Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1940

Vol. 80 No. 10

Committee on Finance - Vote 68—Export Bounties.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £226,100 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1941, chun Conganta Airgid um Easportáil.

That a sum not exceeding £226,100 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for Export Subsidies.

There are three sub-heads in this and the biggest sub-head, of course, is that dealing with dairy produce, for which the amount is £329,000. There is a sum of £10,000 for the export bounty on seed potatoes and £100 for minor disbursements—claims that have been outstanding for some years where there are some minor adjustments necessary. I think we discussed fairly fully yesterday the question of the export of dairy produce and it is hardly necessary to go into it again. As I explained, the matter has not yet been finally settled. The price offered by the British Government will be equivalent to about 4½d. per gallon, but with this provision for an export subsidy, and the bounty fund, that is the levy off consumers, the price would be brought up to 5½d.; that is, the increase would amount to one penny per gallon.

In the case of seed potatoes, that bounty was one of those continued because we felt that we were building up a very desirable sort of trade in various foreign countries. It is difficult, of course, to get a foot-hold in some of these markets in the beginning and we felt that the subsidy should be continued. The seed potato trade shows great promise. Some figures were mentioned yesterday for some areas, but the quantity of seed potatoes exported has expanded very considerably during the last nine or ten years. We expect that it will be possible after a few years, when we establish these foreign markets for seed potatoes, to withdraw the subsidy, and that the industry will then be able to stand on its own.

Mr. Hughes

How does the Minister account for the decreases in the amounts?

Dr. Ryan

All I can say is that the amount of seed potatoes is substantially the same. In the case of eggs, I mentioned last year that I thought that would be the last in which we would need an export bounty on eggs; that it was an industry which would have to stand on its own. I did mention, however, that it was probable we would have to continue to subsidise dairy produce for some time. I do not know when the Dáil will make up its mind finally on the question whether we should go on subsidising in future or stop it. But, at any rate, it is advisable to carry on for this year. The only thing I can say about the reduction in the amount for dairy produce is that we had hoped to reduce it fairly substantially and eventually do, away with it.

Mr. Cosgrave

As to the comparison made between our butter sold on the British market and New Zealand butter, I understand that our butter was always superior to New Zealand butter.

Dr. Ryan

It did not get a bigger price.

Mr. Cosgrave

We will leave that for the moment. Will the Minister tell us what is the charge in respect of freight and insurance in respect of butter from New Zealand and who pays that? Our information generally is that both freight and insurance charges are responsible for increasing the cost of practically everything that we import. We do not import goods from a longer distance than the British import butter from New Zealand. The question, therefore, arises as to how that particular charge is regulated in regard to the price of New Zealand butter. Have the New Zealand farmers to pay the extra cost of freight and insurance? Is the cost of freight and insurance included in the price quoted for New Zealand butter?

Dr. Ryan

The price offered us by the Minister of Food in Great Britain was 126/1. That is what they say they pay for New Zealand butter delivered. We calculate on this side that that means a little more than 120/- to the creameries. It may mean a few pennies more. As far as I can ascertain the New Zealand people get 111/-. The difference between freight and insurance would be 9/-, or £9 a ton, which is a fairly substantial sum.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is it 115/-?

Dr. Ryan

111/- or 9/- per cwt. of a difference. I think the freight for other things such as grain from the Argentine is £5 10s. Probably £9 a ton is correct for freight and insurance.

Mr. Cosgrave

I saw the price given as 126/1, but I did not believe it.

Mr. Hughes

Can the Minister give any information regarding the subsidy on foodstuffs imported into England? I understand that the British Government are spending about £1,000,000 a week on subsidies on imported food.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Hughes

May we take it that that £1,000,000 is credited at the British port, and does it follow that we have to sell at a lower level? Are we getting any benefit from that subsidy? That is an important aspect of the question. I think the British farmer is selling against the lower level as a result of subsidies being given on imported foodstuffs. In view of the trade talks that aspect of the case might be examined.

Dr. Ryan

The British Food Controller imports food from different countries, but he does not pay the same prices in all cases. We are paid the same price for butter as New Zealand, because the price of our butter was about the same as New Zealand butter on the British market for some years. On the other hand, we are paid, roughly, the price of English bacon ex-factory and more than the Canadians. They pay less for the Australian butter than for New Zealand butter. Whatever they pay for butter, as far as I understand, they sell it all at the same price.

Mr. Hughes

What about the subsidy?

Dr. Ryan

In the case of butter no subsidy is necessary, If you take bacon, we get 133/- per cwt., but it is sold at about 100/-, so that there is a very big subsidy there. There is also a subsidy on beef. They buy English and Irish cattle at a certain price, but it is all sold at a losing price. I do not know how much they lose on what is sold to the distributors. As far as I understand their biggest loss is on flour, which is costing £26,000,000 a year.

Mr. Hughes

Arising out of the subsidy on eggs, the Minister said last year that he thought there was no necessity for a subsidy. The present price is about 1/2 a dozen. There has been an enormous increase in the cost of production, and the industry is in a precarious position. As there has been a big increase in the cost of meal and maize, it is not profitable to produce eggs at 1/2 per dozen. I did not clearly understand what the Minister said about veterinary inspection at the ports last night. I understood him to say that it was not a fact that the veterinary inspectors did not turn up when required, and that they were prepared to do so at all times. Can the Minister assure us now that in the event of a shipping company being prepared to hold over a boat for two hours, during the detention period, that veterinary inspectors will be available to examine cattle? Where the railway company and the shipping company and all concerned are willing to co-operate by holding a boat over for two hours, will the veterinary inspectors wait to pass the cattle and get them shipped? The grouse that exporters have is that when two hours' detention is necessary, and a boat is held over, the inspectors will not turn up to examine cattle. That is a very serious handicap. It is a grave hardship on people who want to get cattle shipped to a particular market, like Norwich, because if they miss the boat it means that the cattle must stay here for a week and be fed in Dublin. That sort of thing should not occur. It is up to the Minister to assure the country that every facility will be granted exporters and that the inspectors will be available at all times, no matter what the cost.

Dr. Ryan

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Hughes, I do not dispute the fact that it may be difficult for the producers of eggs to make the industry pay if they get 1/2 per dozen, but the price compares favourably with the price this time last year, when they were getting 9d. per dozen. The increase represents 50 per cent.

Mr. Hughes

What has been the increase in the price of feeding stuffs?

Dr. Ryan

Feeding stuffs have gone up almost 100 per cent. compared with last year, but all feeding stuffs are not affected, as the majority of producers and farmers who keep 40 or 50 fowl have, to some extent, home-grown produce. I would say that producers are in as favourable a position as they were last year taking everything into account. Naturally we hope for better prices, and we shall have discussions every month with regard to prices. Where we can persuade the Minister for Food in Great Britain to give economic prices for our produce, we should not pay any subsidy.

With regard to the question of shipping, where a boat is prepared to wait over for the veterinary inspectors, it may be hard to arrange the matter in isolated cases. Sometimes it is arranged. There are, however, various objections to the suggestion. I wish Deputies to realise in the first place that my predecessor and I sanctioned an extra quarter of an hour on a few occasions, and then we found that it became not only the general rule but that an extra quarter of an hour would be wanted.

Mr. Hughes

What does the Minister mean?

Dr. Ryan

Supposing six o'clock was the time of departure the late Mr. Hogan in his time, and I also, agreed to make the time 6.15. I am only giving that as an example. The exceptional cases we found became general and sometimes there was also an extra quarter of an hour wanted. There must be some rule which must be observed. Whenever a train broke down or was five or ten minutes late there was no difficulty about meeting the situation. Deputies should also realise that those who have cattle at the boat in time for examination complain if other traders come along and say that they have 50 cattle and want the boat to wait for another two hours. These men are not pleased. They point out that they were there in time, and that they wanted to get their cattle across to catch communications on the other side. They do not see why other people cannot do their business properly. Various things have to be taken into account on these occasions.

Mr. Hughes

The shipping company will wait for a certain time if they can make the connection. If they are not able to make the connection, they will not wait. In cases where the company are prepared to wait, it is up to the Department to supply a veterinary inspector. The boat may be going light. It might be able to take 50 or 60 more head of cattle. Eventually, the exporters would get the benefit of that increase in their shipping rates. It is a question of the inspector turning up and, even if he has to be paid overtime, I do not see why the exporters should not be granted that facility. This sort of red tape should not hold up the export of cattle. Very often, cattle are intended for a particular market—say, Norwich. They suit the Norwich market and they may not be a type that can be easily disposed of elsewhere. If they miss the Norwich market, they may be held up for a week. The exporters feel that they have a serious grievance in this respect.

Dr. Ryan

Lest there be any misapprehension, I may say that I inquired into this matter and I found that it did not happen more than three times in 12 months.

Mr. Hughes

The people in the trade are making wrong representations to me if the Minister is right.

Vote put and agreed to.