asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what will be the likely consequences, if any, of devaluation (a) for the dairy products export industry and (b) for the cattle trade.
Ceisteanna—Questions (Resumed). - Devaluation Effects.
6.
The prices obtainable for Irish exports of dairy products to Britain, which is the predominant market, are not directly affected by devaluation but there may be a certain indirect gain arising from the fact that some of the other principal suppliers of dairy produce to that market have not devalued. In other markets our competitive position has improved in relation to that of countries which have not devalued, but the extent to which we will benefit from this does not depend on considerations of money value alone but will largely be determined by the nature of the import restrictions obtaining in those markets.
Most of this country's exports of cattle and beef also go to Britain and here again there may be certain indirect benefit arising from the fact that some of the other suppliers of beef to that market have not devalued. Our competitive position for beef exports to the US market will be strengthened vis-à-vis supplying countries which have not devalued. Market prices for cattle and beef in the EEC countries have increased relative to prices here as a result of devaluation but the rate of levy is also liable to increase and, as heretofore, the operation of the Community's import levy system will continue to determine the level of trade.
Has the Minister not taken into account the fact that the two other principal suppliers of dairy produce to Great Britain have devalued? Denmark has followed the British devaluation and New Zealand has devalued further than Great Britain, and in the light of that, who are the other substantial suppliers of dairy produce to the British market to which the Minister refers?
Hear, hear: that was my question. The answer the Minister has given is quite ridiculous.
If Deputy Donegan wants to make what he likes out of that, I am quite happy with it.
Perhaps the Minister would be polite enough to answer my question?
I deal with politeness and courtesy when I receive it.
I do not wish politeness or courtesy from the Minister but I demand that he does the work he is paid for. He is paid to inform this House in so far as questions are legitimate and are permitted by the Chair. I asked a supplementary question. Denmark has devalued in the same proportion as Great Britain and New Zealand has devalued rather more than Great Britain, and so we will have a further advantage of more competition in the British market. In those circumstances, how can the Minister expect the House to believe his answer that certain countries supplying Great Britain have not devalued and that we may therefore expect advantages in our future competitive position with the British market in regard to dairy produce?
If the Deputy wants to tell the House what he knows about this matter, that is his lookout. The question was asked by Deputy T. O'Donnell, who left the House some time ago, and I have given him a reply. That reply is available to all the House for perusal and criticism, if they so think fit.
You cannot answer the question because you are not fit to answer it.
The first answer was incorrect.
The first answer was just ignorance.
The committees of agriculture deserted him and that is why he has the dark glasses on.
My word, when they get a clear majority, what bullocks they become.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputies allow questions to proceed?
We beat you down before and we will beat you again.
You never beat anything.
There are 138 questions on the Order Paper. Deputies must allow questions to continue.
Deputy Dillon does not want an answer except to say what he knows.
We will answer that more intelligently than you.
He is only interrupting the House.
Question No. 7.
(Interruptions.)
You wrecked the place when you were there.
The best Minister for Agriculture we ever had was Deputy Dillon.