On this motion I was in possession last night when the Dáil adjourned, and I thought I had made myself clear as to the Government policy. This motion proposes to censure the Government for its failure to secure a larger quota for our cattle on the British market. I thought last night that I had made myself perfectly clear to the Opposition as to what our policy was with regard to live stock in this country. It may be no harm to mention a few of these points again. I said last night that Deputy O'Reilly had expressed my attitude exactly when he said that we should rear only the best cattle and rear as many as the market can absorb. That is quite a good policy. We should improve our cattle as far as possible—improve our agriculture and rear as many cattle as the market can absorb, that is as many as the home market and the foreign market can absorb, it being understood that we will get as far as possible foreign markets, including the British market, which will take our cattle.
Committee on Finance. - Cattle Export Quota to Great Britain.
Would the Minister relate that to the present cattle population?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, I think I will probably mention that.
And Senator Connolly is quite definitely at issue with you?
The rule of this House is that Ministers should be referred to as Ministers. The Deputy should have said the Minister for Lands.
I am quite aware of that now.
The Minister was equally at fault with the Deputy.
Dr. Ryan
I think that probably fault is being found with the Government for not making a sufficient attempt to increase our quota for the export of cattle to Great Britain. Deputy Brennan read a letter here to-day. He wanted to prove that my Department made representations to the British Department of Agriculture on a certain matter and that we were successful. He tried to prove that if we made the same representations with regard to these quotas we would also have been successful. That is not right. We have never accepted a quota from the British Government without doing what we could to have that quota increased. We have in many cases got an increased quota. We have not, so far, succeeded in getting an increase in the fat cattle quota and I do not know that we are likely to succeed, because the British point out to us that there are terrible difficulties in this matter. They point to the glut of fat cattle in their own market. They point to the prices for fat cattle which are lower than pre-war prices. They say to us: "How, in face of that glut, can we take any more?" If we were in the same position here producing, say, sugar and if the price of our beet was ruled by the price of sugar which was coming in, we would say to the British: "For goodness' sake, let us use up our own producers' beet before we increase your quota." Anybody can see that the British Government has a perfect right to take up the attitude it has taken—to look after its own producers.
If there is a surplus of beef in the market there is no use in talking about frozen and chilled beef. It is the fresh beef that matters. We could put up the argument that if the chilled beef market were improved that would make the position easier on the fresh meat market. It is very usual for Deputies opposite to get up and say that if we made the slightest attempt we could succeed in this matter of securing an increased quota. But we have tried and we have not succeeded. It was said here, when introducing the Estimate last night, that we had to give a special inducement to bacon curers to export their quota; even though they were getting more in the home market they took the long view. We are as anxious, and more anxious, to hold our quota in the British market as we are in the Belgian or German markets. If we get one penny more in the British market than in the Belgian market then we are going to go to the British market. Nobody need now get up and say that we have changed our attitude, because we never had any other attitude. Deputy Dillon wanted to know what Deputy de Valera said——
President de Valera.
Dr. Ryan
Yes, President de Valera. I want to make it clear so that there need be no debates here as to what the attitude of the Government is on this matter. The attitude of the Government is plain. We want to produce agricultural products to our full capacity and as far as the market can absorb those products.
A very sensible policy.
Dr. Ryan
We are blamed for not making an attempt to carry it out. We did our best to carry it out and if Deputies opposite can help us we will be delighted. That is not so easy as Opposition Deputies have said. They said before the last election that it could be done in three days. They themselves knew that it could not be done and the country knew it too and showed that it knew it. The people of the country showed that. They know it is a difficult problem. It is difficult to get an increase of these quotas. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has quotas for certain manufactured articles. He would be very loath to do anything against an Irish manufacturer no matter what appeal a foreign country might make to him to allow in more motor cars or tyres or anything else. He would be very reluctant to do any injury to our own factories by allowing in a bigger quota of these articles. We are in the same position in relation to Great Britain. She is not going to allow us to increase our quotas if it injures her own producers. We cannot blame her in any way for that part of her agricultural policy. The Government is blamed because we did not get alternative markets, to any great extent, to the British and the home markets but we have increased enormously our consumption of beef here. The figures of slaughterings in the Dublin abattoir show that for the last 12 months, ended 31st October, the number of cattle slaughtered for consumption in the City of Dublin increased by 75 per cent. That was before the free beef scheme started. If there is as much free beef given out as we expect, the increase will be 150 per cent. That is to say, where there was 1 lb. of beef consumed in the City of Dublin in 1931-32, there will be 2½ lbs. consumed in 1934-35. That is, of course, conditional on the free beef going out in the quantities that we anticipate. If the position is the same all over the country, it shows that there has been a big expansion in the home consumption of beef. I think that the expansion in beef-consumption in the country would be greater than it has been in the City of Dublin but I have only these figures at the moment. If we get that expansion all over the country, it will mean that we will be killing more cattle for consumption here than we have lost under the British quota restriction. If the figure were increased by 150 per cent., it would mean that almost 220,000 additional cattle would be slaughtered here, whereas we are losing under the British quota about 120,000 fat cattle.
Apart from that, we are, as I stated in reply to a question to-day, negotiating for the establishment of a meat meal factory in Roscrea. That factory will absorb about 50,000 old cows in the year and will relieve the market to a certain extent, at any rate, of cows that are at present going into human consumption. These will be only few. Most of the cows will be unfit for human consumption and suitable only for conversion into meat meal—what the factory is intended for. One item of policy referred to with the greatest contempt by the Opposition is the slaughter of calves. We have too many cattle at the present time. Whether the increased slaughtering of beef for our own consumption will make that right, I cannot say; it will, certainly, improve things. If we have too many cattle and are going to continue to have too many cattle, it is a sensible thing to limit production to some extent. If we can foresee that three head of cattle will be just as valuable as would be four head if allowed to remain on for two years, is it not prudent for the farmer to slaughter one and keep three, if he is going to get as much out of the three as he would get out of the four? We have succeeded in getting farmers to kill calves to the extent of about 130,000. Sixty thousand calves were always killed in this country. Some may, perhaps, have died naturally; others were about to die naturally and others were killed for the veal trade. We checked the number of calf-skins exported and we found that they amounted to 60,000 a year. That showed that 60,000 calves lost their lives somehow or other.
Not dropped calves?
Dr. Ryan
Dropped calves are included in my number because dead calves got the bounty whether killed or not. In the 130,000 there is included the 60,000. The only impression would be on the difference—70,000 a year. That is probably not sufficient and it may have to be revised and encouragement given to a greater extent. Is it not wise policy for a Government to feed its own people well, at any rate; to see that its own people get enough beef and mutton? I should have mentioned, in speaking of the Dublin abattoir that, in addition to the 75 per cent. increase in the killings of cattle, there had been an increase of 100 per cent. in the killings of sheep. That shows that the people are getting much more meat to eat in the city than they previously did.
Would not a number of the cattle killed be exported?
Dr. Ryan
They are excepted.
When did they cease to be included in the killings?
Dr. Ryan
They are excluded from my figures.
How did you manage to exclude them?
Dr. Ryan
We asked the abattoir authorities to give us the number of killings for export and the number of killings for consumption in the city.
Would there not be a large number exported?
Dr. Ryan
I should say a couple of thousand in the past year. Our first duty should be to see that our own people get enough to eat. Having satisfied the requirements of our own people to a reasonable extent, we should, naturally, try to get an export market for our surplus. We have done that as far as we could. We have tried to get that export market, and it is because conditions in Great Britain do not allow them to let more cattle in that they cannot give us an increased quota. That is the position. I want Deputies opposite to realise that. They want to throw us out and come in in our place. If they do that they will probably have the same difficulty that we have in getting an increased quota. I am asked why certain people said that the British market is gone. I explained before what was meant by that. You sometimes say that a thing is gone when it is not actually gone. The simile I used before here does not apply now. I said then that we might say: "Cumann na nGaedheal is gone, because it is going." It has gone since. I might say now that the United Ireland Party is gone, because it is going downhill rapidly and is likely to go. If I said that the United Ireland Party is gone, it would not mean that it had actually gone, but rather that it was sure to go. In the same way, one might say that the British market is gone.
Exactly in the same way, because there is not the slightest probability of one or the other going, either now or hereafter, unless in the Minister's fevered brain.
Dr. Ryan
I said before that Cumann na nGaedheal is gone. That was six months ago. It has gone since. Deputy Belton has gone, too.
Do not be so sure.
Dr. Ryan
I mean you are gone from them.
I am watching you still.
Dr. Ryan
Anybody might say that the British market will never be the same as it was. It was an unlimited market at one time. Whatever number of cattle we had we could send into it. The number is limited now and, to that extent, the market is gone. I think that any Deputy is entitled to use the phrase in that sense. If Deputies opposite were as near the truth as we are in the use of that phrase, we could hardly find fault with them at all. It is quite permissible to say that the British market is gone.
Is that what you thank God for?
Dr. Ryan
We should thank God for all His mercies.
Is it a blessing then?
Dr. Ryan
The Minister for Lands was talking about the hundred years that it took to build up the cattle trade. What the Minister was talking about, in that speech, was the cattle mentality of the people; he was alluding to the people who said there was no salvation for this country except through cattle. There you have the cattle mentality of those who tell us that the farmers cannot live except on cattle alone.
We never said on cattle alone.
Dr. Ryan
I did not say the Deputy said that, but there are certain people who say that the farmers must live on cattle alone, and that all other produce, pigs, poultry, butter, and so on, are all subsidiaries. The Minister for Lands said that it took a hundred years to build up that cattle mentality but that it did not take a hundred days to destroy it. He was quite right. Now I am asked to explain myself. I am asked why I said that the Deputy who stated this Government is out to kill the live stock trade is either a knave or a fool. Is it not quite obvious what I meant? We are out for tillage and to get the largest possible market for all the live stock we can produce. No one will deny that.
There is no mention in the speech of the Minister for Lands about cattle mentality.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy need not bother his head about that now. Deputy Dillon asked me to explain whether I was either a knave or a fool. I am neither. I said that we are out for increased tillage and for the biggest complement of live stock that this country can maintain. I was laughed at because I sent cattle to Morocco. Because I tried to sell cattle for the farmers they laughed at me. That shows there are either knaves or fools on the other side; there are not many knaves on the other side. When I lost a bit of money—not my own because I have none to lose—but when I lost a little money sending cattle to Belgium they laughed at me. When I try to sell cattle for the Irish farmers they say I want to kill the live stock trade. When I sent cattle to Morocco or Belgium, I was trying to find a market for that trade.
Why not stop the economic war?
Dr. Ryan
I have talked for the last half-hour about that. When I bring in a measure here in support of the live stock trade I am met with opposition by Deputy Dillon and the Party opposite. When I want to do anything for the live stock trade Deputies opposite say níl. Every measure I bring in in support of the live stock trade is voted against by the Party opposite. When I brought in the Butter Stabilisation Bill the Opposition voted against it. They did not want butter stabilisation. That was before the economic war started. They did their best to defeat that Bill.
The next thing was the resolution to set up a tribunal to encourage the pig industry. On that occasion Deputy Dillon had a few friends from the Spring Show in the gallery and he made a speech for their benefit, and divided the House against the resolution. As a result of the findings of that tribunal a Bill is being prepared which I hope will stabilise the trade, and will obtain for the farmers better prices for their pigs. Deputy McGovern would agree with that, I think. Deputy Holohan said he would support me through and through on the Cattle Bill, yet, when it came to the Second Reading, the Deputy voted against it. They are all now in favour of the stabilisation of the pig trade. In fact, they are in favour of the whole Fianna Fáil policy only they think they could utilise it better than we could.
We will give you plenty of room anyway.
Dr. Ryan
There was one thing I forgot to mention. Under the Cumann na nGaedheal Government the number of cattle in the country went down. Under that cattle Government the numbers went down and now, under what they call anti-cattle Government the number has increased. I never heard such nonsense talked. Deputy Bennett says that the quota for bacon is too high. I am censured because the cattle quota is too low. Is Deputy Bennett going to bring on a Censure Motion because the bacon quota is too high. He says it is too high; then let him bring in a Censure Motion. The Party opposite have one motion to the effect that the tariff is too high and another that it is too low. One thing the Opposition should try to do is this: they should try to distinguish between quotas and the economic war. Deputy MacDermot does not agree——
I do.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy said, were it not for the economic war, we could get better quotas.
I did not say it was because of the economic war. However, I am going to speak after the Minister, and I shall put my position before the House.
Dr. Ryan
We must keep these two things separate. The big mistake made by the Opposition is that they do not do that. They are always confusing the issues between quotas and the economic war. When they talk of our not getting a good quota as a cattle country, they forget that the economic war is not responsible for that.
What evidence is there of that?
Dr. Ryan
What evidence is there the other way?
The market was there before you came into office.
Dr. Ryan
It was, and it was there for Australia also.
They have a better market now because of your policy.
Dr. Ryan
Australia has stopped completely, exports of meat, for two years, and New Zealand has agreed to restrict her exports to her 1932 figures. They did not want to do that. They are a Dominion of the British Commonwealth of Nations, very loyal to the Crown, but still they have to restrict their exports.
Was it frozen meat?
Dr. Ryan
Frozen.
A Deputy
Or chilled?
Dr. Ryan
No, frozen; chilled meat does not come from there? That is the position. Whether frozen or chilled, you have the position that you had Commonwealth Nations or Dominions, or whatever you like to call them, in perfectly friendly relations with the British Government, with no economic war or anything else going on between them and the British Government, and they had to restrict them. The same applied to us. The same would be the case with any Government that might be here.
It may be argued that we did not do as well, that we did not get as good a figure as Canada got or as some other country got. It may be argued that we have not done as well in the matter of quotas as some other Commonwealth country. I admit that that may be argued, but, at least, we did our best. Someone said I played cards. I only played cards on one occasion when I was in Ottawa, and that was in a public place. However, I do not think there would be any harm if I played a game of cards with Mr. J.H. Thomas and took a few dollars off him. As a matter of fact, I should be delighted to get a few dollars off him.
Will the Minister admit that other Commonwealth Nations did better in the matter of quotas than we did?
Dr. Ryan
I do not admit that they did. It must be remembered that there were certain considerations in every case there. After all, you have to take all considerations into account. For instance, take the case of Canada. I raised the point that we had not got the same as Canada. It was pointed out to me that we were not increasing, whereas Canada was increasing rapidly, and that it was as big a thing to keep them where they were as to cut us.
In effect, they got an increase and we got a reduction?
Dr. Ryan
No. They were held to their then figures.
Their quota was stabilised at 100 per cent.?
Dr. Ryan
It was, but remember the argument put up. The argument was that supposing they had, say, 50 units or 60 units or 100 units this year, in all probability there would be 120 units next year; and they were put back to the 100. I do not claim that it was just, but it was held that they were cut just as much as we were by being put back in that way. That is all I have to say.
Will the Minister say if there will be a fixed price for store cattle at the Roscrea factory?
Dr. Ryan
There will be a fixed price per head.
Will the Minister tell me what the fixed price is. He must remember that I am in the trade.
Dr. Ryan
I am afraid that the Deputy might forestall it if I told him the price.
Mr. Belton rose.
I should like to say a few words as I presume the debate is not concluding.
Dr. Ryan
I am going to disappear shortly because I have been here all day.
Perhaps the Deputy would allow me to ask a question before he speaks. I should like to have one matter cleared up. Canada was given a quota of 100 per cent. of the total of the numbers of cattle it was then supplying to the British market?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, that is right.
And ours was cut 50 per cent.?
Dr. Ryan
Only a certain proportion.
A Deputy
15 per cent. on the lot.
Well, fat cattle—the finished article. The finished article in any industry is the best article?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
The cattle that were the produce of tillage, the fat animals— their numbers were cut by 50 per cent. Canada was allowed to retain her 100 per cent. Canada was allowed all of hers, and we lost half of ours. The only deduction that can be made from that, I would suggest, is either that Canada had better negotiators or the economic war was responsible.
Mr. MacDermot rose.
Will the Minister——
I am afraid that I am not prepared to give way to the Deputy again. I propose, Sir, to make a brief speech and to restrict myself to the terms of the motion. The Minister for Agriculture asserts that this motion is inspired by Party spirit. It appears to me that that reproach is entirely unjustified. The terms of the motion are reasonable and moderate. In fact, I think we could have gone so far as to censure the Government, not merely for having obtained an insufficient quota, but for ever having brought about a state of affairs in which the quota system was applied to Ireland at all.
There are really two questions that are raised by this motion. One question is whether the live stock trade, and the British market in connection with the live stock trade, are of value to us or not. The second question is whether the restrictions which have been imposed—and I am referring now only to the quotas and not to the tariffs—were inevitable, or whether the Government are to blame in connection with them.
If I had only to deal with the Minister for Agriculture it would not be necessary for me to say anything as to the value and importance of the live stock trade and the value and importance of the British market, because he has fully admitted it. He has gone the length of stating that he is in favour of keeping the cattle population as high as possible, keeping it at as high a point as a market can be found for, either at home or abroad. Unfortunately, however, the line that the Minister for Agriculture takes here in the House is not the line that his Party in general takes through the country, or the line that his Party in general takes here in the House. I have listened to several speeches on this motion and I have not heard one from those benches opposite that was in entire accord with the opinions expressed by the Minister for Agriculture.
Deputy O'Reilly and Deputy Keyes, for example, associated a high cattle population with a low human population. They maintained that the two were necessarily connected and that it was the prosperity of the Irish cattle trade which had brought about Irish depopulation. Obviously, the Minister for Agriculture cannot accept that point of view, and I think he is perfectly right not to accept it. There is no evidence that the prosperity of the cattle trade makes for a decrease in population—none whatever! The decrease in the Irish population may have been due, if you like, to failure on the part of the British Government to encourage other industries in this country. That, however, is not the same thing as to say that it was due to the prosperity of the cattle trade.
Similarly, Deputy O'Reilly went so far as to say that the cattle trade had created no wealth to this country; that it had left no tangible wealth available. I wonder if he recollects the financial position of this country as described in the Budget speeches of the Minister for Finance. I wonder if he recollects the facts with regard to the immense volume of Irish savings that exists, of deposits in Irish banks, of investments overseas. Where does he suppose all that wealth has come from? Has it not come, in the main, from the Irish farmers and from the prosperity in past years of the Irish cattle trade? The Irish live stock industry is not a modern, imperialist innovation. When the Minister for Lands and Forestry talks about its having taken 100 years to build up, he is understating the case altogether. The cattle industry goes back for many centuries in this country. If you read the history of Ireland in the reign of Charles II, for instance, you will find that a turmoil was created in this country by the fact that at that time restrictions, and eventually prohibition, were imposed by the British on the export of cattle from this country. The Irish cattle trade was a big thing for this country at that time, just as big as it is now, and naturally so, because—why should we shrink from boasting about it?—this country is the finest cattle-breeding country in Europe, and instead of regarding that as something to be ashamed of, it is something to be proud of.
I may add to that the fact of the geographical advantage that we have in being near to the densely populated island of England, the only large food-importing country of the world, and it is perfectly obvious that the thing that has developed here has been something natural, not something artificial, not something imperialist, not something to be ashamed of, but something, on the contrary, to rejoice in.
I am sure those sentiments are shared by the Minister for Agriculture but they are entirely inconsistent with the type of argument that has been presented to the country. We have heard a quotation from the Minister for Lands and Forestry with regard to its taking 100 years to build up this trade and that, fortunately, it would take nothing like that to pull it down. Here is another quotation, in case that should be disputed, from a speech delivered by the same Minister at Strokestown in my own constituency, in which he said: "It is a damn good job the English cattle market is gone." In view of what the Minister for Agriculture confesses here with regard to his own ideas and his own policy, in view of what he is actually doing in the way of giving bounties and so forth, it is absolutely unscrupulous for Ministers or Deputies on the other side to go through the country preaching doctrines by which they expect to excite prejudice, but which they must know do not correspond with the actual policy their Party is attempting to carry out. I say that the cattle trade of this country has been a precious source of wealth to us in the past. I deny that it has been connected with depopulation or that it has been the cause of depopulation. I agree with the Minister for Agriculture that in doing your best to maintain that trade at the present moment, you are not doing something that is wicked or that is against the interests of the human beings who inhabit this country.
What about the present and the future? Is it true that though the British market has been of great value to us in the past, those days are gone and that it is something we can no longer look to? I deny that. It has been pointed out that the imports into the British market from the Dominions have been increasing during the period that ours have been declining and, by a coincidence, have been increasing very much to the extent that ours have been declining.
I have other figures here that are of some interest. Taking the first nine months of the last three years—1932, 1933, 1934—the total beef imports into Great Britain have steadily increased —increased not very much, but yet increased. So have the meat imports, taking meat of all descriptions. Of course, I know that the live stock industry is in a bad way in most parts of the world, but will anyone tell me what branch of agricultural production is not? What branch of agricultural production is to be relied upon as a money earning occupation, apart from Government assistance, in these times? The depression that has prevailed in the live stock trade has prevailed in other branches of agriculture too, and the big tillage farmers in America, those who relied most on tillage, have found themselves in a worse plight than our farmers here who relied mainly on live stock.
There is a quotation from Mr. Bruce, the Australian High Commissioner in London, which I ventured to read once before in this House. I venture to read it again because it appears to be so appropriate to our discussion. Speaking in Ottawa last May, he said:
"that, although the economic nationalism with which the world was now obsessed would burn itself out in time, the British nations must take stock of their position and frame their policies for the interim period. It was obvious that the Dominions would find their most profitable economic association within the British Commonwealth group. Agricultural countries, such as Canada and Australia still primarily were, must find their best economic alliance with an industrial country needing foodstuffs. The United Kingdom offered by far the most receptive market for these... For Dominion exports of beef and mutton there was no other export market than Great Britain which was also the largest available market for wheat and wool... Mr. Bruce declared that he did not share the apprehensions felt in many quarters in the Dominions about the consequences of the new British policies for the revival of agriculture. He was convinced that there were very definite limitations to such policies because, first, Great Britain was still dependent on her export trade for the sustenance of large masses of her population and could not afford to raise the cost of living and production beyond a certain height; second, because Great Britain could not afford to destroy the purchasing power of the agricultural communities oversea who were her good customers, and, third, because she could not expect these communities to pay their debts or absorb British immigrants if they could not sell their products profitably."
These remarks appear to me well worthy of consideration. Although it is argued that the public taste for meat, and especially for beef, is something that is declining in Great Britain, the figures I have already given to the House suggest that that decline has been considerably exaggerated and that it is balanced, to a large extent, by the growth of population which is still going on in Great Britain. I think that, taking together what the Minister for Agriculture has said, and what I have ventured to say about the value of the live stock trade and the value of the British market, I can depart from the question as to whether a free entry into that market would be desirable and I can assume that it would be.
The second question, then, that we have to consider is whether the Government are to blame because we have not got that free entry. I am going to try to steer clear of the economic war and the question of tariffs and to confine myself to the matter of these quotas. Of course, I realise that so far as the quotas reduce the number of cattle imported into Britain, they actually conflict with the British policy of obtaining moneys, which they claim are due to them, by imposing tariffs on our exports. Therefore, I propose to treat the quota as something apart from the actual economic war. The question I want to consider is whether it is true that these restrictions were, in fact, inevitable, because that is what the Minister for Agriculture contends, that the Government could not avoid them, that they were coming to us. I think it is fair to ask, when a statement of that sort is made, whether it is what Ministers always said. It is obviously very much in the interest of Ministers to say so now, because, if it be true, it is a complete defence for them. But in considering whether it be true, it is fair to ask whether it agrees with what they used to say, whether it agrees, for example, with what they used to say before they came into office. I have heard a whole series of allusions from the opposite benches to the alleged lack of foresight of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and the Cumann na nGaedheal Party because they did not see all this coming. Did the Party opposite see it coming?
They did.
Did they? I shall await with interest the production of a single quotation which shows that they saw it coming. I spent an idle hour last week in looking over the files of newspapers of three years ago, examining the speeches that were being made by those who are now Ministers and I did not find that they were saying the sort of thing at all that, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, they should have been saying. They were saying this: that our custom for her goods was so important to Great Britain and also our supply of cattle in time of war would be so important to Great Britain, that it was inconceivable that even under the strong provocation which they were about to apply by withholding the land annuities, and by doing the other things that they knew the British would intensely resent—they held it was inconceivable that the British would take steps to apply any restrictions that might have the effect of destroying the Irish cattle trade. That is what they were saying. So much for their foresight, and so much for their charges against the Cumann na nGaedheal Government of lack of foresight. Now they were wrong because provocation of the sort which they offered to the British is bound to make any nation take angry action, even action perhaps against its own interests. But, nevertheless, I agree with them in this: that there were tremendous arguments in existence why the British should not impose restrictions on our agricultural exports, tremendous arguments from the British point of view.
Let us try to put ourselves in the frame of mind of a British statesman considering this question, a British statesman who had come to the conclusion that agricultural protection had to be introduced for the benefit of British farmers and that quotas must be applied to New Zealand, Australia and Canada, and who was trying to decide the question of whether quotas should also be applied to Ireland.
Now what would he have said to himself? He would have said, in the first place: "Let us consider the question of a possible war. Owing to Ireland's geographical position, is it not extremely important for this country that her cattle trade should be kept alive and flourishing, so that we may have the benefit of her food supplies if there should be a war." I think he would say that.
Secondly, I think he would say to himself: "These people owe us a lot of money; these people are paying over £5,250,000 a year to meet interest on the land bonds and to provide for various other purposes; a country cannot pay its debts unless it is allowed to maintain an export trade." He would say: "We, ourselves, and all other European nations have failed to pay America her debts. America has made it impossible for us to pay her debts, because she put up such tremendous tariffs that we could not export our goods to America. Are we going to make that mistake in relation to Ireland? If we impose quotas they may have the effect of shattering the financial position of the Irish farmer. Is he going to be able to pay his land annuities, and is the Irish Free State as a whole going to be able to pay over these sums of money year by year, to Great Britain?" I think on that ground, also, he would have come to the conclusion that the application of quotas was an unwise thing.
Take a third point of view—the balance of trade. This supposed English statesman that we are talking about would have compared the state of Great Britain's trade relations with the various Dominions and the state of her trade relations with Ireland, and he would find that Ireland was the one part of the Commonwealth that was taking from Great Britain more than it was sending to Great Britain. He would find that Ireland, in fact, had what we know as an adverse balance, and he would say: "In these circumstances surely Ireland is a special case: Ireland is entitled to better treatment than any other part of the Commonwealth in this matter of cattle quotas. More than that, Ireland is not only so entitled but she is in a position to make herself extremely nasty if we do impose cattle quotas because she can take steps to abolish or cut down that adverse balance." That, again, would, I think, have been a very sensible point of view for a British statesman to take.
Finally, there are political considerations. He would have said: "Here is an alleged Republican Party just coming into office in Ireland, a Party whom it is obviously desirable to make friends with and to conciliate, so that kindly relations may exist between the two islands, and would it not be a political error of great magnitude to proceed to introduce a system of quotas that would have a bad effect on the mentality of the Irish people?"
Now I am perfectly satisfied, and I think any honest man who considers the question will be satisfied, that those arguments would have been sufficient to weigh with any supposed British Cabinet Minister considering this problem so long as we were on friendly terms with them. Of course, the whole thing was altered when we ceased to be on friendly terms with them. I do not think it was so much the withholding of the annuities as the general attitude of jingoism and hostility and the particular line that was taken up by the Government in relation to the Crown that did the damage. It was those things, I think, that made it inevitable that British statesmen should not make a differentiation in our favour as compared with the other parts of the Commonwealth which, under ordinary circumstances, I am satisfied, political wisdom would have compelled them to make.
Now so much for the British point of view. Let us think now of the point of view of an Irish statesman who a few years ago learned that there was a probability of the English introducing protection for their own agriculture. Again, when you talk about lack of foresight it has got to be remembered that protection for English agriculture was introduced suddenly and unexpectedly, that Mr. Baldwin had held a general election on that very point, and had been defeated, and so it looked as if English agriculture was not going to get protection. If it had not been for the crisis about the gold standard and the formation of a National Government it is more than doubtful whether British agriculture would have received any protection up to this moment so that I do not think, to tell the truth, that either side in this country was to blame for not foreseeing that British agriculture was going to be protected. But, supposing, somebody had foreseen it, what view would he have taken? Would he have been horrified, annoyed, disgusted and dismayed? I do not think so. I think under normal circumstances he would have been perfectly delighted. He would have said "Here is something for which Irish statesmen have been wishing for years back."
In the days when Joseph Chamberlain first started his protectionist campaign in Great Britain there was a large volume of opinion in this country which had a great deal of sympathy with it, so far as protection for agriculture was concerned, and the only reason that this country subsequently lost interest in it was because the agricultural side of the policy was dropped and it became a purely industrial policy. Protection for home agriculture was something that would have delighted an Irish statesman who that period, and I think would have delighted any Irish statesman who thought about it three years ago, but who did not know we were going to plunge into an economic war, or into any sort of unfriendly relationship with Great Britain. He would have said: "Here is our chance. We have these various grounds" (which I mentioned a few minutes ago) "for demanding that we get in the British market the same treatment which the British farmer gets. We are, therefore, in a position to be more secure in that market than we ever were in the past. When the world depression, which admittedly exists at the present time— a world depression which prevents any market from being all it ought to be— is passed," he would say; "this protected British market is going to be of enormous value to use—of greater value even than the British market has been to our export cattle trade in the past."
I do not thing I am being unreasonable in the argument I am presenting to this House. The Minister for Agriculture accuses us all of being infected with Party spirit. I am trying to speak calmly and reasonably, and carry Deputies opposite with me. If I am saying anything that seems unreasonable, or if I seem to be straining an argument, I shall be greatful to them for pointing it out to me. I find that what I am saying is, at any rate convincing to myself; I hope it may be convincing to some others.
What then is the real cause of those quota restrictions? I maintain that they are not inevitable—that the considerations which I have just laid before the House show they are not inevitable. They could have been avoided. Why have they not been avoided? They have not been avoided for a reason which was mentioned by Deputy Coburn a little earlier this evening in this House, and that is, that the Government insist upon keeping up the sham of republicanism. It is that sham republicanism—which gets us nowhere, which cannot be realised so far as a 32-county Republic is concerned, and which will not be realised by the Government as far as a 26-county Republic is concerned—that has brought about the disasters and discouragements which are at present afflicting the Irish farmers.
I confess that I see no cure for the present situation—for the quotas and many of the other ills from which we are suffering. I see no cure for these things until that sham republicanism is once and for all abandoned. The Government spokesmen's reply to every argument is that they have the people behind them—that the elections show that the people are behind them. Well, a great deal might be said upon that subject, and upon the particular kind of argument by which they succeeded in winning elections, but I would remind Deputies opposite that parties can sometimes be so good at winning elections that they are no good at anything else. After all, statesmanship in a Government is a great deal more important to the people of a country than skill in winning elections. The Government may win elections by their clap-trap, but they will not win renown by it, and I am satisfied that, unless they change their course, history will deal with them as men who have deserved badly of their country and who, instead of throwing bouquets at themselves, ought to be clad in sackcloth and ashes doing penance for the wounds they have inflicted upon the kindly mother that bore us and nurtured us.
A Leas Chinn Comhairle: Before this debate concludes I should like to say a few words. Last night Deputy O'Reilly said that the farmers should do something else instead of producing cattle. He said the cattle trade was the trade of a few people. Did anybody ever hear such nonsense as that coming from any responsible Deputy? In the past, was it not a well-known fact that people who had not cattle on their land were described as broken farmers? According to the policy of Deputy O'Reilly, the man who has cattle on his land to-day is a broken farmer. The Minister talks about the people having a cattle mentality. The people are the best judges, and neither the Minister nor any of those associated with him is in a position to teach the farmers of this country what would be the best policy for them to adopt, because the farmers have the experience of years. They know that if you have not cattle in this country, as the Minister himself said, you do not require tillage. He stated that anybody who said you should not have cattle was either a fool or a knave, because the farmers required the cattle to consume their surplus barley, oats, and so on. There is no good in talking about any special kind of farming in this country. The farmer must have a trial at every kind of farming. I myself this year had 23 acres of oats. I am talking now from practical experience. In the harvest of 1933 I also had 23 acres of oats, and from that I got a return of 260 barrels. This year from the same acreage, age, to the weather conditions, I had a return of about 130 barrels, and if the Minister for Agriculture comes out I will show him some of that oats rotting in my fields. I challenge him to say it is due to neglect on my part. I wonder if I were depending on my income from that oats what would be the position of my employees to-day. Could I pay them—as I am paying them—the highest rate of wages paid in the district?
The late Minister for Agriculture said on many an occasion in this House that he was not an advocate of tillage as a cash crop; he was an advocate of tillage in order that the food produced should be fed to the cattle or pigs, walked off the land and sold in the best market. We are told that there is a depression in live stock, but as I said a while ago, when I put a question to the Minister for Agriculture, if the people in Kerry and West Cork, who to-day are receiving from £1 to £2 10s. for two and a half and three year old cattle, were receiving the full export price of £6 apiece more for their cattle, would not they be happy? We do know that but for the policy of the Government with regard to the land annuities and the clash with Great Britain some of those farmers would have reared eight or ten cattle for each year, and, as a result, the man who reared eight cattle would receive, in addition to what he is receiving to-day, the sum of £6 apiece, or £48. Is it not a well-known fact that the annuity on the bulk of those farmers would not be more than £10 a year? I do not want to exaggerate, but I would say that generally speaking all over Kerry and West Cork it would be less than £10.
Deputy O'Reilly talked about the promises of the Government. I do not want to go into that question now, as I do not want to bring the anger of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on my head. The Deputy referred to the fulfilment of their promises by the Government. What about their promises to settle the economic war if they were returned to power? Did they not realise that it was important to settle the economic war? Was it fair to describe as Imperialists those who made that demand? What is the position to-day? Conditions were never worse in the Dublin cattle market. I have it on the best authority that to-day's market was the worst ever seen there. What about the promise to secure alternative markets for our agricultural produce? What about the promises to solve the unemployment problem, and to reduce taxation? When we are accused of making political propaganda, I say that the majority of the Deputies on these benches are people who have to live irrespective of politics. We are not in politics for what we are going to get out of them.
Speaking for myself I should say that on my milk returns for the month of October last, as compared with same month in 1933, there was a difference to my loss of £30. My question to Deputies on the Government Benches is: can farmers carry on under such conditions? I cannot get an allowance in my rates unless I employ a staff. Am I to be driven into the position when I will not be able to pay decent wages to my workmen? Will I have to try to get cheaper labour and to employ eight men instead of four in order to be able to secure a larger allowance for rates? Does the Government think that that is going to better the condition of the working classes? I say that it will not. Those on the Government Benches know as well as I do that that policy is not in the best interests of the country. A question arose last night as to what was to be done with the pulp. The Minister's explanation was that we were going to feed it to our cattle. I made an application for pulp some time ago and I was informed that none was available, but that if I applied again in February it was quite possible I might secure a small quantity.
This motion has nothing to do with pulp.
The question arose in the debate last night, and I thought I was entitled to refer to it. We are asked to do everything except what we think is in our own best interests. That is the policy of the Government. As well as building factories and asking farmers to till more, farmers were told that phosphates would be available at cheaper rates. Does the Minister agree that that promise is being acted up to? When I made an application for pulp I was refused, while thousands of tons are being sent out of the country. The Minister also stated last night that he had advised farmers to keep their fat cattle, and he said that those who took his advice had benefited. I am sorry to say that I am one of the casualties, as a result of taking the Minister's advice. I had six young cows for which I was offered £51. I fattened them and then sold them for £50. That is what I achieved by taking the advice of the Minister for Agriculture. I appeal to the Government to turn around now and to accept this motion, and try to secure a trading agreement with the British Government, so that we may be able to carry on and make our business a success. Although we may not be able to secure as high prices as we secured in the past, we can produce more cattle and have more production as a result of the increased tillage policy. Unless the Government does that, this country is heading for destruction. Even though we are called Imperialists, I say that until the Government secures the one and only market available to us, there is no hope for and there will be no prosperity for this country.
I think Deputy MacDermot is very easy to convince, if he has convinced himself that he has a solution for getting an increased quota and preference for Irish produce in the British market. Seeing that the Deputy is so easy to convince, it is no wonder that he got to the point of throwing bouquets at himself before he sat down. The fact of the matter is that not one but several British Ministers, and not on one but on several occasions, stated that if the particular controversy between Ireland and England was over in the morning, they would still be compelled, in the interests of their own agricultural community, to adopt quota and tariff restrictions.
Quote.
I will give the quotations. Unfortunately I was not prepared, but I can give them.
If the Minister will allow me to interrupt him, my recollection is that British Ministers merely pointed out that the quota was something separate from the economic war and was not imposed as a retaliation for non-payment of the annuities.
That is exactly my point, and I hope the Deputy will keep to that, that the quota and the present British restrictions on Irish cattle, which form the subject of the Deputy's motion, arose primarily out of British statesmen's desire to look after their own agricultural industry.
I do not accept that.
Deputy MacDermot has admitted that that is what British statesmen said. If the Deputy can go and convince British statesmen of something else, well and good. That is what they said. It is not in line with Deputy MacDermot's exposition of what the British view is of the present position.
If I may interrupt the Minister again, I might point out that he is overlooking the fact that I contend that the present Government have destroyed all the arguments which would protect this country from such quotas. In other words, the various considerations I described as coming to the mind of our supposed British statesman, if what has occurred had not occurred, could not come into his mind in the present circumstances.
As a matter of fact we have got to accept British Ministers' statements as to what their policy is.
Is now.
Is now, and definitely now, and I go further and say that even if they have not said it in public, and openly, the circumstances of the times we live in would compel them to adopt their present policy.
Not towards us.
Not towards us? The British people for generations have lived by exporting their manufactured articles, and taking in return agricultural produce from the ends of the earth. The Deputy must be perfectly well aware that their exports during the last four or five years have dropped by practically one-third. Seeing that their exports had dropped, they had to turn to some other way of paying for their agricultural produce, and naturally enough they decided to pay their own agricultural community to produce it. As to the plea that the British put on quotas on our agricultural produce because of republicanism, that does not hold water because, first of all, the British declared that their quota restrictions are for the benefit of their own people. The British never act on sentimental reasons.
There was a bigger campaign in England against the anti-God policy of the Russian Government than ever there was against Irish republicanism, and yet the British are making a reciprocal treaty with the Russians. Why? Simply because it suits them. Notwithstanding all the propaganda against the Russians, they made a trade treaty when they thought it suited British economic policy. They are exchanging their manufactured goods for agricultural and other products from Russia which they cannot produce themselves. If the British home territory was covered with forests they would not have made the same agreement with the Russians as they have made, allowing them to send wood into England in exchange for manufactured goods. The reason they have imposed quota restrictions on our cattle is because they can produce cattle themselves; seeing that they cannot export manufactured goods to pay for cattle products, they have determined that they are going to set their own land to producing cattle. Anybody going through England and seeing the derelict state of their farms can quite easily realise that the Sinn Féin policy of the British Minister of Agriculture is the proper one for England. Nothing that we can do will divert them from that policy because it is, from the British point of view, the real policy for England; that is, to protect their own agriculture and produce the food for themselves off their own land that they cannot pay for by exporting manufactured goods.
Deputy MacDermot talked about the increased agricultural imports into England for the last few years, but he did not advert to the fact that the British are, at the present time, in process of putting on tariff duties and import restrictions against the agricultural produce of New Zealand, Australia and other countries. They are doing that to protect the British farmer. The fact that the price of beef on the British market fell below the cost of production compelled them to do something if their farmers were not to be completely put out of production and they adopted the quota restrictions against us and other countries. Seeing that even the quota restrictions were not sufficient, they went so far as to give a bounty on the production of fat cattle in England. Deputy MacDermot is very easy to convince if he thinks that if we accepted his whole-hog Empire policy in the morning, the British would throw their arms round our necks and take our cattle. The British do not look upon their economic trade with us, or their trade with any other country, in a sentimental way at all. They are quite hard-headed about it and all Deputy MacDermot's senti-mentalising about it will not get them to be as sentimental as he is.
I gave very solid reasons.
They trade with Russia because it suits them to do so and they will only trade with us now or in the future because it will suit them to do so and not because of any love for us. The only reason why we are concerned about foreign trade is that we want to get something in exchange for our goods. When we came into office we were importing agricultural produce from the ends of the earth, produce that we could quite well be producing for ourselves. At the moment, we are holding a large portion of our agricultural produce at prices that are even greater than world prices. Our farmers are getting more for their butter than the British farmers or any other farmers are getting; they are getting more for their pigs and for their eggs than the world price and they are also getting here a market that foreign farmers used to hold. They are getting into their pockets the £1,500,000 that used to go out for foreign butter. They are getting well over a £1,000,000 that used to go to foreign farmers for bacon. Similarly, the market that used to be filled here with foreign eggs and other agricultural produce has been given either wholly to or is available for the Irish farmers as soon as they put themselves in the way of taking it. It would suit this country a lot better if the Opposition Party looked facts in the face.
We do.
It would be much better if they told the country without equivocation that the economic war that exists between ourselves and England is only part of the world economic war that is going on, and the only way to end it is for our farmers to cease sighing after the cattle trade that they had ten or 12 years ago, and to realise that cattle are not saleable on the world market or in England to the extent that they were ten or 12 years ago. It would be wiser for them to sell the things which they can sell at a profit and that can be protected. We cannot get, and Deputy MacDermot cannot get, the quota from the British that the Irish farmers would like to see. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. If Deputy MacDermot cannot convince himself that that is so, he had better read up the British Ministers' statements about it, and open his eyes to the general world situation.
I am perfectly conversant with them.
Will the Minister answer one simple question? If things are as he states, why is it that we are paying to get into the British market and our goods can be readily absorbed in that market?
We have set ourselves to ease the burden on our farmers as far as it is possible to do so under the circumstances. We are keeping the price of their butter above world prices by subsidies; we are keeping the price of eggs above world prices by subsidies; we are keeping the price of bacon above world prices by subsidies.
What about cattle?
We are keeping the price of cattle as high as this country can afford by subsidies. The reason we have to continue to export cattle and other things in spite of the difficulties is that we are importing so much and if our farmers would only grow the wheat we require we could afford to do without exporting at least £3,000,000 worth of cattle at a loss. We are looking at the cattle trade, as we look upon every other trade in the country, with a calm appreciation of what is required in the present circumstances. We cannot stop the economic world war that is going on. There is not alone an economic war going on between ourselves and England, but between England and Germany, Germany and France, France and England and, indeed, between every country in the world.
The position is that every country is trying to cut down its imports in view of the practical difficulties of selling in a foreign market and to substitute by native products the goods which they formerly imported and paid for by exports. That is a sound policy for us here—to continue to sell what we can while it is necessary to sell anything in order to import. The sound policy is for our farmers to concentrate as quickly as they can on producing what is required by the Irish people. God did not give us our land here and tell us to concentrate upon producing things to sell abroad. He gave us the land for the sustenance of the Irish people, and, notwithstanding the fact that we have the finest land in the world for producing everything, including cattle, we are in the horrible position that if, to-morrow, there was a blockade of our ports, we have not sufficient food in the country—flour and other things like that—to support our people for more than a couple of months and that, notwithstanding the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party has over a number of years urged the people as strongly as they could to produce the wheat and other products which our people require for a good and healthy life.
Instead of all this crying out against the facts; misrepresenting the situation, either deliberately or stupidly; and telling the people that we can sell in the future cattle to the extent we used to sell in the past to England or to any other place, the Opposition Party would be doing the national thing and the patriotic thing if they helped us to encourage the farmers to produce what the country requires— to produce the wheat, vegetables, fruit and every other agricultural produce we import at present.
There is probably more of those things produced by our supporters than by the Minister's at the present minute.
The rich man's Party, of course.
Why not become rich?
If that is so, it is in spite of the members of the United Ireland Party. For five or six years, we have been listening to them sneering at the growing of wheat. Deputy MacDermot can, of course, say "Those are not my brothers," but the fact of the matter is, and everybody in the country realises, that all the brains and energy of Cumann na nGeadheal or the United Ireland Party for the past six or seven years was put to the work of stopping the national production of wheat. Every footy argument that could be used against it was brought forth. Deputy Hogan, who was to have moved this motion to-night, and who is not here—I wonder where he is? —used to sneer at the growing of wheat and say "We can grow wheat and we could grow tea, too."
He would say that to-night, too.
Why is he not here to say it?
I will say it for him.
Good!
Uneconomical, just the same as wheat.
I should like the Deputy to give me a definition of "uneconomic" in the present world situation.
I will, certainly.
Is it economic to produce with a 50 per cent. bounty to our own farmers?
If we could get somebody else to pay the bounty, certainly, but if we are paying it ourselves, no.
Why should we not pay it ourselves?
Then you are putting the cost on the grower.
If the British want to protect their own industries they put a tariff on incoming goods.
They can do silly things, too.
I am glad to hear the Deputy saying that the British can do silly things. It is the first time he admitted that the British can do anything silly.
Not at all; I could enumerate quite a number of things that were foolish.
I should be glad, if the Deputy would. I suppose bounties on their fat cattle was a silly thing?
No, it was not from our angle, because it raised the price of our cattle.
How about their own point of view?
If they want to get our milk herds into their possession, as they are getting them, it was a good policy.
Is it a bad thing from their own point of view?
No, because they are getting our milk herds. It was very good from their angle and very bad from ours.
It is very good from theirs?
Because they are getting our milk herds. Note the point.
And it is not a good thing from the point of view of giving the British people milk?
Undoubtedly it is, but it is one way of getting our business and you are blind enough not to see that.
I am not blind enough not to see anything. I can see that the policy of the British in giving a bounty on their fat cattle is a very good thing from the point of view of the British nation. The British land is there to produce food for the British people and the British, in view of the fact that they cannot guarantee their security in war, because of their navy, to the same extent that they could in the past, are perfectly right to produce everything they can in their own country.
And what they cannot, to get produced as near at home as possible. Is that not right?
It is right.
Therefore, we would have another advantage in regard to that in making a bargain with them?
Yes.
Good — another conference.
And the fact of the matter is that they are at the moment allowing in a very big quota of bacon and a very big quota of cattle. I may tell you this, that I believe those two quotas will be restricted as time goes on, simply from the point of view of British policy, as announced by British Ministers, that their aim was to develop their agriculture against the agriculture of any other country, and their country is just like this country— particularly suitable for the production of the things we produce here. I just want to conclude by asking Deputy MacDermot to read what the British Ministers said.
I have read it already.
If the Deputy has read it, he has not got it into his head; or if he has got it into his head, he has not assimilated it in such a way as to be able to give it to us with his tongue, because here, on a motion condemning the Government for its neglect to secure a quota for the export of cattle to Great Britain adequate to the needs of our industry, he said that he did not advert to the fact that British Ministers have said time and again, with all the emphasis at their command, that the quota restrictions on agricultural produce was not a policy of the moment or merely a policy of revenge against us for keeping the £5,250,000, but settled British policy in regard to British agriculture. Their policy was to look after British agriculture first.
You have misunderstood all that.
It is British Sinn Féin.
You have misunderstood that.
What have I misunderstood?
If I am allowed to speak, I will tell you.
Speak.
When you finish. I thought you were concluding.
The Deputy can show how I have misunderstood the situation. I should like him to do this: to get the quotations from the British Ministers as to the policy of quota restrictions and quote them for Deputy MacDermot.
Would the Minister allow me for a moment? If I were in the position of a British Minister defending these quota restrictions, at the present time and in the present situation, I would say exactly what they say. Taking things as they now stand, the quota restrictions are being imposed for the purpose for which they say they are being imposed. My point is that the present situation ought never to have arisen and would never have arisen except for our getting up a state of bad feeling between the two countries.
How does the Deputy explain the fact that the restrictions on the importation of Canadian stores were removed years ago?
The Deputy might hear the Minister.
What Deputy MacDermot says does not explain the fact that the British Ministers have stated that their policy is not a momentary policy of revenge against the Free State but a settled policy of the British Government to protect British agriculture.
Do you realise that there are two policies—a general policy and a special Irish policy?
A Deputy
There always was that.
Let us hear whether it is so now.
Deputy McGilligan can make a speech afterwards and point out the fallacies in mine, if there are any. I have been dealing with what Deputy MacDermot said.
We have been told that there is a British policy announced by the British Minister of Agriculture in relation to quotas. It is not momentary. Then there is a policy with regard to the Irish Free State specially directed against us because of the nonsense carried on on the Benches opposite. Will the Minister take this as a guiding line? There were £330,000,000 worth of goods brought into England about 6 years ago to be consumed—meat, butter, and eggs. We put into England £30,000,000 worth of these. Are they at the point that we cannot get that £30,000,000 worth in even with the restrictions and the protection of British agriculture? Until you have got to that point I cannot see that we are ruled out by their general policy. When you have not got to that point, you cannot say that we are specially ruled out by a particular policy applicable to us.
Perhaps the Deputy will keep quiet. The British Government have quotas in regard to every country in the world, and in regard to this country. The Minister for Agriculture has gone into the figures and the quota restrictions against the Free State—the quota restrictions, not the extra tariff. The quota restrictions are fair, judged by the former imports of countries into England.
They should be fairer.
If the Deputy says that he must also remember that Great Britain, as well as being concerned with the development of her industries, has also a very big investment of capital abroad. In order to get back the interest on that capital, it is necessary for her to allow in produce from countries which owe her money.
Is any investment equal to the trade investment here?
The Minister certainly invited questions, but he should be allowed to answer them.
The Deputy should know that one country can only pay another by goods or gold. If Australia, New Zealand, and the Argentine have sent all their gold to England in order to pay the interest on the debts they owe to England, they have to pay for the future in goods. The people in power in England, the people who always control the British Government, are more concerned with the receipt of the interest on the capital they invested abroad even than with the general good of the British community.
Or even with trade?
Or even with trade.
Or their own export trade? The Minister is overlooking the fact that there is a tremendous volume of British exports to Ireland that they would naturally wish to continue.
If Deputy MacDermot can live on the interest of his investments and get a beter living out of that than out of production, would he produce? If the British can get a better living from their investments abroad than by producing from export, they would be damn fools if they did not live on their investments.
They cannot.
A lot of them think they can do much better that way. One of the main differences between the people who are in control in England has been between the interests of the manufacturers who want to export all they can in order to make profits and the financial people who want to get the interests on their investments. One of the reasons that the British are taking goods from the Argentine as against taking them from the Dominions, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, is that the British have very big investments in the Argentine. If there is a big argument in favour of their taking them from the Free State from the military point of view as against Canada or Australia, there is a very big argument from the point of view of their world protection, their world military policy, to take them from Australia, Canada and New Zealand rather than from the Argentine. Notwithstanding that, they are taking more meat from the Argentine than from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. If Deputy MacDermot is easy to convince, I want to emphasise that he should make up his mind that he is not going to talk himself into coming to a foolish conclusion as easily as he did this evening, because the people of this country, if Deputy MacDermot is convinced by a foolish policy, are not going to be convinced by it. They have seen the world situation; they have seen foreign trade decrease during the last five years down to 30 per cent. of what it was previously. They know that there is no smoke without fire, that there must be some cause for that. They see every country in the world, as well as ourselves, adopting a Sinn Féin policy; that is, utilising its own resources for the benefit of its own people.
And getting poorer.
I do not believe we are getting poorer. We are getting very much better.
Tell us one country that is better off than it was 10 years ago.
I believe that the world is going to get richer.
Leave to-morrow alone. What about to-day? Tell us of any country that is better off to-day owing to economic nationalism than it was ten years ago.
The Minister can tell us on Wednesday next.