantations as they did years ago for England's accommodation in order to send cheap tea to the London market, he is very much mistaken indeed.

That is not fair.

One would imagine, from listening to Senator Sheehy Skeffington and Senator Barry, that those people were prepared to do that and were prepared to go on in slavery in order to supply Mincing Lane——

I must object.

——so that the dealers there would make a profit in selling to us here, as alleged, cheaper than we could buy from the producers.

Would the Minister please disabuse his colleague?

I hope to disabuse a number of the Senator's colleagues also. Senator Barry is a tea merchant of repute and much experience. So far as I know he is the only member so qualified in the Seanad. Therefore, Senators will attach to his words a great deal of weight, and, perhaps, visualise this debate as one between an ill-informed amateur like myself and an experienced operator like Senator Barry. I think, however, Senators must take cognisance right away of the fact that the great majority of the reputable and experienced tea wholesalers of Ireland do not agree with him.

I ask the Minister to test that.

The Senator put forward that challenge knowing quite well he was safe in doing so, because I could not and would not accept it at this stage. This matter was submitted to the tea wholesalers of Ireland and the proposals which have come to me and which are embodied in the Bill are those which have been adopted by the majority of them. I want the Seanad to remember that, even though Senator Barry has all the authority which his experience and standing in the trade give him, he happens in this matter to be in the minority in the trade. The majority of the tea wholesalers think he is wrong. Unfortunately, the majority of the tea wholesalers of Ireland are not represented in the Seanad and they have to speak, if they speak at all, through me.

What about the consumers?

The purpose of this Bill is to protect the consumers of tea in Ireland.

Oh, heavens!

Senator Barry spoke with authority on the Bill and Senator Sheehy Skeffington began by saying he knew very little about the tea trade and made that more obvious as he proceeded with his remarks. We have a position in which the statutory basis upon which the tea trade is now carried on in this country is coming to an end on the 30th June next. It would have ended on the 31st March last but I secured the passage through the Oireachtas of a temporary Bill continuing it for another three months' period.

What will happen after the 30th June? There are three courses. We can, as the previous Government did in 1956, decide to continue the temporary arrangement for a further period. We can decide to remove all restrictions upon the tea trade and allow everybody to deal in tea by any method he wishes or we can decide, as this Bill suggests we should decide, to institute permanent arrangements which will be beneficial to the country and particularly to the tea consumers of the country. I think very few people can argue in favour of maintaining the present position. I am not quite sure why the previous Government so decided in 1956.

Because they owed too much money.

That was the explanation given in the Dáil by Deputy Sweetman who was then Minister for Finance. He said that Tea Importers, Limited, were so heavily in debt that they could not be allowed to terminate their existence until the debt had been discharged. That information appears to conflict very much with Senator Barry's assumption that they were selling tea at an exorbitant profit. If they were selling tea purchased by them at an exorbitant profit they could not have accumulated that debt.

That was in 1953 when you were in office.

I am prepared to go into the history of that debt, if you like, but I do not think it is relevant.

It is hardly relevant to this Bill.

It is hardly relevant, though it does explain why it was that, in 1956, the Government then in office which by doing nothing could have brought about the situation Senator Barry now desires, decided otherwise.

Surely they had to liquidate the stocks they had?

We have to do that now. I am not sure whether Senators are giving this matter consideration from the viewpoint of securing the most practical and efficient arrangement of securing the tea requirements of this country, or from some consideration as to how the external trade of the country could best be carried on generally. It is quite true that when this State came into existence its distribution system was based in England. All the primary wholesalers who purchased the requirements of this country were located in England. The warehouses in which the stocks required to meet the day to day needs of retailers were held were located at English ports. That applied not merely to tea but to tobacco and almost every commodity which has to be imported into this country.

It was perhaps inevitable, in the days when Ireland and England were one political unit, that the centre of trading activities should be in England. It was not considered then that that was good for Ireland, and it is rather astonishing to find the idea advocated now that it would be good to get back to that position. So far as tea is concerned, we have got out of it. We got out of it by the accident of the war. Up to the outbreak of war, that situation had remained unchanged, as far as tea is concerned, though it had changed in relation to tobacco and was changing in relation to things like citrus fruits and other commodities, where markets were being opened up in this country and for which warehouses had been built by harbour authorities and other organisations.

In the case of tea, the situation was more or less unchanged. In fact, it was even becoming more pronounced, because while Senator Barry talks about some primary wholesalers going out of business now, a lot of Irish primary wholesalers were going out of business before the war. The British primary merchants were then carrying on an aggressive campaign to secure complete control of the trade.

Are they not here still?

Yes, the most important are.

Those who are here are those which operate retail stores themselves. If Senator Sheehy Skeffington does not see the difference between an American establishing a factory in this country and a merchant putting up a brass plate on a door, with no other employment than a telephone and a typewriter, I cannot make the difference clear to him.

What are the dangers of competition?

I am all in favour of competition provided we can ensure that competition does not lead to monopoly, as it often does, and it was tending to do in this country before the war when the tea trade was largely getting into very limited hands. Anyway, here we are out of the situation we had in those pre-war days. Senator Sheehy Skeffington says that I am worried about my prestige. I pay very little attention to remarks of that kind. It is not true that this Bill is based on a lingering recollection of the treatment we got during the war. No doubt the decision to do something to improve the position of the tea trade in this country after the war was taken then, but the measures proposed can, I think, be justified on their merits.

The difficulty about getting tea during the war was not that we did not have access to India. If, in another war, there is a blockade of the country and a physical difficulty about transporting tea, we will do without it, as every other country in the same circumstances will. Senator Sheehy Skeffington was not facing up to the problem which arose in the last war in that connection.

The next war will not last as long.

It is true that, before the last war, we were not buying tea in India, and when the Indian authorities began to allocate tea during the war on the basis of pre-war sales we had no claim to any tea because we were not direct purchasers. The tea we had purchased came through London and the benefit of our purchases of tea accrued to the tea trade of Great Britain. It is no harm to remind the Seanad that much of the tea that was intended for this country never got to it, because it was blocked in London in circumstances which perhaps it is not necessary to recount, but which certainly could have been brought to an end, if one single important London wholesale merchant had objected to them. I asked them to do so and none of them would.

As I said, however, that has nothing to do with the position we are in now. Here we have to decide to do something about the future of tea. Are we going to allow a situation to develop in which the pre-war conditions will be re-established, or to do something which would appear to be far more to our advantage, to build up a wholesale tea trade of our own, to establish direct contact with the producers of tea in the countries where it is produced, and to organise direct shipments from those countries to our markets? All the evidence is that, by direct purchase and shipments, we get better tea at lower prices.

Senator Barry says "No." It is, of course, something that cannot be settled by argument. I say that the evidence is that, so far, all during the greater part of the 11 years that Tea Importers, Limited, were operating, the average retail price of tea here was lower than in London.

What about the tea you are getting in the restaurant here? Is it drinkable?

I am not in a position to discuss that, because so far as I know the tea merchants of this country were in a position to get through Tea Importers, Limited, any qualities of tea they wanted but, of course, it was very convenient for a merchant who wanted to lower the price of his tea to buy from Tea Importers, Limited, grades slightly below those he normally had procured and then to meet complaints from his customers by saying: "It is not my fault. It is the fault of Tea Importers, Limited."

I can assure the Minister that that is not true.

I am certain that it was not true in the case of Senator Barry's business, but I should not like to say that it was not true in the case of every business. However, so far as I know, Tea Importers, Limited, were there to buy whatever tea traders wanted. I do not think Senator Barry will question the competence of the directors of that company.

Yes. They only wrote telegrams.

I do not think that is correct at all.

It is quite true.

They had their agents in India. Some of them, as Senator Barry said, were British firms established in India.

All of them.

Not all of them. Others, I think the majority, were, in fact, native Indian firms and it was through those agents that they made their contacts with the market. They purchased tea direct from the producers —from the gardens as they are called, as well as at auctions.

If the Minister would let me intervene for a second, I think it is only fair that we should take this matter fairly fully. No importer in this country tasted tea that was imported for the last 11 years. That is the point, the only point. No importer tasted it, whatever about the man in Calcutta who bought it and sold it on commission or brokerage. We did not taste it.

There was no question of somebody in Calcutta selling tea on commission. Tea Importers, Limited, did not buy that way.

They did.

They bought from the producers of tea or at the tea auctions. I am discussing their normal practice. I am certain that those who were buying tea on their behalf were as competent in the tea trade as any merchant in London or anybody employed by London. Senator Barry said that Mincing Lane is the greatest tea market of the world. It is not a great international tea market.

It is the biggest market in the world.

It is of no significance at all in relation to international trade. The total quantity of Indian tea re-exported from England last year was much less than 5 per cent. of the quantity of tea exported from India to England. Less than 5 per cent. of the tea sold in Mincing Lane is sold for export from Britain.

£6,000,000 against £160,000,000.

It is a big market because Britain is a big consumer. The consumption per head in Britain is practically the same as the consumption per head in this country. We are both the biggest consumers of tea in the world. Senator Sheehy Skeffington thinks we are of no significance in the tea market. The 1957 figures suggest we are the third biggest consumers of Indian tea in the world. Great Britain is the first; United States second; and we are the third. We are practically the same as Canada and Russia.

My point was that, although, per head, we are big consumers, the 3,000,000 of us represent a relatively small amount. Are the figures not based on per head consumption?

The total quantity of tea which we purchased in India last year was three times the quantity of tea purchased from India by all other countries in Europe, outside Russia and England.

The entire American consumption is only 50-odd million.

Of Indian tea, it was——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This is a very disorderly debate.

I should not like it to be thought that our trade is of no importance to India. The Indian Government and the Indian Tea Council have repeatedly emphasised the importance they attach to our trade. Our total imports of tea from India represent considerably more than the re-export of Indian tea from London. Therefore, it is wrong to think of Mincing Lane as a great international market; it is not. We now have to take into account the policy of the Government of India. It is to discourage the sending forward of tea on consignment to be auctioned at markets abroad.

Your opposite number, the Minister for Industry and Commerce in India, would not say that ten days ago. He said that, because of the size of the British market, they were compelled to co-operate.

The policy of the Indian Government is to discourage specifically the sending forward of tea for auction. For that reason, they are imposing a quota on the total quantity of tea that can be exported from India. They are thereby restricting the quantity of tea coming up for auction in London and the other intermediate markets. Their policy is to encourage auctions in India itself. Therefore, in the face of it, it seems obvious that we can do better by buying our tea in the auctions in India, rather than in the restricted markets which are now operating in other centres. By doing so, we are making our policy come into conformity with that of the Government of India.

What is the advantage of Irish merchants bidding against Irish merchants in India?

They will not be bidding against Irish merchants only. The Senator thinks that, by bulk purchasing of tea, we can do better. I do not think so. I will accept Senator Barry's argument that it is far better that we should allow individual merchants to purchase the varieties of tea which they think they require to meet the needs of their trade, having regard to the taste of their customers and perhaps the quality of the water available in the towns they serve. This Bill is designed to get away from bulk purchases. Where all the requirements of tea were bought by bulk purchases——

You cannot buy this way, simply by a selection. You must wait here until you find out what you have bought.

The Bill will allow any wholesale tea merchant in Ireland to buy tea in India as he likes, without any supervision or restriction whatever.

He cannot taste it; he must buy it blind. He can taste it only when he gets a tasting sample. They do not do that in the East.

Where does the Senator think he should taste it?

Here in Ireland. Let him get a tasting sample of some kind. However, they will not open the packages in the East.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We cannot have a debate by way of question and answer, unless those who wish to do so go outside the House.

It is obvious that whatever tea he chooses will have to come from somewhere.

Would the Minister allow me to sit down with himself and two members of the trade to advise him for an hour some day this week?

No. I may be a bad Minister, but I am a poorer referee.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister.

It is quite true, therefore, that what I am trying to do is to get out of a situation in which tea was purchased in bulk by a single organisation and to create a situation where every merchant will be free to buy whatever tea he likes, provided he buys in the country of origin. Having bought the tea, he must use this organisation as his importing agent. There, the aim is to secure the economy of bulk shipment which is different from bulk purchase. Senator Barry asked me what the new company will charge for bringing in tea from the East to Ireland. He says he knows who will be on the board of the company and that they will charge 5 per cent. commission. I do not know that. Senator Barry must have a crystal ball because this company is not in existence yet.

I know who will be on the company. They talk quietly but they can be heard.

Any tea merchant in Ireland is free to become a shareholder of the company. I am told 50 or so will become shareholders of the company. They will meet and elect their directors. The company will then be conducted in accordance with the articles of association already drafted. These articles preclude them from making profits for the purpose of distributing undue dividends to their members. The dividend is limited. The company will not be interested in making any profit on its transactions over and above the amount required to remunerate the capital employed in it and to meet their operating expenses, so that they will have no reason for treating their shareholders any differently from any other tea traders, those who do not decide to become shareholders.

When I talk about confining the trade to Irish nationals, it is true, of course, that firms who are now in the business will be allowed to continue— and some are externally controlled organisations, and some are very big organisations.

You could not put them out.

You just could not put them out.

I accept that.

A lot of them operate chain stores here which are a very important part of the retail organisation of the country. All we say is that anyone else who comes into the trade must be an Irish national, as defined in the section. The idea is to prevent the reappearance in our market of these "brass plate" merchants, who were undermining the genuine Irish wholesale merchants and who were operating before the war; and indeed producing a situation which at that time was causing a great deal of concern here. Subject to that limitation, that the people must be Irish nationals, there is certainly no intention of having any limitation on their number or any selection of individuals. Any person who conforms with the conditions defined in this Bill is entitled to become a tea merchant and if he is registered as a tea merchant he is entitled to become a shareholder and cannot be refused.

If the bank will give the money.

Well, of course, you cannot expect to come into any business without some money. There again, I was concerned with the possibility that, because of the greater amount of money required to finance purchases direct from the country of origin than would be required to purchase, say, from a wholesaler in London, the smaller merchant would be at a disadvantage compared to the larger merchant. It was to meet that particular problem that it was proposed that this organisation to be set up by the tea trade would undertake to finance the transactions of any merchant, whether he is a shareholder or not, whatever the scale of his operations should be. If his problem in buying it in the country of origin is a financial one, they will provide the finance. One of the reasons for the single importing system, for giving them the sole importing rights, is that, in that situation, they can hope to raise from the banking system of Ireland the substantial amount of money which may be required to provide finance for tea merchants in that way, without the aid of a Government guarantee which the existing company has.

Senator Cole talked about the possibility of an Indian firm setting up as a wholesale tea merchant here. I should hope that, in the course of time, we would move in a different direction altogether. I have said that it is the present policy of the Indian Government to discourage the sending forward of tea on consignment to be auctioned in international markets. I do not know whether that policy will be maintained or not, because at least one of the States of India is acting in a contrary way and by doing so is in conflict with the policy of the Central Indian Government. If there should be a change of policy there, I would hope to see developing in Dublin a tea auction, a tea market such as Mincing Lane or Amsterdam, where tea would be sent forward by Indian producers on consignment for auction here in Dublin. On the whole, I think that is the system which would be most beneficial to us. It is not likely that that will happen for a considerable period of time and, of course, it may not happen at all if the policy of the Central Indian Government becomes effective.

I am not going to pretend that I can argue with Senator Barry at all upon the technique of the tea trade. I cannot. I am relying on the fact that the proposal which I am putting to the Seanad now is a proposal which was made to me by the majority of the wholesale tea merchants in the country. I asked them in framing their proposals for the conduct of the tea trade after the ending of the present temporary emergency arrangements, to keep in mind only two requirements of Government policy—one was that we should maintain the practice of buying tea where it is produced and, secondly, that we should confine the wholesale tea trade in Ireland to firms in Irish ownership and under Irish management. I felt that, notwithstanding these limitations, it was possible for the wholesale tea traders to institute arrangements for the acquisition and sale of tea which would enable us to get tea here cheaper than we could otherwise get it and in such qualities as the merchants themselves wished to have it. I am not going to say that our merchants will always buy the best quality. No doubt, purely commercial considerations will determine the range of qualities they will buy; but they are certainly free to buy any qualities they like and it seems to me obviously common sense that we can get that tea cheaper without having to pay commission to middlemen in other countries and by shipping it direct from the countries of origin in cargo lots. That is the justification for the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.
Top
Share