asked the Minister for agriculture if he will state (a) the amount of subsidy paid on eggs in 1948 out of the £1,350,000 provided by the British Government under the 1947 agreement; (b) the amount paid out of this fund in 1949 up to the coming into operation of the recent egg agreement; (c) the extent of the funds controlled by Eggsports Ltd. on the 30th January, 1948; (d) if these funds were exhausted on the coming into effect of the recent egg agreement; (e) what has become of the unexpended balance, if any, of the money from which the egg subsidy was being paid up to the date of the recent egg agreement; (f) what basic price the British Government are paying us under that agreement for the years 1949-50.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Subsidy on Eggs.
The particulars asked for are as follows: (a) £532,000; (b) £25,000; (c) £281,000; (d) the sum mentioned at (c) was exhausted on the coming into effect of the new agreement except for a sum of £49,000 which was expended in supporting the price-of 3/- per dozen paid to producers up to 16th March, 1949; (e) under the recent egg agreement the British undertaking to pay bonus up to a maximum of £1,350,000 was replaced by an arrangement which, in the years 1949 and 1950, up to 31st January, 1951, will, it is estimated, produce at least £1,788,750 more for our producers than they would get if the previous arrangement, including the payment of balance of bonus, had been continued; (f) the basic price which the British Ministry of Food are paying under the new eggs agreement for the years 1949 and 1950, up to 31st January, 1951, represents an average of 30/8 per great hundred delivered at British ports and this is equivalent to a producer's price of 2/6 per dozen.
Am I to take it that whatever unexpended balance of the £1,350,000 remained on the coming into operation of the recent agreement was retained in the British Treasury?
Yes.
Am I further to take it that the British used that sum for the purpose of enabling them to pay the present price?
The balance referred to by the Deputy was cancelled in consideration of our receiving £1,788,750— more than they would have received if the new arrangement had not been made which provided for a basic price instead of a basic price plus a limited subsidy for a restricted quantity.
Am I to take it that the Minister is trying to confuse the issue and to confuse the House and country in his reply to the questions I have addressed to him?
No. I am most anxious to furnish the Deputy with all particulars.