On the motion for the adjournment, Deputy Corry gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of questions No. 18 to 24, inclusive.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Imported and Home-Grown Barley.
To-day I asked the Minister for Agriculture "if he will state in respect of the two cargoes of feeding barley purchased by Grain Importers, Limited, from Iraq (1) the price paid for this barley by Grain Importers; (2) the price at which it will be offered to consumers". I also asked the Minister "if he is aware that there is still a large quantity of both malting and feeding barley on hands since last harvest and that the flooding of this country with foreign grain will seriously affect the market and, if so, if he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter". There was also a question by Deputy Lahiffe with regard to Queensland Sorghums imported. The Minister in his reply stated:—
"Grain Importers (Éire), Limited, have purchased two cargoes of Iraqian barley totalling approximately 16,000 tons at an average price of £19 18s. per ton c.i.f. This barley is being offered at £23 per ton carriage paid for minimum lots of six tons delivered to the purchaser's nearest railhead and is subject to the same discount rates as apply in the case of maize."
These questions must be taken in conjunction with question No. 22 which was as follows:—
"To ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he is aware that the market for malting barley in this country last harvest was seriously depressed due to the importation of 360,000 barrels of foreign barley before last August and that the present importation by Grain Importers, Limited, of foreign feeding barley and Queensland Sorghums will have a serious effect on farmers who, on the Minister's advice, have sown Ymer barley for feeding purposes this season; and, if so, if he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter."
The Minister in his reply stated:—
"The importation of malting barley during the period 1st October, 1948, to 31st August, 1949, had no depressing effect whatever on the market for malting barley of the 1949 crop. As I indicated in reply to a question by Deputy Rooney on 26th October last, imports of malting barley from 1st October, 1948, to 30th September, 1949, amounted to 30,417 tons of which 11,060 tons were imported after 1st January, 1949. With the exception of 1,837 tons which were imported on foot of contracts concluded several months earlier, all the barley imported was provided by the British authorities for the production of beer for export to Britain, in accordance with arrangements which were entered into in December, 1943. No malting barley has been imported since 1st July, 1949."
On 26th October, 1949, I asked the Taoiseach if he would state the quantity and value of imports of barley for the months July, 1948, to January, 1949, and January, 1949, to September, 1949. I got a reply in the form of a tabular statement showing that there was a total import of 359,752 barrels of barley in that period. I want the House to remember that that importation started in August, 1948, with 6,000 cwts., September, 105,390 cwts., October, 159,384 cwts. immediately after the Minister had announced that he was fixing the price of malting barley for our farmers at 50/- a barrel.
The Minister complained about the Fianna Fáil Government robbing the farmers and putting into the coffers of Messrs. Guinness £2,000,000 belonging to the Irish farmers. But the Minister brought in 360,000 barrels of foreign barley after the Beet Growers' Association had made an agreement on the farmer's behalf for 57/6d. per barrel for barley. The Minister was holding the farmers to a price of 50/-per barrel for barley while he brought in 360,000 barrels of foreign barley at 63/8d. a barrel, a difference of 13/8d. between what was paid to the foreigner and the price fixed by the Minister for Irish farmers. The foreigner got £1,154,665 for malting barley and our own farmers had to sell at 40/- to 44/- per barrel.
You are stating that on oath.
The result of this was that for 11 days of the harvest maltsters were open to buy barley. After something like 13 days, Messrs Beamish, Cork, closed their doors— they wanted no more barley. Messrs. Murphy followed suit. The Cork Distillers Company bought barley for 11 days at 57/6., then they closed down for three days and reopened at a price of 50/-. We had to fight a case in the High Court in order to drag the other 7/6 out of them. They were robbing the farmers owing to the fact that their stores and their malt houses were filled with foreign barley.
This is an old game of the Minister's. The same game is being played now. Some 16,000 tons were imported from Iraq at £19 18s. od. per ton to be sold to the merchants at £23 per ton and to be dished out afterwards at God alone knows what price. Here is a sample of the stuff for which this Minister paid £320,000 of the Irish people's money. Deputy Keane can try to bushel it, but it would take some bushelling. That is the kind of tripe that is being brought into this country and that £320,000 of our money has to be paid for and it is going to be shoved over on the Irish farmers. We hear a lot about admixture schemes. I suppose this will be called "Dillon's admixture scheme."
It is for the singing birds behind him.
No, he bought other stuff for them. There is also stuff called Sorghums—probably the Minister will call it "sourgums" in future—which he has brought in here. Here is a sample of it. It is like something you would find under a machine after the threshing. Here is a letter from one of these merchants:—
"The Grain Importers (Éire) Limited have just purchased two cargoes of feeding barley for shipment from Iraq during April-May, as per sample herewith...."
God be with the decent malting barley produced by the Irish farmer if he is to find that rubbish piled in the stores. It will have to be sold because the Minister has paid £320,000 of our money for it. Somebody else must get it. Somebody must buy it. That is the kind of tripe he bought.
It is like the dual-purpose hen.
"...and subject safe arrival, can now reserve subject unsold, for immediate acceptance, a limited quantity only at £23 per ton...." I am quoting from a letter to a merchant from a firm known as McKinnon and McDonald, Limited, Grafton Street, Dublin. "There are also prospects...."—live and hope, even Deputy Rooney's dual-purpose hen. Live and hope—God knows, she would be more than a dual purpose hen when she would have that stuff inside her.
Did you find any old hens for yourself?
"There are also prospects of obtaining some Queensland Sorghums for same shipment, as per small sample enclosed, in the region of £24 10s. to £25 per ton, similar terms as maize, and if interested shall expect to hear from you accordingly." As I have said, this is an old game of the Minister's, this game of glutting the market.
My object in raising this matter on the adjournment to-night is to endeavour to protect some of those who were fooled twice. They were fooled in respect of oats and they were fooled in respect of spuds. In spite of that, they were fools enough again to answer the Minister's appeal this year to grow Ymer barley for feeding purposes— and, when they would have grown it, they would get this. This was going to be stuck up inside the stores waiting until the unfortunate farmer would come with his barley. The merchant would meet him at the door and say: "My stores are full. I have no room for any more. You can take it home." Mind you, good malting barley was offered on the Continent of Europe last October at 40/- a barrel: good malting Irish barley—not that tripe and dirt of which I have a sample here. Nobody on the continent at that time would pay 40/- a barrel for it, apparently. But the Minister had to go out to Mesopotamia to bring back this as a substitute. I invite any farmer on the benches opposite to come over here and have a look at the sample which I have here and to tell me what he would feed that type of stuff to. I invite him to compare it with any Irish barley that he ever saw. I think he will agree that this is a mixture of wild black oats, hay seed——
Beet pulp.
If it were beet pulp it would be good. I have never before seen anything like this stuff—and the Minister has paid £320,000 of our money for it. He has brought it in here and thrown it in like the barley was thrown in last year. We all remember how the unfortunate farmers had to drag the brewers and the maltsters into the courts to extract from them the 57/6 to which they were entitled under our agreement made in spite of the Minister, last year. That is the position as far as those people are concerned. It is to protect their interests and to protect the dupes from the Minister that I have raised this matter to-night. I shall end now, as I want to give my colleague, Deputy Lahiffe, an opportunity of saying a few words on this matter also. We have a right in this House.
Unfortunately, yes.
At Question Time to-day I asked the Minister for Agriculture a number of questions in relation to this matter and, arising out of the reply which he gave, I asked him a supplementary question. I asked him if he would ensure that those farmers who took his advice this spring and sowed Ymer barley would not be left with it on their hands and his reply was that it should be fed to live stock. We heard that type of talk in 1948 when the barns were overflowing with potatoes and oats. Deputies who represent city areas should take cognisance of the fact that only now are we beginning to reap the result of advice to "feed it to live stock" because the city dwellers have to pay 4/- a stone to-day for potatoes which recently cost 2/6 a stone. That position need never have arisen and would not have arisen had the farmers been met in a proper spirit in 1948 in connection with the potato question. Had they been properly treated then they would have continued to produce an abundance of potatoes and we would not be in the position in which we are to-day. Those farmers who have now taken the Minister's advice in regard to the sowing of Ymer barley must not be treated like that. It is all very fine for the Minister to advice people to increase the number of their live stock and to feed them with the surplus. I would point out, for instance, that my constituency, which is a tillage area, is composed mostly of small or middle-sized farms and the capacity of these farms to carry live stock is very limited. The farmers there produce an abundance of animal feeding stuffs and food for human consumption but they can absorb only a limited supply of their produce on their premises. What, then, about the surplus? Are they going to allow it to rot in the barns again? Instead of paying £23 a ton for his foreign stuff, which is not a reasonably good food and which is certainly not as good as the most inferior type of barley we can produce here, would it not have been wiser to guarantee the price to the Irish farmer for his barley?
What did you guarantee?
You asked that before.
If the farmer only got a guarantee of £23 a ton I am quite sure he would produce sufficient feeding barley to fill the requirements of the home market and, while he might not make a great profit out of it, he would at least be in a better position than the position he is in at the moment. I would point out that the harvest time on the farm is the time when the farmer has to meet the bills for his rates, taxes and so on. If farmers put in live stock to consume their own produce do you think that they can drive the live stock up to the rate collector and say: "Take this bullock as it is the only thing I can produce"?
Deputy Lahiffe is aware that the Minister is entitled to ten minutes?
The Minister may not be aware that large quantities of feeding barley are in the hands of the merchants. There are thousands of tons of it in my constituency. Merchants cannot purchase it because they cannot get a market for it. That has been the position since last August. He also states that the price of maize has gone up by £4 a ton. Should he not have foreseen this and given a guarantee to the farmers if they would produce a substitute for maize? He could not.
He came to my constituency last September and said that the farmers would have noted a prognostication that maize would cost them more. "I am the Minister in charge of maize," he said, "and I can tell you the price of maize will not advance by one farthing in foreseeable time." Can he not learn a lesson? There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
Deputy Lahiffe complains in one breath that Galway is bursting with unsold barley, and in the next breath he rebukes me for not having evoked a larger crop of barley than was, in fact, available. On which leg does he stand? Is there a large unsold surplus of barley in Galway, or is it the case that I dissuaded the farmers from growing cereals and thus created a shortage which should not exist? It is silly to get up in this House until you have made up your mind on which leg you want to stand, and if the Deputy would stand for ten seconds on either leg, I would take steps, figuratively, to bowl him over. But I cannot do it while he is hopping from leg to leg.
If the Deputy knows of any quantity of barley unsold on the hands of farmers in Galway, I would be grateful for their names and addresses. There is a brisk market to which they can be directed and in which that barley will be eagerly bought. But the Deputy has never taken the trouble to give me that information, and surely it would not be an excessive service to the constituents who elected him to send me a postcard, without a stamp, setting out the names and addresses of the hundreds of farmers whom he knows and who have barley available? I shall await his communication and report to the House on its contents when I bring my Estimate before it.
When I listened to Deputy Corry I could not but think of my friend the cannibal queen in a south sea island who determined to ape the manners and customs of sophisticated ladies. She was told amongst other things that sophisticated ladies took afternoon tea, so she ordered a pound of Lipton's best tea. One day her entourage were surprised to observe that she appeared in some embarrassment. They inquired from the queen why she was so embarrassed and they discovered she was eating the tea. The lady was not accustomed to it.
Was she a friend of yours?
She was a simple, charming lady, as Deputy Corry is a simple, charming man. The Deputy reminds me irresistibly of that kindly creature. Her trouble arose from her incurable ignorance. Fortunately, there were missionaries at hand to tell her she should have brewed the tea instead of eating it and, if she did, she would find it very much more delectable. Being an adaptable lady, I have no doubt she did.
Did she consult the cannibal king?
Apparently not—there is no report about that. Deputy Corry produces his dismal saucers here to-night and he rattles the scrapings of his pocket. I do not know where he got his samples. This I do know, that there was a shortage of feeding-stuffs here and that the people who were raising live stock were entitled to look to me to see that there was made available for them supplies of good feeding-stuffs on which their live stock would thrive and prosper—and I did not fail them. Barley was secured at a time when it was extremely difficult to get barley, and that was incorporated in compound feeds which were regularly tested by the scientific officers of my Department and which were required to conform to standards prescribed by the dietetic officers of the Department of Agriculture.
It is merely exasperating to hear Deputy Corry speaking of the barley market of Ireland being depressed by the action of this Government. Barley was worth 64/9 in 1943 and, by order of the Fianna Fáil Government, it was made a crime for any brewer in Ireland to pay an Irish farmer more than 35/-. Barley was worth 59/3 and 310,000 barrels were brought into Ireland at that price in 1944 and Fianna Fáil made an Order making it a crime for the brewers who brought in foreign barley and paid 59/3 a barrel for it—they made it a crime for those brewers to pay an Irish farmer more than 35/-. In 1945, 360,000 barrels were brought into this country at 59/- a barrel and Fianna Fáil made it a crime for a brewer to pay an Irish farmer more than 35/-. In 1946, 345,000 barrels were brought in at 63/3 and Fianna Fáil made it a crime for any brewer to pay an Irish farmer more than 35/- for it. In those five years the Fianna Fáil Government compelled the brewers of this country to rob the barley farmers of Ireland of £2,070,000, and that money was not skimmed off for the benefit of the Exchequer or the taxpayer; every single penny of it went into the coffers of the brewers.
We wanted wheat.
They were going to make them grow wheat and the way to make them grow wheat was to hand them over into the hands of the brewers and say to the brewers "Do not pay them for the barley; make them grow wheat, starve them into growing wheat." Well may Deputy Corry turn to Deputy Briscoe and say: "May God defend me from my friends." This I guarantee: no brewer in Ireland will ever be allowed, much less compelled, to rob the farmers of two millions sterling for their own pockets.
Now, let us see the situation as it stands to-day. Here are two farmers —well, one and a half farmers—and they are rent with apprehension lest the barley in their saucers will imperil the crops that are due for reaping next September. What do they think is going to happen to the barley? Do they think it is going to grow in the saucers? How in the name of commonsense can barley brought into the City of Dublin in the month of April compromise the price level of barley coming for sale off the lands of Ireland in the month of September? Now, if the Deputy can do anything to diminish the production of foodstuffs next Autumn, I know he will do it. For the past two years he and his colleagues have done their best and failed. They are falling to bits. They know it and we know it and no attempt to destroy the successful policy of this Government in agriculture has any prospect of success.
We will grow barley this year and, please God, we will have abundant crops of oats and potatoes too. Despite the fury and indignation of the Deputy and his colleagues, our farmers will continue to prosper this year and next year more than they have prospered for many years.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 11th May.