Deputy Cogan and Deputy Michael Murphy gave me notice that they wished to raise the subject matter of Question No. 63 on yesterday's Order Paper on the Adjournment. I have given preference to Deputy Cogan. Perhaps I could ration the time—20 minutes—between them.
Adjournment Debate—Price of Turkeys.
Yesterday the Minister announced that the price to be paid for well-finished turkeys in the Christmas market this year will be 3/6 per lb. That is the price payable to the producer for live-weight turkeys. While this price represents a reduction of about 7d. per lb. on last year's price and may bring a certain amount of satisfaction to the city housewife, it is a severe blow to those engaged in the production of turkeys. I have every sympathy with the housewives in the towns and cities who have to buy their Christmas dinner, but my first loyalty is to the country housewives, the wives of farmers and agricultural labourers, who rear, feed and prepare turkeys for the market.
There is no need to tell the Minister what it costs in labour, worry and money to produce a turkey fit for market. Like myself, he belongs to the country and knows the circumstances under which this industry is operated. In the main, turkeys are raised by the womenfolk in rural Ireland as a means of supplementing their income and of providing the housewife and her daughters with a little money which they can call their own. It is only right to say that many of the most successful men in business and the professions owe their education to the hard-earned money derived from the poultry industry, particularly from turkey raising.
It is not necessary to dwell on the grave risks encountered by the turkeyraiser. From the very moment the young turkey breaks the shell, it is menaced by every hazard. If not destroyed by rats in the early stages of life, it may be killed by a heavy shower. If it escapes those risks and passes the redhead stage, it may succumb to the disease known as black head. There is a variety of diseases to which turkeys are liable, various forms of diseases of the liver. Having escaped all these hazards, the turkey may be devoured by a fox.
It is admitted that the raising and fattening of turkeys involves a very great measure of toil, risk and expense. Therefore, the Minister and every Deputy must be sympathetic towards those who raise turkeys. It is a very important national industry, a very important export industry, and it would be a pity if it were allowed to decline because of the inadequacy of the price.
It will be accepted that nobody in this House is more anxious that the producers of turkeys should get a fair price than the Minister. My only motive in raising this matter is to ask some questions in regard to the manner in which the price is ascertained and fixed. I understand that the export of turkeys to the British market is controlled and operated by Eggsports, Limited. I have frequently heard the view expressed, and I would like to have the Minister's opinion on it, that it might be better if there were a freer market. I know quite well that, in a free market, it would be impossible to provide any element of subsidy in regard to the price, but it has been suggested to me that, in a free export market, a higher price might be obtained in the British market.
There is another issue: how is the price ascertained in advance; how can Eggsports, Limited, know in advance the price that they will receive in the British market? As I understand it, there is no central purchasing body in England with which our export company could deal. I would like to point out the possibility that, when the law of supply and demand operates, a higher price than that anticipated may be secured.
It is very difficult in advance to estimate demand, and more difficult still to estimate the total supply. Is it possible that Eggsports' forecast of the British market may be an underestimate, and that the price may be somewhat higher than they anticipate? If that should be the case, it is only right that any increase in price that is secured should be passed back to the producer. If there is any possibility of that happening, arrangements should be made to have records kept of all turkeys purchased, so that any increase secured can be passed back to the producer. I am not suggesting that there is very much hope of that happening, but anything that can be done should be done to secure that the last penny or even the last fraction of a penny will be secured for this very valuable produce.
If it is necessary to send representatives of the Department to Great Britain to ascertain the position more fully, if it is necessary for the Minister to go over to Great Britain to investigate the position, or if there is anything else that can be done, I think the Minister will recognise that it is very important that it should be done. In this case it is a very important industry and a section of the community which cannot afford to suffer a loss. The cost of production has increased all along the line during the past year, and it is hard luck on those who have been engaged for the past nine or ten months in raising these fowl, to find the price will not be as good as anticipated. The disappointment might not have been so great if we had not a position in which the price ranged from 4/- and sometimes in excess of it. This year there will be very considerable disappointment because of the inadequate price. There may be some people outside the farming community who may think that 3/6 per lb. is a good price, or that £3 10s. for a 20 lb. turkey is satisfactory enough; but those people have no conception whatever of the amount of labour, worry and expense involved in raising turkeys for the market. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to any proposal for securing even the smallest fraction of a penny more per lb. for turkeys this year.
It is scarcely necessary for me to speak at all. The fact that Deputy Cogan and myself are interested in this agitation should be sufficient to justify it. No announcement made by any Minister during the present session has caused more consternation among the rural population than that made by Deputy Walsh, the Minister for Agriculture, yesterday, that the price of turkeys would be reduced.
As one very conversant with the rearing of turkeys I am satisfied beyond a shadow of doubt that any price less than 4/- per lb. is uneconomic, particularly in view of the present-day value of money. Turkey rearing is a very important industry in rural Ireland, particularly with small farmers and cottiers. It is very seldom that big farmers engage in it, and that is sufficient to show that there is no excess profits in that industry. It gives the small farmers and cottiers and, as Deputy Cogan mentioned, the womenfolk — an opportunity for productive self-employment and it helps in no small way to stem the tide of emigration. There is a bounden duty on any Minister for Agriculture to-day to do everything possible to safeguard such an important industry. As mentioned by the previous speaker, turkey-rearing is not that soft, money-making job that some people, who have no knowledge of it, believe it to be. On the contrary, those people have to face many risks. First of all, the mortality rate among turkeys is much higher than among any other type of poultry. That point has been covered by Deputy Cogan and there is no need to elaborate on it.
However, as we are demanding an increased price, I feel sure it is necessary to some small extent to go into the costings of the commodities which go to the rearing of turkeys. As the Minister is only too well aware, the main commodities such as turkey mash, flake maize and maize in general have increased in price this year over and beyond what they were last year. The price of everything else has increased also. Surely then, if 4/- was only a bare economic price last year, what type of price will 3/6 be this year? When I asked the Minister a supplementary question yesterday, the former Minister for Agriculture, now Minister for Local Government, seemed very agitated or perturbed that a demand for an increased price for any commodity should come from the Labour benches. I feel sure he does not recognise that we are a national Party and take cognisance of every section of the community, that we are particularly interested in the small industrialists, as one may call them, like turkey producers, to see that they are safeguarded and that they get an economic and fair price for their work just the same as the wage earner employed by any industrialist.
I am contending that the price marked out for turkeys this year will not give these people a fair return for their work. You cannot give the turkey producer 4/- and give the turkey to the consumer for 3/6d. If the producer is to get a reasonable price, the consumer must pay a reasonable price also. I will not go into the prices of almost every commodity that consumers have to buy this year, in the brief time at my disposal but I know that the majority of people— 98 per cent. in the constituency I represent — who are turkey producers cannot afford to have one of those turkeys for their Christmas dinner, through force of economic circumstances. So far as the worker is concerned, I believe that next Christmas he will not be able to afford a Christmas dinner, let alone a turkey for it; but that is not on account of the price of turkeys but it is due to the present unemployment and other conditions that prevail. However, if he is anxious for a turkey let him have it and pay a fair price for it, not an excessive one, that will give the producer a fair return for his work.
The Minister may tell us that he has no function in this matter, that the market is free, that 3/6 is the price obtainable on the English market, and he can do nothing about it. If I anticipate him correctly, that will be his answer. If my assumption is correct, let me say that in other years, when the prices of poultry in general were not economic, a system of subsidies and levies was applied to that industry. Why not apply the same now? The Minister has made demands for increased production of this and that commodity. He has been answered so far as turkey rearing is concerned. He states there is an increase of 20 to 30 per cent. in the number produced.
The Deputy ought to give the Minister a chance.
In view of the case made by Deputy Cogan and myself, that it would take at least 4/- per lb. to make an economic price for the producer, and in view of the fact that the turkeys are now in the country and that the producer wants to keep the industry alive, if there is no alternative, the system of subsidy which was applied to the turkey trade before should be applied now.
The Minister to conclude.
Is the Minister not prepared to give way?
I would like to assure the Deputies that I am as much concerned with the price of turkeys as they are, and I am anxious that the producer should get a reasonable price. The difficulty we are confronted with is that we are sending these turkeys to a foreign market. Deputy Murphy, in particular, must recognise that, when he put down a question a fortnight ago, I did not give him an answer regarding the price of turkeys on that occasion because we were making inquiries as to the price of turkeys in Britain at that time. Eggsports have their agents, and they inquired what the prices might be and how they were operating at the present time. We, in the Department, have been making inquiries through other agents, and, as a result of all the inquiries that have been made, we found that it was possible for us to pay a price of 3/6 per lb. These turkeys have to go into the British market to be sold. The price of turkeys is 7d. per lb. less than last year. We are sending out about 5,000 tons during the coming year, about 17 per cent. more than we sent out last year.
Towards the end of his speech, Deputy Murphy suggested that we should subsidise turkeys. Is it the Deputy's contention that we should subsidise turkeys for the British market? Does the Deputy advocate that we should ask the taxpayers of this country to subsidise the turkeys that are going to feed the British?
Have they not been subsidised all the time?
Mr. Walsh
They have not.
Out of the price of eggs?
Mr. Walsh
Let us have the whole story. From 1941 down to 1949 the British Ministry of Food controlled turkeys in England. In 1946 they were controlled, and the prices that obtained were as follows: in 1944-45, the price was 1/10 per lb.; in 1946, 2/1; in 1947, 2/3; in 1948-49, 2/8, and in 1950 they were decontrolled.
The price was then fixed in this country at 4/- per lb. As a result of the price that obtained in England, Eggsports were enabled to build up a fund which was not touched last year. As a matter of fact, we judged the market so closely that we went within a halfpenny of the price of turkeys. The fund in Eggsports may become exhausted this year in order to pay the 3/6. If we are able to get a higher price than the 3/6 that would enable us to maintain the fund which will be reserved for the poultry keepers of the country.
Our belief as a result of the inquiries we made, is that there is not any hope that the price of turkeys will be increased on the British market because we have increased our production of turkeys this year by 17 per cent. British production has gone up by 30 per cent. Consequently, you will have a lot more turkeys on the British market this year than last year. The French are exporting turkeys. There is no dearth of turkeys at all in Britain and we will be very lucky if we are able to maintain the price.
Deputy Cogan asked why Eggsports should be there for the purpose of export. The reason is that if you had a free market again there would be fluctuations in prices. You would not have a uniform price. In short, you would have difficulty in maintaining a regular market or regulating the supply to the market. One week you might have a glut with a consequent drop in price and another week you might have a shortage when the price would go up. By having Eggsports there you are assured of a regular supply to the market and a uniform price for all the producers and that is the best that can be done.
I am as concerned as any Deputy in this House to see that a good price is paid. On the other hand, however, I must face realities and in this connection I must say that Deputy Murphy was very unrealistic when he suggested subsidising turkeys. Where would the money come from? It would have to come from some place. It is very easy for people to come along and say why not subsidise, but where is the money to come from?
Is there any danger that the British will exploit us, knowing that we have so many turkeys?
Mr. Walsh
The British consumer is the person who will exploit us because our turkeys are going into the same market. Our turkeys make a higher price than the British turkeys. We are exporting the best turkeys in the world to the British market and we are getting the highest price. What can be done when one is selling in that market?
If turkeys are subsidised that means you have to get the money from some place, and are we to tax the people on Deputy Murphy's suggestion to subsidise the price of turkeys?
Not at all.
Mr. Walsh
That is exactly what it means. Where will the money come from?
You get it on the eggs.
Mr. Walsh
Surely Deputies do not think the money will fall like manna from heaven.
You get it on the eggs.
Mr. Walsh
There is no collection of money from eggs. That is the kind of tripe we have to listen to.
We will know all about the tripe to-morrow.
Mr. Walsh
Deputy Cogan raised another matter. He said that we might have underestimated the market. There has been no underestimation. We have been watching the market. Prices dropped. There has been no underestimation. I hope we will judge the market as closely as we did last year when we were only one halfpenny out in the price. Eggsports are adopting the same principle in respect of the coming year and if we are able to judge the price as closely as we did last year I think we will do a good job.
As far as the price is concerned, much as I regret it, there is no hope that the price of turkeys will be increased over and above 3/6. If it is possible that more money would be found the fund which Eggsports has can be built up and the poultry producers of this country will get it again.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 14th November, 1952.