Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Apr 1944

Vol. 93 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Emergency Power (Fleece Wool and Skin Wool) (Maximum Prices) Order, 1944.—Motion to Revoke.

Mr. Donnellan

I move the motion in the name of Deputy Blowick and in my own name:

"That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that Emergency Powers (Fleece Wool and Skin Wool) (Maximum Prices) Order, 1944, made by the Minister for Supplies on the 3rd day of February, 1944, should be revoked."

I believe that, in respect of the price fixed under this Order and the method adopted, the Government took up a most extraordinary attitude. If the Government think that such is not the case, I suggest that the Minister should go down the country, speak to any of the wool producers and ascertain what his opinion is. He will find that the wool producers resent the attitude adopted very much. I had occasion to go to Dublin in connection with this matter on two occasions before the price was fixed. I have to say that I was treated much as if I were a fool. I was told to go to the Department of Supplies at Kildare Street. There I was informed that it was not a matter for them but for the Department of Supplies at Ballsbridge. When I went there, I was told that it was not a matter for the Department of Supplies at all and that I should go back to the Department of Agriculture. When I went there, they were surprised that they should be asked anything at all about the matter. On the second occasion I came along, I tried to get in touch with both the Minister concerned—the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Supplies. They were not in town. I made it my business to get in touch with their private secretaries and tell them what I thought, as a wool producer, of the fixing of this price. I have a letter from the Minister for Supplies, dated 5th February, in which he says: "The interests of producers have been safeguarded by the attendance at all discussions relating to producers' prices of farmers with wide experience of sheep raising and fully competent to represent the point of view of producers of wool of all kinds." That is surprising when one considers that these two men—not that I wish to make little of them or of the counties they represent—came from Dublin and Wexford and were supposed to be representative of the wool producers of the country. My own constituency is the constituency that is most affected by this matter. We, in Galway, and the people of portion of Roscommon, produce one-third of the total wool clip of the Twenty-Six Counties. Not alone that but we produce the best wool in Europe. I am afraid that the Ceann Comhairle is coming to the conclusion that I am irrelevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. The Chair was deeply interested.

Mr. Donnellan

The only information that my county got of the price-fixing idea in connection with wool was a broad hint some months before it took place and a message on the radio on a Friday night to see the daily papers on Saturday morning to find out what the price of wool would be. Did the Minister ever before deal in that way with producers in deciding the price of a commodity? If he did, I have not heard of it and it is a most extraordinary method. I believe that the Departments sent me from post to pillar because they did not want to let us know about the matter. My opinion is that they were afraid to say what the price was. We, wool producers, have been treated in a most cold-blooded way. We are highly efficient producers and, were it not for a certain patriotic sense of responsibility, we would not submit to some of these things. The Emergency Powers Act is being used to swoop down on us and take away one-third of the most important part of the income of the people of rural Ireland. The important thing to the small tenant farmer is the price he gets for his wool, as it is the only portion of his income for which he has not to slave hard. It is a terrible state of affairs when an Emergency Powers Order for this purpose can be made overnight, without consulting us or giving us the least consideration.

Let no one attempt to say that one-third of our income is not taken away by this Order. I will prove that it is. To a question I asked the Minister on the 22nd February, 1944, the reply was that the price of our wool in the year 1943 was 36d. I wish to tell the Minister that was not the case: the price of our wool in 1943 was 3/6, 3/8 and up to 3/9 per lb. The average price in County Galway and parts of Roscommon for the year 1943 was 3/6½, so I take it that one-third of our income was taken away.

I regret to have to say that, when a little prosperity comes the way of the tenant farmer—which happens only during a terrible war—it is swooped down on and taken away. The idea, apparently, is to keep us always in a backwater and there is the policy of the emigrant ship behind it. Not very long ago, when the price of wool was ridiculously low, what help did we get? As a matter of fact, a ban was imposed then on the export of wool, when wool could be exported and the producers could have at least a little income. We did not object to the ban, but when a little comes our way now, we see what happens.

Even comparing the Minister's own prices, it will be seen that he puts down 36d. for washed fine bred wool. In his own figures, in some cases there is a reduction of 10d., in other cases a reduction of 6d. and 5d. He has washed Downs at 36d. I wonder would he compare that with the 30d. that he has decided on, in his Order, for fine bred wool? Would he tell us what is the great difference between those two classes? In Galway and parts of Roscommon, the finest bred wool in Europe is produced. It costs a lot to do it and it has taken a great Sheep Breeders' Society to build up the production of that class of wool. I would ask the Minister to explain why there is such a vast difference in his fixed prices, from 36d. down to 30d., between the two classes of wool.

Of course, you generally hear the cry about the poor and the price of the manufactured article. If the price of our wool in Galway last year went to 3/9 per lb., it was not the farmer or the wool producer who was responsible, but the manufacturer and the combine which put the price up, and the competition which made them pay the price. It has paid the manufacturer and the combine to purchase wool at that price. Now, that is clipped by one-third and our raw material is to go to the combine at one-third less than last year.

We are told that very little wool goes into most articles, but I say that there are certain articles which are 80 per cent. and upwards wool. I would like to know whether the price of those articles will be reduced accordingly. The reports of the combines last year show that they were able to pay big dividends, after paying up to 3/9 for wool. What dividends will they be able to pay this year, when the price of the raw material is reduced by one- third? I suppose they will be much higher.

There is no use in saying that it is better to give people 2/6 a lb. "as a fixed price" than to let them get 3/9. It is a good thing to give them a standard price, but I wonder on what year the Minister based his figure of 30d. Did he go back to the years when wool had to be sold at a sacrifice? Unless the Minister annuls this Order completely, it means that the Government is proving to the wool producers in rural Ireland that they are thinking of the buyers. The buyers do not count much in this. People will say that the producers can hold over the wool and make money, but that is not the case. In my county the people who sell their wool at an average in August do just as well as if they held it until Christmas.

I expect that I will get 15 or 20 minutes to reply to the debate on this motion. I have made these points and, in conclusion, appeal to the Minister and the Government to annual the Order and give these producers their little opportunity, instead of swooping down on them now, when they have a chance to earn a little money other than in the real sweat of their brows.

Mr. Cogan

I desire to second the motion proposed by Deputy Donnellan. I speak also on behalf of a wool producing county, producing wool second only in quality to that of Galway. I speak for the sturdy farmers of the Wicklow hills who, undoubtedly, exert themselves day in and day out, from one end of the year to the other, in the raising of their sheep and the production of wool. The work entailed carries heavy risks and heavy expenses, which have enormously increased in recent years. Perhaps in this respect I am speaking particularly for Wicklow. There we have had cheap grazing lands, on the Wicklow hills, encroached upon by the Forestry Department for plantation.

We have also the fact that sheep production in Wicklow is dependent on the sheep being changed to the lowlands during the winter months in order to maintain them in health. As a result of the increased tillage, grass in the lowlands is absolutely unobtainable except at a very high price. We have also to bear in mind the fact that up to last year sheep rearing was a very unprofitable occupation. The income which farmers in the mountain districts derived from it was very low. As a result of the operation of the law of supply and demand, the price of wool last year did undoubtedly increase. In Wicklow it was a common thing to get 2/8, 2/9 and 2/10 per lb. for Cheviot wool. Under this Order, the maximum price fixed for best Cheviot wool is 2/3½d. per lb. I want to know why the small farmers, the people in the poor districts, should be called upon to make a contribution—to make this sacrifice—this year without any apparent justification. It must be remembered that this is not a fixed price. If it were, a stronger case perhaps might be made for it, inasmuch as the fixed price would protect farmers in certain eventualities. Suppose, for example, manufacturers were unable to operate their mills on account of shortages of other raw materials, and that, as a result, a demand did not prevail for wool during the coming season, this price-fixing Order would give the farmer no protection. It is designed simply to prevent the farmer from getting as good a price as he got last year if the law of supply and demand allows him. It does not protect him from being forced to accept a much lower price if the law of supply and demand imposes a much lower price upon him. Therefore, it is a weapon that, so to speak, is directed solely against the producer, and offers him no compensating advantages. If, as I say, it was a fixed price, and if there was a guarantee given by the Minister that, when in later years wool prices were lowered, farmers would be protected from these reduced prices, there might be less opposition to this Order. No such assurance, however, is being given. All that we have in this Order is direct action taken by the Minister to prevent the farmer from getting as good a price as he got last year for his wool without any compensating advantage.

We must remember that as well as the other increased costs which have fallen on sheep breeders during the present emergency, we have in addition to this Order an effort being made by the Department of Agriculture to tighten up the regulations in regard to the branding of sheep and the sale of wool which has been branded. I am not dealing with that Order now. I am pointing out that the effect of it will be to add considerably to the farmer's costs of production, and to the difficulties in which he will be involved in the marketing of his wool. For that reason there is an urgent need for the annulment of this Order. If, however, such an Order is necessary, let the price be considerably increased; let it be not less than the price which was paid last year. I think that is a reasonable demand.

I am sure that the Minister, taking into account all the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the soils on which sheep are reared and the economic conditions of the people engaged in production, will see the justice of our claim. I have vivid experiences of the conditions under which the people in the Wicklow hills engaged in sheep breeding labour. I have vivid recollections of farmers who risked their lives, and lost their lives, trying to protect their flocks during the blizzard of 1933. At that time farmers spent days out on the mountains in the snow and in the blizzard in search of their sheep. The Minister must realise that the people engaged in wool production are a most deserving class of community, and under no circumstances should an injustice be inflicted on them such as is implied in this Order.

Mr. Hughes

I wish to support this motion. I do not want to minimise the difficulties which the Minister has to contend with in his capacity as Minister for Supplies in dealing with the multifarious problems of his Department, such as price control, distribution and the rest. The one outstanding characteristic in the method which the Minister has adopted for the dealing with price fixation and distribution is this: that he has not thought fit to consult the people primarily concerned, and in particular the primary producers in the country. That complaint has to be made not only in regard to the Minister's Department but also to the Department of Agriculture. These Departments fix prices in a very arbitrary fashion without any respect whatever for the people primarily concerned. While that is the attitude of these Department we have, on the other hand, appeals being made in these very difficult times to the patriotic sentiments of the people to produce the necessary quotas of food and other essentials for the community. Surely such methods should not be adopted. The producer at least is entitled to be recognised by those holding responsible positions and should be consulted on matters such as we are discussing.

Deputy Donnellan has some sort of a letter which suggests that the Minister, before making this Order consulted two farmers. What right had they to speak on behalf of a very big percentage of the people? Surely there were organisations which could speak in a representative capacity that the Minister might have consulted. The two individuals referred to could not claim to speak with any authority for anybody except themselves. I am glad of the way in which the Clann na Talmhan Party has approached this matter. It has approached it in a very reasonable way. I also propose to do the same. I think that the price paid for wool last year was not unreasonable in the circumstances. It was not exorbitant. Prices for washed fine wool, including Galway, Roscommon and Down Crosses, ranged about 3/4 and 3/5 per lb. The fixed price under the Order, as Deputy Donnellan has pointed out, is 2/6, which represents a reduction in the price that the farmer obtained last year for his wool of from 10d. to 11d. per lb.

There is no justification whatever for a reduction of that sort, especially when you relate that to the very high price of wool that obtain, and take the quantity of wool that goes to produce yarn. It is like the price of barley in relation to stout. The price of the raw material is not the big consideration, and yet the people the Minister thought fit to attack and economise on, if economies were necessary, are the unfortunate men who are getting the least out of the aggregate sum the community has to pay for clothes.

I do not think the Minister can possibly defend his attitude in that respect. I object to this mainly on the principle that the producer should have been consulted; there should have been some consultation with people in a representative capacity, the people entitled to speak on behalf of a very considerable section of the agricultural community. This is not the only time the Minister failed in that respect. The price of Cheviot wool is fixed at 2/3. Washed deep-red Lincoln and Leicester wool is 2/-. There is not so much of that wool in the country at the present time. For the cross-bred and Scotch in Kerry and other counties the price is 1/9. There is a considerable amount of Cheviot in this country and that is making 9d. or 10d. more than last year. When it comes to unwashed wool, the method of handling it is a departure from the traditional method. Where he got his advice on that, I would like to know. I never before heard of determining the price on the basis of a cut per fleece—2 lb. per fleece. Surely that is not a fair approach? There is a wide variety in the weights of fleeces. In the deep wools, the Lincoln wools, you can have a fleece up to 14 lbs. and, for a sheep that produces a smaller quantity, you can have it down to 5 lbs or 6 lbs. Taking 2 lbs off a Lincoln fleece may not be relatively too bad, but it ought not to be done on the basis of the fleece.

Mr. O'Donnell

How much do you get off the ewes rearing lambs?

Mr. Hughes

It varies. Some have very heavy fleeces. You can get down to 4 or 5 lbs. off a Lincoln wether. The Minister's method of dealing with unwashed or greasy wool is simply to ignore the weight of the fleece and drop 2 lbs. a fleece whether it is heavy or light wool. It is not the traditional method of dealing with it. Why set up new methods now? Why should not the traditional method be adopted Why should you put the price on an altogether different basis? The countryman is very conservative in these matters. I suggest that it was done in the merchants' interest all the time.

Deputy Cogan suggested that there will be a difficulty from the point of view of the wool producer under the Order made by the Department about branding sheep and branding wool. It is in the producer's interest to get away from tar, because it is injurious to wool and we should support that because it is eventually in the producer's interest to get away from stained wool. You can get methods of branding wool without injuring it or reducing its value. It is true that sheep produced in this country are produced by hill farmers who have not the facilities on the mountain sides to bring the sheep to a marketable condition. They are forced by our methods of economy to go to the low lands and buy grass on the 11 months' system at relatively higher prices than in prewar years because of the compulsory tillage Order and the competition for whatever grass is offered. Consequently, the cost of production is much higher.

I suggest that last year's price was not an exorbitant price in the circumstances, but at least the Minister should have fixed, if it was necessary to fix, a price around last year's level. Deputy Cogan has pointed out that it is not a fixed price, but a maximum price, and there is nothing to safeguard the producer in the event of a collapse of emergency conditions or a further deterioration in our economic conditions. The Minister was solely concerned with fixing a ceiling there and was not worried about the interests of the producer in the most backward districts. The Minister ought to concern himself with the interests of the people in the remote districts and it ought to be the policy of Parliament to rehabilitate the agricultural community during the period when the food producer ought to be strong, during war time when the price of food is at a premium.

It is inevitable that history will repeat itself no matter what the economist may plan or what may be done to minimise the aftermath of the war. It is almost a certainly that there will be a period of difficulty and stringency, financial difficulty for the producer, and because we are almost predominantly agricultural it is not a wise policy to curtail people situated as those people are by clipping a few shillings off them. The price makes little or no difference to the finished article, because the raw material is the smallest cost and there is plenty of room for a revision of prices between the purchase of the raw material and the time the suit goes on the back of the individual. If there are any economies necessary, I suggest the Minister should not start with the raw material because that is the smallest end. I join in the appeal made to revoke this Order. I suggest that it should be revoked. I have pleasure in supporting the terms of the motion.

Mr. Beegan

Coming like Deputy Donnellan, from one of the largest wool-producing counties, if not the largest, I had great sympathy with the motion until I heard Deputy Donnellan state here emphatically that he was all out to have the Order revoked completely and entirely. I am not in agreement with that, because I have experience over a number of years, just as well as Deputy Donnellan, of how the poor farmers have been humbugged, because of their circumstances, in regard to the buying of wool. The small farmer requires cash in the month of July and in early August and wool is the one source to which he has to turn to get it. Generally, at that time, the system in operation was that a price would be fixed by local dealers at the end of June. A number of small farmers would turn in with their wool and then, in about three weeks, wool was reduced in price by a penny or twopence per pound. The result was that the other small farmers rushed in haste to hand over their wool. Then, as the time went on, the price went up again. The same thing happened last year. The price last year ranged from 2/- to 3/8 per lb. The person who had the real grievance last year was the man who, because of his circumstances, wanted cash and had not storage for the wool, sold his wool at 2/- or 2/6, while within a week or a fortnight after his well-to-do neighbour, who could afford to hold it, got 3/6 or 3/8.

That is why I am in full agreement with the Order controlling the price of wool. I believe it is high time to stabilise wool prices in this country, and I hope it is not for the emergency period only. I hope it will continue, because wool is the one product of the farmers that there always has been a gamble and uncertainty about and the farmers generally, particularly the smaller farmers, have always come out the greatest losers.

I thought that Deputy Donnellan put down his motion with a view to bringing to the Minister's notice the difference in the price fixed for washed Down and Galway fine wool. It is to that part of the Order that I take exception. The price fixed this year for washed Down is 3/- per lb. and for Galway fine wool 2/6 per lb. I wonder who advised the Minister on that. There is a very small quantity of Down wool in this country, so far as I know. But there is certainly a very large quantity of Galway fine wool. I do not know what expert advised the Minister. But I know that in 1938 and 1939 the Beet Growers' Association, in conjunction with the Wicklow Sheep Breeders' Association and the I.A.O.S. made an attempt to stabilise the price of wool in this country by buying it on grade from the farmers. In order to do that, they got in touch with the Scottish Wool Growers' Association, who very kindly at that time sent their experts over here. Meetings were held in various centres in the country and the men who came over advised the farmers as to what they should do to have their wool in proper condition. As it was not possible to set up hurriedly here a proper store so as to have it dealt with by an Irish association or organisation, it was decided that the Scottish wool growers' representatives would buy at certain centres, and they bought purely on grade. I have it from one of the experts that the Galway first-grade fine wool is second to none anywhere except Merino. That is why I think there should not be a difference of 6d. in the lb. between Galway fine wool and Down wool. That is one thing I am greatly worried about.

In reply to a question by Deputy Donnellan on the 22nd February last, the Minister stated that his reason for controlling the price of wool was to enable him to control the price of cloth. That was a reasonable reply. I hope that the price of cloth is related, and very closely related, to the price of the raw product, because if you go to any draper's establishment for a suit of clothes and you find fault with the price, the first thing the draper will say to you is: "Look at the price you get for wool. You get 3/6 per lb. We could not give you the suit any cheaper." If the Minister, as I am sure he will, keeps his eye on the raw material from the time it leaves the producer until it goes to the consumer and sees that it will go to the consumer at a reasonable price, I do not think that we can find any great fault with the Order, except the fault I am speaking of—the difference in the price fixed for Galway fine wool and Down wool.

As I pointed out at the outset, I am sure it will be admitted that the smaller farmers are the people who mostly require cash in July. When the price is fixed at a level of 2/6 all round there will be a great rush at that time by all concerned to bring their wool to the local merchant. It is quite possible that he will not have sufficient storage accommodation for it and perhaps the people from whom the wool will be taken will not be the people most in need of money. Whatever price is fixed —and I would be glad if the Minister would bring up the price for Galway wool to within at least 1d. per lb. of the price for Down wool—there should be a kind of small sliding scale over, say, three periods.

If the price is to be 2/6—if the Minister insists upon that—he might think it advisable to give a halfpenny more per lb. for the wool in August and September and a further halfpenny for the month of October and November. In that way a big rush would not be made on the merchants and the people who could afford to hold over their wool and who have storage accommodation for it would do so. That would likely tend to ensure that the smaller farmers, who are always in the habit of selling their wool in the early parts of the season, would be afforded an opportunity of disposing of their products.

Minister for Supplies (Mr. Lemass)

Deputy Donnellan and Deputy Hughes both questioned the representation of farmers at the discussions that took place before this Order was made. I think Deputy Donnellan meant, and I am sure Deputy Hughes meant, that there could be no adequate representation of wool producers unless they were involved in it. I am sure all reasonable Deputies will appreciate that it would not be possible to bring into consultation all the people who could claim to speak with authority upon wool production. It was desired to have representatives of producers, and, to secure that that desire would be implemented, the Department of Agriculture were invited to send to these discussions their own experts and to nominate representative farmers to participate in the discussions.

Now, it is quite possible that some people would think better representatives could have been secured than the persons nominated by the Minister for Agriculture, and, no matter whom he nominated, I am quite certain that that view would still be held. There was, however, no alternative to taking the people who were so nominated, unless we contemplated a sort of general meeting of all wool producers in all counties. The people whom the Minister for Agriculture nominated were fully competent to speak upon all aspects of the wool business and their advice was supplemented by the advice of the technical experts of the Department of Agriculture. Deputy Hughes, of course, assumed that we consulted nobody. Deputy Hughes always assumes that. He seems to have got an idee fixe on that subject. In fact, there was full and adequate consultation with all the interests concerned, including the producers in so far as it was possible to secure representatives of producers' interests in the circumstances in which there are a very large number of unorganised individual producers in all parts of the country.

It is not true, either, to say that the wool producers of Galway, or any other part of the country, heard of this matter for the first time when there was an announcement on the wireless. Full publicity was given to the fact that the Government intended to fix the price of wool at least six months before the Order was made. Not merely was the matter fully reported in the daily Press, but there was even at the time a considerable amount of controversy and correspondence concerning the advisability or otherwise of fixing wool prices, and every possible step was taken to ensure that everybody would know that such intention existed and that the discussions leading to the framing of the Order were taking place. So much for the preliminaries to the making of the Order.

I gather from the speech made by Deputy Donnellan and, I think, the speech made by Deputy Cogan, that they object to the Order at all, that they want this Order abolished and no control of wool prices. We have had frequent discussions here and frequent protests by members of the Dáil concerning the increase in the cost of clothing. The Government has attempted to restrict the increase in the cost of clothing not merely by regulating the margins of traders, wholesalers and retailers and the profits of manufacturers but by controlling the price of the raw materials of clothing manufactures, and a necessary final step to any effective measures for the control of clothing prices must be the control of wool prices. I would be exceedingly surprised if, in this Dáil, the Government was attacked when it fixed the price of some product sold by farmers on the ground that it fixed the price too high, but in relation to this matter, I think the Government is much more open to attack on that ground than on any other. We fixed the price of wool——

Mr. Donnellan

Too high.

Mr. Lemass

——at a higher level than prevails at the moment in any country in the world. The maximum price fixed for this Galway fine wool is almost double the price fixed by the British Government for corresponding wool in Great Britain. There is no country in the world in which these prices prevail, and, not merely is that so, but the maximum price fixed for wool represents an increase over the 1939 price proportionately greater than the increase in price of any other agricultural commodity produced in this country. I can imagine people criticising us for having fixed the price too high, because, having fixed these prices, as we did,. at these levels, there must necessarily be a reaction on the price of clothing. We hope that, as a result of the restriction on speculation in wool which this Order will bring about, clothing prices will be reduced, but, clearly, if we were to confine the price of wool here to, say, the price in Great Britain, or to a price which would have the same relation to the 1939 price as the prices of other agricultural products, then the price of clothing could be more restricted still.

It is, of course, an attractive thing to the producers of wool that the price of their product should have soared as it did, and soared it has since the begining of the war. It did not soar solely because of the operation of the law of supply and demand, as Deputy Cogan stated. At least, there were other factors operating. In normal times, the great bulk of the wool crop here was exported. It was exported through the medium of a limited number of specialist firms who bought the wool from the dealers or producers, graded it and marketed it abroad as opportunity offered. With the curtailment of supplies of wool from abroad and the fear of scarcity, not merely did the wool merchants and people who purchased wool for granding and the wool dealers who had immediate contact with the producers begin to buy wool as it offered, but the woollen manufacturers also went into the market to purchase wool, and intense competition developed between them to get supplies of wool. It was that intense competition to get supplies at any price that had the effect of forcing up the price of the various grades as rapidly as was the case.

Furthermore, a third group of persons appeared in the market—a third group which will always appear in such a market, where prices are rising rapidly and fears of scarcity are general —a class of speculators, people who bought wool merely to hold it against rising prices and creating an artificial scarcity to ensure that the price would rise. The term "profiteer" was invented in the last war to describe that type of person, the person who discharged no economic function, but who intervened in the process of distribution for the purpose of buying and selling at a profit to himself. The term nowdays is used generally to describe all persons who take excessive profits, but the original meaning of the term was precisely the type of speculator who was intervening in the wool market in this country in recent years. It is necessary to secure that there should be some relation between the price paid for wool and the value of the wool, some relation between the price paid for wool and the value of the articles made from it, and, to eliminate these temporary forces that are forcing up the price, to secure that there exists a type of control which will ensure a fair deal as between the producers of wool and those who have to buy it as a raw material.

I do not think we were unfair to the producers of wool in the price we fixed. None of those we consulted considered that we were unfair. The prices were fixed at the opening prices of last year. In last year, it is true that the price went much higher in the course of the season, but nevertheless even the opening prices of last year were substantially higher than the average prices in any preceding year. In the case of the Galway wool, washed fine-bred wool, the opening price in 1940 was 14d. per lb.; in 1941, 16d. per lb.; and in 1942, 18d. per lb. In 1943, it jumped to 30d. per lb., and it was at 30d. per lb. that we fixed the price this year.

Mr. O'Donnell

What was the price of the mountain wool—Scotch wool, as we call it?

Mr. Lemass

The price of black-faced wool is not controlled by the Order at all.

Mr. Donnellan

The Minister said that the opening price of Galway wool was 30d. per lb. in 1943.

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Beegan said that it was 2/-.

Mr. O'Donnell

Is it being still sent to market?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, and the price of that wool is not subject to the Order.

Mr. O'Donnell

Is it much used in Ireland for ordinary purposes?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. O'Donnell

No, and more is the pity. I suppose that is because it is not fashionable here.

Mr. Lemass

It is not a question of being fashionable or not, but of the machinery which is capable of spinning it. I know that the impression is held that as a result of the reduction in the price this year as compared with last year certain people will benefit at the expense of the producers of wool, but that is not so. The price charged by the manufacturers is related to the price of wool charged by the producers, and they are not permitted to benefit in increased profits from the conditions existing this year. I should like to remove that impression from the mind of any Deputy in this House, because it is undoubtedly undesirable that an impression should be created that some other intermediate class— some class or group between the producers and the consumers of wool— could benefit by the increase in prices.

Mr. O'Donnell

I take it, therefore, that we can expect an increase in the price of wool to the producers in the coming year as compared with the price of wool in the year 1943-44?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. O'Donnell

Would it not be possible to guarantee the price?

Mr. Lemass

It is quite obvious that certain other factors may operate in the meantime, such as the price of coal, and so on. It is quite obvious, however, that if there is a big reduction in the price of wool as between last year and this year, it is bound to have an effect on the price of woollen garments. As a matter of fact, there is a substantial amount of wool in the hands of merchants at the moment, which is now being sold at a loss because it also is subject to this Order. In fact, it is not importable that the market for wool will be much less this year by reason of the substantial carryover in the hands of the merchants from last year.

Mr. O'Donnell

Then, why not work it, and leave the question of price to be determined in connection with that carry-over?

Mr. Lemass

Because the object here is to secure a maximum price.

Mr. O'Donnell

Well, I did not get a chance of speaking on this matter, but I would have liked to have gone into it in more detail.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Beegan suggested something in the nature of a sliding scale, but I think that the Deputy will realise that once we go into this thing at all it would be impossible to do that, because if you are to have control it must be continued right through from the producer to the buyer for manufacturing purposes, and therefore it is clearly impossible to have the same grade of wool sold at different prices at different times of the year, since the wool will all be sold eventually at the same price.

Mr. Beegan

May I suggest to the Minister that what I said was that the wool should be sold at a certain price at certain times—that there should be some control in that regard?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, I understand that, but it is not possible to achieve that without taking the risk that the benefit of such control would be secured, not by the producer or the ultimate consumer of the woollen goods, but by the dealers in wool or the registered wool merchants. The only persons who are entitled to buy wool are the recognised dealers or wool merchants. The recognised dealers are those who purchased wool last year, and the recognised wool merchants are those who are capable of grading of wool in accordance with international standards. If they sell or purchase wool outside the controlled price, then they commit an offence, and that also applies to the producer or the dealer.

A question was also raised as to the difference in price between Downs and the Galway fine wool. As Deputy Beegan remarked, the production of Down wool is not large in this country, but I was asked to fix a higher price for that type of wool as against the other types, in order to encourage its production. According to the experts, it is the best type of wool, and accordingly I am informed that the Department of Agriculture is desirous of encouraging its production. The production of that type of wool, however, will be very small, and it was solely for that reason that I assented to the suggestion of the Minister for Agriculture that a higher price should be fixed for it. Accordingly, a higher price for Downs was fixed in order to carry on what I understand is the policy of the Department of Agriculture. It is not a question of differentiation at all.

I do not know that there are any other specific matters to which I should refer, but I should like the House to understand that I regard the fixation of wool prices as an essential part of the whole scheme for controlling the costs of woollen garments or woollen materials, generally. In fact, during the recent general election campaign, a very prominent spokesman of the Fine Gael Party made it his principal point of attack on the Government Party that they did not fix wool prices and that, to that extent, the whole scheme of controlling prices was ineffective. I hoped to secure more reasonable prices by controlling or regulating the speculative element in wool buying and confirming the trade to recognised merchants acting on a quota basis. In so far as undue competition had forced prices up, if we had succeeded in eliminating that type of competition, we might have succeeded in our objective of lowering prices, but we might also have increased the danger by going too far in that direction and putting a power in the hands of merchants which would be unfair to the producers. In these circumstances we felt that to achieve our aims, and also from the point of view of dealing fairly with the producers of wool, the only thing to be done was to give effect to the Order. With regard to Deputy Donnellan's suggestion that the Order should be revoked, I think it is in the interests of everybody, and particularly of the producers of wool, that the Order should be maintained.

Mr. Blowick

What benefits will accrue to them as a result of raising the price?

Mr. Lemass

My concern is to regulate the upward movement of prices, in the interests of the producers and other people concerned. If there is to be a long-term policy in regard to the use of woollen goods manufactured here, then that has to be considered separately, and not as a matter for the Department of Supplies.

Mr. O'Donnell

Take Blarney fingering wool or the wool that it is made from. The price of it is 2/- a lb. but it is sold at 10/6. That is a terrible discrepancy; 8/6 is a very big differnce.

Mr. Lemass

Of course I don't accept the Deputy's figures as accurate. I am afraid the Deputy has been dealing in the black market. It is true that we have restricted the production of knitting yarns in favour of machine yarns.

Mr. Blowick

When will Deputy Donnellan conclude?

Mr. Lemass

Before 7.30. The arrangement is that this discussion concludes at 7.30.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The mover must get 15 minutes to reply.

Mr. Blowick

I think the Minister has failed completely to justify the making of this Emergency Powers Order. He has given no reason whatever. In my opinion he has not justified the fixing of the price of wool, high grade wool at least. He has not even given an assurance that the price of clothing will be cut down in return for the cutting of the price of wool. In my opinion he has made a rather dictatorial use of the emergency powers to slash at the wool producers without making any attempt to justify his action. I was waiting for him to give some good grounds but he did not give them. I am in agreement with Deputy Donnellan and Deputy Hughes that he made this Order without consulting the producers in a proper way. Surely the wool producers should be consulted in such a big matter as this. He stated that two experts were consulted in the matter. The production of wool last year amounted to 11,000,000 pounds practically, and it must have covered a vast number of flock owners. I think they were entitled to a more representative consultation. Most farmers regard this as a deliberate slashing of their income without any sound justification on the part of the Government. If the Minister could show why he imposed such a terrific cut in the price of raw wool the farmers just as they have responded to every other call made upon them would not have taken it badly. Most of them have come to the conclusion that no matter what takes place the only way in which they are regarded is that their income is to be reduced at every twist and turn. It is rather discouraging seeing that they have been called upon to produce food and fuel for the nation that this wool Order should come upon them.

What will the result of it be? I myself got 3/9 a lb. for wool last year. The price I will get for the same quality this year is 2/6. Yet we all know a suit of clothes costs anything from £8 to £10. Well, if this motion is not agreed to here, if the Order is not revoked, it will be interesting to see if the price of clothing will come down. In my opinion farmers are prepared to accept a reduced price for their wool provided they see a proper case put up for reducing it. Such a case has not been put up by the Minister. He was more than disappointing.

Deputy Beegan's reason for not falling in line with the motion was that there is a reduction in the price of wool after the opening of the market every year. I have never experienced that and I have been selling wool for a number of years. On the contrary there was a rise in price last year following the opening. My experience is that there may be a fall in the price about the month of October when, as the Minister says, speculators may come along and upset the market. When the Minister did fix a maximum price I can't see why he did not fix a minimum price as well. That is, a price below which it would be illegal to buy or sell wool. In 1930-31 the total production of wool was 14,750,000 lbs. Last year, 1942-43, it had fallen to just short of 11,000,000 lbs. First and foremost that shows that the wool trade has not increased greatly. It shows definitely that the policy of the present Government towards the sheep and wool trade is detrimental. The effect of this present Order, in my opinion, will do for sheep and wool what the Minister for Agriculture has succeeded in doing for the pig trade. I ask every Deputy in the House to vote in favour of the motion. I suppose last year the total income from wool to the farmers would be something in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000. The reduction in price will mean a loss of between £300,000 and £400,000. There is no justification for this Order seeing that the price of finished woollen goods will not be one bit cheaper. If there is a reduction in the price of the finished woollen article perhaps wool producers would be prepared to accept a reduced price.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am the loser of £50 by this transaction and I suppose "fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind".

Mr. L. Cosgrave

Will the Minister say what effect he thinks this Order will have on the price of clothes?

Mr. Lemass

We are dealing with the fixing of this year's wool crop which has not yet come on the market. The effect will be to make clothing made from wool cheaper than it otherwise would be.

Mr. Donnellan

I imagine that Deputy Beegan was not in the House when I was introducing this motion because I imagine if he was he would not have repeated some of the things I stated myself. First, he said he was surprised that I had put down a motion to annul, and that if I had put down a motion to amend he would have agreed with it. Deputy Beegan is longer in the House than I am. He knows that you cannot put down motions to amend Emergency Powers Orders. The Deputy raised one point that I raised, and that was the vast difference there is between the price of fine Galway washed wool and Down wool. The Minister failed to give a reply. He failed because he could not tell us that the Down wool was more valuable than the Galway wool. The Minister just told us that it was some game to help the production of that class of wool by the Department. If you are going to turn down a first-class article, and give a better price for a second-class one in order to help something else, I say that that is very bad example. I have no doubt why this Down wool is given a better price per lb. than the better-class wool. It is because the so-called representatives of the wool producers, a Dublin man and a Wexford man, who are pedigree sheep breeders, wanted to do something to help their class. The Minister repeated the statement that there were representatives of wool producers—a pedigree breeder from Dublin and a pedigree breeder from Wexford—two counties that count very little in the production of wool. They worked this game with the assistance of the so-called experts and the wool buyers. That was the so-called advisory committee that they had. They did it to suit the Down wool. That is the reason the price is higher for Down wool than for the better-class fine wool of Galway.

Deputy Beegan made the alarming statement that the price of the fine wool started at 2/-. I am glad to say that his own Minister corrected him and stated that it started at 2/6. There is something in the idea of grading. There is no doubt about that. As the Minister said, the question is: "How can we deal with an unorganised body"? That is the whole trouble. If these people were an organised body they would not allow you to deal with them as you did. There was an announcement on Friday night, and 90 per cent. of the wool producers were told to read the result in the next day's newspapers. I would withdraw this motion if the Minister would give a guarantee that the manufactured articles from wool would be reduced in price correspondingly. He would not give that guarantee. As he would not do so I will put the motion to a division. There is no good in telling us that we will have to depend on the charity of the manufacturers. We are not going to depend on it because we know we are not going to get anything out of it. I say in all sincerity that the Minister should promise that he will make an Order reducing correspondingly the price of manufactured articles.

Mr. Lemass

I want to correct the Deputy. The prices of cloth and clothing are fully controlled at all stages.

Mr. Cafferky

Would the Minister give a guarantee that according to the price of wool for 1943, the 1944 price of woollen manufactured articles would be correspondingly reduced?

Mr. Lemass

I have tried to make it clear, and I do not wish the Deputy to be misled, that the prices which manufacturers are allowed to charge are related to the price of wool.

Mr. Donnellan

Will you give a guarantee that the price of the manufactured article will be reduced one-third as compared with prices last year?

Mr. Lemass

Not at all. There are other costs besides the cost of wool.

Mr. Donnellan

Our idea is that this is a determined attempt to play on us, and we believe it should not have been done. The people I represent resent that Order very much. I appeal to the Minister to say if it is not possible to amend it or to withdraw it. If the Minister does not do that I will ask the support of the House.

Mr. Cafferky

Would the Minister give a guarantee that he will reduce the price of woollen goods proportionately with the reduction in the price of wool?

Mr. Lemass

What does that amount to?

Mr. Cafferky

One-third.

Mr. Lemass

If the other costs of manufacturers, wages of workers, the cost of coal and machinery are also reduced by one-third, then the cost of clothing will come down by one-third.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 63.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Bennett, George C.
• Benson, Ernest E.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Cole, John J.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Davin, William.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Heskin, Denis.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Hughes, James.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mahony, Philip.
• Meighan, John J.
• O'Donnell, William F.
• O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Ryan, Jeremiah.
• Stapleton, Richard.
• Tunney, James.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Martin.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Corbett, Eamon.
• Crowley, Fred H.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Daly, Francis J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Everett, James.
• Fitzgerald, Séamus.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Friel, John.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Healy, John B.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Séamus.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Looney, Thomas D.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Skinner, Leo B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Blowick and Cogan; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.

Motion declared defeated.