Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1934

Vol. 18 No. 31

Appropriation Bill, 1934—Final Stages.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Counihan

During the discussion on the Second Stage of this Bill some statements were made by the Minister for Finance in reply to statements that I had made. The Minister on that occasion asked us to consider his statements on the economic war. I have considered his apology for the British Government's attitude in putting a quota on our live stock. The more I have considered it the less justification I can see for putting on that quota. The members of the Minister's own Party do not agree with him as to the justification for the putting on of this quota by the British Minister for Agriculture. Senator Comyn said that there must be some justification for putting on tariffs on our live stock and agricultural produce, but that there was no justification whatever for putting on the quota. I agree with Senator Comyn. The Minister said that if there was no economic war, and that no matter how friendly the relations were between this country and Great Britain we would still have our live stock and agricultural produce going into Great Britain under a quota system. In support of that he referred to the case of New Zealand, and to some other members of the British Commonwealth. He said that their produce was going in under a quota. Take the case of lamb from New Zealand. There is no quota on it at present, but it is proposed to have a quota for it. Compare the case of New Zealand lamb with our live stock. In 1932 New Zealand was the biggest exporter of any country in the world of foodstuffs to Great Britain. Half of the total imports of mutton and lamb into Great Britain came from New Zealand as well as nearly as much frozen beef as we were exporting there in the form of live cattle. The total exports of lamb and mutton in 1932 from New Zealand to Great Britain amounted to 195,793 tons, representing between 10,000,000 and 11,000,000 of sheep and lambs. Our exports of sheep and lambs to Great Britain would be less than 500,000. Our exports of fat stock to Britain would represent about 60,000 or 70,000 tons out of a total of 600,000 tons. Britain imports between 400,000 and 500,000 tons of beef, and of that total the Argentine supplies 400 or 500 tons. I ask is it just that only a quota of 30,000 tons should be put on the figure representing total imports while our 60,000 or 70,000 tons of beef have to bear a quota of 50 per cent.? In 1932 our imports from Britain were worth £32,000,000, and our exports £27,000,000. In the same year the imports from Britain to the Argentine amounted to £11,000,000, while their exports to Britain were valued for about £50,000,000. The exports to Britain from New Zealand were valued at about £38,000,000, and their imports from Britain amounted to only £11,000,000.

The question for the Minister and for the supporters of the Government is to try and justify the attitude of the British Government in putting a quota on our live stock. I say that it is unjust and unfair for the British Government to put a quota on our live stock considering the value of our trade with England. I am appealing to the Minister to try and settle this question. If he approached the British Government and put up any reasonable proposition to it, consistent with natural justice and fair play to this country: if he were to state that we would remain within the British Commonwealth of Nations and uphold the Treaty, and then came back here after making that proposal to Britain, he would have the solid support of this country behind him in demanding natural justice and fair play for this country. Otherwise, he will not. I want to tell the Minister what the position of our farmers is at the moment. Tariffs are worth nothing to those engaged in the production of live stock and of agricultural produce. They are producing at a loss. Everything that they produce is being sold at less than the cost of production. They cannot continue to do that. If we are not given a reasonable and a just deal in the British market, then the sooner we cease exporting to it the better. We cannot continue to export to it when the cost of the tariffs is deducted from present prices. The position is that the farmer is the only individual who is suffering as a result of the economic war. He is bearing the whole brunt of the economic war. The consequences are falling on him without any hope of redress. He is called upon to pay his rates, to pay his annuities and his liabilities to the banks. Where is he to get the money? For the last three years he is producing everything at a loss, while everything he has to buy has increased in price. Farmers cannot continue to work under these conditions. There is absolutely no hope for them if the present state of affairs continues, and if there is to be no market for their produce. In many cases farmers cannot find buyers for their produce at any price. When this question is raised speakers on the opposite benches remind me of what occurred when the Irish Party in the British House of commons drew attention to the distress amongst farmers. Senator Dowdall, when speaking on the Second Reading, in order to prove that farmers are well-off referred to the Cork Show, and remarked how well-dressed and prosperous-looking farmers' sons were. In the ante-room I was reminded of an incident that occurred in the House of Commons after the family of a farmer named Cassidy had been evicted. The Irish Party, having complainel of the cruelty of such action, Mr. T.W. Russell, who was then a Conservative, made a remark. Mr. A.M. Sullivan summed it up in this way:

"I saw her, I saw her, said T.W. Russell,02

Cassidy's daughter wearing a bustle."

Apparently farmers have no right to turn out in a decent suit of clothes. According to the supporters of the Government, they must turn out in bawneens in order to show that they are not able to pay rates, annuities or bank debts. If they turn out with decent clothes and are respectably dressed, it is concluded that they must be prosperous. The whole object here is to demoralise the farmers and to reduced their standard of living. They reduced their standard of living. They are the only people whose standard of living is to be reduced. I heard it said on many occasions that farmers can be seen at the races with motor cars. Why should farmers not have motor cars? The farmer is as much entitled to have a motor car as anyone else. If the brother the son of a farmer takes up a profession or goes into business, after four or five years he can have a Rolls-Royce, but the farmer, who has possibly more brains than the others, must not have a Ford Car with which to do his business. That is the talk and disparagement that is heard about farmers. It is time it stopped, and it is time that the Government recognised that farmers have as good a right to turn out respectably dressed, and to have motor cars, as any other members of the community.

Sir John Keane

I wish to clear up a misunderstanding that arose during the earlier part of the debate. I had not an opportunity of doing so until I saw the Official Debates. In connection with this dispute, I pleaded with the Government for the acceptance of the Commonwealth spirit. The Minister, in replying, said I was dealing with a matter that was completely past and gone, that the Commonwealth idea was put aside, and that our hearts and hands were set in another direction. Would the Minister be a little more helpful? If the Commonwealth spirit is gone, why not have done with it, seeing that we are suffering very much in consequence? So long as we accept only the letter and do total discredit to the spirit, and do not attempt in any way to co-operate, we are only suffering in one direction and getting no benefit in the other. If we are to get more benefit from the Republic, let us have it and be done with it. What is to prevent that? I understand that if the people wished it, we could have a republic to-morrow. Does the Minister suggest that we should suffer penalties if we had the Republic? We will suffer penalties such as the loss of British citizenship. There is no reason, if we wish to secede, why we should suffer any punishment except the penalties involved in the loss of status. Let us know where we stand? We are suffering now. We are free to act under the Statute of Westminster. No one denies that. Those who ask for the acceptance of the Commonwealth position realise that we are free to choose. Let us choose one thing or the other. Freedom does not necessarily imply one choice only. It implies an alternative. I suggest that the Government, with no loss of dignity, are free to accept the spirit of the Commonwealth and to settle this dispute or go a long way towards settling it by doing so.

Miss Browne

When the British Government put special duties on our cattle going to their markets, the Government here retaliated in the usual childish way by putting duties on certain goods coming here from Great Britain, principally coal. By doing that they thought they were twisting the lion's tail. But the Minister for Mines, speaking in the British House of Commons this week, stated that despite the duties that had been imposed the exports of coal from Great Britain had increased by 500,000 tons. In 1932-33, the revenue derived here from duties on British coal amounted to £326,000. There seems to have been no figures issued here since to show what revenue was got from these duties. During 1932-33 and 1933-34, the revenue derived by Great Britain from duties on Irish cattle amounted to £7,000,064. That shows what this country has gained from this tomfoolery! The Government here thought they were going to hit Great Britain by putting duties on coal, but they do not matter a button to Great Britain as the output has increased by 500,000 tons in the first half of this year. I wish to deal with another matter that was dragged into the debate by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who was in charge of a Bill that was recently in this House. He said that at the recent elections the people voted for a republic. Senator Comyn also stated that farmers, who had been hit so heavily by the economic war, had disregarded that consideration, and had voted for—I think he termed it—a republic. That is the only concrete term to express what the Senator meant. I will not call it freedom, because it will not be freedom, but whatever nebulous thing is in the mind of the Government, as to what position this country will reach eventually. I want to refute that statement. I made some inquiries, and I went to some trouble to do so after the Second Reading of the Bill. An analysis of the votes shows that all over the Saorstát support for the Government declined by 4.2 per cent. since the general election. The United Ireland Party was not in being at the last election, but if the decline since then was added, it would be 7 per cent. With the exception of one constituency, support for the Government declined. I am sorry to say that the exception is in Wexford, where they had a tiny increase of .2 per cent. It must be remembered that in Wexford the Cumann na nGaedheal vote increased enormously at the last election. It has been said that Wexford stands out on its own, and that it does things different from other counties. It did so at the last general election, because it is the only place in which there was a very small increase of .2 per cent. in support of the Government.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not dealing with that now.

Miss Browne

I am only trying to refute what the Minister's supporters said in this House. I submit that the people gave no consideration whatever to the question of a republic when they cast their votes. The small farmers who were held up as an example above all others, as being true-blooded patriots who would not consider economic questions at all, were offered the land of larger farmers and of land owners on a wholesale scale. The Minister for Agriculture came to Wexford two days before the election and offered everyone free meat. How votes cast under such circumstances or for such a purpose could be called votes for a republic I do not know. I have seen it stated in newspapers that these votes were cast for a republic. When he is replying, I challenge the Minister to say what kind of a republic it is going to be. The Government could have a republic to-morrow if they wished. There is no one to stop them. What kind of a republic is it going to be?

Mr. Johnson

Beef eaters!

Miss Browne

Will it be a republic of the type they have in the United States or in France, or of that in Soviet Russia? There is very little support here for one type, but there is increas ing support and encouragement by the Government for the Communistic type.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

That scarcely arises on this Bill.

Miss Browne

That is what the people voted for. The Minister's supporters claim that they voted in a certain way, and I am simply answering that statement. I want the Minister to give two definite answers now, the amount of the revenue derived from the coal duties during the last year, and what kind the Republic will be when it is declared. Like Senator Sir John Keane, I would like to ask why the Republic is not declared and let the country take the consequences.

Mr. Johnson

Arising out of this Bill, which, in effect, is a vote of confidence in the Government Party which is spending State moneys in an appropriate way, I think the Government is to be congratulated in having performed in the course of its administration lately one political miracle. It has secured the result that all Parties are satisfied and delighted. They are united on one thing—that each of them won in the recent elections.

Miss Browne

There is the analysis if you want to see it.

Mr. Dillon

There is a matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister for Finance and also to the attention of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. That is the question of tariffs and high protection as distinct from the penal tariffs imposed in connection with the economic war. It has been stated over and over again that the export trade in cattle has gone. The President on one occasion of late thanked God that was so, and that the trade with England was dwindling. Of course, that arises out of the policy of the Government with regard to the promotion of self-sufficiency, industrialism and so on. With these aims we, who represent the farmers, fully sympathise and we should like to help in every possible way, but it has to be remembered that at present, and possibly for many years to come, three-fourths of our live stock products will have to be exported. That is, they will have to be sold in an outside country, not in the home market. Arising out of that, it is the intention of the Government, and I suppose the intention of all of us, if we can help it, to bring about an increase in the population sufficient to enable it to absorb these three surplus parts of the live-stock of the country. It is calculated by experts that it will take 50 years for the population to increase to an extent sufficient to enable the people to absorb the surplus products of the country which at present we have to export. What I want to put to the Minister and also to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, if he would be kind enough to reply, is: what are the people to do in the meantime? How are these surplus products of the country to be disposed of?

Again, I have to point out to the Minister that the Government's policy of high tariffs and intensive protection is being imposed on the country mainly at the expense of the farmer. It places an extreme burden on the farmer. I do not mind what Senator Dowdall says. I, also, have an experience of shows down the country. I happen to be a member of the committee of one very important provincial show—Kilkenny, which is second to none in Ireland. I suggest that it is not the farmers who principally comprise the attendance at these shows. The attendance is largely made up of people of the better class who are interested in horses and who can go there without being worried by the consideration of whether they have a good suit of clothes or not. Again, I would point out to the Minister that on account of the stress of agricultural conditions, there is a tendency away from the land. There is a tendency to come to the towns and cities. That I know is a common thing in many countries, but it is especially common in this country for the last two or three years. There is a tendency amongst the people to leave the land owing to the economic stress and because of the low standards which they are forced to accept in their households, and the prices they have to pay for everything they buy as compared with the prices they receive for the produce which they sell.

My main point is, what will the people do in the 50 years that must elapse before the population will be able to absorb the surplus products of the country? Of course, it is a very pleasant thing to see industries being created. As I say, we are prepared to support that programme. We are prepared to support it in a reasonable way, but not at the expense of depriving the farmer of his means of livelihood. We have threshed out these subjects on many occasions, but I do not think this particular subject of the permanency of high tariffs and protection, apart from the tariffs incidental to the economic war, has been dealt with here before. The permanency of these tariffs will carry us further on the downward track than anything else, to my mind. I should like to hear some reply from the Minister on these matters. Of course, the income of the agricultural population as compared with that of the industrial and urban population is very small. That unfavourable comparison grows every day, and explains the tendency of many people to leave the land altogether. Talking about farmers and their sons who seem, according to some people, to be so well-off, I have actually seen respectable young labouring men going around from door to door during the last three or four months. Whether that is a sign of the times or not, I do not know, but it is the first time I have seen it. I should like if the Minister would be good enough to deal with these matters in his reply.

Mr. Wilson

On the last occasion on which we debated this Bill I asked the Minister a certain question and he did not answer it. The question was this: In dealing with the exports of manufactured articles in this country the Government paid, by way of bounty, all the special duties levied on these articles by Great Britain, whereas, in connection with the export of farmers' produce, the Government gave a bounty which at most was only about 25 per cent. of the special duties levied on these exports by Great Britain. I ask the Minister what is the reason for that differentiation! The manufacturer, whether he is making biscuits, Irish tweed or shirts, is able to get from the Government the full amount of the special duties which the British have levied on these commodities. I cannot see any reason why the same practice should not be observed in connection with the export of farmers' produce. The effect of this differentiation has been a very serious matter for the farmers. The net result of the difference between the bounties and the special duties was to reduce the value of the live stock of this country to the extent of £2 to £4 per head. All that capital value has been lost to the farmer. I admit that some attempt has been made to meet it. The President, speaking recently at Ennis, seemed to think that the Government did as much as it should have done, when the farmers were granted a remission of half of their annuities and the Government were providing £2,500,000 for bounties. He seemed to think that that was equal to the amount of duties collected by Great Britain. That statement may be quite correct, but it does not take into account the loss in value of cattle sold on the home market.

The singular position is that while everybody believes that the cost of living is greater than pre-war, the prices received for beef, mutton and other agricultural produce with the possible exception of butter in the home market is very much less than in the pre-war period. As a matter of fact, the result of the whole system has been to make a present to town dwellers of a considerable portion of the farmers' capital. At the same time there has been no reduction in the cost of labour. I cannot see how the Government, which is supposed to be interested in the farmers' welfare, can overlook a matter of such importance as that of the reduction in the standard of living of the farmer and the reduction in the farmers' capital. I will not say it is the fault of the Government. We will say it is the fault of the British. Between the two of them, it is somebody's fault. That particular situation was met in the case of the manufacturer by giving him the whole of the special duties levied by Great Britain whereas the farmer merely got one-fourth of these duties. To-day I see there has been an increase of ten per cent. in the bounty on horses exported. That makes a remission of about one-half of the special duties imposed on horses. That is supposed to be a great aid to the farmers. I contend that while the Government are doing something to help, as in the case of butter, and while they are helping by subsidies such products as beet and wheat, these concessions are not sufficient to counterbalance the big losses imposed upon farmers by the special duties. Every farmer keeps a stock of some sort and must, therefore, face a loss both in his home trade and export trade. It is the duty of the Government, I suggest, to recompense them for that loss as well as to compensate manufacturers.

Mr. Quirke

Last week I made a suggestion in this House that somebody should let us have a definition of "farmer." Since I heard Senator Dillon's speech just now, I am more than ever convinced that there is a crying need for such a definition. I believe that as a result of his speech, Senator Dillon certainly owes an apology to the farmers of County Kilkenny. I think in the course of his remarks he said that he represented the farming community in Kilkenny.

Mr. Dillon

I was elected by the farmers of the Free State and got a surplus vote from them.

Mr. Quirke

That is worse still. The Senator will have to go around the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties, perhaps. In any case he spoke about the export of cattle, and he seemed to be considerably worried about what the Government was going to do with our surplus cattle. That was in the beginning of his speech, and towards the end of it he told us that he saw a couple of respectable farmers going around from door to door.

Mr. Dillon

I said respectable farm labourers.

Mr. Quirke

Labourers! He did not say exactly what they were doing, whether or not they were organising a "no rates" campaign. I take it in any case that the Senator meant to insinuate that they were looking for food. I am surprised that it would not strike the Senator as a good idea to transfer some of our surplus beef to some of the respectable workers who are going round from door to door looking for food. I gather from his remarks also that he was inclined to help industries and the various other schemes that the Government has organised. I would ask him to give the Government whole-hearted support in this question of transferring the surplus beef to the people who need it in this country. As a matter of fact, if we could evolve some scheme—and I believe there is some such scheme under consideration at present—to get the necessary amount of beef into the mouths of the people who need it in this country, there would be very little necessity to worry about our surplus beef.

Mr. Counihan

Who will pay for it?

Mr. Quirke

We shall not ask you to pay for it anyhow. If we were to eat meat on the same scale as the people of New Zealand, the people of the Argentine, the people of the United States and various other countries we need not have any worries as far as surplus beef is concerned. We could very comfortably consume all the beef available in this country at the present time.

The trouble, as far as I can see, is if the population is continuing to increase, and everybody seems to think it will, if meat is available for the people I cannot see any difficulty. About the year 1860 cattle were imported into this country because the people had not enough of beef for food. Conditions might arise again of that kind, but to my mind there is no necessity for people to get excited. If we can get co-operation on the part of the people and a scheme put forward in the interests of the poor working people I do not think that you would have any difficulty in dealing with a scheme of that kind.

Sir John Keane

Who is to pay for it?

Mr. Quirke

The Minister for Finance, of course. I do not know what Senator Dillon's idea is about the farmers of Kilkenny. But since the Senator claims to represent the farmers of Ireland, I think his attitude is worse still. As a farmer myself, I certainly resent the remarks made by Senator Dillon. He was referring to statements made by Senator Dowdall with regard to the farmers' attendance at shows, and said the attendance was not comprised of farmers but was mostly made up of better class people. I do not want to say I am any better than various other people, but I certainly do not accept Senator Dillon's statement that there are any better class people in the country to-day than farmers. There may be as good people as the farmers, but certainly not better. There is no more honourable occupation than that of the farmer producing the necessaries of life for the whole population. As a matter of fact the farming community of the country is really carrying the rest of the country on its back. I was surprised to hear Senator Dillon, coming from an agricultural constituency, referring to the farmers as an inferior body of men.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot allow that to pass. I did not allude to the farming community as an inferior body of men.

Mr. Quirke

I accept that correction. But if the Senator did not say so directly the only meaning that an outsider could take out of the statement was that that was what he meant. He referred to those at the shows as the better class. If that did not mean that the farmers were inferior then I do not know the meaning of words. Before anybody should make a statement like that he should be sure of himself and not make wild statements creating the impression, amongst other things, that some people in this country were overfed. The fact remains that we have people in this country who could do very comfortably with the surplus beef that is available. We ought to get the help and assistance of everybody to help the Minister for Agriculture in the scheme that he has put before the country.

Mr. O'Connor

There is a lot that people have to listen to in connection with the farming industry of the country that is very painful. I perhaps hold a somewhat different view from other people on this question of the conditions of the farmer. I repeatedly said that I blamed the British Government for not accepting the President's proposal to submit this question to arbitration, under an independent chairman. I subscribe to that. I well remember the question that was settled by arbitration when Sir William Feetham was Chairman of the Arbitration Board. My recollection on that occasion was that there was evidence of ample partiality displayed in favour of the North of Ireland and the British view. I said that was the greatest calamity that befell Ireland since Partition was forced on the country. The President's offer of arbitration with an independent chairman should have been accepted in regard to the annuities. I blamed the British Government in that sense for not accepting it. The British Government, owing to their ambition and their great Dominions on which the sun never sets, should be above the idea of insisting that a chairman could only be appointed from the Commonwealth. The present Government in this country are opposed to the interests of the farmer. They refuse to believe that the country is not altogether suitable for tillage, and they have ruined the staple industry of the country. Cattle must be reared in the country if the agricultural industry is to be successful. The present prices for our cattle are deplorable, and even these, such as they are, are steadily falling. There are no buyers at the fairs for young cattle, and for heavy cattle there are no customers. I saw cattle 12 cwt. sold for £10 5s., or 17/- a live cwt. I blame the British Government, of course, in putting a tariff of £4 5s. per head on our cattle in order that they may collect the annuities. Of course, the late Government said that the annuities were owed, and the present Government said that they were not owed. But the people are suffering, and suffering very severely, and nobody knows that better than the people who have live stock. Unless there is some change effected I do not see anything but bankruptcy for the farmers, and especially those who have to live by the cattle industry. You cannot separate the cattle industry from ordinary farming. We grow wheat and beet and other crops, but the main industry is our live stock. That, to my mind, is the real question. Some people seem to think that it is a joke, but I am speaking very earnestly on the question. I blame the Government for not taking steps to meet this great emergency. The value of our cattle at the present time is not one third of what it was in 1932. That means a two-thirds loss. I have seen farmers selling cattle weighing 9 cwt. at £5 8s. per beast. They were compelled to do so. That was all they could get and they wanted the money. When it comes to that state of affairs it is almost impossible for people to meet their obligations. I should be very sorry to see people refusing to pay their just debts—annuities, rates and so on. I think, taking it generally, the Irish farmers have always been anxious to pay. But it is impossible for them to pay when their money and source of revenue is exhausted. That is the state of affairs at present. I ask the Government to use every possible means to try to restore the position. The outlook at the present moment is deplorable and the country was never in so bad a position as at present.

Mrs. Wyse Power

I should like to get some information on the item of £15,000 to be advanced for the establishment of an Industrial Credit Company. Perhaps the Minister would tell us how this money is to be safeguarded. In the past the last Government set up what I presume was a similar credit company and all that money has been lost. I understand—of course, I may be wrong—that that company is closed down. A report, I believe, was issued but that report has not come before the shareholders so far. In view of the amount of money lost in that venture, I think it is well that somebody should insist on methods for the safeguarding of this money. In the past we had great business people guarding this very large sum of money. But these great business people had allowed this money to slip away in one form of investment or another. Knowing that, and having lost a little money in the last company, I am all the more anxious to find out what methods are being taken to safeguard this new sum of money which is to be used for this industrial company. In the setting up of it there will be more expense if care is taken to avoid the losses incurred by the former company. The losses of that company were more, I believe, than what they were worked out at to-day.

Mr. Staines

I should like to ventilate a very serious grievance from which a most important section of the people suffer. I refer to the school children of Dublin. Owing to the woes of the farmer, and the conditions in the country, people are crowding into the cities. The Government and other bodies are doing their best to supply houses in Dublin, but their best is not good enough. The authorities concerned are trying to build schools. The school accommodation in the city is absolutely inadequate and the schools are overcrowded. The children's health is being undermined. This is a question that concerns directly the health of the children but, indirectly, concerns the health of everybody in the city. I am not blaming the authorities for being so slow as regards school buildings. I know that the building of schools takes a lot of money. There is, however, one thing to which the Government should attend. That is, to see that the national and secondary schools in Dublin close at the same time for summer holidays. Many thousands of parents in Dublin are in the position to send their children to the country for a month's holidays. Many people in Dublin take cottages at the seaside for a month in summer. Where these people have four or five children it usually happens that some of them are going to one school and some to another. In one case I know of a school attended by two members of a family closes for summer vacation on the 28th June, while a school attended by two other members of the same family closes on the 20th July. There is almost a month of an interval. If these people desire to give their children a month's fresh air at the seaside, after spending the greater part of the year in the stuffy atmosphere of the school, how can they manage to do so? Two of the children have to remain at school until the month of July is well advanced. What happens is that none of the family gets a holiday. I think that the Department of Education could easily arrange with the schools to close for vacation as near the same date as possible. In the case I have mentioned, one school was a boys' school and the other a girls' school, and there was, as I said, a month's difference between the holiday period. Everybody needs a holiday and it is particularly useful to children who have spent the greater part of the year in a stuffy school.

Mr. Jameson

Last week, when we were discussing this Bill, I asked the Minister for some information as regards the negotiations that were proceeding in London in respect of the quotas to be allotted in Britain. The Minister seemed to think that I had not studied the papers and did not know what was going on. He stated that our High Commissioner was attending these conferences and that he hoped our representation there would be successful. That was a week ago and these discussions are still being carried on. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information, derived from the report of the High Commissioner, as to the success of our effort in that regard. There are two distinct things affected by these discussions with the British. One is the tariff placed on our exports of agricultural produce by the British to enable them to recover the amount of the annuity payments and the other is the quota of cattle which we are to be allowed to send into Britain. Senator Wilson wanted to know why the Government should not give the farmers the whole of the tariff charged by the British on agricultural produce. He said that, in the case of certain manufactures, the whole of the tariff was being given. Senator Wilson must understand perfectly well that if the Government here were to give the whole of the tariff put on by the British to recoup the loss of the annuities, it would mean practically that, instead of the farmers paying their annuities, the community would be paying.

Mr. Wilson

Why the differentiation?

Mr. Jameson

If the farmers were to get the whole of their tariff back, it would mean merely shifting the burden. We may be able to give the whole of the tariff or a large portion of it to certain industries——

Mr. Wilson

Why?

Mr. Jameson

No Finance Minister could possibly afford to pay the whole of the taxation which England is collecting. It would be absurd. What then would be the use of keeping the annuities? We know that the Government have cut the annuities and that they are not getting as much as they did formerly. What has happened in regard to all these bounties is that the burden has really been shifted to the general community and the Minister for Finance has to collect the amount from the general taxpayer. The British are getting so many millions. Instead of annuities, they are getting a certain amount mainly from tariffs on agricultural produce which we are sending in. That does not amount to as much as they got from the annuities but they are getting a large amount of the annuities in that way. So far as bounties are paid, it is our taxpayers who are bearing the burden. The dog is eating his own tail.

Mr. Wilson

The Government get half the annuities, which they do not send away.

Mr. Jameson

The bounties are being paid by the general community of the Free State. The Government include them in their Budget and collect the money.

Mr. Wilson

On a point of explanation, the receipts from the farmers go into Miscellaneous Revenue. All the annuities the farmers pay are accounted for under that head. On the other side are the bounties. That is all.

Mr. MacEntee

The bounties are more than the whole of the annuities the farmers pay.

Mr. Jameson

The annuities were kept and the British said they would collect them in another way. They are collecting them by tariffs upon our agricultural produce and upon the products of our factories. Senator Wilson says that the Government are giving the whole of the tariffs back to the manufacturers, but not to the farmers. If they gave the whole amount to the farmer, they would be giving the whole of the claim of the British back to the farmer. It is the farmer who is being bountied. If the Government had collected from the farmers the whole of the annuities, there would not have been this trouble, because that fund would have been available. It would have been bad bookkeeping and bad business procedure, but they would have had the money to hand back to the farmers. They did not do that. The annuities have been hugely cut. Therefore, the asset of the Government is not anything like what the British have collected from us, and they have not got the money to pay the farmers the whole of the tariff. They cannot tax the whole community to pay the farmers as they are paying the manufacturers.

Mr. Wilson

Heretofore, the community paid £1,000,000 for police pensions and £600,000 in respect of local loans. That money was always paid, and it is part of the £4,000,000 collected by the British.

Mr. Jameson

Perhaps you are right.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the Senator would address the Chair, we might have fewer interruptions and explana tions.

Mr. Jameson

If the farmer were to be paid the whole tariff, the Minister for Finance could not put that burden on the people. He can only put on a modified amount for bounties. Otherwise, the Budget would take a very different shape from that which it has taken. We must remember that all these bounties are paid by the Irish people. The British are collecting the tariffs because of the economic quarrel, and every bounty is being paid by the inhabitants of the Irish Free State. That is why I say we are being fed on our own tail. That is one of the reasons why our Budget is so enormous. If we had not this quarrel with the British we would not have these huge bounties to pay. The farmers would have been paying their £3,000,000, and I do not think that anybody who looks at the matter from a commercial point of view would deny that, in spite of all that has been said, we would be 50 times better off commercially in that event than we are at present. I do not think there can be any question about that. If the Minister for Finance were to pay back the whole of the tariff, which is being collected on our agricultural produce by the British, it would mean that this community would be handing back to the British the whole amount and the squabble would be about nothing.

The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.

Outside that question, there is the question of the quota. The Minister told us that the High Commissioner was taking part in these discussions. He pointed out that it would be very difficult for the Dominions—he included us amongst the Dominions in that part of his speech and seemed to think that all the Dominions were working together—to fight the British Government for as good terms as they were going to give to the Argentine. I should like to know what report the Minister has got from our High Commissioner as to these discussions with regard to the quota. Nothing has been published that I know of. Presumably the Minister knows something. I suppose the High Commissioner must have made some representations. I would like to hear on what ground our High Commissioner is fighting the case of our quotas. These quotas are quite a different thing from the quarrel about tariffs. Apparently the Minister and our High Commissioner are willing to debate the question with the British Government as if we belonged to the Dominions. We ought to have full information as to how our High Commissioner is getting on, and what support the Government are giving him to fight the case with the British Government for a share of the quotas. This question of the quotas is a practical commercial question. Our representative in London is carrying on discussions with the British Government as to what quotas are going to be given under the new system of allowing beef and other things into Great Britain. I would ask the Minister, when he is replying, to give us a clear statement as to how we stand as compared with the other Dominions and how the matter is being dealt with.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister to conclude.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I am afraid I will not be able to give any of the information which Senator Jameson has asked for. The discussions between ourselves and the Dominions generally and the representatives of the Minister for Agriculture and the Secretary for the Dominions in Great Britain are, naturally, of a confidential nature, but I can assure the Senator that we are taking the fullest possible advantage of our commercial relationships with Great Britain, of the fact that we are, I think, her second best customer and are claiming the treatment which that position entitles us to in connection with the cattle quotas.

Mr. Jameson

I asked the Minister whether we are to get any information as to what is going on, and as to how the whole matter stands.

Mr. MacEntee

The Senator, I think, in that connection will have to remember that there are two parties to this discussion. The British Minister for Agriculture, in making the announcement in the British House of Commons that these discussions were going on, no more than outlined the policy which the British Government intended to pursue. He did not state the position which had been reached in the negotiations, and did not even indicate the treatment which would be accorded to any one of the Dominions. I did not anticipate that this question would be raised here to-day. If I did I might have been in a position to make a fuller statement with regard to it, but I would think that the negotiations up to the present have been undertaken on a confidential basis, and that if I had the information, which I have not, I would not be entitled at this stage to disclose it.

On the question raised by Senator Mrs. Wyse Power about the advance of £15,000 to the Industrial Credit Corporation, that was the subject of a Supplementary Estimate in the Dáil prior to the 31st March last. The position is that we are asking the Industrial Credit Corporation to repay the amount of the advance to us, and I hope to secure it before the close of the current financial year.

Senator Staines raised a question regarding the position of schools and school holidays. I am rather sorry that the Senator did not indicate to me, as I had asked during the Second Stage of the Bill, that he intended to raise this question because I might then have been in a better position to deal with it. I am not aware that there is any general overcrowding of schools in the City of Dublin. I know that a considerable number of schools have recently been erected. So far as the question of holidays is concerned—I am speaking subject to correction in regard to this—I think that it is entirely one for the managers of the schools, and that any representations which the Senator might wish to make with a view to securing uniformity of practice in that matter would have to be addressed to some person who would be in a position to convey those representations to the managers. I may say that I do not think that either I or the Minister for Education would be the proper person in the case.

Senator Counihan returning to the attack to-day, reopened the debate which took place on the Second Reading of this Bill. He attacked Senator Dowdall in particular because the Senator had stated that he himself had been present at the Cork Agricultural Show held three weeks or so ago and had noted the general air of prosperity which had pervaded it. Senator Counihan rather indignantly asked why should not the farmers have good clothes and why should not the farmers have motor cars? There is no reason whatsoever why the farmers should not have good clothes and, in fact, most of them have. There is no reason whatsoever why farmers should not have motor cars, and a good many of them have. Any person who has attended some of these well-organised cattle sales which have taken place from time to time will have noted that one thing which was characteristic of them all was the number of farmers who could provide themselves with motor cars, but who declared that they could not pay rates. In fact, a notable thing took place in the County Kildare. There cattle were seized from a man who declared that he could not pay his rates, and yet it is notorious that that particular gentleman was able to attend Ascot races during the whole of the following week.

Mr. Wilson

And make money there.

Mr. MacEntee

Now the point is this: is it not quite obvious that the people who wear good clothes and who are able to maintain motor cars should be in a position to meet their other liabilities as well? I am not saying that it is not the farmers' right to have all these good things. I wish that the great majority of them had them. I wish that the people who have not got motor cars, the people who are able to pay their rates and their annuities and to meet all their other obligations, were able to afford to have them. But those who have motor cars should not proclaim that they are not in a position to pay their rates. I think that in ordinary common decency and honesty they ought to get rid of their motor cars and pay their rates and meet their other obligations.

Miss Browne

Do not mention honesty and decency here.

Mr. MacEntee

Senator Miss Browne also reopened to-day the case which she made on the last occasion. I remember her telling us on the Second Reading of this Bill that the Government had secured its majority by the votes of the poor people in Wexford.

Miss Browne

Everywhere.

Mr. MacEntee

That, she was positive, one of the reasons why we secured those votes was because, as she herself I think said, the poor have no sense and no wit.

Miss Browne

I did not say any such thing.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator should not interrupt.

Mr. MacEntee

If I misunderstood the Senator I apologise. There is one thing that her speech on the Second Reading of the Bill did do. As I listened to it she made me think of the rhyme which was current at Oxford when the late Lord Curzon was an undergraduate there:

"Mr. George Nathaniel Curzon Is a most superior person."

I was almost moved by Senator Miss Browne's speech to break into rhyme myself.

Miss Browne

I do not know what the Minister is talking about.

Mr. Brown

Do not be afraid.

Mr. MacEntee

But I think that as the Senator is not quite as superior a person as her speech indicated to me, I shall leave it at that. Possibly posterity will have a worthier reason for remembering her when in her case, as in the case of many others, the Senator completes the circle and comes back to her early Republicanism. I feel that if she did that often her speeches would be happier and that she herself would be pleasanter in her utterances than she has been recently.

One of the things that causes me regret on the occasions when I attend in the Seanad is to hear Senator Miss Browne make speeches which indicate so much disillusionment on the part of so charming a personality.

Miss Browne

I do not know what the Minister is talking about.

Mr. MacEntee

As I was saying in reply to Senator Counihan, I wish that the farmers had better clothes, I wish that they had more motor cars and, generally, more of the good things of this life. I do not suppose that either he or I shall live to see the farmers have everything that they would desire to have, but, at any rate, they have this consolation at the present moment: that the position of the Irish farmer, however bad it may be, is no worse and may be a great deal better than the position of the agricultural producers in most other countries. We are being told what we should do for farmers, and how badly this Government has treated them. In Great Britain we see a Minister backed up by an united people trying to save the British agricultural industry, and how has he succeeded? I quoted some extracts from the Manchester Guardian and the London Times on a previous occasion. I have before me the current issue of the Spectator in which there is an article on “Farming and Politics.” It begins with this sentence:—

"Mr. Walter Elliott's activity at the Ministry of Agriculture may be admired both as achievement and as example."

Then the article goes on:—

"But what of his achievement? He himself in the debate of last Monday was careful not to pitch its claims too high. His caution was indeed necessitated by the facts. If you went down to almost any farming centre to-day you would not yet find the people concerned ‘on the top' of their problem. Neither the milk policy nor the bacon policy has as yet given complete satisfaction, whether to producer or consumer or middleman."

Now in that passage we have two agricultural commodities singled out. What is the position here in regard to them? Our dairy farmers are getting very much higher prices for their milk than they are getting in the Six Counties or than farmers in Great Britain are getting for milk intended to be made either into butter or cheese. Our pig prices are higher. Our bacon prices are higher here than in the Six Counties. Therefore, our farmers have greater grounds for satisfaction in regard to milk and bacon than those in Great Britain have, and that must be because of the fact that the policy in Great Britain has given satisfaction to nobody, neither to the producer, the consumer nor the middleman. The position of our farmers in regard to bacon and milk must be incomparably better than it is in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. The article goes on to say:—

"As for beef, if you survey one of the counties like Devonshire or Leicestershire or Hereford, where it is the backbone of farming, you will discover the raisers of live stock in a really terrible position."

Mr. Counihan

What way must we be here?

Mr. MacEntee

Continuing, he says:—

"What with prices so low that every beast sold brings a heavy loss, and with drought forcing sales, because there is no prospect of keep for the animals."

We may not be very much better but, so long as that position of affairs obtains in Great Britain, we cannot be any better. That is the root cause of our present problem.

Mr. Counihan

If that is so, how is it that a licence to export a beast to Great Britain costs at present up to 50/-?

Mr. MacEntee

After all, the main bulk of our exports are store cattle. So long as that is the position the price which the English farmer is able to pay for our stores very largely determines the price we can get for fat cattle too. So long as that position obtains in Great Britain there is not going to be an adequate price for our cattle, whether they be yearlings, stores or fattened. We cannot get away from that. Let me read on:—

"Even eggs, where the National Mark Scheme got an early start, and has had a remarkable effect in increasing production, have fallen now to prices which may well dismay the producers."

At any rate, the prices which our people are getting for eggs are above world prices, and above the present prices in the British market. We are told that Great Britain is a country with great resources. So far as eggs are concerned, with our limited resources, we are doing better for our farmers than they have been able to do for theirs. He goes on:

"The same trouble haunts the potato growers, who with 97 per cent. of the home market reserved for them find it very hard to turn round inside it without beating each other down to unremunerative prices."

Once more I believe that the price of potatoes here is higher than the price in the Six Counties or in Great Britain. In regard to milk, bacon, eggs, potatoes and home-grown vegetables generally the position of the Irish farmer is better than the position of the British farmer. The only element in which we have not been able to put our farmers in that happy position is in regard to the cattle industry. We are not able to do that because of the domestic position that obtains in Great Britain. We have no control over that. We have been able to control the home market with regard to every minor agricultural product, and we have done better for the farmers here than the British Minister for Agriculture has been able to do for British farmers. You cannot expect us to do any better.

Sir John Keane

The Minister knows perfectly well that the British farmers pay no rates.

Mr. MacEntee

I am aware that our farmers pay very little rates. If English farmers pay no rates they pay very heavy rents for lands which they do not own.

Sir John Keane

They get the repairs done.

Mr. MacEntee

Our farmers pay annuities which are 50 per cent. of their original value, and they are buying out their land, some of which is the best in Europe, with their annuities. The British farmers have practically no title to their land, and when leases fall in they have to compete for it against neighbours, if it happens to be good land. That position does not exist in the Twenty-Six Counties. Senator Wilson asked why it was that the bounties on manufactured goods were less than the bounties on agricultural products. The reason is that industrial manufacturers, who have an export trade, have received comparatively little protection. The farmer has had the whole of the home market reserved for him in regard to all agricultural products. In addition to that, the economic war is being fought ultimately for the benefit of every individual agricultural producer in this country. If it is successful it is he who will get the first and immediate benefit of that success. He has got the greater portion of it already in the reduction of the annuities, which is a continuing reduction until such time as the annuities are paid off. At present, that amounts to £2,000,000 per annum. In addition, farmers have benefited considerably by the recent extension of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1932. The provisions of that Act relate mainly to farmers and to agricultural households. The cost to the Exchequer has been not less than £750,000 and, of that amount, I would not be putting it too high, if I said that the farming community get £650,000. There is a tobacco scheme, a wheat scheme and a dairy (stabilisation of prices) scheme, under which farmers in one way or another, apart from what they get in bounties, will get between £600,000 and £700,000 from consumers. Then you have the Cereals (Stabilisation of Prices) Act and special expenditure to encourage the turf industry. On top of that you have £2,150,000 for export bounties and subsidies. In that way what do the farmers lose by the economic war? The British Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he hoped to get something like £4,000,000 from us this year by way of special duties. The reduction in the annuities is worth at least £2,000,000 to the farmers. The export bounties and subsidies are worth £2,150,000, almost more than counterbalancing our losses owing to the special duties, and on top of that you have super-added the additional benefit by way of increased old age pensions, the tobacco scheme, the wheat scheme, the butter scheme, the cereals (stabilisation of prices) scheme, and forestry development. The farmers may be in the front line trenches, but when you consider that the taxpayers, as a whole, are providing these benefits for the farmers, and that the general taxpayers have less to gain than the farmer by the economic war, for which they are providing the ammunition, they are certainly succouring and sustaining the farmers in the fight. It has been said that, eventually, all comes from the farmers. It is quite true that agriculture is the biggest industry in this country, but it is not the only industry. There are export industries carried on here which have very little contact with agriculture. You have other important industries carried on, too, which farmers do not contribute, even as consumers, except very indirectly. Everyone of the people engaged in these industries are bearing their share in the economic war. I do not want to underrate the part which the farmers are playing, but I am here representing the general body of taxpayers as a whole. Everyone must realise that it is not farmers alone are engaged in the fight, even if they are bearing the brunt. It is clear, at any rate, that other people are standing behind them and are taking a share, and that they have not been niggardly in the support they are giving farmers in the present crisis.

When referring to what I said on a previous occasion, Senator Sir John Keane said that if we wanted to have a republic why not have a republic? The Senator said that we could have it, and that we would not suffer any penalty, except loss of status, British citizenship and privileges of that sort. The first thing about it is that we do not know whether there are going to be any penalties or not. During the last ten years when we were in opposition, and endeavouring to persuade the majority of the people to adopt our policy, one of the deterrents most strongly relied upon by the then Government, and the present Opposition, was that if they were to infringe the Treaty, or wished to leave the Commonwealth immediately, not merely would we lose privileges, but that economic and physical sanctions would be invoked to enforce the Treaty and to retain us within the Commonwealth. That was the common argument of our opponents. It may be that there was no foundation for that, but they indicated these things as a possibility.

Mr. Jameson

When the Minister says "they," who indicated these things?

Mr. MacEntee

The present Opposition when they were the Government.

Mr. Jameson

Have the British ever said it?

Mr. MacEntee

I am coming to that. Only one Party can clear up that matter, and they are our friends on the other side of the water. I am not going to deny that there are attractions in free association with Australia, Canada, South Africa, and even Great Britain. There are people of our blood in Australia and in Canada and we are proud of the achievements of our race in these countries. I should hate to think that our future would be permanently divorced from theirs. In Australia, the greater Ireland, as I regard it, in Canada, and even in Great Britain, there are many people of Irish birth, Irish extraction, and Irish nationality, so far as their sentiments and ideals are concerned, but if there is going to be any association of ourselves with these peoples, with these great nations now coming into being, it must be really free and voluntary association——

Miss Browne

What do you mean?

Mr. MacEntee

——which will recognise our separate nationhood and be consistent with our complete and independent statehood. When Senator Sir John Keane asks us to accept the Commonwealth, which he says is a completely free Commonwealth, the question arises as to whether the present association is a free and a voluntary one. We have tried to ascertain that. That was the purpose of the President's note. But we have not succeeded in getting a declaration which would indicate that, in fact, the present association of all States within the Commonwealth is free and voluntary. I do not think that even South Africa has got that. That is the issue which we raised, and which the British Government so far have evaded—a clear statement that we are free to leave the Commonwealth, that if our people decide to exercise that right, we shall be in at least no worse a position vis-á-vis Great Britain than is Denmark and the Argentine. The subsequent observance of the terms of such a declaration would put the character of the present association beyond that. I say I believe that a clarification of that position is the first essential step to the establishment of satisfactory relations between ourselves, Great Britain and the other States. There is no doubt as far as Canada and Australia are concerned. We feel that our association with them is free and voluntary, that there is mutual recognition of the position which exists between us. We fear there is no such recognition on the part of Great Britain. Until there is that recognition expressed frankly and fully, I believe the present unsatisfactory position must continue. Personally, I would deplore it. I think there is a great place in the world for free association of that sort. As an Irishman I think we could unite—I think we could associate proudly with our fellow-countrymen in other parts of the world. I only hope that those who are responsible for dictating policy elsewhere will endeavour to bring about a practical realisation of that position.

Miss Browne

The Minister stated a lot of things that we did not want to know, but he has not answered some very important questions that were put to him.

Question put and agreed to.