Perhaps it is about £22. However, take the figure £24 and again the Minister cannot prove in connection with store cattle one to two years old that he made any miraculous increase in prices as compared to that which took place during the last three years of our office.
I am only asking the Minister to be reasonable in his assertions and in the manner in which he boasts of his achievements. People I think have got the feeling that the Minister is an individual with a certain amount of magic attached to him. His most enthusiastic supporters go around the country as if he had only to raise a wand and everything would be perfect, but many of them have learned a lesson.
I will take fat cattle two to three years old which I understand are forward stores. In February, 1945, the price was £25.44 and in February, 1948, it was £36.58, an increase of £11 on £25. I am told that the February, 1951, price of these beasts was about £45 to £50. I got that from three Deputies. That is to say that the increase averaging about £11 is practically the same in the past three years as in the last three years of our office. I can tell the Minister that in February, 1950, the figure was £43 and again he may say that that last price is underestimated, but whatever it was, £45, £47 or £50, it again shows no miraculous increase in his first three years as compared to what we were able to achieve in the last three years of our office.
I am going to be perfectly fair with the Minister. Where there has been a remarkable increase I am not going to refrain from instancing it. Take bacon pigs. In February, 1945, the price of prime bacon pigs was 166/- per cwt. dead weight and in 1948 it had gone up to 192/-. I understand that at the present time it is about 235/-. That does show quite a considerable increase during the Minister's period of office compared with our last three years. The Minister can have it for what it is worth.
On account, I think, of the tremendous demand for wool, the increase in the price of sheep has been very remarkable during the past three years compared with our last three years, but the Minister can hardly take responsibility for the buying capacity of the Russian and American Governments of Australian wool and I think he will admit to me that unless that remarkable demand for wool for military purposes had taken place there again the increase in price would not have shown that he had succeeded to any greater extent than we did.
The price of eggs in February, 1945. was 25.25/- per 120 and in 1918 32.42/- per 120. In 1951, I understand, the price is about 25/-. There is no remarkable increase there as far as the marketing of eggs in Ireland is concerned. In Britain, in fact, they have gone back in price at the moment to what they were in February, 1945. That may be a temporary thing, but there again the Minister cannot produce out of the period of three years after he came into office a miraculous increase in prices.
I mention these things because it is time that they were pointed out to the people and because it is time that the people realised that we did not do too bad a job, as far as the price structure of agriculture is concerned in the last three years of our office. It was nothing to be ashamed of. As far as farmers were concerned, there was a very good increase in prices during that period. I am not saying that it was not even more difficult to increase prices when the period of post-war inflation was over; I am simply saying that the increases were not as have been indicated in propaganda.
I next want to speak about the Minister's boasts about the 100 per cent. increase in agricultural exports he was going to achieve in five years once he had got the rotten Fianna Fáil Government out of office. Three out of the five years are over. He spoke of volume not value. He is going to have the figures cited because it is time that the country learned the truth about these matters. In 1947, the last year of our office, the number of cattle exported was 482,000 and in 1950 the number exported was 494,000. I think that is an increase of just about 12,000 and there is no sign of 100 per cent. increase there. It was all nonsense that the Minister talked about being able to increase the volume of cattle exports in five years when they only increased by 12,000 in number since 1947. What kind of talk is that? How much longer will we have to listen to that kind of talk in this House?
As to dead poultry the Minister did achieve his object and I hand it to him. I will be perfectly fair on this: he about doubled the volume of our dead poultry exports. Of course it is not a very large part of our trade.
As to eggs he did achieve his object but, of course, a great part of the measure ot his achievement lay in the foundation agreement which we made with Great Britain which he has not been able to preserve in its original form and already a decline in egg exports is beginning and at the rate it is going we can, I think, say that it is very doubtful that at the end of five years the net increase in the volume of our exports will be 100 per cent. If the number of people who are producing eggs at present go out of production at the same level for the next five years as they have done in the last few months the Minister, I think, will not be able to say at the end of that period that he has achieved a 100 per cent. increase.
Those are the principal things. The volume of our raw wool exports has not increased by 100 per cent. Our condensed milk exports have not increased by 100 per cent. Pig products and ham exports have only just begun so it is impossible to say what will be the result at the end of the five-year period.
Anyway, these are the facts. He has not been able, and he will not be able, to carry out the wild boast he made when he was exultantly taking office and saying that everything Fianna Fáil did was so rotten that, provided he applied himself to his work, the result would be a miracle. I might add that there are other features in connection with his ministerial statements which again show a great exaggeration. The Minister talked about the appallingly low figures of the number of cattle under one year in this country in our last year of office. In column 2589, Volume 111, speaking of cattle under one year, he said there were 850,000 in the country, and he described that as the lowest ever in the history of the country. In 1939, there were 978,000 cattle of under one year. After three years of the Minister's miraculous efforts the figure, for 1950, was 980,000. We all think of the Minister in this country as a cattle man more than anything else. Well, those are the figures. After five years of an economic war and after six years of a world war, those figures do not show that we did very much to wreck the cattle industry.
Under the most ideal conditions of famine prices everywhere, and with Senor Peron and his Ministers holding the British up to ransom, the cattle have gone up from 978,000 to 983,000, just by 5,000. You would find it hard to discover them if you were to scatter them around the length and breadth of the country from Donegal to Cork: you would scarcely notice 5,000 cattle. Just 5,000 more in one year! It is just as well to call the Minister's bluff. Take the whole cattle stocks in 1939. They numbered 4,026,000, and they are now 4,322,000, an increase of 7 per cent. You would not notice even those 296,000 more beasts since 1939. Remember in that connection that it was the end of the five years' economic war. I think there are about 283,000 occupiers of land in this country. They have just about one more beast each after the Minister's three years' miraculous achievement.
The Minister boasted of vast numbers of heifers in calf coming into line throughout the country. The figures show that in January, 1947, there were 142,000 heifers in calf, and according to the latest figures there are 140,000. There does not seem to be any very great increase there. He used to make speeches at meetings of county committees of agriculture saying that the increase was a remarkable achievement. He showed everything was going his way and he gave the impression that that was one of the prime fundamental indicators of what the farmers would do under his régime. In January, 1951, there were 140,000 heifers in calf, 2,000 less than in January, 1947. Admittedly, there were difficulties and there was bad weather, but the fact is that there again the Minister was boasting in a way in which he should not boast if he wishes the farmers, who have reasonable respect for Fianna Fáil —and they amount to more than half— to follow his advice or carry out his wishes or co-operate.
A lot has been talked about milk and I do not want to go into that matter in any detail, but I would like to mention that milk has gone up in price since 1947 by about 7 per cent., and that includes the best period of the year; that is, this year's price is up 7 per cent. over 1947. The price of fat cattle went up in the same period by 28 per cent.; that is, fully-fattened cattle. The price of forward stores, two to three years, went up by over 30 per cent. in the same period. I could go on mentioning other prices, some of which show a very much larger increase. I know you cannot relate the price of milk directly to the price of cattle, but can the Minister stand over an increase of 7 per cent. in the price of milk when there have been so very much larger increases in the prices of cattle? Where does the logic come in? There may be some technical reason, but I would like to hear about it from the Minister. I do not think it is fair so far as the dairy farmers are concerned.
I come now to the question of tillage. I will not repeat what has been said about wheat growing, but I will issue a direct challenge to Deputy MacBride, the Minister for External Affairs, in connection with the whole of the wheat business. It is a very good example of Coalition co-ordination. Deputy MacBride informed this country one and a half years ago, in the course of an interview he gave on his return from an O.E.C. mission, that so far as he could see, this country was exporting more and more cattle to Great Britain and borrowing money to pay for wheat and he added the phrase that they should be growing more wheat. Everybody here knows that there are certain fundamental dollar imports. You have to bring in petrol, tobacco, wheat and other grains and phosphates, some of which come from the dollar market. We have a certain volume of exports to America and invisible imports in the form of tourists and emigrants' remittances. We consider it is wrong to borrows more than is absolutely necessary for the consumption of goods which we import. We do not like the idea of borrowing money for the bread we eat.
I would like to hear the Minister making a justification for the idea that we should borrow money for the bread we eat. Is there any justification for it? Do the members of Clann na Poblachta, who tried to pretend they were true-blue Sinn Féiners, far better Sinn Féiners, "ourselves alone" men, than Fianna Fáil—do they believe it? Why was there that one solitary little bleat from Deputy MacBride in the course of only one speech, only one interview, in which he remarked almost in a whisper that perhaps we ought to be growing more wheat? Why is it Mr. Paul Millar of the E.C.A. has given a broad hint that we might be growing more wheat?
I ask the Minister to give a definite idea of how we stand in this picture of the European plan of the E.C.A. I am not prejudiced. If it is regarded as right and proper by European countries that this island should borrow money from America in order to send more meat to Great Britain, not because it is Britain, not because we love Britain, not in spite of Partition, but simply as part of a European plan, and that it is truly desired by everyone that the E.C.A. mission regard it as part of their over-all plan, then let us have someone who will get up and say frankly:—
"Yes, we are going to borrow money from the Americans for our daily bread in order to take part in a European plan and part of that plan is that at least for the moment we should send more and more meat to the English." I am sufficiently an internationalist to say that while it goes against my natural feelings and natural inclinations, that, if it is a deliberate plan and if the House is taken into confidence in regard to the matter, let us go ahead and do it. My own belief is that it is not necessary that we in this country should contribute to an all-over European plan for the increase of meat consumption and for exports from meat exporting countries to other countries, without having to engage in borrowing for wheat at least more than is absolutely necessary.
My point is this: what is Mr. MacBride doing? There is no Dr. Browne in connection with this matter to raise his head in the Coalition Government. There is no Dr. Browne to come and say: "Either you go out or you make it clear to the people that you are going to run in debt to the Americans for the sake of a European plan. Either you go out or you are going to clarify the issue and you are not going to discourage the growing of wheat because the Minister for Agriculture does not like it or because it might be unpopular in the country or because the farmers might say that the Government is all out for growing Wheat, like Fianna Fáil." There is no Minister like Dr. Browne to get up at that point and plant his feet squarely on the ground and say: "Either I leave or you do it."
My own belief is that when Mr. MacBride made that statement that was an absolutely clear case where he should have called the tune because no one can make an observation of that kind, of that seriousness, without bringing it to the attention of the Cabinet and without making a fundamental stand upon it.
I have tried to be fair about this matter because, as I have said, I will not try to pretend that it necessarily is possible to pay for all our wheat in cash, but I do believe, and we on this side of the House believe, that we need not go so far as we are going in regard to the matter. I Would remind the Minister of his statements in 1947, that he would not be seen dead in a field of wheat, and of the fact that for a very brief period, just after the oats and potatoes debacle, we had a few advertisements about wheat and a few speeches about it, and then, for months and months, so far as his more violent declamations and so far as Department of Agriculture advertisements were concerned, complete silence about wheat, until just recently, when quite suddenly, far too late, we see at the top of the list of the crops to be grown by the farmers, the word "Wheat"; the wheat suddenly coming back again, when it is already too late to sow in many cases, and the Minister has offered an increased price for wheat which, as I am told by wheat farmers, is virtually useless if we have a bad cereal year, as we are very likely to have. He has offered an increased price for wheat which bushels well under conditions when it is unlikely that there will be a good yield of wheat. As I have said, we need some very definite statement with regard to this matter.
Mr. Costello, the Taoiseach, in the course of his speech made in O'Connell Street after the British had passed the Act re-sanctifying the Parliament Act of 1920, said that we would hit the British in their pride, in their pocket and in their prestige. He made a laughing stock of the country in making a statement of that kind. Again we need a definite statement from the Minister for Agriculture, Who is responsible for food exports, that an economic boycott of England was not Government policy, that the statement was never intended, that it was one of those independent statements made by the Taoiseach in his personal capacity, that it was not Government policy and that the Government never had the smallest intention of hitting the British in their pocket. There has been so much blah about Partition in the last three years, there have been So many things said, that, at least, if we are ever going to end Partition we ought to have clarification of our public policy. I want to know who is right. Is the Taoiseach right in regard to that or is the Minister for Agriculture right, and what place does Mr. MacBride take in the picture?
