Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 1966

Vol. 61 No. 12

Tea (Purchase and Importation) (Amendment) Bill, 1966: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Dr. Hillery)

The purpose of this Bill is to remove the prohibition imposed by the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, on the importation of instant tea and to make the importation of instant tea subject to the same controls as leaf, tea, namely, that it must be purchased in and imported from the country of origin either by Tea Importers Limited or by a registered tea trader.

There is a public demand for instant tea for use, principally in tea dispensing machines and for some time I have had representations to have the prohibition on its importation removed. In addition to that, arising out of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, it is necessary to remove, with effect from the 1st July, 1966, restrictions on the importation of instant tea manufactured in Britain. Instant tea manufactured in Britain will be free from restrictions. The importation of leaf tea from Britain will continue to be prohibited.

If that is not clear I shall try to explain it again.

Mr. Conlan

I must confess that when I first saw this Bill and heard it had something to do with instant tea I was amazed because I always thought all tea was instant. In my own home the teapot is nearly always on the hob and we have always instant tea. I only hope that the tea which will be imported will not be of inferior quality but I think we can rely on the good judgment of the Irish people because, next to barley, tea is our national beverage. Irish people are connoisseurs in the matter of tea, so much so, that the tea wholesalers and blenders have to blend tea to suit various areas. Also in that connection they have to have samples of water from the various areas to mix with the tea in those particular areas.

We have no objection to the Bill. This may be of benefit to some of our institutions, such as hospitals and homes where people who would like a cup of tea in between meals will be able to have this cup of tea from vending machines.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I am just wondering about the phraseology of the Bill. Section 3 seems to involve some kind of restriction on instant tea which does not seem to have existed previously. If I heard the Minister right we are removing the prohibition on the importation of this tea as far as Great Britain is concerned.

Dr. Hillery

A total prohibition existed under the 1876 Act on the importation of essences under which instant tea would come. For the Free Trade Area Agreement instant tea is regarded as a manufacture and therefore, has to be free. We are, therefore, removing this total prohibition so as to allow instant tea as a manufacture to be imported from Britain. At the same time, we want to give countries which produce tea the same benefits of sending instant tea into this country. Therefore, we bring instant tea in line with leaf tea and this control follows the same lines as leaf tea and it will be imported from the country of origin.

Mr. Carton

Will this be sold only in vending machines and not in the ordinary grocery shops?

Dr. Hillery

Its purpose is for vending machines. There may be other uses for it and we would not limit what it would be used for.

Mr. Carton

As far as we are concerned it is for general sale?

Dr. Hillery

Yes.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister mentioned the Act of 1876. Was there any reason for banning the importation of this?

Mr. E. Ryan

I am sure that the Senator never heard of that Act.

Dr. Hillery

There are certain essences of tea and tobacco. The Act I referred to is the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Perhaps it would be helpful to say why they were banned. If they were banned there must be some good reason for banning them. The wording of the Bill seems odd. In order to ban the importation of those essences it starts off by saying:

No person except the Company shall import any extract, essence or concentration of tea.

Then, if I understand the Minister correctly, Britain is allowed to send the tea here. If somebody imports through other countries it must be imported by the Company which does not put other countries on a par with Britain.

Dr. Hillery

It does not put them on a par. We have to regard Britain as different under the Free Trade Agreement. There are a number of countries producing leaf tea. We import leaf tea from them. Those countries now produce instant tea. Unless there was a restriction in regard to them they could send instant tea into this country as leaf tea is sent in. We are giving Britain only the right to send instant tea into this country.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister has not explained what it is about. First of all, we are not told why it was banned in 1876.

Dr. Hillery

I inherited that ban.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

If there was no reason for it why is the Minister introducing it in this Bill? This deals with prohibition. If there is no reason for the prohibition, then the sensible thing to do would be to get rid of it. We should not introduce a restriction whereby the tea can only be imported by one country. Senator Ryan is quite right when he says I had not heard of this Act before now. If the Minister could clarify what the whole thing is about it would help us to understand the Bill and to deal with it.

Dr. Hillery

The Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 — nobody explained why they made this law—says:

Books wherein the copyright shall be first subsisting, first composed or written or printed in the United Kingdom, and the printer or reprinter not in another country has to charge the proprietor of such copyright or his agent, shall have given to the Commissioners of Customs a notice in writing, duly declared, that such copyright subsists.

Coin, viz false money and counterfeit sterling.

Coin, silver of the realm, or any money purporting to be such, not being of the established standard in weight or fineness.

Extracts, essences or other concentrations of malt, (except sugar, or extract of malt for medicinal purposes only and fermented liquors prescribed in the Customs Tariff made from malt), coffee, chicory, tea or tobacco, or any admixture of the same, except in transit, for export only.

Indecent or obscene prints, paintings, photographs, books, cards, lithographic or other engravings, or any other indecent or obscene articles.

So it is not just tea.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I seek the reason for excluding this essence but I did not quite catch the Minister's reading of the law.

Dr. Hillery

Extracts, essences or other concentrations, coffee, chicory, tea or tobacco, or any admixture of the same.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Surely the Minister must feel some embarrassment at having to modify a restriction and then replace it by a further restriction to the effect that nobody may import this essence except this one company unless it is from Britain, in which case these indecent essences may be imported. If the Minister has, in the course of his Department's researches, found some extraordinary law banning these things——

Mr. O'Quigley

Had they instant tea in 1876?

Dr. Hillery

The Act of 1876 was a Customs Act. It included sheep, cattle and other animals. I do not think the question of instant tea arose until recently. Under the Free Trade Agreement we discovered that instant tea, being a manufacture, must be free from this prohibition. Under the Free Trade Agreement we must free it. The other Act dealing with tea was the 1958 one. During the war, when this country was dependent on Britain for tea and had not a claim on the country of origin, our experience told us that it was necessary to establish a quota for ourselves and the 1958 Act was brought into being for that purpose. We still think this should continue in force and that we should bring instant tea into line with leaf tea so that our supplies of instant tea from the country of production would be established in the same way.

Mr. Carton

Is this stuff tea?

Dr. Hillery

It is tea.

Mr. Carton

That is the important thing.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I presume his answer will be in the affirmative, but may I ask the Minister what other essences are referred to in the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Are chicory and malt still excluded?

Dr. Hillery

Coffee was removed but I have no information about chicory. I presume the prohibition must have been removed or the question would have been raised.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

In the other cases it can be removed as part of a general administrative act.

Dr. Hillery

It is due to the 1958 Act which protects our quota of tea. This merely brings instant tea into line with leaf tea.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I now understand what is happening. I had never been happy about the 1958 Act in regard to the importation of tea. The Minister's explanation now is a rational one which I had not heard. It seems that the question of the importation of tea was dealt with in the background of past experience with little relevance to the future. The 1958 measure was like the direction of Irish Shipping tonnage of 250,000 tons of dry shipping because somebody thought it up as being the tonnage required based on experience in the last war. When that was investigated it was discovered what shipping tonnage would be required in an atomic war which destroyed the whole northern hemisphere except Ireland—30 per cent of the tonnage of the previous war.

The reason for this ban on the importation of tea was an unhappy experience in the last war when the Taoiseach felt he was badly treated by the tea merchants of London and he introduced this restrictive legislation. Has it, however, any relevance to the present or to the future? It forbade us buying tea from the London tea market partly because of an experience which left a searing mark in the Taoiseach's consciousness. It seems that the 250,000 tons level for Irish Shipping was also laid down arbitrarily by the Taoiseach. That, too, is something that needs to be looked at again. To carry on this restrictive legislation seems to be rather absurd and to introduce a Bill of this extraordinary roundabout character, banning the importation of instant tea except by one company, is an anachronism at this stage. The Bill does something that has to be done but I suggest the Minister might look, in the latter part of the 1960s, at the extraordinary legislation this Bill amends and give further consideration as to whether it should be continued at this stage in our history.

Dr. Hillery

The only point I have not covered is whether we should continue legislation because of an experience we have had. It was not a light experience. The London tea suppliers failed to honour their commitments and we suffered. We shall not suffer anything by changing this legislation. We are ensuring our quota and it is not a great hardship to have this, even though it is a seemingly complicated piece of legislation. We shall have a claim on the producing country and nobody can say that will not be relevant in the future except somebody who can see what the future holds.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill considered in Committee.

SECTION 1.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I was puzzled by the Minister's statement that it is not a hardship to have the 1958 Act on the Statute Book. The only purpose for that is that we might be able to purchase tea from London because it would be cheaper. I cannot see any other reason for having it. If, in fact, there is no hardship that means we can get tea just as cheaply or cheaper by the present method, in which case the Act is unnecessary. If the Act is necessary it means that in its absence we could buy tea from London at a cheaper cost. I cannot follow the Minister's statement that the Act imposes no hardship. If it imposes no hardship there is no need for the Act.

Professor Stanford

May I ask if it is an established fact that if we purchased tea directly from London it would be cheaper than if we purchased it by the present arrangement?

Dr. Hillery

No. It is not an established fact. I do not know what the trade would find. I have not got any figures of the competitive price because there is no competition. What we are doing is protecting our supplies. We cannot foresee the future and we cannot say there will not be people who will not honour their commitments. I think the Government would be failing in their duty if we waited to be bitten a second time, and bitten by not having enough tea.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister is correct in saying that we cannot foresee the future, but there are people who assume it will be the same as the past. What kind of war the Government are preparing for, in which there will be a London and a tea market which will not honour their commitments, and in which we will be in a position to import tea from other countries, it is hard to see. Apparently it will be a war like the last war and there is no question of technological changes making any difference. That seems to me to be an unwarranted assumption.

What I am raising on the section is a different point. The Minister said that there would be no hardship in having this Act on the Statute Book. I can see that there is a case for having the Act for the reason the Minister gave, but this is based on the assumption that the future will be like the past and no one has thought about what kind of war we are preparing for, I find it hard to accept the Minister's statement that it imposes no hardship. If so, it can only be because of the fact that the tea we are buying direct is cheaper than the tea we could buy from London. If we can buy tea cheaper from London the Act would be necessary to prevent people availing themselves of that cheaper tea, and so endangering the security of our supplies in time of war. I do not think the Minister can get away with the suggestion that there is no hardship unless he is saying that the Act is completely unnecessary.

Professor Stanford

Has Senator FitzGerald figures to show that it would be cheaper to buy tea direct from London than to buy tea from the producing countries?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

No. Senator FitzGerald was most careful to make no such suggestion. I said that in the Minister's statement that there is no hardship in having the Act on the Statute Book there is an assumption that tea can be bought cheaper from the other countries. The Minister's statement implies that it does not cost us any more to buy tea from the other countries. If it does not the Act is superfluous because in the absence of the Act people would go on buying tea more cheaply directly. The reason why the Act is on the Statute Book is that the Minister feels that under certain circumstances tea could be bought more cheaply in London and in order to prevent this being done we have the Act.

Dr. Hillery

I think the assumption that it is cheaper to buy tea in London will not stand up. I have not the figures, but it is a natural assumption that if you buy tea from the producing countries instead of from someone who has already bought it you will get it as cheap at least, if not cheaper. This legislation is not based on the assumption that it is cheaper to buy tea in London. It was the tradition of London controlling our tea that made this legislation necessary. That is the tradition which had to be changed and which has been changed. I do not see why the Senator is so worried.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

He is not worried.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I was making no assumption with regard to the price of tea. My point is that the Minister is making an assumption by having the Act. The Minister has replied to me by admitting that this Bill might no longer be necessary, the tradition of tea buying in London having been broken. Having admitted that, he might consider abolishing the Act which is probably no longer necessary.

Dr. Hillery

I do not think I admitted this legislation was unnecessary. I do not think I could come to the Seanad and say legislation was unnecessary.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Not this Bill, the Principal Act.

Dr. Hillery

If the Principal Act is unnecessary this legislation would be unnecessary. We will say I want this legislation.

Mr. O'Quigley

And in a hurry.

Mr. Yeats

I should like to urge the Minister that on no account should he consider abolishing the Act because I have a memory——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator must confine himself to what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Yeats

I urge the Minister not to consider abolishing the Act. There are bitter memories.

Question put and agreed to.