Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Jul 1934

Vol. 18 No. 30

Appropriation Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

As the Seanad is aware, this Bill provides for the issue from the Central Fund of the moneys required for the balance of the Estimates for the current financial year, not already covered by the Central Fund Act of 1934. There have been no supplementary estimates to date with one exception—the exception of the £300,000 which is provided as an advance from the Guarantee Fund to local authorities in respect of land annuity arrears not yet collected. The total sum required, as set out in Section 1 of the Bill, is £19,448,207 as compared with £17,750,847 on this occasion last year. Section 2 of the Bill is in the usual form and gives to the Minister for Finance power to borrow for the purpose of meeting demands on the Exchequer. Section 3 of the Bill expressly appropriates to the various services set out in Schedule B of the Bill the total amounts granted for the supply services since the passing of the Appropriation Act, 1933. That Schedule, therefore, includes supplementary estimates amounting to £2,181,888 which were passed during the last financial year. The second paragraph of this section also gives power to utilise certain Departmental receipts as appropriations-in-aid for the specific purposes mentioned in the Schedule.

Section 4 provides for the usual statutory declarations being made before a person can receive payment in respect of superannuation or other non-effective services. This safeguard is necessary in order to prevent payment in respect of superannuation or other non-effective services being made to a person not entitled to receive such benefit. The Schedules set out in detail the specific purposes for which the sums granted by the Central Fund Act, 1934, and by this Bill, are to be appropriated. Schedule B forms the basis of the audit of the Appropriation Accounts to be subsequently carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Part I of Schedule B is in effect an amendment of Part II of Schedule B of the Act of 1933 and shows the additional sums provided by way of additional and supplementary estimates during the year 1933-34. On the Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill in March last, I reviewed in some detail the programme of expenditure so that I think it is unnecessary for me to refer to it again at this stage. This Bill, however, also provides the Seanad with an opportunity of raising any matter in connection with the general administration of the public services. In that connection, it is customary for members of the House who desire to raise any matter to notify the Minister in charge—in this case the Minister for Finance— so that arrangements could be made to secure the attendance of the Minister responsible for those specific questions to which attention was to be directed or consideration given.

Mr. Counihan

In looking over the items of this Bill it struck me that, now, more than half the adult population of this country are receiving money from the State in the way of pensions or salaries or payments for unproductive work. Looking at the items as they stand, it makes one ask the question, how long is it all going to last? Our expenditure has increased over £5,000,000 in a couple of years. Our trade has fallen by 50 per cent., and our adverse trade balance has increased from £12,000,000 to £18,000,000. I contend the figure of £18,000,000 is not correct and that it would be much more correct to say that our adverse trade balance is over £20,000,000. We are paying £2,500,000 in bounties and subsidies. Most of that goes to foreigners and is sent out of the country for the purpose of selling our goods. I contend that should be subtracted from the prices we receive for the goods we send out for export.

My particular reason for rising is to refer to the statement made by the Minister for Finance on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on the 4th July this year. In column 1765 of the Official Reports he is reported as having said:—

"It may be quite true that the farmers are suffering. I do not deny that the farmers are suffering here as they are suffering elsewhere. At the same time, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that in counties like Mayo farmers have paid 99 per cent. of their annuities and, according to the last figures I saw, 92 per cent. of their rates. The same is true of a number of other counties."

That statement of the Minister must do away with the contention often put forward by members of the Executive Council and other representatives of Fianna Fáil that there is a conspiracy amongst the farming community not to pay their rates and annuities. I contend that 75 per cent. of the people worthy of being called farmers in Mayo are supporters of the United Ireland Party, and the fact that 99 per cent. of them have paid their annuities certainly does away with the contention that there is a conspiracy amongst them not to pay their rates or annuities. There is another question. It is easy for the farmers of Mayo, and other counties in the Gaeltacht, such as Kerry and Cork, to pay their annuities. The standard of living in these places is very low. Does the Minister want to reduce other farmers to that level? The rates or annuities of these farmers could be paid by one of their sons getting three or four weeks' work on the roads. The money thus earned would pay the annuities of a big percentage of the Mayo farmers. And therefore if the contention is right that the farmers in Mayo are able to pay their rates and annuities, are we to take it that the other farmers are in a conspiracy not to pay their rates? I would like the Minister to tell us, when he mentioned that 99 per cent. of the annuities and 92 per cent. of the rates were paid, was he referring to the year 1932/'33 or the year 1933/'34. Following up that statement, the Minister said:—

"They paid them and the fact that they paid them shows that they could pay them. I think that is an indication also that other people could pay. That is the position in a certain number of areas. In one of the areas where the collection is worse both in regard to non-payment of annuities and non-payment of rates, I happen to have personal knowledge of circumstances attaching to one farm of £50 valuation. I have been at pains to satisfy myself as to the position of these people. They tell me—I believe they are telling me the truth—that in the year 1932/'33 they were better off than they were in the year 1931."

I will accept the Minister's statement that there are exceptional cases where it is possible that the farmer could be better off in 1932-33 than in 1931, but would the Minister tell us what class of farming that man is carrying on? I can speak from personal experience. I practise all branches of farming, except growing tobacco and beet, and I can assure the House definitely that there are not 5 per cent. of the farmers capable of holding out in this country for another year and paying their rates and annuities, or paying anybody else, if things continue as they are.

I did not rise to make a contentious speech on the economic war, but I would like to bring home to Senators the fact that the country is in a bad way. The whole question of the economic war does not depend upon the retention of the land annuities, nor does the settlement of the economic dispute. We are told that the British Minister for Agriculture and the British Government are out, no matter what happens, to continue the quota on our cattle. I say there is no foundation whatever for such a statement. We have in our hands, if the Government will adopt the proper course, the greatest bargaining power with England of any country in the world. Even at the present time we are the second best customer, and upon a pound for pound basis we have a natural market in England for all the stuff we can produce. When it comes to protecting the British farmer checks are put on, but they put up a different proposition to the British Commonwealth and the Argentine. There is no quota against Canada for her live stock. Does the Minister contend that it is not a political stunt to reduce £500,000 or £550,000 of Argentine beef that comes into England by £30,000, and to reduce our little quantity which, on the whole, would not be more than £35,000, by 50 per cent.? To only reduce the imports from the Argentine which amount, as I said, to over £500,000 by the sum of £30,000 does not make the British farmer's position any better. It is now admitted that the quota system against Irish cattle is of no avail whatever to the British farmer so long as the Argentine stuff is allowed to come into England. The amount of beef imported into England from the Argentine and South America is in or about 600,000 tons. If we assume that it takes on the average three beasts to produce a ton of beef, then the amount of beef we supply to England would be 60,000 tons, and on those 60,000 tons we are cut 50 per cent. As regards the 550,000 tons which the Argentine and South America send into England, there has been a reduction of only 30,000 tons, and I want to emphasise this, that that reduction has never been enforced.

I read in this morning's newspapers a very alarming statement made in the House of Commons yesterday by the British Minister of Agriculture. If the policy outlined in that statement is going to be carried out to the full it will mean not only the complete ruination of our fat stock trade but the complete ruination of tillage, and will create in this country a welter of unemployment amongst our agricultural labourers. The policy indicated in that statement is this: that from 1st September next, and not later than the 1st March of next year, there will be a tariff of 1d. per lb. on all beef either on foot or dead going into England. The amount of money which that tariff will produce is to be given by way of subsidy to the British farmer. With the £6 per head already on our cattle going into England, that tariff is going to put another 50/- per head on them. I read in that statement also that there is to be a 50 per cent. preference for members of the British Commonwealth. That was the one little ray of hope that I saw in the statement. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will admit that we are still members of the British Commonwealth, and that he will take steps to see that we will get this 50 per cent. preference which we are entitled to receive.

Sir John Keane

Hear, hear!

Mr. Counihan

As regards all these tariffs, bounties, subsidies and pensions, the only sufferers are the farmers of the country and the agricultural labourers. No matter what the Minister for Finance may say he will find, if he makes inquiries, that the decent farmers in the rich grazing parts of the country are in a terrible position. The policy of the Government has placed them practically in the position of being herds to foreigners —not Irishmen, mind you—but foreigners. I am in a position to point out to the Minister where you have 5,000 acres of the best land in the country at present being grazed by people who are not Irish nationals. I do not want to mention names, but, if the Minister wants to know it, these people are grazing cattle on that land. They are getting bounties for what they export and they are able to obtain licences, while you have farmers in the Counties of Meath, Kildare and Dublin left practically in the position of being herds. They are being made mendicants of. That is what the most respectable class in the community is being reduced to. That is the position which the country is coming to, and the people who are suffering in that way are receiving very little sympathy from the Government at the present time. I do not want to say anything harsh about Ministers. It is no pleasure to me to have to stand up and speak like this, but I want to assure the House that it is very difficult under such circumstances to speak with an even voice on those matters.

Mr. Dowdall

Senator Counihan has an obsession with regard to the economic war.

Mr. Counihan

No wonder that I would have.

Mr. Dowdall

That is a tacit admission that the Senator has. I would commend the Senator to read the speech made recently by Mr. Baldwin in Worcestershire. It was published in the Manchester Guardian on Monday fortnight. Speaking to an audience of farmers, Mr. Baldwin outlined the measures which his Government had taken, and said that they had more than justified themselves with regard to mutton. He admitted that no appreciable improvement had taken place in the case of beef. He went on to say that it seemed to him that the tastes of the housewifes of England were changing: that they were going in more for the smaller joint. He said if that tendency continued that no legislation that the Government could pass would be effective in raising the prices of fat cattle.

I do not know whether we are fortunately situated in the south of Ireland or not, but I had occasion to visit the Cork Agricultural Show held a week or ten days ago to meet Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Agriculture. I had some difficulty in finding him, the result being that I had to go through all parts of the Show. If the statement that Senator Counihan made a moment ago is true, that the farmers of the country are reduced practically to a condition of mendicancy, it certainly has no application in the neighbourhood of Cork, because I never saw a gathering of better-dressed, better fed or happier looking people than I saw at the Cork Show. The newspapers reported that the attendance at the Show was over 4,000 in excess of any previous record.

Mr. Bohane, the Director of the Royal Dublin Society's Show, said that he recognised that his great show was at last having a competitor. Let us take also the facts and figures in connection with the recent local elections in which all the farmers of the country voted. I do not wish to draw any exaggerated inferences from the results of those elections, but if the condition of the farmers was such as it has been described by Senator Counihan, well, I think that we would have a reflection of that in the elections and that the results would have been very different from what they actually were.

Mr. Comyn

I think that the result of the recent elections goes to show what I have always believed: that the farmers of Ireland will not vote according to self-interest. If there is anything put before the farmers of Ireland which indicates to them that their vote has a national significance, they pay very little attention to their private interest.

Mr. Counihan

Then you do not agree with Senator Dowdall.

Mr. Comyn

Because amongst that class is the real manhood of Ireland, and I would like everybody to understand that. Senator Counihan has spoken on behalf of the farming interest. I do not think that he is entitled to speak for all the farming interest. I think that there is a great section of the farming community who are entitled to have their views expressed through the mouths of people who, in general matters of policy, support the present Government. There is no doubt whatever but that the events of the last two or three years have prejudiced the farming community. I am sure that the Government in the struggle in which they are engaged, now that they have time to think out more clearly and more fully measures of amelioration, will see that measures are taken to ensure that the farming community does not suffer unduly. There are three heads under which I think the case of the farming community may be put. They are prejudiced undoubtedly by the special tariffs imposed by Great Britain in regard to cattle from the Irish Free State. I think that the bounties paid are not a full recompense in regard to the prejudice done to the Irish farmers by reason of these special tariffs. They are also prejudiced under what I will describe as the second head of account. They are prejudiced by the fact that these tariffs have artificially reduced the price, not merely of the cattle exported, but the cattle sold at home. I understand that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture are carefully considering that aspect of the case. The townspeople— you and I, and everybody who consumes beef or other agricultural produce—have been deriving an advantage at the expense of the farmer by reason of the artificially reduced price of beef and other farming commodities. That is the second head of loss.

There is also a matter which has been very much overlooked, I think, by politicians on the other side. The agricultural community is also prejudiced by the tariffs imposed in this country during the last two or three years. These tariffs have resulted in increasing the price of all the commodities which the farmer buys. These are the three heads. I am in favour of these tariffs. I know that they prejudice the farmers. I know that this matter is capable of adjustment, and I am quite confident it will be adjusted as soon as the Government get an opportunity of surveying the whole field. These are the three heads of loss suffered by the farming community. It has not, so far as I can see in the Press, been fully, clearly or dispassionately stated by any politicians on the other side.

But we do represent the farming community and we are thinking of the farming community. Most of us are farmers, as I said, squeezed out of the soil. It is idle to assume that we on these benches do not consider the interests of the farmers. It is idle to say that we have not lost and that all those belonging to us have not lost as the result of what has happened in the last two or three years. But I am happy to say that when there is a national issue it does not influence our votes in the slightest degree. I said on the last occasion that in the north of the County Clare, which is altogether a grazing district, where the people have lost most, perhaps, as the result of the struggle which has gone on, they voted unanimously for the men sent forward by the present Government. The first five men elected to the county council were Fianna Fáil representatives and if they had put up six they would have got the six. That shows that the farmers will not vote according to what might be regarded as their immediate interests. I will say this, that they expect, of course, when occasion offers to see that their interests are looked after and that their condition will be ameliorated as far as possible.

Mr. Milroy

Live horse and you will get grass.

Mr. Comyn

Senator Counihan made a statement which, of course, knowing him as I do, I would accept, but it is a statement of such consequence that I think it ought to be more fully elaborated. He said that 500,000 acres of land in this country are grazed by people who are not Irish nationals.

Mr. Counihan

Five thousand acres.

Mr. Comyn

If it is only 5,000 we can make a present of them. I should say that Senator Counihan himself has more land than that. I must say that he has shown that he was worthy of land, and I am sure he will continue to be of service to his country in the future as he has been in the past. We cannot complain, I think, of the tariffs imposed by Great Britain; it was part of the contest. But I do complain of the quota for reasons which are well known to Senator Sir John Keane and which I hope will be expressed by him in the course of this debate. There is no justification for the quota as against this country. Everybody in this House understands that. Everybody who knows anything of the history and development of this country and of Great Britain knows that imposing a quota against Irish cattle is not playing the game. In fact, I should say that the English would be disqualified by any board of control for a foul blow in regard to that. I do not want to elaborate it further. There are other Senators who can elaborate it fully. There are Senators here who know all the reasons why the statement I now make is true.

I do not know what to say in reference to the tariff of a penny per pound on beef, with 50 per cent. preference, referred to by Senator Counihan. I saw that some days ago —not this morning. I think it is more than a fortnight ago since the first intimation was given as to that change in policy. I do not know how that will affect us. I think that the people of Great Britain are making a great mistake in trying to assail this country through our agricultural industry in the way they have done. No matter what the English people do, it seems to me that they will never be able to supply more than 20 per cent. of their food requirements.

Mr. Counihan

They are supplying 45 per cent. of their beef.

Mr. Comyn

Perhaps it is not well to go very minutely into facts of this kind. Would Senator Counihan say that the 45 per cent. of beef which they are supplying was born in England?

Mr. Counihan

No.

Mr. Comyn

I think that a great deal of it went on foot from this country. There is no real difference between us as to the amount which the English people can supply for their own use. It is perfectly obvious that, in respect of cattle, horses and other agricultural products, they can never dispense with the Irish market. Another point made by an English statesman, who has been referred to here, was that the taste of the English people had changed. Undoubtedly, it has changed. The big round of beef has gone. The English people are going in for smaller joints now. We can supply the smaller joints and Senator Counihan will be able to adjust his industry so as to supply these needs. These are observations which I felt I ought to make as a farmer, representing farmers and the spailpin fanach. I believe that the matters to which I have referred are always present in the mind of the Government. I am perfectly certain that, in a very short time, these grievances of the farming community will be adjusted in so far as they can be adjusted in the circumstances of the time.

Mr. Crosbie

I did not intend to intervene in this debate but when I have heard what Senator Dowdall had to say about Cork Show I felt that I had to get up and endorse all that the Senator had said. It has to be remembered that we, Irish people, have a tendency to celebrate on occasion. While I admit that everything that the Senator said was perfectly true, I cannot help feeling that it is not representative of the true condition of the country and in a few words I hope to point out the grounds of my belief.

I should like to take the Senator to some of the country fairs through which I had to pass on my way to the Seanad. Anything more deplorable could not well be imagined. There is no festive air there. In the towns of Mitchelstown, Thurles, Fermoy, or the other towns on the way from Cork to Dublin, there is no evidence of festivity. On the contrary, one sees a very depressed and, I might say, a humiliated people. You see the cattle going away in droves from the fair and, from the dejected appearance of the people driving them, you realise that they have not met with the demand with which they ought to have met. After all, the farmer to-day has to depend on what he gets for his cattle. If you recollect for an animal similar to that for which his neighbour across the border gets £5 5s., he, with the bounty gets, only 30/-., you will not wonder that he should feel depressed. I differ with my friend, Senator Counihan, who seems to think that no section of the community is suffering save the farming section. If my friend, Senator Dowdall, were here, he would agree with me that the City of Cork is suffering very much, indeed, because of the diminution of the farming revenues. The industries there—I can vouch for this—are not having much effect in balancing what we have lost through the farming moneys.

Mr. Counihan

What about the new factories?

Mr. Crosbie

They are not showing much result, so far. I should like to have two curious things explained by the Minister. I have been going through the flour mills lately and I am told that the consumption of flour has fallen off very largely, indeed. We know that the Government set aside last winter a certain proportion of the supply of creamery butter. That proportion, they believed, represented the amount which had been consumed in Ireland every winter so far. They believed that that butter would have been absorbed by the Irish community before the new season opened. What was the result? At the opening of the new season, they found themselves with hundreds of tons of butter on hands, meaning, so far as I can see, that the people could not afford to buy butter. Senator Comyn made the point that the Government can adjust this question of the price of cattle. There was a wise old king called Artaxerxes, who reigned in Persia——

Mr. Comyn

If I may interrupt the Senator, what I said was that the Government can adjust the burden.

Mr. Crosbie

Out of bounties—out of the revenues of the country.

Mr. Comyn

No. I am not telling them how they are to do it.

Mr. Crosbie

——that very wise king laid it down that the taxes in every country must be borne by the agricultural producers of that country. The fox had many tricks but, when he tried to escape from the hounds, he was caught, but the cat, who had only one trick, escaped. You cannot get away from the fact that there is only one producer in Ireland. That producer is the man who gets from the soil the wealth that God has given to us. Upon his shoulders will the burden of these bounties fall. All these bounties and all these subsidies for the export of cattle must be borne by him.

Mr. Quirke

In view of the fact that we have so many persons here claiming to represent the farmers, I think that it is about time we had a definition of what a farmer really is.

Sir John Keane

A man who loses money.

Mr. Quirke

In every other country you have farmers and you have also ranchers and graziers. The man who is a grazier does not feel in the least insulted if he is so described. In fact, he feels proud of it. In this country we have people who are in reality graziers or ranchers who get highly insulted if they are so described. These alleged representatives of the farmers get up and talk about the farmers of the country. If we had a proper definition of "farmer" it would settle the question once and for all. Senator Counihan talks about the various tariffs put up by Britain against other countries. Does not Senator Counihan and most other Senators here know that the various Ministers in Great Britain have, within the past few weeks, made statements which would convince anybody that their principal object in putting on these tariffs was to protect the British market? For years British farmers have been crying out for this protection from their own Government and their Government —I suppose they have been slow, like a lot of other Governments— eventually have come to the conclusion that it is up to them to protect their own farmers and they have now taken the steps that they consider necessary to protect the farmers of Great Britain.

Senator Counihan talks about the farmers in the rich grazing parts of the country. I say those people are not farmers in the proper sense of the word. If Senator Counihan wanted to speak with any sincerity he should have referred to those people, as his leader referred to them, as ranchers. It was evident, listening to Senator Counihan, that he was not speaking with that same conviction which appeared to be behind his speeches here in the past. On the thousand and one occasions when he spoke of the economic war he spoke with considerable conviction, but he seemed to-day to have lost all that conviction. We must only assume that it was because of the fact that during the last week or two on more than one occasion he and the people he represents have been repudiated by the leader of what he calls his Party. It is hard to blame Senator Counihan if he feels a bit depressed as a result of the action of his leader. I do not think he ought to try to paint such a picture as he endeavoured to paint of the country as a whole. Amongst the various grievances that Senator Counihan has mentioned is the one relating to 5,000 acres of rich grazing land, possibly the fertile plains of Meath and Kildare, being let to people who are not Irish Free State nationals. I do not know to whom the lands are rented, but I take it the Senator means the company who have been exporting cattle to Germany in recent times.

Mr. Counihan

I did not mention any names.

Mr. Quirke

It is pretty easy to read between the lines when Senator Counihan is talking. I know where the boot leans, all right. I do not know exactly to whom the lands are rented, but I do know that at least 50 per cent. of the people who make up that company are Irish Free State nationals. Has Senator Counihan any objection to selling cattle to those people whom he claims not to be Irish Free State nationals? Has he any objection to the friendship of those people when he meets them in the Dublin cattle market? Have his friends raised any objection to letting their lands to those people simply because they were not Irish Free State nationals? I think I am right when I say that the principal grievance that Senator Counihan and his friends have with regard to those people is because they cannot get a monopoly of the trade to Germany which has been a great relief to this country and which everybody should be very glad we secured when we had our backs more or less to the wall so far as Britain was concerned. If Senator Counihan were really interested, even in the ranchers or the farmers of the rich grazing plains of Meath and Kildare, as he claims to be, he would be very thankful to see that company buying our cattle and shipping them to Germany.

Mr. Counihan

I did not say that I had any objection to those people taking the land. I merely mentioned the fact to show the position of the farmers. They had to let their lands. I might mention there are other people besides the company the Senator has spoken of who have taken land that way. There are plenty of English people who have land taken in that manner.

Mr. Fanning

And Jews.

Mr. Quirke

Senator Counihan knows well that if we were left at the mercy of the people in England to purchase our cattle the price of our cattle to-day would not be what it is. The price of cattle in this country was kept up to what it is to-day as a result of these men buying our cattle.

Mr. Counihan

The figures for the last 12 months are quoted as only 6,000 and that is a very small percentage of the 800,000 that we exported to England in other times.

Mr. Quirke

If we had 6,000 extra cattle left on our hands I have no doubt the moans from Senator Counihan and others would be terrible. If they were not buying these 6,000 cattle, or whatever the number is, Senator Counihan knows very well that the other men would be in a position to offer us whatever they liked for our cattle. It is quite obvious to everybody whom Senator Counihan means when he says these people are not Irish nationals. We all know whom he means and I do not want to mention names.

Senator Counihan tried to deny the fact that there was a conspiracy in connection with the non-payment of rates and annuities. That kind of thing is getting a little bit old-fashioned. We have men here and in the Dáil making certain statements when they know perfectly well that there has been such a conspiracy. I would not say there is a conspiracy now because it is about broken by this time. We all know that there was such a conspiracy and the men who said that there was not were the principal organisers of it in the country.

Sir John Keane

Oh, now!

Mr. Quirke

It would be far more decent for these men to stand the racket themselves. When they lead people to battle the least they might do is share the brunt of it. Instead of that, we have these men going behind the backs of their followers in the country and paying their rates and annuities—which, of course, they should do—while advising others not to do so. It is a contemptible thing to see them letting other people bear the burden, but they take very good care to escape any trouble, and I have no doubt some of them have their own cattle grazing on the plains of Kildare.

Senator Crosbie speaks about the depressed and humiliated people whom he has seen at the various fairs. I do not know what they are like in the County Cork, but I would be inclined to take Senator Dowdall's word as against the word of anybody else in that part of the country. He has, perhaps, as much, if not more, association with the people in the country districts as any other member of the Seanad. If Senator Crosbie talks about the depressed and humiliated appearance of the people in the County Tipperary and if he mentions Thurles as one example, if he required to get a more depressed and humiliated bunch of people he should have passed through Clonmel on last Saturday, after some cattle had been sold in the pound and when a protest meeting of United Ireland Party supporters —about 24 of them—was being held, and he would then see some picture of depression and humiliation.

Senator Crosbie says further that the production of flour in the local mills has gone down considerably within the past few months.

Cathaoirleach

The consumption of flour, I think.

Mr. Crosbie

The sale of flour all round has gone down. Not merely the output of the mills, but the actual sale of flour, whether from England or made locally, has fallen very materially, so I am assured.

Mr. Quirke

Senator Crosbie has not quoted his authority for such a statement, but in any case he will hardly hold that the people quitted eating as a result of the economic war or anything else. He will hardly try to argue that we have less people in the country now than we had at any other period. If Senator Crosbie wanted to look into the question from an unbiased point of view, I think he would find that the mills, as a rule, do not keep on producing flour unless they can sell it and I think he would also find that they have purchased more wheat within the past year than they have purchased in any previous year for a number of years.

Last year, in 1933, we imported 8,208,894 cwts. of wheat. In 1932 we imported 5,917,849 cwts. of wheat. If the mills have bought less wheat within the past few months, Senator Crosbie must know as well as anybody else, that the reason for that is that the price of wheat has taken a considerable jump within the past few months and that those people realised that fact and are not prepared to rush in and buy in an inflated market. The wheat crop has been a failure all over the world, as everybody knows, and that is why the price jumped. Senator Crosbie should take that into consideration before making the statement he made.

Miss Browne

I believe I can claim to represent the genuine farmer. I am the definition of the tillage farmer of the country. Senator Quirke more or less challenged this House on that question.

Mr. Quirke

Who is the leader of the Farmers' Party on the other side?

Cathaoirleach

We are not discussing the Farmers' Party.

Miss Browne

There is no Farmers' Party in this House. I can say definitely, as I said here before, and I can prove it up to the hilt, that the farmer who is suffering now under the Government's policy is not the very small farmer who gets employment other than on his farm, who gets employment on roads and gets money in other ways such as Senator Comyn mentioned in Clare. That man is not the representative of the farmer who is suffering. Even the grazier is not the greatest sufferer in this matter. The real sufferer is the man who employs the most labour, who tills the most land, and who uses the produce of his farm for fattening his stock on his farm. He is the real victim, and that is the man I represent and no other. I have no interest in grass at all, except in so far as every farmer must have in his farm a certain amount of grazing to keep his farm going. Above all, if he goes in for horse-breeding, he must have a considerable run of grass or he cannot breed horses. The veriest ass on the country roads can tell that. I am amazed at the kind of discussion that has taken place on this question of the farmers. My county is representative of the districts that have been hit the hardest. We have been told here that the result of the recent elections is a proof that farmers are persons above mundane considerations altogether; that they do not consider the mere question of living in this country at all; that their only outlook is the great national goal of the Republic, I suppose, or something like that.

Senator Comyn made the most fantastic statements—that the farmers have voted for Fianna Fáil because, although they had lost their living, they were concerned with nothing except the great national outlook of the Government. It is exceedingly difficult to have patience in listening to statements like that. The result of the election is written as plain as a pikestaff in the figures. It is the direct result of the doles. It is the direct result of what Senator Counihan said—that more than half the population of this country is living, without doing any work, better perhaps than they ever lived before. They are being reduced to the state of paupers and being fed from the Government's hand and enjoying it. The slums in the towns and villages and other places—there are slums even in the rural areas also —voted in this election for Fianna Fáil. No doubt some of those small farmers voted for Fianna Fáil also because they are not farmers at all. They do not live on what they make out of their farms. The figures of the Labour vote in this election proved that clearly. They proved that the Labour vote is going to Fianna Fáil, and that is all they proved. Labour was the sufferer in this election, not the United Ireland Party, and that is proved by the doles. The demoralising effect of that will be felt for many and many a year to come, even into generations. The demoralisation of the people's character is going on to such an extent that it is painful to think of it.

Senator Comyn mentioned a word that struck me as having a strange sound when he used the word "amelioration." Those who have read the "Jail Journal" of John Mitchel will be familiar with that word. It was a favourite word of those who tried to apologise for the action of the Government during the days of the Great Famine. It is the same kind of people who are now trying to apologise for this Government for the same reason—because they are giving amelioration to the people rather than their rights. That word has a painful significance in the Irish history of the last century. It was the word which John Mitchel quoted with the greatest contempt, and when I hear it quoted now it brings to my mind a remark made to me recently to the effect that this Government are copying not only the wrongdoings of the world at large with regard to economics but every mistake of the British Government. Not only are they undoing some of the good things the British did in their good days, such as land purchase, but they are copying every bad thing the British did in this country. That is the fact.

Senator Quirke said something with regard to the wonderful trade we have had with Germany and the way Germany came to our relief when the terrible enemy over in Britain was trying to hound us down. The British market brought us, for the first five months of this year, £6,750,510. The alternative markets—the war-cry of this Government—brought us from all over the world, £469,306. We bought from Germany goods to the value of £1,037,561, and for all the cattle and all the other goods that we sent over to the German Empire, or the German Republic, or whatever it is, they sent us the grand sum of £6,692. That would not be missed out of the £6,750,510 from the British.

Senator Comyn made a speech—I am sorry I did not time it—enlarging on the wonderful benefit the Germans conferred on us by buying a few cattle when the British were hounding us out of existence by their tariffs.

Mr. Fanning

And skinning the calves!

Miss Browne

I might go a little further with those figures while I am at it. From Soviet Russia we bought goods to the value of £7,638 for the five months. Soviet Russia sent to this country in payment for the total of our exports sent them the handsome sum of £1. That sum was distributed amongst all the importers of this country, I presume. I must offer a word of congratulation to the Statistical Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce. They must have the noses of bloodhounds to find out where that pound went.

Mr. Quirke

What about the Russian gold?

Miss Browne

We are getting fonder of Soviet Russia every day. Now I come to the up-to-date figures with regard to our trade. I have examined the figures with regard to the report in the Irish Trade Journal as to the trade of this country. I submit there is something there that all the Ministers put together cannot answer. It is, to my mind, no use for the Ministers to argue on this little item and that little item. There is here the tally of the ruin of this country under the present Government. The figures I am quoting are from the Trade Journal which all the members here get. It is the most dismal reading that an Irishman or Irishwoman can conceive. Senators will find in the present issue a set of figures which are the result of the Government's policy with regard to our exports.

Mr. Quirke

Turn over to the productive policy, please.

Miss Browne

I could tell the Senator all about that. In the first five months of this year the fall in the value of the total external trade of the country is more than 50 per cent. I am not speaking of the whole time since the present Government came into power. The adverse balance for the five months, January to May, is £1,437,666 in excess of the total export trade of this country. The total external trade of the country for the first five months of this year fell to £12,085,506. That is the external trade alone. The fall in the total external trade compared with 1931 was £38,136,181—the drop in exports alone being £22,714,283. These figures speak volumes.

Senator Quirke said something about production in the country. What is it for? Some time ago a witty man down the country was told off the Fianna Fáil platform that the cattle were to be turned off the grass and men put there instead. His comment was: "God bless us, have we come to that now, that we have to go out and eat the grass? God help us, is that what we are coming to?" That story is absolutely true. I do not wish to delay the House very long over these figures. I am sorry that Senator Johnson is not present. Last week, on the Finance Bill, he challenged me to say where money could be saved out of this enormous expenditure. To show where it could be saved I would have to take a run through a great many of the items. What I am primarily concerned with is the position of the farming community, but as I was challenged on this matter by Senator Johnson I will give him a few items where the money could be saved. Senator Johnson's words were something to this effect— that he would not stand over any reduction in expenditure if it meant taking the bread out of the mouths of the poor. Neither would any of us. None of us here would stand for that. But this Government has reached office on the cry of the poor; it has reached office and place by exploiting the poor. They now occupy the places they are occupying thanks to their exploiting the poor. The poor got the impression that this is the most marvellous Government in the world, perhaps, because they got meat a little cheaper. The people whose votes they secure on this cry cannot see ahead. They are impervious to reason. They only look at a few things. A few days ago, a man out of work down in Waterford proved that he gets more money through being unemployed than if he were at work. That is because of the unemployment system. In every way, the poor are being given the impression that they have to thank the Government for these things; they cannot look ahead. When they wake up, of course, it will be a different matter. They may wake up in time to save themselves and the country.

I will just run through a few little items in this book of Estimates where money could be saved without inflicting any hardships on the poor. In fact, I have here items where money could be saved and a lot of demoralisation could be avoided at the same time. An injustice is being done to many of the people who have to find this money. I will take the items as they come. There is, first of all, the Property Losses Compensation Act. That Act came into operation recently. Huge sums were paid to people who were supposed to have lost during the Civil War. These were people who were on the side of the Party led by Mr. de Valera in the revolt or rebellion which cost this country £35,000,000 or £36,000,000. I know cases that came under my notice where people have been paid compensation for the food they gave to their own sons who were fighting on the side of the Irregulars. I know cases of frightful abuse under this head. I know people who have got compensation who were not at all genuine losers. They have been compensated for what they never lost. To illustrate, I will mention the case of a man known to me personally. I am fully familiar with his case. His son was out with the Irregulars. He came home once a week, perhaps under cover of night. During the rest of the week he lived on the farmers around. He lived well on them and deprived many of them of what they could not well afford. When he came home he brought with him, perhaps, a couple of fellows and stayed for the night. I know that man got £15 compensation for what he was supposed to have lost. I have made out a long list of such cases. I have gone through them. A most marvellous fraud was perpetrated in compensating people who went out in rebellion against the country and against its Government. Compensating such people is immoral and wrong. It was never yet done in any country in the world that the people who went out in rebellion on the losing side were compensated.

Then there is the Secret Service Vote. In this we see an increase of £15,000 over last year. That Vote was £10,000 last year and now it is £25,000. What is happening to the country that so large an increase is required for the Secret Service Vote? We were told by Mr. de Valera when the Oath Bill was going through the Oireachtas that once it was passed there was going to be peace in the country and no more trouble or opposition. The fact is that these people are irreconcilable—more irreconcilable than ever. The passing of that Bill has done no good to the country. It has done a great deal of harm by raising a great deal of prejudice against this country abroad. Anybody who accuses me of being a pro-Britisher or anything else but pro-Irish is making a charge that is not true. I deny any such thing. There was never anything in the Oath which would cause any harm or injure in any way the people who took it. Thomas Davis once said——

Cathaoirleach

That hardly arises on the Appropriation Accounts.

Miss Browne

It does not. But I have been challenged to show where savings could be effected. Now, on the Gárda Síochána Vote there has been an increase of £70,460 over last year. We know why the Army Vote has been increased. It is increased in order to raise a political Army in this country for reasons that are plain. Then there is the increase in the Vote for Agriculture. I am asked where could savings be made there? Well, the only recommendation one could make in that matter is that the whole service could be scrapped altogether, for the Department is a hindrance instead of a help to agriculture. When the late Government was in office we heard a great deal of criticism about garden parties. But we had a garden party two days ago in the Albert College. That was given for the benefit of people who were called farmers. I would like to hear a definition of these farmers. All that Vote with its subsidies and bounties could be scrapped altogether without any injury to farmers.

Then there is the matter of wireless broadcasting, and here I want to make a protest against using the broadcasting station for political propaganda. That is a disgraceful thing. I now come to the repayment of the Dáil Eireann Loan. That is an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers of the country. I could go over a great many other things and pick out almost at random items in which the money is practically thrown away by the Government; it could almost as well be thrown into Dublin Bay as used in the way in which it is used. If that money were saved, it would not take one penny out of the mouths of the poor.

I mentioned something about commissions being set up. Some of these were, of course, necessary, but what I want to complain about is that the money that pays these people who sit on these commissions is contributed by the taxpayer and ought to be expended on people who are competent to do the work for which they are appointed. I know of one glaring case—I will not mention the commission—where a man, a defeated T.D., was appointed to a position on a commission that required considerable financial knowledge. That same man has the education of, we will say, an agricultural labourer. He went to a national country school till he was about 14 years of age, and he is by no means an intelligent man. That was a job, purely and simply, and I could give many others. These commissions have been used to compensate people for being defeated in an election or to buy the support of other people. Instead of putting properly qualified people on them, the money of the taxpayers is used to appoint people whom this Government wishes to favour.

Mr. MacEntee

Might I make a point of order?

Cathaoirleach

The Minister wishes to make a correction, I suppose?

Mr. MacEntee

On this question of commissions, there is nothing that I am aware of in the Appropriation Bill which provides for the payment of people sitting on these commissions. I am afraid that the Senator in referring to an appointment to a commission was referring to something for which provision is not made in the Appropriation Accounts.

Cathaoirleach

What item of the accounts is the Senator referring to?

Mr. MacEntee

It is not in the Appropriation Accounts.

Cathaoirleach

Do not continue it, Senator.

Miss Browne

The commissions are appointed by the Government but I was wrong, perhaps, in bringing it up under that head.

Cathaoirleach

It is wrong, Senator.

Miss Browne

I suppose the same could be said about the beet factories. After all, the subsidy to the beet factories is Government money subscribed by the taxpayers of the country and the most scandalous victimisation has taken place in regard to the filling of positions in connection with the new beet factories. Men who have had years of experience as loading agents and other positions of that kind through the country have been either thrown out or the positions made worth so little that they are practically of no use at all to them. New men who know nothing about it are being put in. I have been told by very reliable people, and have seen it published in the papers, that the staff in the new beet factories has been recruited from Fianna Fáil followers to an altogether unjust extent. Of course, a few little trifles are thrown to the others. That is the spirit that comes out in all the dealings of the Government and you can see it in the appointments since the late elections. That does not come under the Appropriation Bill. That is all I have got to say. There are many other things one could speak about but that is a general outline.

Colonel Moore

I suppose it is on account of the very hot weather that I got rather tired of the subjects discussed for the last couple of hours and I think we might very well progress in regard to the lengthy matters we have before us. I note that Vote No. 25 amounts to £900,000 and Vote No. 76 to £250,000, making a total of £1,150,000. Those are both, I take it, in relief of rates on land. The amount of these rates has gone up, I think, but in spite of that the distribution of rate charges is carried out in such a way that many farmers find their rates nearly doubled. The reason for that is, of course, because the whole system of distribution of charges for rates has been changed. Instead of being charged on the land itself, it is mostly charged on the people working on the land. At all events, the relief is on account of that. The object, of course, of that is good and I do not say it is not good. The object is to create tillage, which we all desire, but when you go into the question you find that it is very hard on some farmers. If the whole of Ireland were one flat piece of land, all of which could be tilled, I dare say it would work out pretty well, but that is not the case at all. Some parts of the land can be tilled and other parts cannot be tilled. Some parts are nothing but rock with a little grass in between, here and there. Some of it is unsuitable for tillage of any sort and these people have to use their land for what it is fitted for and in some cases it is fitted only for sheep and goats, and in some places for cattle. These people get only a very small reduction whereas other people who till the land get very large reductions in their rates.

Yesterday we had a good deal of talk about equality and justification and so on, but here is a case where I think it is unfair to these people that they should get no relief in their rates, not because of any fault of theirs but merely because their land is not suitable for tillage. Anybody who has been down in Clare knows that a great part of the country is nothing but rocks with grass in between. It is good for sheep grazing as the grazing is rather sweet and good, but no plough can plough it. So it is with other parts of the country. I have been told of the case of one person's land, and since last year the rates have doubled because he gets no relief to speak of. I do not think that is proper or wise. I think those people who use each piece of land for what is suitable, one for tillage and another for grazing and so on, should be treated equally instead of having their rates raised because they do not get any allowance. They have been nearly doubled since last year. I must apologise to the Minister for not having mentioned this matter to him in advance and I cannot expect him to answer the points I have raised, but he can answer them when the matter comes up again. I think it is an important matter and the Minister should consider what can be done. I do not think it necessary to say anything further.

Cathaoirleach

Might I mention to any members of the House who were not here at the beginning of the sitting that it was decided to sit until 7 o'clock, and if it were then found that we had not completed the business, we would adjourn for an hour and come back at 8 o'clock and try to complete the business this evening.

Mr. Douglas

I do not propose to continue generally the discussion on the so-called economic war, but there are one or two matters of administration to which I should like to call the attention of the House. I cannot resist the temptation to express a certain amount of satisfaction at the frank and candid speech of Senator Comyn. Generally when we have a debate, every aspect of a question is seen through coloured Party glasses. If you see things through the Fianna Fáil Party glasses, everything is excellent; but if you see them through the glasses of the Opposition Party, they are hopeless and absolutely bad. That is what we usually have. We had Senator Comyn to-day quite frankly admitting that things were not satisfactory as far as the farmers went. The Senator said that quite candidly. It is true that he has great faith— unfortunately some of us have not got it—that as soon as the Government had time to survey the situation and to bring forward measures of amelioration, things will be all right. The Senator said that he was not able to say how that would be done but he felt that they would be all right. His speech was a candid one, such as we have not often heard here and if the Senator were in the House now, I should like to congratulate him on it.

The subject I want to refer to is one that I have called attention to previously and Ministers have stated that they would carefully consider it. However, nothing has been done. Yet I am convinced that it would be in their own interests, and in the interests of the country generally, if they would deal with the position. I refer to licences. I am not opposed to the granting of licences under the present tariff system. Licences for free imports have to be given to a very large number of persons. They are given principally to manufacturers, but sometimes to others for special reasons. As I have had some experience of firms which had to ask for licences, I want to say quite frankly, that with the exception of a few complaints, they have been dealt with with reasonable expedition. I have no complaint to make that they were dealt with unfairly, or that there was any political bias, but all over the city you have whispers that So-and-so got a licence because he was in the Fianna Fáil Party; and whispers that So-and-so got a licence which could not have been granted but for some other reason. When these rumours are investigated it is found that there is no truth in them. There is a whole mass of whispers and the whole system has got into disrepute because of secrecy.

My suggestion to the Government is, if they did not publish a long list of names in the official journal, that after a period of three months a list of the licences granted should be available for anyone to see on reasonable application being made, either to the Department of Industry and Commerce or to the Department of Finance. That would be open and above board and there could be no charge of unfairness. I am not making such charge. I have no reason for making it. With the industrial policy that this country has undertaken, and with high tariffs, you must have licences. I want those licences to be given in a way that no Party or interest can question the whole system or suggest that anything is being done unfairly. I maintain that the policy of secrecy is bad, and that it is having a bad effect. I believe the whole system is bad. I want to keep business out of politics. Ministers promised to look into the matter and saw no fundamental objection to doing so, but nothing has been done. I urge the Government to say whether there is any real reason why there must be a policy of secrecy for licences.

I should like to get some more information from the Minister. We have been sent copies of two international conventions during the last few days. One deals with the suppression of counterfeit currency, of which I know very little, but I was surprised that we were not a party to it. There is no reason why we should not be.

Mr. MacEntee

Both of these conventions were before the Dáil recently.

Mr. Douglas

Are we going to adopt them?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Douglas

They have not come before this House formally yet. I am particularly glad that second convention, dealing with films of an educational character, is to be adopted. I presume it will mean that a Finance Bill will be introduced to extend the definition of educational films. I think that is desirable. I have several times advocated the widening of the scope, in order that films—not those used by institutions or schools—which would educate public opinion in internationalism and on questions affecting the League of Nations, should be allowed in free. They would not pay sufficiently well for public exhibition if they were subject to a high duty. I think quite a number of them would be shown here if they could come in free of duty. I am particularly glad that it is the intention to ratify these conventions.

Mr. O'Farrell

I have only one or two matters to refer to. One is, perhaps, a little more important than it may seem to be, from the point of view of the tourist industry, dealing with the examination of passengers' luggage at ports of entry. Whilst on the whole nobody can reasonably complain of the manner in which Customs officers deal with passengers' luggage, there are times when they seem to lose their heads, and give a very unhappy display of surveillance that is absolutely unnecessary and uncalled for. On one occasion recently, during a tremendous rush of passengers in connection with the Sweepstakes, when the majority of the people were coming only for the week-end, and some only for a day, the extent to which they were inconvenienced at Dun Laoghaire was absolutely uncalled for. It showed exceedingly bad tact, and generally was something that was inclined to discourage people coming through that port if they could avoid it. I had personal experience recently when meeting some friends from England who were coming to spend a holiday here for four weeks. As a rule, ladies carry a supply of clothing, and that is quite understandable. These ladies would not be allowed to pass through the barrier, and their trunks would not be marked until they had shown their return tickets to England. I think that was quite an unnecessary procedure. On the same occasion it seemed to me that the luggage of the passengers was rummaged and tossed about to an extent that was entirely unnecessary. It took friends of mine a good while to try to gather up their property and to put it back again into the bags, which were perhaps a bit crowded.

I also noticed that when passing through the barriers, if passengers carried a light rug or a light showerproof on their arms, it was always taken off and examined. I passed through many frontiers in my time, and I never knew that to happen except at our ports of entry. Perhaps it is a necessary procedure. I think it is hardly necessary that every little item should be scrutinised in that way. It gives one the impression of entering a South American Republic or some Balkan State. The amount of contraband that would be discovered in that way would at best be an absolutely negligible quantity. It is not because of the amount discovered that there is any value attached to customs examination. It is the idea in the minds of the passengers that they may be discovered that keeps them from smuggling. Here, where we have so many people coming in, whom he want to make welcome even for the commercial value of their visit, I think we should be a little more generous in the manner in which we treat them, particularly during the tourist season. Probably there is a disposition on the part of certain customs officers to win admiration, and possibly promotion, because of the fact that they discovered a couple of petty attempts at smuggling. Promotion should not be encouraged along those lines in a country which wants to encourage the tourist traffic. I do hope that the customs authorities will give instructions that a reasonable amount of consideration will be extended to visitors to this country during the tourist season at all events. There is no excuse at all in my opinion for some of the officiousness that is displayed.

There is another very small item of interest in connection with broadcasting. I was listening on last Christmas Day to what was known as a British Empire broadcast. It was a link-up of the capitals of the various parts of the British Dominions including the Free State. I thought it rather remarkable that the Free State was the one Dominion that did not use its national language in that broadcast. Every other State, including Scotland and Wales, and even French Canada, South Africa, New Zealand—we had the Maori language—and India, used its national language. The one exception was the gentleman who was acting on behalf of the Irish Free State. His name was mentioned to me, and if the name was correctly given to me, I believe he is an excellent Irish speaker. We had not one line of Irish music or of an Irish song, while each of the other Dominions gave exhibitions of its national language, its music, and its songs. We ought either to be in that or out of it. If we are to be in it, I suggest that we might try to do a little more justice to our own country than was done last Christmas Day.

Sir John Keane

I do not wish to say very much about the general economic policy of the Government. Like Senator Douglas I appreciated very much the speech of Senator Comyn in which he stated that his Party were alive to the position of the farmers and that the Government ought to do something to improve it. Might I suggest to the Government that there is only one thing they can possibly do to improve the position of the farmers and that is to try and cultivate better relations with Britain, which is the only market our farmers have got? If the Government are anxious to improve the position of the farmer, they will, first, try to improve our foreign relations, our relation towards the King, towards the King's representative and in regard to Dominion status generally? I cannot help feeling that if the Government showed any disposition for a settlement on the question of the annuities, if they were to accept the spirit of the Constitution and were to come into line with the other Dominions at a round table conference and were to say to Britain: "We shall give you privileges on our market with regard to your heavy industries if you will give us privileges as regards our meat on your market," something could be done. But if this attitude of isolation, this attitude of insult towards the Sovereign is maintained, nothing can be done. I hope the Minister will realise now that the British have their pride just as much as we have ours. When the Government places itself in the position in which insult is frequently offered to the British, you cannot expect any improvement in the relations between the two countries. It is quite impossible to expect that improvement under present conditions, which is a violation of the spirit of the Commonwealth. Unless that spirit is observed I am afraid the farmers will never be able to get rid of their cattle except by means of subsidies, and that is only feeding the industry with a bit of its own tail.

With regard to matters of domestic interest, I should like, first of all, to refer to the question of arrears of annuities and the deductions made in respect of them from grants to local authorities. I have divided the annuities roughly into two periods. There came a period about the last gale of 1922 and the first gale of 1923 when no annuities were payable at all. Would the Minister tell us whether all deductions on account of arrears, which really arose prior to the non-payment period, have now been made good? With regard to the deductions subsequent to the non-payment period, does the old system still apply? I say that the Minister should have accepted the suggestion previously made in this House and should have done away with this cumbersome system of deduction. That system could have application only to the British period as an indirect means of collection. It would be far better to let the local authorities know exactly where they stand. They should not be made responsible for the collection of annuities for the central Government. The local authorities really have no responsibility in the matter. They cannot collect the annuities. They are only made the whipping boy in the matter. In my opinion they will have interminable difficulty in knowing where they stand if they are penalised for the non-payment of annuities for the collection of which they are not responsible. It is not yet too late for the Minister to try to think out some system by which the chronic confusion which has always existed will be obviated.

There is another small matter which I suggest ought to be some concern of the Government and that is the terrible scandal of the litter one sees scattered around the country. Travelling around the coastal borough one sees this litter all the way from Booterstown and nothing seems to be done about it. All round Kingstown one finds the same conditions. We really do not get a good example even in Stephen's Green, for which the Government itself is responsible. I know that it is difficult to do very much by direct action but I think that if the Government went to work, asked the schools to assist them in the matter, showed that they were really in earnest about it, and arranged for a certain amount of publicity, much improvement could be effected. The local authorities could also give very valuable assistance. After all, local authorities are being coerced by the Local Government Department in many directions and why they should not be made do their duty in this matter also I cannot see. I feel that it would be possible, by the employment of plain clothes detectives if necessary, to discover the offenders and to bring prosecutions. I only hope that the Guards will take serious notice of this scandal in future. It is a terrible reproach if the amenities of this fine city are allowed to be spoiled in that way.

One other matter on which I wish to comment has reference to the Civil Service Commission which is now sitting. Recently a resolution was passed by the Joint Irish Post Office Workers' Union and the Civil Service Clerical Association deciding to take no further part in the deliberations of the Brennan Commission in view of the contents of the interim report signed by the majority of the members of that commission. That interim report dealt with the question of arbitration. One does not object to fair criticism in these matters but I have been a member of the commission and I am speaking to a certain extent on behalf of other members. May I hope that Senator Johnson, who is also a member, may speak in regard to this matter? As I say, one does not object to a fair criticism of the findings, but the resolution passed contained these words:—

"In view of the obvious bias displayed by the majority of the members of the commission against arbitration, this meeting records its complete lack of faith in the impartiality of the commission, and resolves to take no part in its deliberations."

Mr. Norton, a responsible member of the Dáil, was present at the meeting and obviously associated himself with the resolution and spoke in regard to it. One would not be so much disposed to take notice of statements of that kind made by irresponsible people, but I do not think that in this case, seeing that a person occupying Deputy Norton's responsible position was present, it should pass unnoticed. It is not that the members of the commission personally mind but it appears to be in the interest of the Government that that sort of thing should not be sanctioned or tolerated. It is hard enough to get people to give their services for a commission lasting for such a long period—this commission has been going on for two years now —but people certainly will not serve on these commissions if they are going to be told by irresponsible bodies that they have been actuated by bias and partiality. I do not ask the Minister to take any definite action in the matter but I ask him to dissociate himself on behalf of the Government from references of that kind.

Mr. Wilson

I want to refer, for a moment, to the speech made by Senator Comyn. He placed the position of the farming community very well, and directed attention to the loss in the capital value of the farmers' cattle stock, caused by an artificial reduction in prices. I want to ask the Minister why it was thought necessary to differentiate between manufacturers' exports from this country, and the farmers' exports of fat cattle. Why was the full amount of the special duties paid by this Government in respect of manufactured articles, and why did they not do the same thing in connection with the exports of the farmer's manufacture, namely, his fat cattle and beef? Senator Comyn spoke of the condition of the farming community being ever present to the mind of the Minister. I believe the situation demands that it should be ever present to the minds of the Ministry.

In Dublin, the position in the country is quite unknown, because in Dublin, as I see it, there is a spurious, transient prosperity brought about by the expenditure of a tremendous amount of borrowed capital which is used, of course, in the necessary production of houses and so on. But these particular houses are not an economic proposition. They are subsidised very heavily, and the cost of building is maintained by these artificial subsidies of the Government through borrowed moneys. The whole prosperity would seem to be artificial and transient, and cannot be carried on if at the same time the purchasing power of the community is depreciated and if the returns from the export of agricultural produce are diminished. Where you have the whole £4,000,000 cattle stock of the country depreciated in value to the extent of the difference between the special duties and bounties and the price received by the exporter and where that particular amount is taken from the purchasing power of the majority of the people the difference of that particular loss in the purchasing power of the people will be reflected in everything else. It ought to be the immediate duty of the Government in office to see that such a state of affairs is rectified as soon as possible. Senator Sir John Keane says the best way to rectify that state of things would be to settle our quarrel with Britain. I, with a very great inclination towards the question of rectification, believe that on this point the British Minister is antagonistic to our viewpoint of the dispute. I believe that not a little of the success of the Fianna Fáil Party in the recent election was due to the speech of Sir Neville Chamberlain when talking about this question of the dispute between ourselves and Britain. At all events the dispute with Britain exists, and I see no way of helping the farmer unless you raise the price of his products. The Government have done that in the case of butter and some other small articles. They helped a few farmers in wheat growing and they also helped the beet growers and turf cutters. But there is no real way to help the farming community unless you raise the price of the cattle stock and that can only be done by a settlement of the economic war, or an advance towards that position that you accept in connection with manufactured articles, and do not accept, in regard to the articles manufactured by the farmers.

Mr. Jameson

Following Senator Wilson's remarks, I notice that the British people, at the present moment, are considering the question of a grant to the producers of cattle. As far as my personal knowledge is concerned, I cannot find out how, as a producer of beef for sale, I can get anything for my fat cattle, or have any right whatever to export cattle abroad. I had some fat cattle only three or four months ago ready for sale—perhaps it is hardly fair to bring before the Minister for Finance a matter appertaining to the Minister for Agriculture. I wrote to the Department of Agriculture and said I had some fat cattle for sale and that I should like to get an export licence. I did not get an answer for quite a long time, two or three weeks. Then I got a postcard written in Irish. I wrote back a polite letter to the Secretary pointing out that I had no Irish, and that if he could get someone who knew English in his office to send me a translation I should be very glad. The gist of the letter I received —and it took nearly six weeks, in which time the cattle had to be sold because they were getting too fat—was that unless I had, during the year before, in that particular month, exported cattle I could not get a licence to send my cattle out now. Can anyone imagine any industry that could be carried on on these lines? It amounted to this: that the Agricultural Department could not give me a licence to export cattle in June or July, 1934, because in the same months, 1933, I had not exported cattle. Such a system, to my mind, would amount to the departmental destruction of industry by regulation. What the British are trying to do is this: the British bounty is to go to the producer of the beast if sold. There is no such regulation in this country, or at least if there is, I have not been able to get it. I have been quite unable to get an order from the Department of Agriculture giving me permission to send my cattle abroad for sale. I have the letter here and it states that unless I exported cattle a year ago in that same month they could not give me a licence. I have some more fat cattle ready now for sale. I did not export any cattle last year, so that I cannot export any cattle this year. What am I to do? Sell them on the Dublin markets at whatever price I can get? That is all very well. You can do that, but somebody gets the bounty. The question is, who gets it? I certainly do not get it. The producer of the beast does not know, in a huge number of cases, to whom the bounty paid on his beasts goes. He certainly does not get it. Why it is so I do not know. Senator Douglas said there was trouble over licences of various sorts, and that he thought a list should be published. In my opinion, the same thing ought to apply to the cattle trade. There should be a list published of the licences issued for the export of cattle so that everyone could see it. We should know who are getting these export licences, and whether the bounty is going to the people who are producing the cattle. So far as my experience goes, the producer is not getting the bounty.

Mr. MacEntee

It might be better if I were to take, first of all, the charge made, I think, by Senator Miss Browne in regard to the manner in which compensation is being awarded under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1933. The Senator in that case stated that she knew some person, whose son was in a column, who was awarded £15 compensation, and she wished, I think, the House to understand that there was something wrong, something corrupt, something altogether unjustifiable in the fact that this man had received £15 compensation. The fact of the matter is that the person in whose favour the judge gave a decree or made a report had to prove his claim in court before the Circuit Court Judge for the district, and the attack which Senator Miss Browne has made was not upon my administration as Minister for Finance, but upon the judge in the discharge of his judicial functions in court.

Miss Browne

May I explain that my complaint was as to giving compensation to such people at all?

Cathaoirleach

That question does not arise.

Mr. MacEntee

That is a matter which has already been determined by the two Houses of the Oireachtas: by this House without any difference of opinion with the Dáil, and has been determined, I think, wisely and well, because it seemed to me that there was a fundamental injustice in the Act of 1923 or 1924 under which people who were alleged to have had sympathy with the republicans of that time were deprived of their right to compensation if their property was destroyed or if it was taken away.

There were some other matters referred to by Senator Douglas, Senator O'Farrell and Senator Sir John Keane with which perhaps I might also deal at this stage. Senator Douglas asked whether it was not advisable that a list of licences should be published. While I agree that such a procedure would be desirable, I would say in regard to the Department of Industry and Commerce, which would be the Department primarily responsible for making such a publication, that it has been working under extreme pressure. There is a pronounced shortage of staff in the Department, due to the coming into operation of the Unemployment Assistance Act and to the fact that there have been resignations in the case of some of the senior officials, so that generally the Department is considerably under-manned, particularly in the higher grades. That is a matter which is causing the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the one hand, and myself on the other, a great deal of concern. While I could not undertake on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that a list of licences would be published at an early date, I agree that it is exceedingly undesirable that rumours of the sort referred to by Senator Douglas—rumours which, as the Senator himself has been good enough to tell the House, are without foundation—should be broadcast through the city. I think it is desirable in the interests of everyone that everything that can be done to prevent that should be done. I will undertake to bring the matter under the direct attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and endeavour to secure at as early a date as possible the publication of a list of licences granted either by him or by the Minister for Agriculture.

On the question of the examination of passenger luggage to which Senator O'Farrell referred, I should like to say that I am afraid that, until our people realise that smuggling is a serious offence and that the Government are determined to take all steps which they possibly can to prevent it, it will be necessary for the rigorous search that is at present being conducted along the frontier and at the various ports to be maintained. That search has been productive of good results. Very flagrant cases of smuggling have been detected. If any Senator has any doubt as to whether such an examination is necessary I would refer him to any shop specialising in the more expensive garments for ladies in the City of Dublin. We have received complaints from people who are engaged in business in this city, particularly those conducting the more fashionable shops here, pointing out that they pay rent and rates and give employment, and at the same time that it was quite easy for their customers to take a day excursion across the water, collect a parcel at Holyhead and smuggle in here very valuable and very expensive clothes. I think ladies take a delight in getting things through the Customs. Very often they do it as a matter of sport because it would seem to me that the amount of duty which they succeed in evading, as compared with the original price of the garment or article, is in some cases comparatively trifling. They seem to like taking a chance in the matter, and until we have convinced them that the game is not worth the candle and that the chance is not worth taking, I am afraid that the present rigorous examination will have to be conducted.

I should not like it to go as the opinion of any member of the Seanad or of the Dáil to the officers of the Customs service that the proper way to secure promotion in the Customs service is not by acting rigorously, strictly, efficiently and effectively to prevent smuggling into this country. I quite agree that Customs officials need not be over-officious, and that these searches can be conducted with tact. At the same time, that does not mean that if they are conducted in such a way as to cause the minimum of inconvenience to the individual concerned, it will be any barrier to promotion, or any impediment to promotion, in the case of a Customs officer in the service to which he belongs. Customs officers are appointed to prevent smuggling, and the more efficiently and effectively they do that the more we are satisfied and the brighter too are their prospects of promotion likely to be.

Senator Sir John Keane asked me whether all arrears belonging to the pre-suspension period, I think he said, had been made good. I presume by that he means to ask whether all the grants withheld from county councils in respect of arrears which accrued prior to 1932 had been made good. No; that is not the position. The position is that, as a result of the Supplementary Agricultural Grant, which was embodied in the Supplementary Estimate passed in the Dáil recently, and is included in the present Appropriation Bill, we are releasing to the county councils as an advance to the Guarantee Fund a sum of £300,000 in anticipation of the collection of the arrears which have been funded over a period of 40 years and which occurred prior to 1932. There still remains in respect of these funded arrears outstanding something between £200,000 and £250,000. I should like to point out that this is only an advance to the Guarantee Fund, so that we may be able to release certain of the local taxation and other grants.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister is forgetting about the £248,000 that he remitted altogether.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not. On the contrary, I am saying that that £248,000 was of very little value to the county councils.

Mr. Wilson

It was not collected.

Mr. MacEntee

It could not have been collected. I do not know whether the Senator would wish me to enlarge on that point, but Deputy Cosgrave in the other House pointed out that during the ten years our predecessors had been in office, while they had succeeded in reducing the amount of land annuity arrears from about £800,000 down to a figure of £300,000, they had never been able to get below that £300,000. I say that that £300,000, outstanding over ten years, was a bad debt which the local authorities had not the remotest prospect of collecting and that the right thing to do was to write it off. We have written off that £300,000, and what remains is about £500,000 or £560,000. In respect of that £560,000, we are making this year an advance of £300,000 to the Guarantee Fund so as to enable the local authorities to reduce their overdrafts with their treasurers.

On the question of litter, to which the Senator also referred, I think that, with the exception of those parks, which are under the control of the office of Public Works, we have very little power. The local authorities, I think, have power to make by-laws in regard to these matters and, of course, the enforcement of the by-laws rests with them. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Local Government to the point which the Senator raised, and ask him to do what he can to ensure either that by-laws are made to deal with the evil or, if such by-laws already exist, to see that they are enforced.

The Senator also referred to a statement reflecting on the Civil Service Commission of Inquiry. I am glad that the Senator gave me the opportunity of making a statement on that subject. It will be remembered that in 1932 the Government came to the conclusion, in consequence of some expressions of dissatisfaction by organised bodies of civil servants about their official employment, that it would be well that the whole subject of the efficiency, general standing, pay and other conditions of service would be inquired into by a commission of independent persons. In particular, the Government desired to have the views of the commission as to the methods by which arbitration could best be applied to the settlement of questions relating to pay and other conditions of service. The commission were asked to report on this first and the report was made last February. For the purpose of making this report, the commission had to take evidence on practically every phase of Civil Service employment which came under their terms of reference. I am aware that they went most exhaustively into these matters and, in particular, into every aspect of the question of arbitration, on which they heard the views of official witnesses and of the representatives of the Service organisations, including those by which the resolutions to which Senator Sir John Keane referred have been passed. Thirty witnesses were examined and the commission devoted 21 days to the hearing of evidence and the consideration of the report on arbitration.

It must be clear to everyone, therefore, that the commission examined the problem with great patience and great care. Until my attention was called to the resolutions referred to by Senator Sir John Keane, no suggestion of which I am aware that the commission had gone outside their terms of reference or had shown partiality in dealing with the subject of arbitration had come from any quarter up to the time report was received, and since then no suggestion of any kind was made to me that a full and fair hearing was not given to all persons entitled to be heard or who asked to be heard in evidence that the commission were travelling outside their terms of reference. This commission, moreover, was presided over by a chairman of great experience in that capacity, who, in addition, has a wide knowledge of the Civil Service, enabling him to appreciate in a particularly high degree the bearing of the questions with which the commission had to deal in making the interim report on arbitration.

Since the report has been received it has been presented to the Oireachtas and published and has been referred to the staff organisations of the Civil Service for their detailed views which, however, have not been received. I am sure, however, that any person who, with an open mind, reads the report will agree that the commission have performed their task with thoroughness and impartiality and a desire to give the best help they could towards a solution of a difficult problem. It gives me pleasure, although the inquiry into the remainder of their terms of reference has yet to be completed, to express my appreciation of the labours and of the services they gave quite gratuitously and at what must have been a considerable sacrifice of time and convenience on the part of individual members. I feel that it is only due that I should say that in regard to the labours of this commission which, as Senator Sir John Keane has stated, have extended over a period of almost two years, labours which certain expressions of opinion have shown are thankless, but which, so far as I am concerned, at any rate, are appreciated and valued.

Senator Jameson referred to the difficulty which he had in procuring a licence for the sale of certain cattle which he had fattened. There, of course, the difficulty was not of the Minister for Agriculture's making, because, after all, the restrictions have been imposed by Great Britain, and the only thing we can do is to see that, as licences have to be given, they will be given to the people who are best entitled. As the quotas were undoubtedly based upon our exports in the year preceding this, I am afraid that the licences have to be confined to the people who helped to make the quotas, that is, to the people who exported in the year before this. I am afraid there is no other way out of it. It may be quite true that the person who was not in a position to export last year is under some disadvantage in so far as he will be compelled to sell his cattle in the Dublin market for home consumption and not for export. That is a position which has been causing the Minister for Agriculture a great deal of concern. It is a position which, I understand, he will endeavour to rectify in the forthcoming Cattle Bill. Whether the steps to be taken under that Bill will be effective or not, time will tell.

Mr. Jameson

The real trouble is that no ordinary producer of cattle in my position can ever get a licence. That is the gist of the complaint. It is a difficulty with which the Minister for Agriculture ought to deal. I drew attention to the proposal of the British Government to give bounties to the home producers of cattle for sale in Great Britain. The producer of the cattle is to get the British money, but it is not the producer of the cattle who gets the bounties which the Irish Government give.

Mr. MacEntee

That raises the whole question, whether the bounties go to the consumers or to the middlemen. Senator Counihan will tell you that they go to the producers. Some producers will tell you that they go to the middlemen.

Mr. Brown

They do not go to the producers.

Mr. Comyn

I have had the same experience as Senator Jameson has had.

Mr. Crosbie

The question is where the bounties come from.

Mr. Counihan

Up to the time of the quota system they went to the producer. Where they go now I do not know.

Mr. MacEntee

Possibly, the new machinery for the organisation and control of the cattle trade, which will be embodied in the forthcoming Cattle Bill, will do a great deal to relieve the producer of the disadvantages under which he, admittedly, labours at present, whoever may profit by these disadvantages.

I had better come back to the general question raised in the debate. In the first place, I should express my regret that so very serious a subject, on which a debate at any time might be very helpful if conducted on a proper, scientific basis, with a desire to elucidate the facts, to make clear the difficulties, and see in what way the difficulties might be overcome, was handled in a rather vague and general fashion. I do not think that anything could be more characteristic of the general tone of the debate than the opening statement of Senator Counihan himself, that having read the Bill and looked at the estimates on which the Bill is based, he had come to the conclusion that more than half the adult population were in receipt of grants from the State in the form of pensions and other allowances for non-productive work.

Mr. Counihan

Pensions and salaries.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid that the Senator, thinking that was a happy phrase, launched it at us without examining it or its implications. The adult population of the State, if we regard that section as consisting of people over 21 years of age, is more than 1,700,000. Half of that would be, at least, 850,000 persons. What is the number of individuals in receipt of Government pay or pensions? The total number of members of the Gárda and Army and of national teachers and civil servants is about 25,000. Old age pensioners would number about 119,000. Persons in receipt of unemployment assistance would number about 50,000. The total would, therefore, be about 194,000 persons, many of whom render productive work. Does the Senator think that the Gárda does not fulfil a very useful function, that he does not contribute to productive work? Does the Senator think that the teachers or the civil servants, who have in many cases the supervision and control of the great industries of this country, are not as much engaged in productive work as the people who are the hewers of wood and the drawers of water? The only people in receipt of pensions or pay under the Appropriation Accounts who are not engaged in productive work are the old age pensioners, numbering about 119,000, and the temporarily unemployed, numbering about 50,000. I do not put these figures forward with any pretence to scientific exactness, but they are approximately correct. With 194,000 persons in receipt of pensions or pay under the Appropriation Accounts out of an adult population of 1,700,000, one appreciates how ridiculous it is to say that more than half the adult population is living on pensions or pay for non-productive work.

The Senator went on to make reference to Mayo. He referred to a statement I had made, that in a certain year—this was, I think, how he put it —99 per cent. of the annuities and 92 per cent. of the rates had been paid in Mayo. If that is how I am reported in the Debates, I should like to make a correction, because there has been an inversion of the figures. Ninety-nine per cent. of the rates and over 92 per cent. of the annuities in Mayo had been paid on the last occasion on which I had an opportunity of seeing the figures, but these figures related to the financial year which closed on the 31st March, 1934. The Senator went on to say that that was proof that there was no conspiracy in regard to the non-payment of rates, because everybody who could be described as a farmer in Mayo was on the side of the Senator's Party. In that connection, I should like to point out that it is rather unfortunate that, with the unanimous support of the farming community of Mayo, the Senator's Party was not able to secure a majority on the Mayo County Council. Senator Comyn referred to the position in North Clare where, out of six seats, the Fianna Fáil Party secured six quotas, though they had put up only five candidates. They could, therefore, have filled all the six seats in North Clare, indicating that those who supported the policy for which Senator Counihan stands were not able to secure one-seventh of the votes. I am quite certain that the farming mentality of Mayo does not differ very much from the farming mentality of North Clare. The Senator, I am sure, does not want us to conclude that only one-seventh of the householders of North Clare are farmers and that the remainder of the population follow some occupation other than farming. However, I do not think that the Senator was correct when he said that the overwhelming majority of the farmers in Mayo were supporters of his policy and that, because they paid, there was no evidence of a conspiracy or attempt at conspiracy to prevent the payment of rates or annuities. I do not want to enlarge on this subject unduly but I should like to refer the Senator to statements made by Deputies of the Senator's Party on public platforms, and not denied, which would indicate that there had been such a conspiracy. There was, at any rate, a general incitement on the part of leading members of the Senator's Party urging people that they should not pay rates.

Miss Browne

On a point of order, I want to say that the determined policy of the United Ireland Party is that there is to be no such thing as non-payment of rates or annuities. We have been told over and over again at Party meetings by our advisers that we are not to recommend anybody, not to advise anybody in private or in public life, to refuse to pay rates or annuities. The Minister knows perfectly well that what he is saying now is not true.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator must not accuse the Minister of saying what he knows is not true. I must ask you to withdraw that remark. There is another matter to which I would like to advert. We seem to be getting into a polemical discussion in relation to politics, to matters which have nothing whatever to do with the Bill. I had to allow the Minister to continue. He is perfectly entitled to continue. It is a debate which can lead nowhere, but still he is entitled to carry on.

Mr. Quirke

Is a Senator entitled to raise as a point of order a matter which is quite obviously and clearly not a point of order?

Cathaoirleach

I think not. I have told Senator Miss Browne that she ought not to have made that statement and I think she ought to withdraw it—the observation that the Minister made a deliberate mis-statement.

Miss Browne

At your request, I withdraw the statement, but a person in the Minister's position ought to know better.

Cathaoirleach

I would not say any more, Miss Browne, if I were you.

Mr. MacEntee

Thank you very much, Senator Miss Browne. I would like to make another point. I might mention that it is not to carry on anything in the nature of a polemical discussion that I raise these matters. I am merely anxious that the Seanad should appreciate the point of view of a person who is not a farmer, but who sometimes comes in contact with farmers, and how his outlook on the present situation may possibly be coloured by what is said to him. As the Senator said, I know a farmer personally in South Tipperary and he told me—and I thought I was being told the truth—that his position at the end of the year 1933 was better than it was in 1932 and was better than it was in 1931. The Senator asks me what class of a farmer he was. I know he is a farmer with £50 valuation. They are people who work the farm well. They are a very industrious family and very intelligent people. They work the farm in the ordinary way that the South Tipperary farmers work their land. They breed and rear cattle and make and sell their own butter. In 1933 they grew wheat—I do not know how many acres—in a purely experimental way. This year they propose to grow beet. They rear turkeys and poultry. That farmer told me they had a very good year in 1933. That is all I can say. I have indicated to the Senator as well as I can the type of farming which they undertook.

I will leave that and come to the kernel of the whole position and that is in what way is the present plight of the Irish farmer inevitable and in what way has it been accentuated by the dispute between ourselves and Great Britain as to the non-payment of the annuities. In that connection I do not think any person who is anxious to help the nation to pull along in the present position is entitled to disregard the statements made by responsible people in Great Britain and by responsible organs of the Press in Great Britain. The first thing I should like to point out is that the British Minister of Agriculture, speaking in the House of Commons on the 15th February last —and that is not too remote to have a bearing on the present situation—disclaimed most emphatically that the quota restrictions were imposed for a political purpose or that in imposing them he wished to bring undue pressure on us to settle the land annuity dispute upon British terms. I will quote his own words. This is a quotation from the newspapers:

"In the British House of Commons, Mr. Walter Elliott, Minister for Agriculture, moving that the House approve the Cattle Import Regulation Order of 1933, which reduces the imports of fat stock from the Free State by 50 per cent., said that if the Government had not restricted Free State exports in December it was absolutely certain that there would have been a catastrophic decline in the price of British home produced live stock."

Mr. Counihan

That was proved absolutely false since, and it was so admitted by the Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

The quotation goes on:—

"The Government were accused of endangering the relations between Britain and the Free State. The measure was not dictated by any desires of political expediency but by stern facts of economic necessity."

That is what the Minister of Agriculture said. The Senator has declared that that statement has been proved to be false since and was admitted to be by the Minister. I presume he refers to the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Counihan

The Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain.

Mr. MacEntee

In that connection I think we are entitled to take into consideration the statement made by Mr. Baldwin and referred to by Senator Dowdall. It appeared in the Manchester Guardian of Monday, June 25th. He said:—

"There were two or three problems which hitherto had defeated all attempts to solve them. The potato problem was a difficult one, but he thought they were through the worst of that. Live stock had, indeed, been a difficulty. Two years ago there came a complete collapse in world prices, perhaps a greater collapse than there was of wheat."

Senators will observe, not a complete collapse in prices in the Free State. He does not limit the extent of the depression to the Free State. He says a complete collapse in world prices, and he goes on:—

"Action had to be taken very quickly and so by a voluntary agreement the imports of chilled beef and frozen meat of all kinds were cut down. It was a curious thing that so far as mutton and lamb were concerned the steps they took were successful beyond their hopes. But that had not been the case with cattle. That had been a real difficulty and was causing great anxiety in all those parts of the country that relied principally upon the raising of fat stock."

Senator Counihan in his interruption stated that the British Minister of Agriculture had admitted that something was not true. The first of the two things the British Minister said was that if it had not been for the restrictions there would have been a catastrophic decline in prices. The second thing he said was that the restrictions had not been imposed upon the Free State for political purposes. To which of these does the Senator refer when he says the Minister admitted the statement was not true? If it is the first of them, there is Mr. Baldwin's more recent statement emphasising that there had been a collapse and that steps the British had taken, even in December of last year, had not been successful in repairing that collapse and had not even succeeded in maintaining prices. The other statement which Mr. Elliott made was that the restrictions had not been imposed for any political purposes. I have not seen any retraction of that. On the contrary, I have seen a confirmation of it in the statement to which Senator Wilson referred, the statement made by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, that even if the dispute about the land annuities were terminated tomorrow these restrictions and these import duties would possibly continue.

Mr. Counihan

Does the Minister justify the action of the British Minister of Agriculture in cutting our meat exports to Britain, which form only 6 per cent. of the imports of meat into Britain, by 50 per cent.?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not here to justify or defend or even to condemn the actions of the British Minister. I am in no way responsible for them. I am merely putting the facts before the Senator in the hope that he will consider them calmly and quietly when he goes home, and that other people, to whose notice these facts are brought, will also consider them, so that we may realise, once and for all, that the land annuities, while, possibly, they may have given the British an opportunity for taking the steps which they would have taken sooner or later, have very little bearing at the present moment on the position of the cattle trade.

Miss Browne

That is a monstrous statement to make.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to make his speech in his own way. Other speakers have been allowed to make their speeches in their own way and the Minister must be allowed to make his in his own way. I cannot allow these interruptions.

Mr. Jameson

There is one point that I should like to put to the Minister. Who is fighting the case for the Irish Free State cattle now over in London and trying to get as big a quota as possible? Are we taking part in any of the negotiations that are going on? If we are doing so, it is practical politics if somebody is trying to get a bigger quota for us as compared with the Argentine or any other country. Is our case being pushed irrespective of the economic war and are we fighting for a quota?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether Senator Jameson read this morning's papers or not in connection with the statement which was made in the House of Commons last night. The Irish Free State High Commissioner in London has been present at the conference which has been taking place between the British Minister of Agriculture and the British Secretary for the Dominions on the one hand and the exporters of cattle and meat to Great Britain on the other, in connection with the whole question of the cattle restrictions.

Mr. Jameson

Are we being represented?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, and, I hope, successfully.

Mr. Crosbie

There is one point that I would like the Minister to make more clear. After all, he says, even if this question between the two countries were settled, England would still continue to quota our market. After all, we are one of the largest consumers England has, and the Argentine is a very small consumer of England's products. Out of 600,000 tons, apparently, our quota, at best, is only about 6 per cent. If a settlement were come to, is it not quite possible that England would be very glad, instead of reducing the consumption that she at present takes from Ireland or that she ever took, rather to increase it?

Mr. MacEntee

I should not be asked to express an opinion on the mind of the British Minister.

Cathaoirleach

It should not be expected.

Mr. MacEntee

I can only deal with what they themselves have said in this regard. I was dealing with the point that the restrictions had been imposed, not for a political reason, but for an economic reason; that they had been occasioned mainly by the fall in world prices of meat which had hit the British home producer particularly hard. What occasioned the fall in prices? There was world depression, which meant that, possibly, people had turned away from meat to other and cheaper foods; but, so far as Great Britain is concerned, there are two very eminent authorities on this matter. One is Mr. Baldwin, who represents and has represented for a considerable number of years, an overwhelmingly agricultural constituency—the constituency of Worcester, I think—and he, in the course of the speech to which I have already referred, dealing with the case of the cattle, said:—

"That had been a real difficulty and was causing great anxiety in all those parts of the country that relied principally upon the raising of fat stock. They had to remember that tastes were changing. There was no doubt that there was little demand for beef in this country..."

He was referring to England.

"... and there was no doubt that the modern housewife demanded a smaller joint than was principally produced in the trade at present in England."

That is, the trade for which all our stores are bred, and there we have the change in taste to take into account. I may leave that for a moment, however, to refer to an article in The Times on the same date, in which this passage occurs:—

"It is no wonder then that there has been a further reduction in the value of fat cattle during the past year. Another adverse factor has been the tendency of public taste to turn from roast beef to lamb, veal and cooked meats. Most butchers will say that beef is now a smaller proportion of their sales than it was five or ten years ago. In these circumstances, the market cannot stand the present heavy rate of importation."

There we come to the real kernel of the matter, because it is quite clear that the present low price on the British market is due to a change in public taste in Great Britain and to the fact, as The Times admits, and it is probably the most authoritative organ of public opinion in regard to this matter, that the public taste is changing from roast beef to lamb, veal and cooked meats. This change in taste has got nothing whatsoever to do with the land annuities, and, whether we pay the land annuities or not, the British would have to take steps to deal with that change in taste, and the step they propose to take in order to deal with it is to shut out more and more the foreigner from the British market and to preserve that declining market—because that is what it now is —for their home producers.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Including the parts of the Commonwealth?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, including the parts of the Commonwealth, but even they can claim no special exemption in this matter because—once again I am quoting from The Times of Monday, June 25th, 1934:—

"Both Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Elliott have made it clear that further steps are to be taken to safeguard the interests of the beef producer, and it is expected that the Government's proposals will be announced before Parliament rises next month. The matter is urgent and the time is ripe for action. Prices for beef cattle have been drifting from bad to worse despite the Ottawa agreements, which, so far as meat is concerned, will have run their time on June 30th."

Now, that is a clear indication that as soon as the agreements expire, the Dominions' exports to Great Britain as well as the rest are going to come under the axe, and that the only question which remains is the extent to which they will be cut down. The other vital element in this matter is the interest which Great Britain has in the Dominions on the one hand and in other producing countries outside the Commonwealth on the other hand, and which of these is the greater.

Mr. Counihan

That is more like it.

Mr. MacEntee

I have seen recently a statistical calculation as to the value of the British investments in the Argentine. They are stated to be worth not less than £500,000,000 invested in railways, in cattle farms, in ships, but every single investment depending for its security and for its dividends upon the trade of the Argentine. What investment has Great Britain in this country commensurate with the £500,000,000 she has invested in the Argentine? What investment has she in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or in any one of the Dominions that is half as much as that?

Mr. Counihan

What about our trade?

Mr. MacEntee

At any rate, trade is a give-and-take bargain, but the interest on that £500,000,000 must be met out of the profits of the Argentine meat industry, and if it does not pay that interest in money and in kind—in money and in the export of cattle to Great Britain, and if Great Britain does not take payment in kind, which is to say mainly cattle imported into Great Britain from the Argentine, then she has to forgo her dividends altogether. The point I am making is this—and it does not matter what our political relations with Great Britain are—when she looks at this position as a whole, we and the Dominions will have a hard struggle to maintain our position in the British market against Argentine meat; and if anybody is to go to the wall it will be the Dominions rather than the Argentine trade. I say that because, as we have often been told here, the British, when they come to consider matters of this kind, look at them in a commonsense way, without permitting any sentiment and without allowing politics to enter into a business question.

Cathaoirleach

I should like the Minister to finish without going unduly into this aspect of the question. We will never get finished if we get into the economic war.

Mr. MacEntee

Under the Argentine Agreement the Argentine trade is protected, but, since the Ottawa Agreement expired on June 30th, the Commonwealth position is unprotected and we, with the other members of the Commonwealth, have to face that position, and have got to take steps to reorganise our cattle trade. One of the steps we have to take here is to meet, first of all, a total decline in the consumption of meat in Great Britain, and, secondly, the fact that they are looking there for smaller beasts. In any event, in relation to the whole of this matter, we must remember that so long as the British are concerned to maintain the home market for their own producers, while we may have our share reduced, we, at the same time, are the only country that can supply them with the raw material to maintain their beef production. We enjoy that advantage irrespective of what our political relations with Great Britain may be, and, as we have already been told, the British, when they come to consider these matters, look at them in a practical, commonsense way. They look at them in a practical way and, I think, with a great deal more foresight than we do. They take a much longer view than is taken here by some people in the country who think we can get out of this difficulty by making the quickest and most short-sighted bargain so long as it is some sort of a settlement.

We have a special peculiar relation to Great Britain of strategic importance. We are a very vital element in their food supply. If they eliminate us I do not see how they are going to face the vicissitudes of the future with any security or assurance.

Senator Sir John Keane urged that we should cultivate better relations with Great Britain, in order to bring this dispute to an end. He states that for this purpose we should make the full acceptance of the Commonwealth position. I think we ought to rid ourselves of old prejudices and old obsessions with regard to this matter.

The present Government is only representative of the majority of the people and the whole history of this country, not merely for the past year or two years or the past ten years but for all the generations that have gone before us is this: that even though it may entail great economic suffering, the mass of the people are not prepared for the full acceptance of the Commonwealth in the way in which Senator Sir John Keane, and others who think like him, conceive it. I think that is the fundamental fact which we cannot leave out of consideration when dealing with this matter, and which no Party in this House or in the country can afford to leave out of consideration in dealing with the matter. The one thing we have to do is for all of us to align ourselves with the majority of the people in this regard and stand upon the fundamental principle that our people must be free to choose for themselves what their relations with the Commonwealth are to be. And in order that they should make that choice freely, in order that there should be no doubt about the freedom of choice, perhaps the best way to settle it is to put them in the position of complete independence with regard to the Commonwealth and then let the people of Great Britain, on the one hand and we, on the other, negotiate as to what our future relations are to be. If there was some approach to that position on the part of the people who differ from the present Government, we should all press that freedom of choice should be given to us and that we should get an unequivocal answer to the request which President de Valera addressed to the Secretary for the Dominions in December last in regard to it, that if to that request we demand that we get an unequivocal reply stating that if we exercise the choice of going out of the Commonwealth, we shall not be subjected to economic or military coercion, then that there would be some possibility of getting a settlement which would be a lasting settlement and which would be as satisfactory for the people on the other side as for us.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 18th July.