Deputy Belton gave notice to-day that he would raise on the adjournment matters arising out of Question 17. This debate will not continue for longer than half an hour.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment.—Issue of Cattle Export Licences.
Shall I be given an opportunity of speaking?
As the Deputy had several questions down to-day, I think he would be entitled to intervene.
To-day I asked the Minister if he would state the number of cattle export licences issued to producers since the coal-cattle pact, 1936, and the number of similar licences issued to producers during the corresponding period of 1935. In the next question I asked the Minister to explain the cause of the decrease. In Question 19 I asked the Minister whether there was any provision in the coal-cattle pact to issue a specified quota of licences for each month or whether the reciprocity of the pact had reference to the whole year's trading only. In a further question I asked whether the coal-cattle pact provided for a proper balance of quotas for licences for export of fat cattle, store cattle, dry cows and bulls, or whether the pact provided only for a quota of cattle undenominated against a certain amount of coal of a like value.
The next question asked whether he was aware of the number of licences issued for County Dublin for August, 1936, as compared with August, 1935. A further question inquired if he was aware that in August, 1935, 722 licences were allotted to County Dublin whereas in August, 1936, only 472 licences were allotted to that county. He was further asked if he was aware that County Dublin provides a large portion of the market for stores raised in the Midlands, South and West of the Saorstát. In the next question the Minister was asked if he would state the number of fat cattle licences received from the British Government for each month in the years 1935 and 1936 and the exact numbers allotted to each county for each month of those years. Deputy Fagan had three other questions, questions of great interest not only to Meath, Westmeath and Kildare, but to the whole agricultural community.
To all these questions the Minister produced an answer that was nothing short of an insult to the country and to this House. The Minister began his reply by stating: "Question No. 14 by Deputy Charles Fagan and questions Nos. 17-23, inclusive, by Deputy Patrick Belton appear to have been suggested by the recent shortage in the number of fat cattle licences issued to county committees of agriculture." What is it to the Minister what suggested these questions to us? We have a duty to perform here and when we ask certain questions it does not matter to the Minister what suggests them to us. We ask them to get an answer, not for ourselves, but for the country which is looking for an answer and it is the Minister's duty to give an answer. The reply went on: "The detailed figures in respect of 1935 and 1936 asked for by the Deputies are not comparable." Why are they not comparable? The Minister went on: "—the method of distribution having changed in the meantime and, therefore, I think it would be more satisfactory to explain generally that the recent shortage in the number of licences issued has arisen from the fact that a very large number of the licences issued to county committees in the first half of this year had not been used." How could the fact that the Department of Agriculture ceased to distribute licences and that they handed over the distribution to the county committees of agriculture affect the number of licences? If they were distributed equitably in the first instance by the first method of distribution and if, afterwards, they were fairly distributed by the second method of distribution, no material difference should arise and there is no reason why the figures for each month should not be comparable. The Minister knew firsthand from his own Department the number of licences that were distributed in each county when his Department was administering that service. He knew also the number of licences that were distributed to each county committee of agriculture when the second method was adopted, because it is from his Department that the licences are allotted to the county committees of agriculture.
His reply goes on: "In the circumstances it was not considered until now that a substantial increase in the number of licences would be of advantage." I wonder what the Minister was doing? Was he asleep when it was not considered that an increase in the number would be of advantage until now? Had the poor unfortunate people who had to leave their homes at 11 or 12 o'clock at night to get their cattle into the Dublin market, to find that there were buyers there but that there were no licences which would enable them to buy cattle for export, to suffer that disappointment and to go to the Minister or his officials before, as he stated in the question, it was considered that a substantial increase in the number of licences would be of advantage. Was he not aware as Minister for Agriculture that fat beef was reaching its peak and that the maximum number of licences were required for the month of August? Did he not learn that lesson until people were disappointed in their market? What idea of his responsibility as Minister has he? Was he not aware that there was a shortage in the number of licences? When I heard of the matter—and I did not hear it from the committee of agriculture—I 'phoned the committee of agriculture and I found that the number of licences they had received from the Ministry was 472 for the month while last year the number distributed was 722. We know all the "blowing" there was here at the beginning of this year about the coal-cattle pact and about the unlimited market the Government had obtained for us in Great Britain through their negotiations. We could not get from the President any information then as to who signed that agreement or, if it were signed, we could not get any of the points of agreement or the basis of trading from the President. The Minister has refused again to-day to answer the questions which I put to him beyond giving the nonsensical reply which I have quoted.
It would have appeared to any ordinary person that something was wrong when our share of licences in County Dublin fell nearly 40 per cent. for this month as compared with last year. It is the duty of the Minister's Department to send the licences to the county committees of agriculture. When he got his bundle of licences from the British Government for the month, was that not the time for him to move? I want to know from him to-night what was the number of licences he got for August. I asked a question for that purpose but he has not answered it. When I got the figures from the county committee of agriculture, I 'phoned the Department of Agriculture and I told the official to whom I spoke there that I would raise a question in the Dáil on this matter. I did not want him to give an answer which might lead him to believe afterwards that I had set a trap for him. He said it was all right. I asked him: "Why are you down by 40 per cent. in the number of our licences this month?" He said: "Because the number of licences we got from the British Government for this month was down by 40 per cent. as compared with last year." The Minister in his reply said: "In the circumstances it was not considered until now that a substantial increase in the number of licences would be of advantage." He did not know that it would be of advantage to have enough, or nearly enough, licences to meet the trade for the month of August! If he did not know that it would be of advantage, I know, and the country knows, that he is not fit for his job. He goes on to say further: "I may say, however, that the question of increasing the number of licences for the remainder of the year is under consideration at the moment and it is expected that satisfactory arrangements in that connection will be made." Under consideration by whom? The Minister did not answer the question to-day. I anticipated every side wave he was taking in answering my main question, and that is why I put down seven of them. The Minister, knowing of no way out, did not answer any of them.
Let us come down to business. There is only one source to consider in the giving of these licences. The Minister is only an intermediary between the county committees and the cattle producers. He is at best only an intermediary between the British Government and the cattle producers. The British Government calls the tune every time. What is the coal-cattle pact and what is it worth? Our total consumption of coal in 1934 was worth £2,239,724. Of this Germany sold us £496,000 worth; Poland £743,000, and England approximately £1,000,000. In the years 1935 and 1936 England was given nearly all our coal trade. In 1934 we exported in money value £1,407,571 worth of fat cattle. The number of cat cattle that year totalled 126,759. In 1935 we exported 161,138 fat cattle, worth £1,736,000. In 1935 we imported £2,461,000 worth of coal. The money value of the coal we imported last year from Great Britain is £700,000 greater than the value of the fat cattle we exported to Britain. If the coal-cattle pact had increased our market for fat cattle in Great Britain in 1935 we should be getting £700,000 more for our cattle from Great Britain than in 1934. What relation has the coal-cattle pact at all to our exports of cattle? Has it any, apart from store cattle? If we include store cattle the value of the cattle exports in 1935 would be £5,500,000. Has that figure any relation to the amount of coal we bought from Britain? This year we expected to have an increase in the value of our cattle exports.
If there had been any business brains or business intelligence shown in arranging this coal-cattle pact, the Minister for Agriculture should be there and have his figures as to the quota of licences for those months in which we have fat cattle to export. He should get from Great Britain that number in order to be able to cope with our requirements in the way of fat cattle exports. If, as was suggested here to-day, licences in excess of our requirements were sent here in the earlier months of the year when we did not require to export so many cattle— when, in fact, we had not the cattle to export—may I ask what was the Minister for Agriculture doing? What is the use of getting licences to export fat beasts in the months when we have not these fat beasts ready? What is the use at all of the coal-cattle pact if licences are going to be given for the month in which we have not the fat cattle to export? Why did the Minister allow that sort of thing when he knew that these licences were counted against us and cancelled afterwards? I do not, however, believe that that is what has happened.
My view of the whole position is that the Minister for Agriculture has as much to do with the arranging of those licences and the export trade in fat cattle as I have. The British Government controlling those licences give as many as they wish when they wish. We are only a beggar at the table of the British Government. We all know the basis of the coal-cattle pact. It was merely that Britain wanted to get the £5,000,000 a year out of this country, and she decided on taking more of our cattle against her coal. It was a case of spreading that £5,000,000 a year in taxes over a greater number of cattle, and consequently a lesser tax on each beast was necessary. Are we to continue to be treated to the insults and to the brazen effrontery of Ministers getting up here in this House and at meetings throughout the country and saying "we will never surrender these annuities," after Ministers have agreed in this coal-cattle pact to pay these annuities in full to the British?
The Deputy is getting away from the question on the Order Paper.
Only by way of reference.
May I ask, Sir, how long the Deputy shall continue?
We rise at 20 minutes past 10 o'clock.
It is the British Government that decides how many fat cattle we are to export and what we are to be paid for these cattle. Why does the Minister not take this House into his confidence and let us know the facts? These questions were put down deliberately by me in order to get this information for the House and for the country, and if direct answers had been given to them there would be no need for us to be here now. If we had got straight answers to them we would know exactly where we are. The Minister, and particularly the President, asks for national solidarity and co-operation in this fight with the British Government. But when we ask for the information here which we are entitled to get, we are refused that information. Will the Minister, when replying now, inform the House if his representations to the British Government are considered by them when issuing the quota licences for each month? What increase in the number of licences was anticipated when the coal-cattle pact was agreed to? How is it that there has been such an abnormal decrease in the numbers of the licences in the months when they were required? If the matter is under consideration now, who is considering it? Is there anybody in this country considering it? Or does it matter a tranin whether there is anybody in this country considering it? Are we at the absolute mercy of the British Government to say how many cattle they will take from us, what price they will pay for them, and when they will take them? Was there ever a people more slaves to another people than are the agricultural community and the whole Irish nation slaves to the British Government to-day?
Dr. Ryan
It looks like it.
Yes, it looks like it. And all hope is gone when people who are suffering so much tolerate the humbug that is being carried on by the Government. I am not specially interested in the Galway election but I hope that when the figures of that election are declared we will see some return to sense on the part of the electors and that the nonsense that is masquerading as patriotism will be unmasked.
There is nothing about patriotism in the question on the Order Paper.
We are all supposed to be patriots here.
Possibly, but there is nothing about that in the question.
I think it was Dean Swift who said that the highest form of patriotism was to make two blades of grass grow where only one grew before. It seems to me that the patriotism which has followed in the wake of the flag waving and wild promises is to produce cattle to send to England as and when John Bull requires them and at his price, or otherwise to be slaughtered the moment they come into the world.
Dr. Ryan
You think we ought to keep them for ornaments.
That is a silly remark.
Dr. Ryan
It is as sensible as yours.
I leave the ornaments in the hands of the Minister and ask him to tell the country——
Dr. Ryan
Briefly.
Briefly, but truthfully and comprehensively, so that it can be understood. I did not raise the question to give the Minister a further opportunity for evasion but that he might give the country information and explain why in the height of the grass beef season, fewer licences are obtainable for the export of fat cattle to Great Britain than last year when we had not such a comprehensive coal-cattle pact as we are told we have this year. I give the Minister an opportunity now of informing the country why the arrangement has broken down.
I was not satisfied with the answer to my question to-day. I want to know why in August, 1935, 1,513 cattle licences were issued in Westmeath and in August, 1936, only 948. The people were led to believe that owing to the coal-cattle pact there would be more licences going about, that they would be wastepaper even. In fact, owing to the methods of distribution, in May and June licences were going about like waste paper. After listening to the answers to-day I think that is the fault of the Minister's Department. They should know that in May and June fat cattle are not to be had here. He says they did not know it in time. They should know that from the second week in July there was an acute shortage of licences in the Dublin Cattle Market. That was known all over the country. From the second week in July licences went up from 2/6 to 10/- and 15/-, until now they have reached the price of 30/-. It is a question of getting them at any money if you want to send cattle to England.
I should like to ask if it would be possible for those unused licences which are going about to be made available for this month as it would help a lot of people; or if it would be possible to make a second distribution of licences during this month, because if we had to wait until September there will be a terrible shortage. No cattle can be shipped except for the number of licences given out, and licences will go to a very high figure. When arranging for the month's licences in future the Minister should also remember that there are practically no cattle now going across the Border. That is, I think, one of the principal causes of the shortage of licences. Cattle have got much dearer and there is a bigger risk in bringing them across the Border. The Minister should remember that and distribute the licences earlier. I should like to get a more satisfactory answer to the question I asked to-day. I asked why we are getting fewer licences in August, 1936, than in August, 1935, and why he says they are not available because, as far as I know, the method of distribution in Westmeath is the same this year as last year. Last year they were given out by the county committee of agriculture also and there is no difference this year in the method of distribution.
Dr. Ryan
It is not easy to answer in five minutes questions which took 25 minutes to put. Licences are distributed monthly. That is to say, by agreement between the two Governments the allocations are made monthly rather than yearly. There is a certain number for fat cattle, a certain number for stores and a certain number for bulls and dry cows based on the figures of export during 1933 and afterwards.
No licences are required for store cattle now.
Dr. Ryan
There are licences given for the export of store cattle.
Not to the other side.
Order, order.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy does not want to hear the answer; he wants to make a political speech. We exported 40,000 more store cattle this year than last year, and 20,000 less fat cattle. The methods of distribution are not comparable. Up to this period last year the licences were given out by the Department direct to the producers. After inspection of the applications received the licences were distributed in proportion to the number available. Now they are distributed between the counties on the cattle census of the last three or four years, so that it is quite possible that a county might have got more last year than this year, as the method of distribution is slightly different. However, that does not explain the whole thing. I am following the question along, as Deputy Belton said I tried to evade the question asked. I said an increase would not have been advantageous up to now, because it is plain that we had got something more than last year. But we exported practically 20,000 less fat cattle than last year, so that it is obvious we were asking for too many all the time. There are something over 21,000 licences unused since 1st January.
It is easy for Deputy Belton or anyone else to say that we are not fit for the responsibility, because we did not know the proper numbers. Deputy Belton, or even a person with less in telligence, would know afterwards that a person had made a mistake. But I should like Deputy Belton to test his superior intelligence on this matter now by giving me an idea of the number we will want during each month for the rest of the year. Then I can see afterwards whether he was right or not, and perhaps I can talk about his want of intelligence when the year is over.
Did I not tell the Minister how to distribute them to the producers?
Dr. Ryan
I want the Deputy to tell me now how many we will want for September, October, November and December, in order to give an idea of how they will run. That is what we have to do in the Department.
Give me the Department and I will soon tell you.
Dr. Ryan
There is no danger that the Deputy will ever get to the Department.
Ask the people in the cattle trade.
Dr. Ryan
As a matter of fact, we have asked for advice from the cattle trade on the matter. We have asked the consultative council for advice on the matter. After consultation with them we asked for too many up to this, as the Deputy sees. If it gives Deputy Belton any satisfaction to refer to the Government as mere intermediaries for the British Government, let him have that satisfaction. If the Deputy wants to talk about the slave mind it is easy to see where that should be applied. That shows the reverence and respect for the power and influence of the British Government in this country which he always had and always will have, I suppose. Deputy Fagan asked if the unused licences could be used now. They cannot. Licences issued for one month should be used that month or the following month, but cannot be used in any subsequent month. The Deputy also asked whether there could be a second distribution of licences this month. There probably can be. We were in the position a week or two ago of having too many licences.
When this matter of the insufficiency of licences was raised, we indicated to the British Government that we had not got enough and they agreed to give us more. I am not sure whether they will arrive before the end of this month or not, but I think some of them will. If I could be told by a Deputy the approximate number that we will want in September to suit the trade of the country I have no great doubt but that we could get that number of licences, because under the coal-cattle pact we are entitled to a certain number for store cattle, a certain number for fat cattle and a certain number for cows and bulls, and, according to our imports of coal, they would amount to a substantial increase on the number that we got last year. As I have said, we have already exported 40,000 more stores than last year. That number may be more than the number that we were entitled to export based on our orders for coal, but as against that our exports of fat cattle were 20,000 less than the number we were entitled to export.
And are the licences in respect of those fat cattle lost now?
Dr. Ryan
I think I may put it this way: the total value of our cattle will be taken into account against the amount of coal that we imported, so that in that way they are not lost. We can make up for them from this on in the total value of the cattle that we export.
Can we include fat cattle in the cattle that we export from this on?
Dr. Ryan
A certain proportion of them.
Are we to understand from the Minister that the licences for the period that has passed cannot now be used, but that he thinks fresh licences will be issued.
Dr. Ryan
The licences for the period that has passed cannot be used, but, on the other hand, seeing that we have not exported cattle to the value that we might have, we are entitled to more new licences than we would be if these unused licences had been availed of.
Does the Minister think that that fact will be taken into account when he is making his case for an increased quota of licences for the future—I mean the fact that 21,000 licences could not be used, and that the period of their availability, so to speak, has gone by?
Dr. Ryan
I would ask Deputy Belton to look at it in this way. Two people have made a bargain, and we hold that we are just as much entitled to get value for our part of the bargain as they are. It is not a case of making representations. It is a case of presenting the facts to them, and saying that we are still entitled to export cattle up to a certain value. The fact that we have not exported cattle to the number that we are entitled to export them will entitle us to say that we can export more cattle up to the end of the year so as to make up the total number in value that we are entitled to export. That is the position.
Would it be of any assistance to the Minister in compiling, so to speak, his budget of licences if the various county committees were to make a return of the number of licences that they think will be required for September?
Dr. Ryan
If it were reliable it certainly would, but you must remember this: that the position that we have been in during the last six months is that no county committee of agriculture has told us that it was getting too many licences, although, as I have said, 21,000 have been left unused.
Would the Minister think it would be better if that information were got through the cattle trade?
Dr. Ryan
I think it would.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 13th of August.