Is there any financial motion in connection with this?
Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance) Bill, 1951—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section under which the Minister asks for these powers up to the 31st December, 1952. In certain circumstances, I might not be prepared to give the Minister these powers for as long as that and in order to put my arguments I start on that note. Beginning with that qualification, I want to refer the Minister to a speech he made on electricity development when closing the Second Stage of the Supplies and Services Bill, 1951. It is under this Bill that rationing and other electricity restrictions will come into effect. Therefore, it will be in order to discuss the matter. At columns 1817-1818 of the Official Report, dated 28th November, 1951, the Minister said:—
"There was no new electricity station sanctioned during that period except two new stations in Dublin and Cork designed to burn coal."
The Minister was then referring to the three years of the inter-Party Government. I want to put it to the Minister that that sentence is untrue. It is not in accordance with the facts and the Minister should not have misled the House in that respect.
I want to refer to the 22nd Annual Report of the Electricity Supply Board for the year ended 31st March, 1949, a report which is available to the members of this House. In particular, I want to refer to page 12 where it is stated:—
"It was decided that the River Lee, County Cork, offered the most promising and economical return."
The report goes on to state:—
"Towards the close of the year a scheme was prepared for submission to the Minister for approval under the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1945; the preparatory designs for the stations were drawn up and the preparation of the specifications for the turbines and generators and other associated equipment was in progress."
I want to stress the fact that the Electricity Supply Board say it was decided but the Minister says that nothing was sanctioned.
Coming to the report that was made in respect of the year ending 31st March, 1950, again on page 12, dealing with the River Lee, it says:—
"The execution of the scheme for the hydro-electric development of the River Lee was approved of by the Minister under Order dated the 1st December, 1949, made under Section 4 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1945."
In the previous year it was decided and in this year it was approved. Under whichever wording you take it, the Minister was not telling the House the truth when he said there was nothing sanctioned during that period. That was not the only extent of the Minister's incorrectness in regard to electricity supplies. In the same report of the Electricity Supply Board, that is, the 23rd Annual Report, 1950, it sets out on page 10:—
"In consequence of the continued and rapid increase in the demand for electricity it was decided to construct two further generating stations, one at Cork, having an initial capacity of 30,000 kilowatts and the other at Ferbane which will utilise the turf produced at Boora and the adjacent bogs, and will have a capacity of 40,000 kilowatts."
Later in the same report, it says the preliminary work on the design of Ferbane station, etc., was carried out and was going at the end of the year. The report of the Electricity Supply Board for the year ending 31st March, 1951, still further refers to the progress which has been made on the Lee and on the Ferbane stations.
I want to stress the point that the Minister did mislead the House in his wording, but if the Minister makes the case that he was not intending to refer to technical approval, a technical decision or technical sanctions, I would not agree that it was true and he would still have been misleading the House because he did not tell the House of the preliminary directions given to the Electricity Supply Board during the period he was discussing, the period of the inter-Party Government, to proceed with the design, the computations and the preliminary stages of other works, such as the Claddy River hydro-electric project in Donegal and, I think, a smaller one in Waterville, County Kerry. Those were in the initial stages during the inter-Party Government period but had not yet come to the position of sanction, so whatever way the Minister has it, he was misleading the House when he was winding up the Second Stage of this Bill. I think, therefore, that it would be no harm if, before making future statements covering a variety of matters such as he did on this occasion, the Minister took more care to ensure—because more items with which I will deal later were also incorrect—that the facts he puts before the House are facts and not reckless statements retailed to him, perhaps, by certain other members of his Party who may not have a great desire for accuracy or be accustomed to it.
I want to raise one matter and I suppose that this section is as good as any other on which to do it. Within the past few days the Minister has made an Order imposing very substantial tariffs on imported clothing of various descriptions. I am not quarrelling with the Minister's decision to do that. I am strongly in favour of keeping out of this country any goods that can be manufactured here thereby providing employment for our own people and an expanding source of wealth for our own nation. If, however, the State and the community line up to protect industries against foreign competition which can be unfair to the extent that it may be induced by the dumping of goods or by the availability to the foreign undertaking of goods and raw materials at a lower price than they are available to home producers, we should at the same time take effective steps to see that the ordinary customer of this country is protected against the possibility of the manufacturer taking an undue advantage of this. The Minister has power, through the Prices Tribunal and through the inspectorial staff, if it has not now been entirely disposed of, to ensure that goods made here will be produced with a reasonable margin of profit and not an unreasonable one.
We have seen for many years past advertisements which appear in the newspapers indicating that the controlled price of certain commodities is a certain figure but that the firm in question had decided to sell the commodity at a figure less than that fixed by the Government. If that did one thing more than another it created in the public mind the impression that there was such a wide margin of profit on the manufactured article that there was ground for a substantial cutting in price.
I do not want to argue the mechanics of price fixing or the mechanics of trade. What I want the Minister to do is, if the State and the community line up rightfully and properly to protect an industry, to assure the community that the home manufacturer will be required to sell to the Irish consumer at a reasonable price, and that the native manufacturer will not be allowed to use the tariff as a means of boosting his own price unreasonably, and on the other hand that he will not be allowed to lie down on the job by being satisfied with less than full production. If we are to impose tariffs to assist Irish industries—and I am in favour of doing that by tariffs, quotas, restrictions or any other means in our power—it should be conditional on two things: that the Irish consumer will be protected against extortionate demands from the producer on the one hand and on the other that the producer, having got this protection from the State, will be required to go all out to supply the needs of the home market. I would like the Minister to give us that assurance as far as this or any other tariff is concerned.
There is a rather important aspect of this matter. The Minister has recently imposed substantial duties on goods coming into the country and naturally these duties have caught a large quantity of goods in transit. These customs duties have fallen unexpectedly on a large number of consignments coming in. Among his many powers the Minister has power to admit goods free of duty and under the Principal Act he has power to reduce or suspend customs duties on certain articles. In a matter of this kind the Minister naturally has very great power and in acquiescing to the Minister's retaining these powers, the Dáil has a certain amount of responsibility to see that injustices are not likely to occur.
I would like to ask the Minister now, whether it is his intention to admit free of duty certain goods—certain classes of goods or goods distinguished by any other limitation—which have been caught under the present tariffs? If so, does he intend that they will be admitted in such a way that discrimination will not take place as between one importer and another? Under Section 2 of the Principal Act, he has power to delegate to persons other than himself the making of an Order and I would like to ask him whether in the case of admitting goods free of duty, Orders, even Orders made in the administrative way relating to things like that, are made by himself and if not, to what class of officer he delegates that power. I think it most desirable that there should be understanding on that point so that there may be uniformity and so that knowledge of what the Minister's intentions are may be widespread so that there will not be discrimination, and therefore uneasiness, discontent and injustice.
I would like an assurance from the Minister, although I do not think it is necessary from this Minister, that we will not have dumped in this country, as we had during the past 12 months, such an enormous quantity of foreign goods as led to uneasiness and unemployment of workers and an upset in our manufacturing trades.
Deputy Sweetman held out the appalling prospect of the speeches made in the Dáil being subject to the principles of legal interpretation. I shall not attempt to define the exact legal significance of the term I used. The point I was making during the course of the controversial debate we had on Second Reading of the Bill was that the capital projects which had been referred to in that debate were in the main related to programmes which were of long standing and that it was inaccurate to claim that they had been initiated during the period of the Coalition Government, that is, during the past three years. It is true that the reference I made to hydro-electric development went perhaps beyond that. The fact is the development of the Lee for power purposes has been on the programme of the Electricity Supply Board for many years and the preliminary surveys necessary to ascertain the flow of water, and so forth, have been proceeding for many years. There may have been, and I think there were, delays in executing the work. The full reasons for these delays I do not know. The contract has now been signed. Perhaps I am wrong in that. The invitations to contractors to submit their tenders have been sent out.
If I succeed in making the Minister more careful, I will be happy.
Similarly, the Ferbane scheme was announced by me in 1946, I think, on the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act of that year, but the precise design of the power station and associated works are only under discussion at the present time and it is likely to be some years yet before that station is in operation.
I would, however, like to obviate the possibility of a false impression being created by references to the Claddy River. The survey of the river has been completed only in the last couple of months and no scheme for its development for power purposes has yet been prepared, much less sanctioned. It may be assumed that the development of that river for power purposes will be in the ten-year programme now being prepared by the Electricity Supply Board but there are some reasons to think that the flow of water in the river will not be completely satisfactory in so far as it tends to dry up almost completely, I understand, in certain seasons. It will be a small scheme, however, but will have its importance in relation to the supply of electricity in that part of County Donegal.
With regard to the clothing duties recently imposed, I should perhaps point out, first of all, that the action now taken restores these duties to what they were previously. The duties now in force were in force at the same rates before the war but they were reduced during the war and have only now been brought back to pre-war levels. That was done, not because there has been in recent months any abnormal imports of these goods, but in the knowledge which is common in the trade here that there is in the clothing business in Great Britain and in other European countries a recession even more pronounced than we have been experiencing. There was a feeling amongst traders that substantial quantities of goods would be disposed of in this market by firms with unsaleable stocks in Britain and other continental countries and the restoration of the duties to the pre-war level was designed to prevent people withholding orders from the Irish factories, orders that ordinarily would be placed now for spring deliveries, in anticipation of these supplies being available at that time.
We must recognise, however, that the expectation in the trade was that occasional lots would be available at dumped prices, that it was that expectation which was causing the contraction of orders to the Irish factories and that by imposing these duties we are in fact preventing Irish traders from getting these occasional lots at dumped prices. If they had been allowed in free, then for a period they would be available here at perhaps prices lower than the prices at which they could be economically made in Irish factories, but only at the cost of widespread unemployment in these factories and considerable dislocation of trade. I think we must be satisfied to strike a balance between maintaining employment in our own factories and securing their products at economic prices. A small country like this could always get the advantage of occasional lots of goods sold cheaply from some country but if we want to develop our own industries, we have to forego that very doubtful advantage.
The margins which wholesalers and retailers may take upon clothing produced here are fixed by Order. These margins are prescribed by Orders under the Supplies and Services Act and are enforced. Against the suggestion that these margins are unduly liberal to traders, I would point out that they are considerably lower than the margins permitted under corresponding Orders in Great Britain and traders on many occasions in the past have represented that they were unduly narrow. Until the present trade conditions have eased and existing stocks have been disposed of, I do not think that we will have much trouble in enforcing these margins, because the tendency is rather towards a liquidation of stocks at the present time and I think anybody familiar with the circumstances of the clothing trade knows that to be so. Similarly, the profits of manufacturers are subject to control and in their case also I think that control will not be a difficult task until full production has been restored.
I should, however, say that when approving of the recommendation to restore these duties to their pre-war levels, the Government also directed that the position should be reviewed towards the end of next year in the light of the circumstances then existing and, if these circumstances justify it, then the Order made recently will be revoked and the duties brought back to their previous level.
Would the Minister say at this stage whether he has got any assurance from the Irish manufacturers, who will undoubtedly profit by the substantial tariff which is now being imposed, that they will not avail of the imposition of these tariffs to push up their own prices above their present level?
Yes, certainly. I mentioned that their profits are controlled but I should, perhaps, say that in the course of the discussions with the manufacturers it was a matter of getting them back into full production rather than considering what further protection would be needed for the public if and when that stage was reached.
In the normal practice, when duties are imposed, duty-free licences are issued in respect of goods in transit. I put in the qualifying phrase "normal practice" because that might not be done if the quantity in a single instance was very excessive and likely to give a disproportionate advantage to one trader. I do not think that will arise in this case. As I mentioned, the quantities of clothing which have come in recently have not been very heavy and they are at their minimum at this period of the year.
The licences are issued by the Revenue Commissioners on the recommendation of the Department of Industry and Commerce. They are not issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce itself. In each case the application is made to the Department of Industry and Commerce, is examined there in accordance with the general direction given which is, normally, as I have said, to grant duty-free licences in respect of goods in transit, and then a recommendation to that effect is made to the Revenue Commissioners who actually issue the licences and permit the goods in.
I think I can say that the normal practice will be followed in this case also. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that I am not yet aware of the extent to which applications for that facility will be received or whether there will be any abnormal circumstances associated with the applications.
The Minister does state for general understanding that normally goods in respect of which contracts have been made for import——
Goods in transit.
Goods in transit which have been caught in this particular way will be admitted duty free normally.
Yes.
There is just a slight difference between what the Minister said and what Deputy Mulcahy said. I take it that if a trader can satisfy the Minister that he bona fide made a contract for certain importations out of which he cannot now escape the Minister agrees, if he made that contract at a time when the goods could be brought in at a certain level, that it would be unfair to penalise him in respect of the decision, that even though the goods may not actually have started to be in transit, where the Minister is satisfied there is a bona fide, inescapable contract, he will make the recommendation.
Not necessarily. That will apply in respect to goods in transit, but in respect to goods which may not be manufactured, the merits of the individual case will have to be examined because the quantities of such goods might be so considerable as to nullify the whole thing.
In that case there would not be an inescapable contract because it could be cancelled. Manifestly, the type of case where it could not be cancelled is entirely different from the case the Minister suggests, where the goods had not been manufactured.
That has been done, I admit, on occasions where evidence of the placing of the contract was forthcoming, but I would not commit myself to it. Normally in all cases, with the one qualification about exceptional quantities, goods in transit will come in free of duty.
I agree with the Minister that in the ordinary course of business if somebody had placed a contract a long way ahead for an abnormal quantity that would not be a bona fide normal transaction. As to electrical development, the Minister seems rather to have got bedevilled by legal interpretations. What I want to make clear is that when the Minister was making the case, as he did when winding up on the Second Stage, that the inter-Party Government had not gone ahead with electricity capital development, he was making an untrue statement.
That is not the case I made. The case I made was with regard to the formal development.
That was not the case which the Minister made. The Minister only mentioned formal development when Deputy Morrissey nearly jumped out of his seat. I was sitting here and I heard the Minister. The position is quite clear. The formal steps were taken during those three and a half years. If the Minister is taking the line that the Government during that period were carrying out plans prepared by Fianna Fáil prior to 1947, then, equally, for some years to come the Minister and his successor— because he will not be there all the time—will be carrying out plans laid during the last three years.
The position is that for years to come we will be rationing electricity.
When the first white elephant is brought into the national zoo.
The white elephant in respect of electrical development did not turn out to be a bad one so far as we are concerned. The only regret is that we had not more white elephants when it was cheaper to rear them than it is now. A lot of people have learned sense since they opposed the electricity scheme. However, I do not want to discuss that.
It would be better not to go into the technical matters.
The Minister is not responsible for the irresponsible utterances of his colleague which, apparently, have not yet ended, judging by his statements in Strasbourg. I do not think the Minister has covered the point I raised on this Bill. Everybody knows, certainly anybody who had to buy clothes, particularly with a woollen content, in the past 12 or 18 months that those who had got goods for sale got the last 1d. out of the pockets of the consumers. If you tried to buy a suit of clothes or a pair of blankets or anything with wool in it within the last 12 months the last 1d. was taken out of your pocket for them. Everybody knows that. That is a very heavy burden on ordinary folk, who find it hard enough to replace these things in normal circumstances but find it extremely difficult to buy at the prevailing high prices for woollen goods. Within the past few days we have said to the manufacturers of all these woollen articles: "We will protect you against the importation of foreign goods which are in competition with your production. We will do that, not by imposing tariffs at the ordinary level, but by taking into consideration the possibility that you may be faced with abnormal dumping as well. Therefore, we will erect a tariff fence so high that we will probably catch any possible import into this country of the kind you manufacture, paying dearly for the experiment." In effect, we say to the home manufacturer: "The entire home market is yours; go and get after it. The whole nation will stand behind you by consenting not to purchase imported commodities because we are making these commodities virtually unpurchasable, notwithstanding the taste of the consumer."
In these circumstances, I make one request: that the manufacturers ought to be required to treat the public fairly and that the Minister should say at this stage, if there is any attempt to exploit the public, who have been exploited badly enough from the point of view of the prices they have had to pay and are paying for woollen goods, whether in the form of personal clothing or of blankets, that the manufacturers must now undertake to give the public a fair deal and that they must contract with the Minister, representing the community, not to push up their prices because they now have a monopoly of the home market. I think the Minister should say, if he thought there was any move of that kind, that he would quickly reconsider the whole position with a view to seeing what steps he could take through the Prices Tribunal to ensure that the tribunal would compel those who tended to offend against the public, or who offended against the public, to conform to a reasonable standard of prices. I think that should be stated so that the public may have confidence.
I have no hesitation in saying that if there is any attempt to exploit the protection given by anybody who will benefit by it, whether they are manufacturers or traders or others, the position will be reconsidered. I am, however, confident that when most of the clothing factories and the textile mills are not working to full capacity, internal competition will be far more effective in getting prices down than any threat or any system of Government price regulation. The Deputy will appreciate, however, that I have a difficulty in this regard —that any attempt to forecast the trend of clothing prices might have undesirable results. I do not want to make a forecast, but I am fairly certain that an increase in prices is not likely.
I am personally anxious that the Irish manufacturer should get down to seeing that the home market reverts to him entirely. I should like to see him get a fair return for his capital investment and giving regular employment. I think that ought to be the aim and ambition of all of us. At the same time, while you need not worry about the decent trader because his own conscience will probably guide him, I want to protect the consuming public from the possible rapacity of traders who may say to themselves: "Here is an opportunity of getting higher prices from the public," because there is nowhere the public can get clothes except from the home manufacturers. However, I am satisfied now with the Minister's assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
There is an amendment.
The amendment has been ruled out of order.
If the amendment is out of order, perhaps I can say what I have to say on Section 4.
Section 4 is the title.
Then I shall have to say it on the Fifth Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I understood we would clear the Committee Stage of the Bill to-day and the remaining stages to-morrow.
In fairness, I think I should say that the arrangement was that we would get the Bill to the Seanad to-morrow.
Is the Seanad meeting to-morrow?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On the Fifth Stage, may I say that I am sorry the amendment was not open for discussion on the appropriate stage but it is, I think, appropriate to state now that under this Bill the Minister will have the powers of fixing prices, quantities and so forth in relation to the raw materials in agriculture? I think it is undesirable that the Minister should have that particular power because of the outlook he has portrayed during the last couple of weeks. Since this Government took office it has been patent, and much more patent in the last couple of weeks that the Department of Agriculture and Deputy Walsh, as Minister for Agriculture, are being treated by the Department of Industry and Commerce and by the Minister of that Department as being small fry and given neither the prominence nor the importance which an industry like agriculture deserves. I think it is a very bad thing that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be guilty of an attitude from which it is quite clear he does not regard agriculture as the mainstay of our economy.
On the 5th December, I listened to the Minister speaking on the Adjournment Debate and I believe no one could go away from that debate without having it implanted firmly in his mind that the Minister believed, and that was the reason he mentioned the "hooley," that the superphosphate that was brought in this year should not have been brought in. If that is his outlook there is very little chance of adequate or proper development in relation to agricultural production.
I want to utilise this opportunity, too, to try to get clear something that I failed to get clear in the discussion the other night. We have had a great deal of discussion about these 48,000 tons of superphosphate. Speaking the other night the Minister said that on the 13th June of this year there were 32,171 tons of superphosphate in the country under that date. In his reply he referred to a discussion here on 14th July when a figure of 18,086 tons was mentioned. But the House did not sit on 14th July and I have been unable to find any report in which that figure of 18,086 tons is mentioned.
There was a question asked.
I think there must be some clerical error there as to the date.
There was a question asked as to the tonnage in stock on that date by Deputy Dillon.
But the question was not asked on 14th July.
No.
It is probably a clerical error. I cannot find the question in which the figure is mentioned. I understood the Minister to say the other night there were 32,171 tons in stock on 13th June. The previous day Deputy Smith, acting as Minister for Agriculture, at column 149 of 4th December, stated that on 1st June there were 23,035 tons. According to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, therefore, the supply went up by approximately 9,000 tons in the first 13 days of June. That was in reply to a question asked by Deputy Dillon.
On the same day I asked a question as to the amounts that were imported in each month and in the month of June of this year I found that the imports for the whole month were only 630 tons. If there were only 630 tons imported during the whole month of June how did the 23,000 tons grow into 32,000? The fact is that the more we go into these figures the more we are driven to the inescapable conclusion that different people occupying different seats over there tell different stories.
No. Nobody knew how much there was.
Deputy Smith, acting as Minister for Agriculture, says that on the 1st June there were 23,000 tons. Deputy Lemass, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, says that 13 days afterwards there were 32,000 tons. Now, even with the little bit of arithmetic of which some of us in this House are capable, that is a difference of 9,000 tons and unless that came in between 1st June and 13th June it could not have appeared. But the statistics branch of the Taoiseach's Department says that only 630 tons came in for the whole month of June. Talk about the miracle of the loaves and fishes. It is nothing to the miraculous manner in which according as different members of the present Government go and look up files they find additional thousands of tons of fertilisers hiding under the files.
I believe this has become a stock joke across in Merrion Street; people come in and inquire whether they have found any more of the superphosphates that came in from Holland. The facts are quite clear. All along one figure has been put on the records by Deputy Dillon. There have been at least six different figures put on the record by different members of the Government. I would strongly urge on the Government and its Ministers that if they want the public to believe something they should at least make certain that the fact they are asseverating are the same fact and not go about changing step as the occasion suits them.
If they want us to believe, and want the public to believe, that the statement that has been made by Deputy Dillon is inaccurate, then they should put forward something themselves that is accurate. It is not permissible, according to the rules of the House, to use the term "lie" in a specific instance, but I want to say this, which I think is in order, that there is an old saying, "If you are going to tell a lie, mind you stick to it", and if members of this Government are going to be inaccurate, then I say "mind that you stick to your inaccuracy or nobody will believe you".
I think that the point which Deputy Dillon wanted to stress when he put before the House the amendment that is not supposed to be in order, is very relevant to the situation in which we find ourselves. The Deputy's amendment was out of order only on the technical point that if it were inserted it would be outside the scope of the Bill as drafted. The Bill was drafted as a continuing amendment Bill. The Bill does refer to Section 2, sub-section (2) of the Principal Act. Under that section when the Government made an order, the Minister, who is the Minister for Industry and Commerce, could pass on the power of making it to any other Minister or to any other person.
What is sought by the amendment is the restoration of a general atmosphere of confidence, so that when the Minister is dealing with the raw materials of agriculture and Orders are being made in respect of them, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is the Minister under this Bill, would, in accordance with the powers in the Bill, see that the function of making the Orders is delegated to the Minister for Agriculture. The point is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would administer the Act in accordance with the powers set out in Section 2, sub-section (2) of the Principal Act with this added:
"Save in respect of Orders relating to the raw materials of the agricultural industry when the power to make such Orders shall be delegated only to the Minister for Agriculture or to any other Minister subject to the consent of the Minister for Agriculture in respect of each such Order made by such Minister."
Deputy Sweetman has referred to the fertiliser situation. The Minister cannot but be aware of the discontent that exists in the country with regard to the price of fertiliser at the present time. I think that the County Committee of Agriculture in South Tipperary had a discussion recently in which suggestions were made, to be based on a formal resolution of the council, that the farmers should go on strike against the present price of fertiliser. A lot of that discontent is based on the knowledge that there was a substantial amount of fertiliser in the country in July last, imported at the figure that has been mentioned of round about £9 15s. a ton. That price has since gone up very substantially. The Minister, I think, has indicated that the price that is being charged now is one which represents the old price as having been married to the new price. In my opinion it would be desirable to have the whole situation cleared up, and to have an honest to goodness statement as to the basis on which fertiliser prices stand at the present moment.
We see a notice from the Department of Agriculture to-day warning all and sundry that cattle and poultry should be fed indoors at the present time because a heavy outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred in some European countries, devastating a lot of their stock. In that notice there is an indication given that the disease has probably been brought to those countries by migratory birds. This is a providential scheme, apparently. Any such scheme as that devised by Providence may well make us shudder when we hear farmers in the Midlands declaring that they are going to turn their backs on their resources and responsibilities and cut down their milk supplies to half because the Government will not do this or because the Government will not do that.
One would imagine, as I say, under a kind of scheme that Providence has devised, that we might expect some kind of a curse to fall upon people who take up an attitude like that. We cannot have very much sympathy with that kind of rebellion against responsibilities and rebellion against nature, but, nevertheless, the same would apply to farmers who would deliberately neglect to carry out the possibilities within their powers of looking after the fertility of their land. While one may feel like that, the circumstances are such that, I think, the situation should be made more clear and should be explained by the Minister. One would hope that he would endeavour to exorcise that spirit. It is primarily the responsibility of the Minister to see that that is done.
I would ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in view of the kind of irritation that is developing in that way, to see whether he would not meet that situation by delegating some of the work in connection with the signing of these Orders to the Minister for Agriculture. It would be a gesture. I know, of course, that when the Minister for Industry and Commerce makes an Order now the Minister for Agriculture has as much responsibility for the making of the Order as the Minister has, but in view of the special circumstances which have been referred to it would, I suggest, make matters easier for himself and for the agricultural community to do what we ask, especially if they could feel that the things which are being done were being done over the hand of the Minister who is responsible for the agricultural industry.
The Minister to conclude.
I would like to disabuse Deputy Sweetman's mind of the idea that the present Minister for Agriculture is the type of person who would willingly take second place to anybody when he is convinced that right and justice are on his side. I know that, in the course of time, Deputy Sweetman will find that the present Minister for Agriculture is not that type of person.
I think that the suggestion which Deputy Sweetman made, and to some extent the suggestion which Deputy Mulcahy made, is based on a lack of knowledge of how a normal Government works. If any issue arises in my Department which could have a bearing on the operations or policy of the Minister for Agriculture, there is consultation with a view to reaching agreement, and if we find that we have different views which we cannot reconcile by discussion between ourselves, then we go to our colleagues in the Cabinet and get a decision there. It is no longer then a situation in which each Minister is a sovereign authority acting on his own without consultation with his colleagues, and in complete disregard of their wishes. May I say that, if and when any question comes before the present Government bearing on the interests of agriculture, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has a very poor chance of supporting a contrary opinion in view of the fact that there are so many farmers in the Government, with no less than two former Ministers for Agriculture to support the present occupant of that office? In fact, as an illustration of how not to do things, may I mention, in connection with the fertiliser purchase, that Deputy Dillon, when Minister for Agriculture, bought 100,000 tons of fertiliser without consulting anybody?
That is not true.
He certainly did not consult the Cabinet, so far as I can discover, and did not even consult the officers of his Department.
It is just as well he did.
It is a good job.
Surely there should be some effort before a decision of that kind is made to relate the decision to the requirements of the situation and the consequential problems that may arise from it. The decision to buy 100,000 tons of fertilisers for the land reclamation scheme, when the director of the project thought that 10,000 tons would be enough and when, in fact, only 1,000 were used, was bound to create problems, and these came to a head only during the course of last month. About a month ago I received a request from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union to meet them to discuss the unemployment of their members due to the fact that the fertiliser factory was closing down because there was no storage for their production. Deputy Mulcahy realises that at this time of the year fertilisers are being produced which will be sold and used next spring, and any shortage of storage at the present time necessarily upsets the normal routine of production. I held a conference between representatives of the union, representatives of the manufacturers and representatives of the sugar company. We discussed this whole position, and I encountered for the first time the suggestion that this problem of maintaining the production from the Irish factories and the employment of workers in these factories was due to the existence of abnormal stocks of fertilisers in the country. I set out to investigate this whole situation, and I must say that I am sorry I ever got into the argument——
I am not surprised at that.
——because I got figures from the Department of Agriculture and figures from the sugar company, and I had to spend a whole night trying to reconcile the figures, but by no process of multiplication or of subtraction could I get 48,000 tons. The whole matter depended on whether Deputy Dillon's recollection was correct or not. Everybody knows he just took a chance on his memory and that his memory was wrong.
When the Minister found that there were abnormal stocks of fertilisers in the country, more than were required for the country's needs——
There are, and there were abnormal stocks. It is difficult to make an estimate of what may be required next year. There is no doubt that the sales of fertilisers are slower than normal due to the increase in price. That undoubtedly is a factor in the situation. The price of fertilisers has gone up very considerably because of the higher cost of the imported material. I may say that the Minister for Agriculture is importing fertilisers this year, the landed cost of which is £20 per ton.
£20 per ton?
For superphosphates?
43 per cent. superphosphates.
Does not part of the surplus stocks arise out of the fact that fertilisers were imported here and that the Minister wanted to sell them at a profit instead of disposing of them?
The fertilisers which were imported for the land reclamation scheme were disposed of to the sugar company to the extent of 37,000 tons and to the extent of 26,000 tons to other merchants.
Was it sold to them at a profit?
I cannot answer that question. I do not think so.
Did they get it at what the Government paid for it?
Yes. Deputy Dillon placed the order, but it was the sugar company that financed and arranged the importation, even though a substantial part of it was held by it at the disposal of the Minister for Agriculture. The only interest I had in the matter was because of the revelations which I got at the conference which I held between the union, the manufacturers and the merchants, of the existence in the country of a belief that there was a substantial stock of cheap fertilisers which might ultimately have to be sold to the farmers, who could, therefore, postpone or avoid buying dearer fertilisers which are now being manufactured and of which the manufacturers are trying to dispose, and also of the belief that, as a result of representations made by county committees of agriculture, the Government might agree to subsidise fertilisers. My concern in the matter was first of all to remove the idea that there was any intention on the part of the Government to subsidise fertilisers. The announcement which the Minister for Agriculture made in that regard did not get very much publicity in the newspapers. I wanted to get rid of this idea that there were to be cheap fertilisers which would be available for ordinary sale. The stock of fertilisers which has been held by the sugar company at the disposal of the Minister for Agriculture will, as I said, be related to the fertilisers now being imported at the much higher price and will be sold by the Irish Sugar Company at £15 10s. per ton for delivery to the beet growers under contract.
It does seem a pity that he did not bring in 200,000 tons instead of 100,000 tons.
We could have if we had somewhere to put it. The problem of this country at all times in relation to stockpiling has been the inadequacy of our storage facilities. Measures have been taken to remedy that situation for next year. Superphosphate fertiliser offers storage problems. This fertiliser contains sulphuric acid and rots the bags in which it is stored, so that there is substantial additional expenditure for rebagging. About 30 per cent. of the fertiliser held over from last season will have to be rebagged before it can be redistributed.
The farmers will use it.
It has to be rebagged in order to be transported.
As I have contended over a long period, there is enough storage, not in Dublin or in Cork but in other parts of the country, for 250,000 tons.
So far as I know, that is not correct. At the conference to which I referred the first question I asked was whether this immediate crisis in the manufacturing business could not be relieved by getting storage somewhere. It was stated there by the manufacturers that they had made every possible effort to get storage and had failed. The representatives from the sugar company said their existing storage was full.
The Minister will find, and I think this will be useful, that there are storage buildings in every little harbour in the country. There are buildings in the hands of local authorities.
They are by no means sufficient.
If it is true that the Minister for Agriculture is now importing superphosphates at £20 per ton, is it not a fact that it may be said that we ought to have imported much more of it when we could have got it for £9 10s. 0d. per ton?
The Deputy has mistaken me. In fact, before the whole of that 100,000 was imported Deputy Dillon was trying to get the order cancelled and succeeded in getting cancellation of 17,000.
That is a different figure from last week's one.
16,000 tons odd—16,800 tons.
Those who said that 100,000 tons were too much clearly did not see very far.
Normal arrangements for the importation of superphosphates were proceeding. We do not produce enough to meet our own requirements, and the balance has to be imported; 100,000 tons were imported on the assumption that over and above normal consumption there would be 100,000 tons needed for the land reclamation project. That is a foolish notion.
Did I understand the Minister to say that there is not storage space?
Not nearly enough.
In Monasterevan, in Deputy Norton's constituency, and in mine, the Minister will find one big building which he can take over. We bought it at half the price you were going to have to pay for it.
What is the point in saying that? In the previous year it was bought at half that price again. The price has gone up very substantially. I am anxious to secure this, that the farmers will not be led into thinking that the price will be lower next year, and therefore be induced to postpone placing their orders.
Nobody wants the farmers to do that.
Perhaps Deputy Mulcahy will tell the Tipperary County Committee of Agriculture that, despite higher prices, fertilisers are still a good investment for farmers. Nobody knows what the trend of prices is going to be in the future. All the indications are that so far as superphosphates are concerned, for the next season anyway, the price will be substantially higher than it has been in any recent year. Arrangements have been made between the sugar company and Coras Iompair Éireann—and I hope the fertiliser manufacturers will come in on them—to handle the storage problem, and I hope that by this time next year that will be resolved.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered that the Bill be sent to the Seanad.