Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Jul 1946

Vol. 102 No. 11

Adjournment—Harvesting of Crops and Prices of Farm Produce.

I gave notice on behalf of this Party of our intention to raise on the Adjournment for the Recess two matters: (1) the supreme importance of successfully saving the coming harvest, in respect of which we suggest that the Government should take all possible measures to ensure that sufficient labour will be available to farmers for this purpose, and (2) having regard to the increase in wages of farm workers, the necessity for increasing the prices of all farm products, pending a full and an impartial investigation of costings.

With regard to the coming harvest, which is in every respect the most important harvest that will be reaped in this country or in the world, it is essential that nothing should happen to impair the efficiency of agriculture during the harvest season. The Minister is aware that a deputation called to this House last week and brought to the notice of the various Parties and to the Minister the danger of a stoppage of work with regard to agriculture in certain counties. I do not wish to say very much on this question. We have often in the past had threats of strikes in agriculture from both farm workers and farmers and we have occasionally had strikes of both, but it is to be sincerely hoped that there will be no stoppage of work in agriculture during the coming harvest, and sincerely to be hoped that, whatever questions arise in regard to which there may be a dispute, will be settled by reasonable negotiation, and if it is not possible to settle such outstanding questions, we hope the Minister will take steps to influence all parties concerned to postpone action until the legislation going through the Oireachtas, setting up a labour court, becomes operative. This Industrial Relations Bill is one of the most important measures which has passed through this House, and I think it ought to be given a fair trial. If there is any dispute outstanding in regard to agriculture, or any dispute pending, it ought to be referred to the authorities which will be set up under that Bill, and I therefore think the Minister should exert all his influence to ensure that there will be no stoppage of agricultural work in any county.

There is also the important matter, to which the Minister should direct his attention, of the stoppage which has taken place as a result of the dockers' strike. If there is any section of the community suffering more than another by reason of that stoppage, it is the farming community. They are in a serious predicament in regard to imports of harvest machinery and wearing parts. This is an important matter, because it affects the saving of the harvest. There is also the difficulty with regard to the export of cattle. Our cattle markets are being seriously affected by this stoppage, and the Minister ought to take whatever steps he can to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

In the event of an unfortunate dispute arising in the agricultural industry and of farm workers coming out on strike, I hope the Minister will make provision in time to deal with such a situation and to see that no part of this year's valuable harvest is lost. From whatever source assistance may be available, it should be brought in to help in the saving of the harvest, and all possible precaution should be taken to ensure that the work is carried through successfully. The year has been rather unsatisfactory from the weather point of view, and it may continue to be unsatisfactory for the harvest, and it is therefore essential that all possible labour and machinery should be available to the farming community to ensure that whatever handicap may arise by reason of weather conditions will be overcome.

With regard to the desirability, and, in fact, the urgent necessity for an increase in the prices of essential farm products, the Minister is aware that there has been a very substantial increase all round in wages during the past few months. Farm workers' wages have been increased by the Agricultural Wages Board by amounts from 4/- per week upwards, and it is essential that these increases in the farmers' costs should be taken into consideration in regard to the prices of the products of the land, and particularly tillage products.

Prices of barley, wheat and beet were fixed long before increases in wages were put into operation. These prices were based on a standard of wages which existed six or 12 months ago. As far as these products are concerned, prices have not been increased over the past two or three years. Nobody will deny that the cost of production has substantially increased, particularly the cost of labour. The Minister knows that a considerable number of products have been reduced in price this year compared with last year, notwithstanding the increased cost of production. The price of potatoes is very substantially lower this year. There has been a reduction of 3.9 per cent. in the price of potatoes. Hay and straw have also fallen in price. All classes of pigs have reduced in price compared with 1945.

Where did the Deputy get that information?

Instead of the price of pigs being reduced it should be increased. Bacon pigs are almost entirely the product of tillage farmers. The price of such pigs should be increased. That is a matter to which the Minister might give attention. He may also be able to give some information on a matter that I raised recently, and that is the prospect of an increased price for cattle during the coming year. As negotiations have been going on with the British Government it is possible that the result may now be known to the Minister. If so, I hope he will be able to make a statement. During the past few weeks very few cattle were exported to Britain, partly because of prices and partly because of the stoppage in connection with the shipping dispute. It is desirable that the export market from this country to Great Britain should be extended. We are, at present, exporting large numbers of cattle to the Continent. That market may be useful now, but it may not be as permanent or as desirable as the British market. The negotiations with Britain should be brought to a successful conclusion in order to ensure the best possible terms for farmers' live stock. It is desirable that the Minister should make a statement.

He is aware that practically every farmers' organisation—not political organisations—is agitating on the question. These are strictly nonpolitical organisations, on the governing bodies of which the Minister's Party are represented. They have made a strong demand for increased prices, having regard to the increased cost of production. The Minister is aware that beet growers, led to a great extent by members of his Party, have more or less declared their intention to withhold beet from the factories unless the price is substantially increased. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he has no control over the price of beet. As Minister for Agriculture every agricultural product comes under his supervision. He should see that agriculture gets a fair deal, not only for live stock and live-stock products, but also for tillage products. I hope the Minister will be able to say something definite in regard to the position of labour for the harvest and as to the intention of the Government to make some definite concession to farmers in view of increased costs of production. The Minister has given hints to the House that he contemplates setting up some authority to go carefully into agricultural costings. Pending the establishment of such authority, he might take steps now to improve agricultural prices.

I desire to support Deputy Cogan's proposal, particularly that portion which stresses the desirability of giving farmers increased prices for their produce. An agitation has been going on I might say for years, urging that farmers should get economic prices for their produce. Economic prices mean not only the cost of production, but also a small margin of profit, so that farmers, their sons, daughters, and agricultural workers would get a decent livelihood from their work on the land. During the war years farmers did grand national work for this country and did not grumble about having to do it. Now that the war has ended, it is only right that they should be given economic prices for farm produce—for beet, wheat and particularly for milk. Various public bodies, including county committees of agriculture, cooperative dairy societies, and representatives in this House, have urged the Government to realise that dairying, our oldest industry, is fast sinking into a position from which it will be difficult to restore it. In my opinion the present position of that industry is a very serious one. The figures supplied by various creamery societies show that there has been a great decline for a number of years, ranging from 15 per cent. in some cases to 45 per cent. in other cases.

From independent sources costings were supplied to the Department, showing the cost of producing a gallon of milk in different parts of the country, but for some reason the figures have not been accepted by the Department. What has been the result? Herds have in many cases been dispersed and, in other cases, reduced in numbers. Our people are inclined to fly from the land because they have not the amenities or the privileges that urban populations enjoy. The worst feature of all is that a great many workers, even farmers' sons and daughters, are not inclined to milk cows. They regard the hours that have to be given to such work as being too long. Cows have to be milked every day, on Sundays and on holydays, and these people feel that they are not properly paid for the valuable work they are doing. It is very unfortunate that the Department and the Government generally have turned a deaf ear to the representations of various public bodies, as well as those from independent sources, pointing out that the price of milk is not attractive enough to keep people on the land, or to get people to milk cows. It is not attractive enough to get the people to milk the cows. Recently I came across a case of a farmer who had 30 cows to be milked and on Sunday evening the men did not turn up to milk them and he and his wife and two children under 12 years of age had to milk the cows. On the following Monday morning the same thing occurred. That is not by any means an isolated instance.

It would appear that the Government and the Minister have made up their minds that the price of milk is not to be increased. I want to tell the Minister that a great many farmers have also made up their minds that henceforward they will keep the minimum number of dairy cows. In many cases they have at their service very valuable and very willing milkers, that will do the job very well and pay the farmers far better than the present system. I refer to the calves. That system is being adopted and I think it would be disastrous for the dairying industry if it should become general. The farmers have no option in the matter. It is deplorable that, after many years of dairy herd development and intensive propaganda with regard to cow testing and the breeding of the best dairy bulls, in an effort to get the best dairy cows, many of these are finding their way to the butcher or the foreign market. It is a very serious position if our farmers are obliged to put the young calves under the cows. I believe, and the farmers believe, that that would be an easier way and ultimately a more satisfactory way in view of the attractive price for store cattle and the possibility of that price becoming even more attractive.

I take this opportunity of once again appealing to the Minister and to the Government to meet the farmers' demand with regard to the price of milk. We are told that if the price of milk supplied to creameries is advanced by one penny a gallon and the price of home made butter correspondingly increased, the cost will be £1,000,000. That is a very small sum to maintain the oldest and best industry of any nation. The money would be well spent. There is a growing protest and a growing uneasiness amongst our farmers generally in regard to the instability of the dairying industry. The Minister, in reply to Deputy O'Donnell a few days ago, said that this is not an appropriate part of the year to appeal for higher prices for farm produce. I would remind him that the Minister for Agriculture in England has during the past month very substantially increased the price of nearly all farm produce. Where there is a will there is a way. I again, in all sincerity, appeal to the Minister to have the question of the price of milk reconsidered, with a view to making it more attractive for the dairy farmers.

There is another aspect of this question. The period during which 1/- a gallon is given for milk should be extended to the month of April. That would encourage farmers to bring in their cattle earlier and would perhaps encourage them to rear calves. That is a very serious matter. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the whole position of the dairying industry. In Limerick, in June, we had a very large and representative meeting of dairy farmers from all over Munster at which there was unanimous demand for an increase in the price of milk. That meeting was called by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and was representative of every dairying interest in the country. The representatives at that meeting were hardheaded men who had the interests of the country at heart and they were unanimous in their demand for an increase in the price of milk. I ask the Minister not to turn down that appeal but to grant it in the interests of the dairying industry, which is the most valuable, the oldest, and the best industry we have.

To-night the House will adjourn for a period of possibly three months. We will have three months' holiday with full pay.

Deputy Cogan referred to the port workers' strike in Dublin and said the cattle trade and the export trade of farmers may suffer considerably. It was stated to-day at a public board meeting that cattle were being diverted, that butter was being held up and that generally speaking the export market in which the farmers are interested is being seriously hampered and will be more so if something is not done by the Government quickly to bring to an end the present unfortunate dispute at the North Wall between the dock workers and the ship-owners. There is goodwill on both sides, the owners of the ships are anxious for an early settlement and so are the workers. I earnestly hope that, during these three months, the Government will not sleep over these things and allow strikes to spread. Every effort should be made to end them without invitation from anybody.

It was stated by one Minister only yesterday to myself that he was prepared, on invitation, to hold a conference at any time with a view to bringing this deadlock to an end. One party will not seek a conference, as asking for it may be a sign of weakness and the workers will not show any sign of weakness by pressing continuously for conferences. It is the duty of the Government—and the elected representatives for the constituency should keep reminding the Government of that duty—to see that decent wages are paid and good holidays given and that work is resumed. I will say this, on behalf of all the decent employers in the city: every decent employer in this city who speaks to you privately says that his workers and every worker is entitled to at least two weeks' holiday with pay. Why it is being held up, I do not know.

We were hopeful up to yesterday that we would get some encouraging statement from the Minister for Education regarding his proposals to bring to an end the teachers' dispute, before the schools open in September.

That has nothing to do with the motion before the House.

I thought that, on the general adjournment for three months, we could touch on various matters.

The Deputy is quite mistaken. On the Motion for the Adjournment, matters can be discussed of which the Chair has got written notice. No Party in this House gave me any notice, except Clann na Talmhan, who gave me a notice which is the only subject for discussion. It is not like a discussion on the Taoiseach's Vote, for instance, on which many matters are discussed—some irrelevantly, at times. The Deputy is confined to the notice before the House, which was read out, dealing with two agricultural questions.

That is rather new to me. I thought, in the old days—I do not know when the Standing Orders were changed——

Standing Orders have not been changed. That has been the practice for years and years, since this House was set up.

Very well, I will get back to the point raised by Deputy Cogan, who, apparently, is alarmed at the hold up of the farmers' supplies, due to the failure of the full and adequate shipping services, due to the strike at the North Wall. On farming, I should like to be assured by the Minister that our supplies, the incoming supplies, are adequate and that there will be no such thing as bread queues in our city. The Minister ought to be able to give us a guarantee that there will be no need for bread rationing, that the incoming supplies, coupled with our own produce, will be available for the people.

I had intended to touch on a few other matters, such as the possibility of the scarcity of turf. For some reason the Phoenix Park is not anything like what it was in the storage of turf and I earnestly hope the Minister, who will have some responsibility in connection with the supply of turf, will keep that in mind. I do express the hope, on behalf of the cattle trade generally and the farmers as a whole, that their export trade will not be injured in any way by the prolongation of the port workers' strike.

The Deputy was in order there. It affects agriculture.

I do not want to give a mere citation of what was mentioned two nights ago, in regard to the prices of milk, beet and wheat. The Minister alluded to my contribution as an impassioned appeal. Well, I was in earnest about it. I can assure the Minister I did not mean anything offensive to him.

I have always found him a gentleman who was very approachable. In his reply, the Minister said we had a much higher price for wheat than farmers anywhere else. I was in a confectionery shop to-day and it was good to look at the supply of stuff. I said: "Thank Heaven," but we have not enough, as we are cashing in on the fertility of the soil. Wheat is an overdraft on the bank of nature and when the bill is presented for payment there are no reserves to meet it. That has been the history of wheat all down the years. The Minister and I differed and he said wheat has been more or less grown almost all the time. I respectfully differ with him. I have read a good deal of the history of agriculture and have heard it from two generations at the Tipperary fireside. We are a tillage county outside the Golden Vale and would run Wexford very close for the model county.

Follow the example of Wexford.

Or vice versa. As a result of low prices in England, you have bread queues, which are tragic. Regarding beet, the Minister mentioned a private company settling the price. I understand—he can correct me if I am wrong—that it is a limited company which is entitled to dividends. Am I right, Sir, in saying they are sure of 5 per cent. dividends for 20 years?

The Deputy should not put that question to the Chair.

To the Minister.

Deputies are supposed to be addressing the Chair.

You would help me a long way in that, I am sure. I think I am right in that. I have heard it many times and surely you must have a good say with the Sugar Company.

I have no say with the company.

The Minister has. Who took 1d. a lb. off the sugar? That is one-sixth. If you put a sixth or two-sixths on instead, it would be better. It is here on paper—£4 for 17.5. You get one in fifty turning out 17.5. I have a bit and 12, 13 and 14 are usual and 14 to 15 would be the average. With the carriage off, the farmer gets about three-sixths. A sixth on—I would go further and say two sixths—would be one-third on, making £4 8s. He would want roughly that.

Take the case of the ordinary pater familias with a family of our or five, who is earning a fair wage. He may smoke three or four packets of cigarettes, or the equivalent in tobacco, during the week and drink an odd bottle or pint, perhaps three or four in the week. Let him deny himself one packet of cigarettes, 8d., and a pint, 10d., that is 1/6, and put two-sixths on the price instead of taking it off and give it to the farmer. It will bring sugar to 8d. a lb. He can buy 2½ lb. sugar by smoking a packet less and drinking a pint less.

That would not be popular.

Mr. Corish

It is a tee-totaller speech.

If he got 2½ lb. more sugar, look at all the crabs and blackberries that could be made into jam, to supplement the meagre butter ration.

Sugar is scarce, too.

In regard to meat, I notice the Argentine have declared off frozen meat going to England. I am informed that there is a terrible meat scarcity in the United States. This, therefore, is a glorious time for us and we should be given a chance. We should be given something more for the milk we produce. A cow will only have one calf in the year, but a sow will have a litter of eight or ten bonhams, so that if the farmer has got out of pigs he can get back into their production in a year or eighteen months. You cannot increase the cattle population in that way. It is time that we conserved our herds and not be destroying them.

What about goats?

Goats are scarce, too. With regard to milk production, I read in the newspapers yesterday that there is the possibility of developing a milk export trade by aeroplane. That can only be done if the cow population is increased. Milk production is definitely going down. The position now is that the farmer and members of his family are the real cow milkers. The road worker, the forestry worker and the mill worker finish on a Saturday at 12 o'clock but the farmer and his family between 12 o'clock on a Saturday and the starting hour on Monday morning do what would be regarded as half a week's work by other classes of workers. It looks as if we want to keep the farmer in the muck all the time.

That is all rot.

We have it on the highest authority that man is to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. I say, give the farmer a chance. I am sure Deputies are familiar with the story of "Martin Chuzzlewit" written by Charles Dickens. It is the story of the young republican of 21 years of age whose engagement was announced to the planter's daughter on an adjoining estate. The planter had about 1,000 slaves working for him. The guests were drinking the usual toasts to "liberty, equality and fraternity" when word arrived that the slaves had escaped. The party quickly dispersed in an effort to re-capture the slaves. The fact is that if it were not for the work done by the farmer and his sons and daughters the people of this country would be starving. We are willing to work and we are not looking for holidays, but we want to get payment for the wheat, the beet, the milk and everything else that we produce. I was not sent to this House by the farmers of Tipperary as a beggar or a mendicant, but I am asking that we should get fair play so that we may keep the nation alive. We do not want to cash-in on any class. We are working 66 and 70 hours a week. During the coming autumn we will be working at the threshings until 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night. We are not asking for an eight-hour day. We have saved the nation, and we are not begging or asking for charity. All that we want is a price for the stuff that we produce.

With regard to the first matter that was raised—the supply of labour to farmers—there is, as I am sure Deputies are aware, a scheme under which labour can be recruited from areas where there is labour to spare—in the north-west and south-west of Ireland. Under the scheme operated by the Department of Industry and Commerce, the transfer of those labourers is facilitated. There are various conditions laid down. A farmer can, by going to the labour exchange, to a tillage inspector, or to the tillage supervisor in his area, or to the Post Office, get all the necessary information. The Department of Industry and Commerce helps those men by paying their travelling expenses from their own homes to the home of the farmer where they are to take up employment. The Department also gives them 5/- to spend on the journey, with 4/- a night towards their lodging allowance. The farmer must pay them 1/2 an hour for a 54-hour week, and 1/6 an hour above that. All that is laid down in the conditions. The scheme has worked very satisfactorily during the last two years. The only point is that the farmers have not availed of it as much as was expected at the beginning. I think that, in the ordinary course of peaceful agriculture, there should be no trouble about getting extra labour.

The next point raised by Deputy Cogan was the possibility of a strike. I think that the less said beforehand about strikes the better, because an unguarded word might only cause trouble. All that I can do is to hope that no strike will take place at this time of the year. Deputy Cogan was anxious that something should be done under the Bill that left the Dáil this evening. Even before that Bill comes into operation, there is negotiating machinery in the Department of Industry and Commerce which will be at the service of anybody who asks for it. Deputy Byrne raised the question of the dock strike. I do not think it can be held by anybody that the Department of Industry and Commerce have not done their best to end the dock strike. I think that they have intervened at least two or three times to try to effect a settlement. The same machinery is there for any other strike that may take place.

The next point that was raised was with regard to prices. Deputy Cogan mentioned the question of the rise in agricultural wages. There are two points that I would like to refer to on that. In the first place, relief was given to landholders in their rates under the Budget. As a matter of fact, although that relief in rates operates from the 1st April the increase in wages did not take place until nearly the end of June. In view of that, I think it will be admitted that the relief given in rates in that way will meet to a very substantial extent the increase in wages. Apart from that, we must, I think, come to the conclusion that the Agricultural Wages Board, when they are fixing a minimum wage, take existing circumstances into account: what the farmer is actually getting for his stuff, and what farm prices are. As far as I know, they have never fixed a minimum wage in the hope that farmers will, as against that, get an increase in prices. I think that is the only way in which the Agricultural Wages Board could act: that is, to take the circumstances as they are and try to fix what would be a just wage in existing circumstances. I want to repeat that I do not think it is possible at this stage to review any prices already fixed. I said here a few nights ago that, when farmers sign a certain contract for beet, the contract must stand. Farmers sowed wheat knowing what the price was before they did so. The same applies to many other farm prices. I think it may be possible, as Deputy Cogan mentioned, to find some more satisfactory machinery for fixing farm prices in future, but that will take some little time. The Dáil will, I hope, have an opportunity of discussing that matter more in detail when we meet next session.

Deputy Halliden is right in saying that a penny per gallon increase in the price of milk all over would amount to £1,000,000. Producers would get £1,000,000 more and the taxpayer or consumer would have to find the money. Whether it would cost £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, if it is necessary to do it and if it could be justly done, the matter should be considered. I do not think that Deputy O'Donnell is right in saying that the average sugar-content of beet is 14 per cent. or 15 per cent. The average sugar content paid for by the Sugar Company—and they do not pay unless the sugar is there—was 16.6 per cent. for last year. We must accept that as a fair figure. I do not think that it is right for Deputy O'Donnell to say that any Party in this House wants to keep the farmer in the mud. Accusations against every other Party in the House seem to be the stock-in-trade of Deputy O'Donnell and some members of his Party. I do not know with what object these accusations are made. Perhaps it is to give the impression that they are the only Party who want to keep the farmer out of the mud. I do not see that these accusations do good to anybody. I know many Tipperary farmers and I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that they did not send him here as a mendicant or a beggar. They are the most independent men I know in this country or any other country and I do not think that they would stand for such statements.

Deputy Cogan referred to the recent negotiations with Great Britain. I should like to take the opportunity to say something about those negotiations. Many items were mentioned in the course of those negotiations but the two items of importance discussed were cattle and eggs. In the case of eggs, we have not got down to finality yet, though I have some hope that we may be able to offer better prices next year. When we may commence, has yet to be decided. I hope that we shall be able to offer a better average price to producers in the coming year, but I cannot give any details at the moment because the details are not yet fixed.

In the case of cattle, we are up against a much more difficult situation. Although I am sure Deputies know as much about the cattle trade as I do, I should like them to have the patience to allow me to refresh, as it were, their memories on some items in connection with that trade before I come to the final point regarding these negotiations.

Would it be possible to get the farmers in to listen to the Minister? There are only four farmers in the House and, as the Minister is about to make an important statement, they should be brought in.

During the seven-year period before a certain law was passed in England—1925-31—there was an average export of cattle from this country of 730,000. It is interesting to analyse the composition of that export of 730,000 and compare it with the position at the present time. At that time, we were exporting on the average 290,000 fat cattle, 390,000 store cattle and 55,000 dairy cattle. In the next seven years—I hope to point out later the significance of these three seven-year periods—1932-38, the average export went down to 650,000, composed of 170,000 fats, 430,000 stores and 52,000 dairy cattle. The stores and dairy cattle maintained the same level as before. The next period of seven years—1939-45—gave an average export of 535,000. Again, there was about the same number of dairy cattle, 55,000; practically the same number of stores, 400,000, but fats were down to 80,000. In respect of the last seven years, I want to add a certain figure. Up to the last seven years, our export of dressed beef or canned beef was insignificant but, during the last seven years, it became a very big item. It is estimated—I think fairly accurately —that the average number of cattle going into cans and dressed meat for export was 97,000 per year. For those seven years, that would bring the average total up to 632,000. If we take the more recent three years, 1943-45, included in the last seven-year period, we have an average as low as 466,000. Again, the stores remained at 407,000, dairy cattle 43,500 and fats 15,000. We have the history there of gradual and continuous decline in the export of fat cattle. That is the whole story of the export of cattle from this country for the past 21 years.

During 20 years, the number of cows here remained the same—1,200,000. It has varied very little up or down during that period. We may, therefore, conclude that we had the same number of calves born in the country and we must further conclude that the big decrease in the exports was due, to a great extent, to the fact that we did not rear the calves in these recent five or six years because young stores were a poor price. That discouraged farmers from rearing calves. Stores were a poor price because farmers were over-stocked with older cattle they could not dispose of in a remunerative way.

We must, of course, take some account of the increase in the consumption of beef at home because there had been some increase during all that time. As I have said, the big and most significant fact in the whole picture is the decline in the export of fat cattle. Undoubtedly, that had its origin in the provisions of the Cattle Industry Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1934, under which payment of subsidy was made in respect of home-bred beef in Great Britain and in respect of animals which were imported for further feeding in Great Britain. The British farmer got a good subsidy on cattle reared in Great Britain and a fairly good subsidy on cattle brought in for further feeding but there was no subsidy in respect of the cattle which went over for slaughter from this side. Up to 1939— to the end of the second period I mentioned—the subsidy was 5/- per live cwt. on cattle brought in for further feeding, equal to 9/4 dead weight. From that period, there was a distinct reduction in the number of fat cattle going in and there was a distinct inducement to exporters here to send out good store cattle for further feeding. By 1939, the number of fat cattle exported had declined by 100,000 per annum as from 1931. There was some improvement in the year 1941, but that was due entirely to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease when we were sending nothing but fat cattle for immediate slaughter to Great Britain. We ought to ignore that year in a way in making comparisons of the number of fat cattle exported.

Again, when the Minister for Food assumed control in Great Britain in 1940, the production of cattle in Britain was further encouraged. The Minister for Food gave those who reared cattle in Britain and those who brought in cattle for further feeding in Great Britain a higher subsidy than they had been getting in 1939. The differential of 5s. per live cwt. to which I have already referred, had increased by 1941 to 12s. 6d. per cwt. and now, after some recent increases on the other side, the differential is 15s. If we take the average beast of 10 cwt., or, in fact, a smaller animal than the average beast, because a 10 cwt. animal is a small beast, by an easy calculation any Deputy will see that the bullock that is exported is worth £7 10s. 0d. more after two months in Great Britain and the bullock that is reared in Britain is worth £10 more than the animal imported for immediate slaughter. That is to say that the export of fat cattle from this country was very much discouraged.

I have stated here that in some ways we can produce things cheaper here than in Great Britain, but in the case of cattle there is very little difference in the cost of production because when you take everything into account—rents, rates and the items that count most in the rearing of cattle —there is not very much difference between the cost of rearing cattle in Britain and here. If it is necessary to give the prices that have been given to the British farmer to get him to rear cattle, then it must be obvious that the price that we are receiving for our cattle when exported fat are not remunerative and therefore they are not going. I have mentioned the fact that the average number of fat cattle exported in the last three years from this country to Britain averaged 15,000 per annum—a very big reduction from the 300,000 per annum that used to go in the '20's. I might mention further that that 15,000 is confined almost entirely to a type of beast that would not be regarded as the ideal animal for export. They are mostly small cattle of the Kerry breed or of the Galloway type. They are slow-maturing cattle which would not be suitable for the very high-class store cattle trade which we have built up in Britain in recent years.

This store trade is of a very selective nature and the number that can be taken by the British farmer is limited, because the British farmer, through force of circumstances, has had to put a great deal of his land under tillage and, as well, the British farmer, like our own farmers, is greatly in need of feeding stuffs. Therefore, he selects the best possible type of stores that will give him a quick return and that can be sent for slaughter at the end of the two months' period for which he must wait to get his subsidy.

There is no longer, therefore, a market for what might be regarded in this country as slow-maturing cattle. We have quite a number of that type. They have become very plentiful. It is hard to get rid of them in this country and they remain on the farmers' hands. They would be regarded as the rougher type of cattle. There are also the non-beef breeds, like the Kerry cattle or the Galloways. The Galloway might be regarded as a semibeef breed, but they are not cattle which are regarded as a quick-maturing type. These are the types which are being left on the farmers' hands. They are not wanted for the high-class store trade in Great Britain. What is becoming of these cattle? They remain here until they are absorbed by the home victualling trade. Some go for canning and a small portion eventually go, after a long period of feeding, as stores to Britain. While they are there, they have the effect of making it very difficult for the farmer to get rid of his yearlings and the price given for yearlings to the farmer is not inducing him to rear his calves. Hence you have the tendency to slaughter more calves than had been slaughtered heretofore.

I should like to say, of course, that the type of cattle to which I have already referred, the Kerry type and the bigger and grosser types, make first-class beef when they eventually mature and are fit for the butcher. If there was a more attractive outlet for fat cattle for slaughter on the other side, I believe the feeders here would get rid of these smaller and slower-maturing cattle, more rapidly.

In fact, feeders would be tempted to breed more of them if they could be got rid of rapidly for immediate slaughter on landing on the other side. In that way, we would be sending out a bigger proportion of that type and our general export figures would increase. It would not interfere in any way with the export of the high-class stores that are going out now because there will always be a demand for such high-class stores by feeders on the other side and they will be prepared to pay a price for these stores. If these slow-maturing cattle, non-beef varieties, were got rid of more rapidly, it would create a movement upwards for younger stores. They would realise in turn a better price and the farmer would be induced to rear his calves.

There have been, as Deputies are aware, various estimates given of the number of calves slaughtered in this country in recent years. It is not an alarming number but it is a great pity that such slaughter should take place at a time like the present when meat is so badly needed. There was always, even at the best of times, a slaughter of about 10,000 calves, calves that were hardly worth rearing. There was a small trade in them as veal and we may regard that number as the normal number which would be slaughtered no matter how good the cattle trade might be. Owing to the low prices recently obtaining, as I said already, for yearling cattle, calves were killed up to the number of 100,000 per annum. That is a very big increase. What became of them? About 30,000 in recent years were exported as veal to Britain and about 70,000 were used at home. We are not veal eaters, so it may be assumed that a good lot of that veal was used wastefully—not always for human consumption, so that to a great extent these calves were waste as human food. In any case, if all these calves were consumed by human beings as veal, the sum total of meat would be small compared with what we could get from them as matured cattle if they were all reared.

It is evident, therefore, that until there is some more movement at the top for the slow maturing cattle there will be no prospect of stopping this present movement in the slaughter of calves. In fact, I think there is a certain danger that it will increase until we reach a kind of numerical equilibrium—that is to say, until yearlings begin to get a bit scarce and dear. Then, of course, through the very scarcity of yearlings there will be an inducement to the farmers to stop this movement towards killing more calves. It is rather significant that the British policy in regard to prices has resulted not only in a serious decline in fat cattle going in but has created a situation which may very well lead to a general decline in the number of fat cattle going across. Taking the total number of all classes, as I have said already, exported as tinned beef, or dressed beef, in more recent times, as well as the cattle going across, into account the sum total of the decline in exports has been from 730,000 to 536,000. That is a very substantial decline in exports.

I thought it well to refresh the minds of Deputies here in this House with these figures in order to show to them the difficulty we have on our side and the difficulty that the British appear to have on their side in working their subsidy system and encouraging their own farmers. The British Government have stated that they are desirous of getting more meat from this country, but I am afraid that in actual practice their present policy has the effect of ensuring that less meat will go. I might say to the Deputies now that these were the facts that the recent delegation from this side tried to make as clear as they possibly could to the British Government during the course of these negotiations. The whole position has been put to the British Government and fully explained and the British Government are now examining, from their point of view, what they are prepared to do. They have not, however, given us any indication as to what their decision may be. As far as cattle go, therefore, I am even less in a position to give the Dáil any indication as to what the result of the negotiations may be than I was in the case of eggs. In the case of eggs I was at least able to say that there will probably be an increase in the price to the producer for the coming year.

Deputy Cogan mentioned one other point as regards the export of cattle to the Continent. There are, of course, cattle going to the Continent under two headings. Firstly, there are cattle going out as a gift to those countries that suffered through the ravages of war. The number under that heading amounts to something in the region of 12,000 to 14,000 head. Apart from that some Continental countries are buying cattle here in the ordinary commercial way and we have made various treaties with them from time to time—I should, perhaps, hardly dignify the negotiations with the title of treaties, but we have made agreements with them any way—to give them a certain number. I do not know what that number may be for the rest of the year, but there is one thing to be said about it—that is, that the trade to the Continent means that they are taking off our hands those cattle which are slow to mature, the non-beef beast, the Kerry breed and so on; they are first class beef and, therefore, they are taking beef off our hands and in that way they have relieved the position here to a considerable extent. We would, however, want further relief before we could feel as happy as we would like to feel about the whole cattle trade. I do not think that I have anything further to add unless any Deputy would like to ask for more definite information.

Is there any suggestion in the negotiations that they would waive the two months' limit under which the cattle have to be in England before they qualify?

I need not tell you that was suggested on our side.

Of course, but what is the result?

We have not got the result yet. They are considering our suggestions.

Top
Share