asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state in relation to turkeys for export (a) the price per lb. paid by Awdipar to Eggsports Ltd.; (b) the price paid to licensed exporters; (c) the price paid to the producer; (d) the amount deducted for expenses of Eggsports Ltd.; (e) the amount deducted to subsidise the egg industry and the estimated aggregate amount to be realised for same.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Export Prices of Turkeys.
With regard to (a), it is anticipated that 2/7 per lb. dead weight delivered will be paid this season. On that basis, the replies to the other parts of the questions are:—(b) 2/3?d.; (c) not less than 1/10 per lb. live weight; (d) 1-6th of 1d. per lb.; (e) 3d. per lb. which is estimated to produce approximately £130,000.
It is one of the concealed taxes.
While I am prepared to support the Minister's policy in encouraging egg and poultry production, I would like to ask how he can possibly justify appropriating 3d. per lb. from turkey producers, who may not have been in production at all, to help egg production here?
If we take the industry as a whole——
Is it fair to do that?
If it is not, I need not go any further.
Is the Minister aware that turkeys do not lay hen eggs?
Oh, does the Deputy know that?
On the justice of the case, I am asking the Minister to justify the policy of appropriating money which rightly belongs to one individual in order to encourage another.
I was proceeding to deal with that, but the Deputy would not accept my argument.
We will still hear the Minister. Would he justify it, please?
I was proceeding to say that, taking the industry as a whole, if it is considered worth while to encourage egg production by giving a little more than the export price would permit, I think we are justified in doing so; and if we consider that the turkey trade was increasing and has increased, even though the 3d. per lb. was deducted, I think we are quite justified in coming to the conclusion that we could take something from the price of turkeys to help in the production of eggs.
Where do these people Awdipar, work from? It is an awful name.
Awdipar is made up of the initial letters of a certain society.
In Britain?
Yes.
Is not the Minister aware that the intensive production of turkeys is confined to a small number of counties and that the bulk of the subsidy which is collected from the turkey producers in order to subsidise egg exports comes from those counties? Does the Minister consider it equitable to penalise those counties so as to provide that subsidy?
Yes, I have said that I considered it equitable.
Taking the broad basis of the matter, is it fair to those counties?
Why does the Minister undertake to levy a tax on turkeys and to give a subsidy on eggs without any reference to Dáil Éireann? Is not the right to levy taxation still reserved to Dáil Éireann, or has it been taken over by the Government, to be performed by Executive Order? This is a tax on turkey producers.
It is not a tax. We have a company here in this country which buys turkeys, eggs and poultry for export. They get a certain price for those things from the Minister of Food in England, but I do not see why that company should be bound to follow the Minister of Food in his prices. I think they are quite justified in paying whatever they think is fair for what they buy here and in getting whatever they can for what they sell.
Surely the Minister does not think it right for a company to purchase turkeys from turkey producers at 3d. less than a price which would fairly correspond with the price they were getting and to give that money to an entirely different section of the community—unless that procedure is authorised by Dáil Éireann and Dáil Éireann directs a levy to be made on turkey exports and the proceeds given to an entirely different section of the community, under the authority of legislation in this House.
Is it not tautamount to robbing the people dealing in turkeys in certain counties of 3d. per lb. to help poultry producers? It is a tax and a robbery as well, if the turkeys are worth 2/7 per lb.
If Deputy Dillon is making a distinction between what may be regarded as a company set up by the State and a private company there may be some point in his argument, but we all know very well of many instances of ordinary merchants sometimes paying more than the value of the article—this applies to fish and to other articles also—and that they sometimes pay more than they should, having regard to the selling price, or sometimes less, in order to encourage a certain class of production and keep that class of producers going. I do not see why a company like this should not have the liberty to do the same.
If you do not, God help you.
Would it be possible for the Minister to fix prices?