The Act has not been changed. Both Senator Russell and Senator Fitzgerald appreciated the necessity for maintaining this legislation in order to conserve our scarce raw materials. Senator Russell raised the question of the price of scrap. It is a fact that, due to the monopoly that exists here whereby Irish Steel Holdings Ltd. are the sole users of scrap, the price of scrap here is cheaper than it is across the water. This is part and parcel of why Irish Steel Holdings Ltd. are economically successful at present. Certainly, if the export of scrap were to be allowed, scrap dealers would get a higher price in the UK with the result that Irish Steel Holdings Ltd. would need to seek supplies from abroad and would be placed in a situation whereby they would be less competitive and certainly more vulnerable and less successful than they are at present.
As Senator Russell knows—he contributed to the debate in the House recently on Irish Steel Holdings—it is an expanding industry and going reasonably well at present. The Senator spoke about the price of scrap. There has been criticism about variations in the price paid by Irish Steel Holdings to various clients. This is a matter which has now been referred to the Fair Trade Commission and I understand that the parties who referred this matter to the Commission have been notified that it is expected that investigations into their complaints in this regard will commence in two to three months time.
With regard to this question of strategic materials, the necessity for the regulations as spelled out in (b) is not too obvious, but there is a long list of strategic materials which are agreed on an international basis. We have firms like Irish Explosives Limited, Enfield, and Core Memories Limited, Coolock, turning out items which come under that heading. It is necessary to have enabling legislation to prevent the export of some of their produce to undesirable countries. This ties in with paragraph (d) where we comply with the mandatory resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council in 1968 requiring all member states to prevent the export of goods to Southern Rhodesia and, as far as strategic goods are concerned, to South Africa.
It was perhaps a little unfair of Senator Fitzgerald to talk about the influence of the UK in this regard If we are members of the United Nations it is only right that we should abide by their rules. Our own representatives contributed to the debate on that resolution. Therefore, it is only right that we should adhere to it. Again in 1963 and in 1964 resolutions were passed by the United Nations Security Council calling on all member states to prohibit the sale and shipment of arms and military supplies to South Africa. This is covered in the provision ensuring that strategic materials are not exported from this country to undesirable destinations.
The legislation is broad and goes beyond the points dealt with here. I refer Senators to section 2 (2) of the principal Act, the Control of Exports (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1956, under which the Minister:
may after consultation with the Minister for External Affairs, by order prohibit, subject to such exceptions, if any, as he may think proper, the exportation of goods of any specified description to a specified destination, save under and, in accordance with, a licence
This section is so broadly based that it enables the Minister to take any action at short notice.
Senator Russell referred to a continuous survey and instanced the case of the State moving in to prevent the export of oil in a given situation. That section of the Act covers the point I made in paragraph (e) of my speech:
to have immediately available a means of dealing with any emergency which might denude the country of essential materials before corrective legislation could be enacted
The 1956 Bill was prepared on the basis of its being a Temporary Provisions Bill lasting for three years. A Bill similar to the one before the House had to come up again in 1959, 1962, 1965, 1968. As I said, the Act continued in force for a period of three years and then expires. This is why it is necessary for me to get this Bill through completely this evening. Reference was made to the provision in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement providing control on exports to the United Kingdom of textile goods containing cotton. This arrangement ensures a guaranteed market for our producers for a certain amount of cotton exports. If we had not this arrangement, it is possible and likely that the volume of exports of our goods containing cotton might be less than it is at present. It is a satisfactory arrangement from our point of view and we are anxious to maintain it. Of course, there is a wider issue in regard to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. Both Senator Russell and Senator Fitzgerald spoke about the effects of the agreement on our exports. The Government do not agree with the general case being made by the Opposition, who are blaming the recession in exports on the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. But, in deference to the Leas-Chathaoirleach's ruling, I do not wish to involve myself in a debate on that subject which does not come within the ambit of this legislation.
I think I have dealt with the points that have been made. If the Senators are not satisfied with any aspect of the reply, they could raise the matter on the Committee Stage.
