Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Nov 1931

Vol. 40 No. 7

Financial Resolutions. - Customs Duty on Oats and Oatmeal—Report.

I move "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in the following Resolutions:

1.—(1) That a customs duty at the rate of two shillings and sixpence the hundredweight shall be charged, levied and paid on all oats imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 24th day of October, 1931.

(2) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland," and as though oats were included in the Second Schedule to that Act in the list of goods to which two-thirds of the full rate is made applicable as a preferential rate.

(3) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

2—(1) That in lieu of the duty of Customs chargeable under Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1926 (No. 35 of 1926), there shall be charged, levied and paid on all oatmeal imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 24th day of October, 1931, a Customs duty at the rate of six shillings the hundredweight.

(2) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland," and as though oatmeal were included in the Second Schedule to that Act in the list of goods to which two-thirds of the full rate is made applicable as a preferential rate.

(3) That in lieu of the drawback payable under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1927 (No. 18 of 1927), there shall be allowed as from the 24th day of October, 1931, on the due exportation or the due shipment of stores for use as stores of any goods in the manufacture or preparation of which in Saorstát Eireann any imported oatmeal chargeable with duty under this Resolution has been used a drawback equal to the duty paid under this Resolution in respect of the quantity of such oatmeal which appears to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been used in the manufacture or preparation of the goods.

(4) That in allowing the drawback under this Resolution the Revenue Commissioners, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may, in order to facilitate trade, modify or dispense with all or any of the requirements of Sections 104 and 106 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, as to the giving of security and the examination of the goods.

(5) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

We are glad to see that this tax on oats has been introduced even at this late moment. Deputies will remember that on 20th November, 1930, there was a motion introduced here by the Fianna Fáil and Labour Parties. The motion was defeated by the Cumann na nGaedheal and Farmers' Parties combined and the Independent members. There were other matters mentioned in the motion besides oats—bacon, butter and barley —and it was pointed out at the time that the area under oats in the Free State had been declining, and that it was thought by those who introduced the motion that unless something was done to protect the home market for oats the area would decline even further and that as a consequence tillage in general would decrease. It was the 1930 crop which we were dealing with at that time. When the motion was introduced last November there were 643,000 acres under oats. We are now informed by the report that has just been issued that for the year 1930-31 there was an excess of imports of oats over exports to the extent of 496,000 cwts. The report goes on to inform us that it is estimated that this year there will be something like 617,000 acres under oats so that there was a very big reduction of the area under oats this year as compared with last year. We are informed further by the Tariff Commission that at least the tariff will have the effect of supplying our own needs in oats, that it may not have the effect of increasing production beyond that point, but at least it will have the effect of our growing sufficient oats for our own requirements. If the members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and the members of the Farmers' Party and the Independents had as much sense last November as they appear to have this November we could have something like 52,000 acres more under oats than we actually have. That is rather a big thing. As a matter of fact the Tariff Commission go on to calculate the amount of labour that is involved in growing oats, and according to their estimation the number of hours of manual labour given for the growing of oats would be equivalent to the labour of 20,000 men. Take the 52,000 acres I spoke of that we would have grown in this country. If the Cumann na nGaedheal members and the Farmer members had as much sense last November as they have now it would mean the full time employment of 1,625 men. Can this country afford to allow their T.D.s, whether they are Cumann na nGaedheal, Farmers' Union or Independent to follow the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Agriculture into the division lobby and for a political motive deprive the agricultural population of such an advantage as it would have if it had another 52,000 acres of oats?

I would like to remind some of the members of the opinions given at that time by some of the Deputies and the Ministers here on the growing of oats. The Minister for Agriculture said that his attitude was that this tariff did not matter twopence. He was referring to the tariff on oats, barley and eggs. Having given that lead, he was followed in the same opinion by Deputy Bennett, the Minister for Justice and Deputy Gorey. They all said this tariff did not matter twopence. The Minister for Agriculture went further and said "the only effect of placing a tariff on feeding barley or oats so far as I am concerned is to still deceive the farmer and induce him to go on with an economy that is completely unsound." I presume that members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party here and the members of the Farmers' Party who are left are going to go into the Division Lobby and vote for a tariff on oats. They are going to deceive the farmer by putting a tariff on oats— those members who were not going to deceive them last year. They had the greatest concern for the ethics and the morality of the question last year, but now they are going to deceive the farmer and induce him to go on with an economy which is completely unsound. Surely the economy in this country has not changed, and surely if there was deception last year there is deception this year. What has changed? Is it that the members of the Farmers' Party are now prepared to deceive the farmer and to induce him to enter on an economy which is altogether unsound? The leader of the Farmers' Party, Deputy Heffernan, must take a national view on this question because Deputy Heffernan is leader for the whole country. He does not represent a constituency like the ordinary farmer. He represents the whole country, and must take a broad view. He says "so far as this tariff is concerned it is simply an appeal to the prejudices of the farmer." Deputy Heffernan, I presume is going to appeal to the prejudices of the farmers this year. The motion was rejected on 30th November, and there was nothing more heard about it until we had an election in Kildare, and it was reported that as a result of certain representations and threats made by a group of farmers in South Kildare a tariff was promised on oats. Some of us do not believe those stories always. We are told that the Minister for Agriculture promised the farmers of South Kildare a tariff on oats if they would vote for his candidate. The election was on 29th June, and, strange to say, there was a notice in the paper on 9th July to the effect that there was an application for a tariff on oats put in by the Executive Council and, we presume, on the advice of the Minister for Agriculture.

We find amongst those who are in favour of the imposition of a tariff "a group of tillage farmers in the southern area in Kildare," a most extraordinary thing to put down in these Tariff Commission reports. As a rule you get such people as a County Committee of Agriculture or perhaps a group signing themselves the Farmers' Union of a certain county or perhaps a committee of merchants who might be involved, but no description could be given to these except a group of tillage farmers in the southern area in County Kildare that were in favour of the tariff. They got it.

As I said, the Minister for Agriculture in speaking here on 20th November last said that the effect of the placing of a tariff on oats would be still to deceive the farmer and to induce him to go on with an economy which is completely unsound. I am inclined to believe that the Minister was quite sincere in what he said because nothing could be better proof of that than the fact that when the County Kildare election was on this group of tillage farmers in the southern area of Kildare were told that if they voted right there would be an application for a tariff on oats. It was still to deceive the farmer and to induce him to enter on an economy which was unsound. Also in favour of the imposition of a tariff was another group, the Irish Beet Growers' Association. A couple of years ago I remember when there was a controversy amongst people growing oats and grain in this country, the Minister for Agriculture said that it was an unsound policy to advise people to grow oats and barley for cash. He said the Government had tried to meet that situation by giving them beet. When they could not help those men who were growing oats and barley to grow the cash crop, he gave them beet. Now when they fail in beet he gives them oats.

Last year the tariff was of no importance. That is what was said by people on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches. The Minister said: "My attitude to these tariffs is that they do not matter twopence," and the Minister for Justice, who came on afterwards, speaking on this question of a tariff on oats, said that a tariff on oats could not possibly raise the price. Deputy Gorey said that a tariff on oats is of such little importance that it is not worth talking about.

As I have already said, against those opinions, which were very forcibly expressed here on the 20th November last, we have the Tariff Commission Report which goes to show that the effect of a tariff would be to put at least another 52,000 acres into oats. That is something worth talking about.

Mr. Hogan

Where is that in the Report?

If it was under grass, it might be better.

Other difficulties were raised on the 20th November. Deputy Heffernan said that even if you did place a tariff on oats, three classes of oats would have to be allowed in free of duty—imported seed, dry oats for racehorses and Canadian screenings. The Tariff Commission have examined each one of these items. It is shown that there is no necessity whatever for allowing seed oats into this country. They have shown that we are capable of producing very good seed oats here, that we are capable of producing purer varieties of seed oats than the imported varieties, that the imported seed is not a pure line at all, but, as they describe it, a good commercial sample. As the Commission point out, after five or ten years we would have much better seed oats as a result of the tariff, because it would induce certain farmers to grow good seed oats which they would expect to get a good profit upon. In support of that, the Commission cite the cases of barley and potatoes. There, an attempt was made to grow our own seed, and, as a result of that attempt, the seed produced now in the case of barley and potatoes is of a better variety than the seed which had been imported previously. We have been asking for protection for oats as well as other things for a long time and we have no doubt whatever that this tariff will have good effects. The Tariff Commission say that it will have a good effect even up to a certain limit, if we do not want to go any further. But there are certain interests against this tariff as they are against every other tariff.

As I have said, a group of farmers in the southern part of Kildare and the Beet Growers' Association were in favour of it, but we have the Farmers' Union of County Meath in favour of the tariff and the Farmers' Union of Cork against it. There is where Deputy Heffernan will be in a quandary. Deputy Heffernan has to try to please the Farmers Unions all over the country. I do not know which side he is going to please on this occasion. The Farmers' Union representative for Cork will, of course, be with the Farmers' Union there, and the prospective Farmers' Union candidate for Meath will, of course, take the view of the local Farmers' Union. But I do not know what Deputy Heffernan is going to do to keep all the Farmers' Unions on his side. The Farmers' Union of County Cork may, of course, change its mind as it did in the case of the bacon tariff. Having opposed that tariff in the beginning, they veered round in favour of it, and they may likewise favour the tariff on oats later.

As in the case of butter and other tariffs, this tariff was introduced too late. A number of farmers had sold their oats before this tariff was imposed. We take it for granted that the intention of the Government, when applying for this tariff, was to give the benefit to the farmer and not to the merchant or corn buyer. But, when the tariff was imposed, a number of farmers had already sold their oats at a very low price. Since then the price has gone up 4/- per barrel, so that the merchants and corn buyers will reap the benefit of the tariff. Probably the majority of farmers have their oats still, but some of them are not going to get the benefit of this tariff.

Last year, when discussing this question, we were told by Deputy Bennett that a tariff on oats would not be popular with the farmers. Deputy Bennett challenged Deputy Davin to go down the country and preach a tariff on oats to the farmers. We are all going to be in the same boat now. Deputy Bennett, Deputy Heffernan, and the rest of us will have to go down the country and recommend a tariff on oats to the farmers. If we are to judge from the trend of legislation in this House, we may even go further. We are getting a tariff in favour of oats now. There is going to be——

A general election.

There is going to be provision made whereby the Executive Council can impose a tariff any minute they wish without consulting the Dáil or anybody else. That will be a great convenience to the Government. It will not be necessary for the Minister for Agriculture to promise the farmers of Kildare that he will put on a tariff. He can come back to the Executive Council and actually impose the tariff next day to show that he is in earnest. The tariff that suits each constituency can be put on when a bye-election occurs. An anti-dumping law was referred to by some people to-day. Before we got the Bill, I was told outside that it was an attempt to stop the dumping of Soviet goods here.

We will have an opportunity of discussing that.

We were accused here, when talking about a tariff on oats, in November, of having a prejudice against the Soviet. The Minister for Agriculture said that it was to Russia and not to the oats that we objected. Now the Government has come round to our side again. I admit that our motion dealt with more than oats. The point may be made from the other side that we covered butter, bacon, barley and eggs, in addition to oats, in our motion. Since then, butter and oats have been tariffed and there is an application for a tariff on bacon, which I hope will go through. The only thing left is barley and all we asked in respect of barley was that it should be only admitted under licence. They were 100 per cent. against us last year. Now they are 80 per cent. with us. They are coming round to our view and with a general election coming we may have them 100 per cent. with us within the next few days.

There will be certain benefits under this tariff. The Tariff Commission gave fairly definite proof that we will be in a position, at least, to produce the amount of oats that we require at home. That according, to their figures, would mean about 52,000 acres additional to the amount sown during the present year. That is a definite advance. Apart from that, according to their figures, the amount of employment given on an acre of oats—

On an acre of oats?

Yes. They give the number of hours—82. This will mean the equivalent of full-time employment for 1,625 men. That is a large number of men.

There would be as the Tariff Commission points out a good market for seed oats. Men would be inclined to get some pure line seed from the Agricultural College, Glasnevin, or from somewhere else, and grow it carefully, harvest it carefully, and thresh it carefully, and be able to sell that seed at a good price. It would certainly be a distinct advantage to a number of farmers to get the price that people in Scotland, or England, or elsewhere, were getting for what was called imported seed in this country up to this. That was for purely commercial oats, and not for pure seed oats which we hope to produce here at home. That imported oats came usually to about 30s. a barrel. In some of the returns given here the farmers put down the cost of their seed at 30s. per barrel.

We are also told in this Report that the objections raised do not amount to anything. We are told that those responsible for the Report do not believe that racehorses would be anything the worse for consuming all Irish oats. Deputy Heffernan may not agree with that; at any rate he did not agree last year. Horse trainers, horse breeders, and racehorse owners came up here and gave evidence and they admitted that they could run their horses all right on Irish oats; and if, in a very wet season, as the Report says, they are able to import, say twenty-five per cent. of the quantity of oats used, it will not amount to a very big burden on the owners of racehorses.

The big objection that was made to the tariff was that there were certain people who keep cattle, calves, pigs and poultry, who had to buy from their neighbours a certain amount of oats for their needs. Now it will be quite possible for those people to grow the oats they require themselves, or if they are prepared to pay the price that oats will go to they can buy it for themselves. Another class of people who are users of oats in this country are the owners of traffic horses. They raised no objection to the tariff. They did not appear before the Tariff Commission. And as the Report states it will be possible for them also, if they find the oats to be getting too dear, to replace it by other feeding stuffs. Really there is no big objection placed against this tariff on oats whatever so far as the Tariff Commission is concerned. I am very glad that this tariff has been introduced, although I do say that it was a little bit late. It was certainly three or four weeks late, and because of its being three or four weeks late, the advantage to a certain extent at any rate—I do not know to what extent—is going to the merchants who purchase oats rather than to the farmers who grow it.

Deputy Ryan has gone to great pains rather to make fun of those who voted last year against the tariff and to take it for granted that they were of the same opinion still. Deputy Ryan asked a number of questions. He asked what is the reason for this tariff. I take it that one of the reasons why this tariff might be argued for would be in anticipation of what the Executive Council are asking powers for because of happenings in another country. The whole answer to the tariff question, as some of us tried to point out the last time is this: that if we consider for ourselves its operation in this country alone, there can be no argument for it. As far as one can see the exports from this country will be the finished farm products, live stock and live stock products; and if we raise the price of oats to the person who is feeding beef, etc., and producing poultry without that person getting any compensation in the way of a better price for his exports, then he is carrying a loss, and is not getting any benefit from the tariff. If we were to judge this as far as operations in this country are concerned, I think the tariff will fail. Deputy Ryan argued that oatmeal has gone up to the amount of the tariff; so has oats gone up by the amount of the tariff; and we must anticipate that the price of oats will be put to the extent of the tariff.

The other question which he asks is in regard to butter. Wherein has the tariff benefited the butter industry? I work a farm on which we raise milk and we have got no benefit whatever this season from the tariff on butter. And except we get a better price for the butter we are exporting, and for our oats, then the tariff on oats will be just the same as the tariff on butter —it will not yield anything to the producer.

I do not think I can quite agree with Deputy Haslett's method of argument because I think that what we are faced with in this country is just what England was faced with—a huge deficit balance. That is the real issue that we shall have to deal with. What England has been doing and what we have been doing all along is that we have been buying a great deal more than we could pay for. I think that this tariff is a step in the right direction, and of course, it will be followed by a great many more steps in this direction, and I hope we will continue on this line until we make a definite effort to reduce the trade deficit balance. I expect that it will be very heavy during this coming year and will be more than the people will be prepared to meet.

If this process is to continue and the Minister for Finance intends to continue it and adopt a rather more rapid method than we have adopted so far, it is proof that we have been wrong here in the last nine or ten years. With regard to the anticipation of what is to happen in other countries all I have to say is that we should have anticipated that long ago. So far as butter and livestock and all farm produce is concerned I believe that in the end 75 per cent. of this debit balance has to be made up by the farmers. It has to be made up by them out of their savings, and these savings will by the end of December next have completely vanished. Then they will not be able to sell any more of their assets or their savings.

I think that this should have been considered long ago by the Minister for Agriculture. Meath is one of the counties one would expect would be most against tariffs. But the farmers of Meath are in support of this tariff on oats. There were only one or two Meath farmers who breed horses who are opposed to it. I admit that we had very bad weather in the last couple of seasons and the crop had not been properly saved. In such a year the oats grown here is perhaps not ideal for horses. Canadian and Chilean oats are not used by pretty expert racehorse trainers in other countries. I know that fifteen or twenty years ago in this country there was no such thing as Canadian or Chilean oats used. Irish oats are appreciated in other countries. We had expert trainers of horses in this country fifteen or twenty years ago, and it was rather strange that they did not use Chilean oats. They used Irish oats.

I do know something about hunters and racehorses, though I seldom go to a race meeting of late; but it surprised me when I went to a race meeting some time ago to find how imperfectly trained and turned out most of the horses were. With one or two exceptions I found that out of nine or ten horses there was nothing approaching what the racehorses of fifteen or twenty years ago were. I would say that certainly this is owing to the method of feeding and to the food the horses got. Some of the horses looked quite slobby. If we succeed in ousting foreign oats we will find that our horses in Ireland will take the place they used to take years ago. So far as the growing of oats in this country is concerned I am quite satisfied that we can grow as good oats as can be grown in any country in the world. The oats grown here is the oats that should be fed to animals in this country because it is the most suitable, taking into consideration climatic and other conditions.

I am glad that people have to a large extent to admit the necessity for this tariff. It is hard for people to apologise; I am not going to emphasise that point, but later on we will have other points. I think that from the point of view of the lowering of the adverse trade balance this tariff is a good sound step. I am sure other steps will be taken later on in the same direction.

I am not going to take up the time of the House at any great length. I notice there has been a great deal of glorification about this tariff on oats. The members of the Fianna Fáil Party, led by Deputies Aiken and Ryan, are quite confident that the tariff is going to be the salvation of the farmers of this country. The Fianna Fáil policy is a policy of wholesale tariffs on agricultural products and wholesale tariffs on industrial products, and they tell us that that policy is going to save the farmers and to save the country as well. I am not going to apologise, nor am I going to give any explanation as to why I said in the past that a tariff on oats can, in my opinion, have ultimately very little effect on the farming industry. But I am glad for two reasons that this tariff has been imposed because in the first place it is going to be of some little advantage to the farmers even though that advantage is going to be shortlived. In the second place, and this is the most important reason to my mind, it is going to prove an education to the farmers of the country just as the tariff on butter has been an education to the farmers of the country. It is quite clear that the advantage which will accrue from this tariff is going to be a slight one.

We happened during the past couple of years to have an increase in the imports of oats. That is due probably, at least possibly, to the climatic conditions of the past two summers which have been very unfavourable to the growth of oats. The weather has been very wet and the oats did not fill out very well. The result is that there has been a definite shortage in the homegrown oats and ordinary commercial oats has had to be imported. The effect of that has been that the price of oats in this country has been fixed by the price of imported oats. Now the recommendations of the Tariff Commission in this matter of oats will, in my opinion, keep out to a very large extent this importation of oats with the consequent effect that the requirements of this country being greater than the actual amount of oats in the country, the price of oats will go up to an extent. It will to that extent help the farmers who grow oats for sale in depressed times. I am very glad of that. In so far, however, as regarding this as a permanent advantage to the farmer I have very little hopes that it will be so. Deputy Ryan and the other Fianna Fáil Deputies who are glorifying this tariff on oats to such an extent as to suggest that it is going to be the salvation of the farmer, will find after this tariff has been tried out that that cannot possibly be the case.

Paragraph 42 of the Report of the Tariff Commission on this matter clearly explains the effect of this tariff on the price of oats in this respect. The paragraph reads:

If production and the proportion thereof retained for use on farms were such that there would be an insufficient home supply to meet non-agricultural needs the price of oats on the home market would, prima facie, advance in the event of a tariff being imposed. Then if the higher price obtainable proved attractive to growers, a larger acreage would undoubtedly be placed under oats, and production would once more be increased to the point where a surplus would be available for export. This process would gradually equate the home price to the world price, and a grower, producing oats with a view to sale as a cash crop, would in the long run find himself no better off than he was before the tariff was imposed, and would not, therefore, be inclined to increase permanently the area under oats.

That paragraph makes my point perfectly clear. As soon as the amount of oats produced in this country by the farmers exceeds the home requirements of the country we will immediately have an exportable surplus, and it is an axiom of political economy that the moment you have an exportable surplus the price received for the article sold in the country must equate with the price got for that part of the product which is sent out of the country. A gap has to be filled before we have an exportable surplus, and that gap is a comparatively small one. In 1930-31 we had an excess of imports over exports of 495,875 cwts. That is the biggest gap we had. But that was a gap in a very bad season. There will be a gap again this year.

Probably the effect of this tariff will be to stimulate the farmers to grow more oats next year. As soon as the farmers grow sufficient oats to fill up that gap there will again be an exportable surplus. I see no reason to think that the farmers will not in the coming season under the stimulus of an increased price which has been brought about by the imposition of this tariff, grow sufficient oats to fill up the gap. Then we will have an exportable surplus. As soon as we begin to export our home price is regulated by the external price. The result will be that we will then be in the same position as we were before the tariff was imposed. I am not objecting at all to this tariff on oats. If I have been wrong in my forecast as to the result of this tariff on oats I will be glad to be found wrong.

I would be glad to see a tariff imposed on any agricultural product on which a tariff could effectively be imposed and the effect of which would be to increase the price that the producer will get for his article no matter how small that increase may be. I say in regard to this as in regard to any other article of agricultural production that the possibility of the imposition of tariffs being a benefit is very slight indeed. It is doubtful now whether the tariff on butter has had any definite permanent effect whatever in increasing the price the farmer gets for his butter. There was some advantage the first year. Similarly the tariff on oats clearly has increased the price this season; the price this season will be definitely higher than if a tariff had not been imposed. The effect is temporary. As soon as our production of oats exceeds the requirements of the country and as soon as we begin to send oats abroad, it is no longer any advantage.

I do not maintain that the advocates of a tariff on oats or butter or bacon, or any other article of agricultural production, are consciously dishonest in their demands for a tariff on these products. I will accept it that they are honest, that they believe that, at least to some extent, it would benefit the producers. But they are dishonest from this other point of view. They are dishonest in that they are endeavouring to cover up their whole policy of wholesale tariffs by pretending that the salvation of the farmers lies almost exclusively in tariffs on agricultural products, and that equal advantages will accrue to the farmers' industry as will accrue to the owners of industrial concerns by the imposition of tariffs on industrial products.

With the possible exception of the demand for a tariff on bacon, behind which there are some real farmers, in so far as there has been a demand for tariffs on agricultural products, to my own knowledge spread over a period of many years, that demand has been helped on by, financed, and the propaganda has come to a very large extent from, those who are interested not in the agricultural industry, not in increasing the prices of agricultural products, but in getting tariffs for industrial products. That is the danger in a demand of this kind; that is the danger of a policy such as is advocated by Fianna Fáil when they state that this is going to be of immense benefit to farmers. Doubtless if we had a general election within the next two months the farmers could be told, and some of them might be foolish enough to believe, that a definite material permanent benefit would accrue from this tariff, but by this time twelve months their eyes will be opened and they will realise that the tariff was to a large extent a passing advantage and that the advantage will almost have passed away.

My attitude with regard to tariffs on agricultural products, taking this particular tariff as an illustration of the general policy of tariffs on agricultural products, is that if on examination by the Tariff Commission—and I believe that applications for all tariffs should be examined by the Tariff Commission —it can be shown that a tariff will at least do no harm to the community, it ought to be imposed. It can be stated definitely that this tariff cannot do any harm to the agricultural community. It will temporarily stimulate production and to that extent it is an advantage.

Unlike Deputy Ryan and other Fianna Fáil Deputies, who say that they stand for agriculture, I am not infallible. I have learned certain things from the Tariff Commission. I have learned that certain things were not quite as I thought they were. That in itself is an advantage. I have learned, for instance, that there is no great opposition from racehorse owners and trainers to the imposition of a tariff; that in an ordinary dry year Irish oats is as good as imported oats for racehorses. I am glad to learn that, and to have the point cleared up. In expressing an opinion on these things I was expressing the opinion conveyed to me by people who should be in a position to know. Apparently they were wrong. Apparently they were not prepared to carry that opinion before the Tariff Commission. In so far as the point is cleared up it is an advantage to know that there is no particular reason why foreign oats should come in to feed Irish racehorses.

I am particularly pleased to find that it is not necessary to import foreign oats for seed purposes. A great many practical farmers were uneducated and uninformed on that point. I was uninformed. I thought it was necessary to introduce foreign seed oats, that there was a tendency for oats grown over and over again in this country to get run down and unsuitable, and that we had to refresh our stock occasionally by the importation of foreign oats. That is an opinion commonly held and expressed by practical farmers. We now find it is not necessary, that we have pure lines of seed which can effectively meet our demands. In so far as that may help to create a new branch of the farming industry, it may be helpful.

There are certain disadvantages attaching to this, but I think they are of a temporary nature and that the people who are suffering from these disadvantages will be prepared to put them against the general benefit. There is the disadvantage that in certain parts of the country farmers do not grow sufficient oats to meet their feeding requirements. I think that a little education will be helpful to those farmers in that respect. They will find that they can fully substitute maize on a cheaper basis as a feeding stuff for oats, and that oats will meet their requirements. Again I say that I am glad that this tariff has been found to be of some use. It is undoubtedly going to be of a temporary advantage to the farmers, and I welcome it to that extent. The idea, however, that it is going to be of permanent advantage is unsound and based on unsound reasons. I would suggest to farmers that they should accept this for what it is worth, but I do not think there is anything, beyond an advantage of one or two years until we produce all the oats we require in this country, that will accrue to the farmers.

It is evident that Deputy Heffernan was labouring under terrible difficulties in trying to speak for and against the tariff. As far as he has gone he has stated that tariffs should be supported because they do no harm. That is going a very short way in favour of this tariff. My view in this matter is that the tariff on oats must be taken entirely from the farmers' point of view. There are two classes of farmers in the country: the man who grows oats and feeds all the oats he grows and the man who does not grow oats and who buys oats for feeding purposes. To the man who grows oats and feeds all the oats he grows it does not matter a row of pins whether there is a tariff imposed or not. To the man who has to buy oats for feeding purposes the question of a tariff is one of rather serious importance.

I think there is no benefit going to accrue to the farming community or agriculture generally from a tariff on oats. But there is a class of man who sells oats to the farmers who do not grow oats. Somebody called him a merchant, but in most cases he might nearly be called a gombeen man, and it is this man who is going to get the benefit out of the tariff on oats this year and next year. Deputy Heffernan says that this year there will be an immediate advantage to the farmers. I question that very much. I know cases where farmers have already sold oats at 8s. per barrel, and the men to whom they sold the oats are now going to get 14s. or 16s. a barrel in consequence of this tariff. Not a penny of that will go back into the land.

Mr. Hogan

Do you know any farmer who sold his oats for 8s. a barrel?

Mr. Hogan

What sort of oats?

—Oats are quoted at 14s. a barrel. At any rate the man who bought oats at 8s. a barrel is going to reap the benefit of the tariff.

Because he bought the oats before the tariff. It should have been brought in a year ago.

The tariff should have been brought in a year ago?

Quite so. It has been brought in at the wrong time. Deputy Heffernan says there is an immediate benefit. I see no immediate benefit. The whole thing shows that there is going to be no advantage to the farmer from this tariff this year or even next year.

There is a lot of oats not yet sold.

There is some.

There should be quite a lot.

The oats in the hands of the farmer will not be affected by this tax one iota. That oats will be fed to stock on his farm. Next year the man who bought the oats from him now will get the advantage when he comes to sell it. On the whole I agree with Deputy Haslett that the condition of affairs has not changed in the slightest, and that there is going to be no advantage from this tariff no more than there was from the butter tariff. These are on all fours and this tariff will not benefit the farmer.

I agree with Deputy Heffernan when he says that a little education would be very helpful in these matters. When he said that of course he was speaking about farmers who did not grow oats. But I think a little more education for the Cumann na nGaedheal-Farmer-Independent Party combine would be helpful to the country. Deputy O'Hanlon did not say whether he was going to vote for the tariff or not. Deputy Haslett tried to make a little bit of excuse for the Government changing its mind. He tried to fool the House into believing that the reason the Government brought in the tariff was because England went off the gold standard. Deputy Haslett was talking of the condition of affairs in another country. That is the usual way he has of alluding to England.

May I say in reply to what Deputy Aiken has said what I was referring to was the anti-dumping Bill and I was saying that it was expected that would be a preventative in England which would make all the difference in any measure here in the nature of a tariff on agricultural produce? I was not referring to the gold standard.

There is nothing about that in the Tariff Commission's report. There was no anticipation of the National Government in England or of the present conditions in England when the Government referred the application for a tariff on oats to the Tariff Commission on the 3rd June last. The reason the Government referred the matter to the Tariff Commission as to whether there should be a tariff on oats is that the people were waking up to the fact that the country have to organise in order to force the Government to do something. The tillage farmers in the town of Kildare at the last by-election showed the Government what they thought of them. I had the pleasure of speaking to some of them during the by-election and I told them that if they got together now there was an opportunity of forcing something out of the Government, and that if they wanted to insure protection for agricultural products the surest way to secure it was to turn down the Government candidate. If they were wise enough to do that, and if the farmers of the country would only follow their example in the next election they will see that something will be done for them all. Before the Kildare by-election the Minister for Agriculture was pro-Russian oats.

Communist oats.

Mr. Hogan

I am against Communist oats.

He is against Communist oats now but for the moment he is still pro-Russian barley and pro-Russian wheat. I hope the country will make him change his mind in that respect too before long.

The fundamental aspect of the whole situation has been neglected by the people who used to be opposed to a tariff on oats and who now accept the Fianna Fáil policy in regard to it, and that is the big advantage that is going to come out of this tariff, that the farmers are going to have a better chance of remaining in the production of 650,000 acres of oats. Deputy Heffernan cannot see any advantage. He can only see that we can produce another 50,000 acres on last year's standard, but the fact of the matter is if nothing had been done to protect the farmers against the dumping of foreign oats the acreage under oats would have shrunk still until we would have gone out of the whole 650,000 acres, just in the same way as we went out of the 800,000 acres of wheat formerly produced in this country. Everyone knows perfectly well that the present system of tariffs on oats is not going to help us to export oats. The tariff on oats if high enough will safeguard the home market for the 650,000 acres of oats produced last year. As Deputy Ryan pointed out the Tariff Commission calculated that that will mean an equivalent of full time employment for 12,000 or 13,000 men.

It will not mean one extra man.

Deputy Gorey does not know much about the country if he says it will not mean employment for an extra man.

I say it will not mean an extra man.

One would have to repeat a thing a dozen times to get it into Deputy Gorey's head. The fact is that this tariff if it is high enough is going to keep the farmers of this country engaged in the production of this 650,000 acres of oats.

They have always stayed at that anyhow.

They would not stay in it.

They were always in it.

Deputy Gorey admitted that he had not read the Tariff Commission's Report. I advise him to read it and if he does he will there see that the farmers are going out of production of oats owing to falling prices, and if these prices continue to fall they would go out until nobody was left in the production of oats just as there is hardly any one left in the production of wheat for the same reason. If we do not take steps to safeguard other agricultural products they will go out of production as the country went out of the production of wheat and as it was going out of the production of oats until something like this was imposed.

Deputy Heffernan is learning a little. He was glad enough to find that Irish oats was good enough for Irish racehorses and was good enough for seed for Irish soil. Hitherto the Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Heffernan always took up the attitude of sneering at Irish cereals, but if the farmers of the country get another opportunity of telling the Minister and Deputy Heffernan what they think of them, they will find their education advanced a little further and they will be glad to find in a couple of years after the Fianna Fáil Government has come in that Irish wheat is good enough for Irish people and that Irish soil is good enough to grow wheat for the Irish people.

The Tariff Commission having been touring did what the Minister for Agriculture wanted them to do:

The observations which we have made and the evidence presented to us by farmers and agricultural experts show that the preparation and manuring of the land as well as the seeding and harvesting operations, are, in general, carried out in an efficient manner; and furthermore good yields are obtained over a wide range of soils and under varying climatic conditions.

The farmers can only have an opportunity of getting a whack at the Government at a by-election. The Government may tell the Tariff Commission to find that the climatic conditions are good enough for wheat and good enough for barley and that the farmers will be as efficient in the growing of these cereals as in the growing of oats. It is a positive disgrace that this tariff was delayed until the middle of October. It is a downright disgrace. The people who did not get the tip that the Government were going to put a tariff on oats have suffered badly. Of course the men who got the tip to buy cheap oats knowing that the Government were going to put on a tariff have profited.

The Government referred the application to the Tariff Commission on the 3rd June, and it was known by people inside that they had determined to put a tariff on oats. The Minister for Agriculture promised a tariff on oats two days before the Kildare by-election. The Government had made up their minds then, and the announcement that a tariff was going to be put on should have been made before small farmers in bad circumstances were forced to sell their oats. It is a downright disgrace that that was not done, as the worst off farmers have been the worst hit over the delay. I do not know whether we will have an opportunity on the Dumping Bill of discussing the question of protecting other agricultural products in the coming year. A large number of visitors are expected, and they will eat a large amount of Irish produce. If some effort is not made to protect Irish produce these foreign visitors will be fed on foreign products. Perhaps we are a couple of weeks later than the south of England and the Channel Islands in the production of certain things, but vegetables and farm produce that are in season are good enough for any foreign visitors that come to this country. I hope the Government will make sure that our farmers will not be left with a surplus of vegetables and potatoes about the time that the Eucharistic Congress is held. There is no reason why foreign vegetables should be let in during that week as we can produce all that are required.

Mr. Hogan

A surplus of potatoes in June?

You will get them before June if the Minister announces that it is not the intention to let in foreign produce. All the potatoes that are wanted will be available. We can do without the small "marble" potatoes that are sent in from the Channel Islands, as we can produce sufficient potatoes in this country.

Better keep to the oats.

We are glad that the Government are accepting the Fianna Fáil policy even if it is only bit by bit. It is too bad that there is not a Government in power here that would not have to be kicked into doing what is right for the people. If there was a Government in control that would take a lead and that would safeguard Irish industries until all our people are employed, this country would get along much faster. The Government here has been acting as a brake on Irish productions. They are there as a barrier, neither doing the job themselves nor letting anyone else do it in a whole-hearted manner. They have been kicked into doing certain small things and I only hope that the people will get an opportunity of kicking them out altogether, and letting in somebody else who will do the job in a whole-hearted manner.

I would be inclined to sympathise with those alleged members of the farmers' party, and with some of the alleged Independent members in this House who opposed our motion for a tariff last November, were it not for the fact that now, twelve months afterwards, they get up here to try to justify their actions, and the actions of the Government, in accepting this same tariff. It reminds me of the man who was playing pitch and toss, and who had two two-headed pennies, so that no matter what way they came down he won. Deputy Heffernan seems to have learned a lot since this time twelve months. I can assure Deputy Heffernan that the farmers will teach him a few further lessons, and one is that no land in this country is too good to be sub-divided, just as they taught the Government that we should have a tariff on oats. Deputy Haslett asked what benefit had the farmers derived on the tariff on butter. The Deputy said that although he produced some butter he did not see any benefit from the tariff. I am sure that Deputy Haslett knows the frame of mind of farmers who ask: what benefit are we deriving from the Dairy Produce Act? what benefit are we deriving from the Eggs Act? what benefit are we deriving from all the other Acts that were passed to improve our conditions? The Deputy used an argument in this case that he has contradicted in other cases.

Deputy O'Hanlon says there are two types of farmers, one who grows oats as a cash crop, and the other who grows oats for feeding purposes. He says that a tariff is of no benefit to the latter class. Deputy O'Hanlon must remember that if the farmer who grows oats for feeding purposes can buy imported oats cheaper than he could produce them, then he is going to cease producing oats. That is one of the weakest arguments that could be advanced. I know something about farming, and I know no farmer who is going to be so foolish as to continue to grow oats when he finds that he can buy foreign oats cheaper. That is only common sense, and we are often told by those on the opposite Benches that farmers are common sense people. It seems to me that they have much more common sense than Deputies on the opposite Benches. Deputy O'Hanlon says that the tariff is ill-timed. When we introduced a motion last year it was also ill-timed, and the Deputy voted against it. Last week Deputy O'Hanlon talked about Asiatic rats and about Communism. He said that as a Catholic he was going to wipe out all trace of the Asiatic rat, yet the corn and the wheat that is produced by the Asiatic rat is good enough for Deputy O'Hanlon and for the people of this country, if we are to follow his line of argument.

He was going to wipe out all trace of the Asiatic rat, and yet the corn and the wheat that is produced by the Asiatic rats is good enough for Deputy O'Hanlon and the people of this country. If you follow his line of argument he is going to take from the Asiatic rats, to whom he referred last week, all the corn and the wheat which they produce and leave our own people walking about with their hands in their pockets looking for Home Help. That is the sort of reasoning and argument that we get from people who talk and prate about the farmers. Honest to God, they would give you a pain in your heart. I have been here for the last four years and I wish the people in this House would go before the farmers and tell them what they stand for. They criticise us because we do not appreciate the position, because we, who are farmers, who were bred, born and reared on farms and who know what the farmers' position is, do not appreciate the position. They tell us from the Chair of the Manager or the Editor, what the farmers' position is and what it should be. We will get rid of that soon I hope. The farmers of my county grow oats and they feed it. I would not say but that they buy some, but even if they do, anyone who goes through the county which I represent and sees farmer after farmer being driven out leaving a farm derelict, must agree that there is something wrong. You can take several districts in any county and you will find the farmers as a result of the prevailing conditions and as a result of the policy that has been adopted by this Government leaving their farms derelict. You find the homes and the houses in which families were reared lying derelict with the roofs falling in. If that sort of thing is going to continue, if the people are going to be driven off the land, then what we have understood as good national policy, as long as I can remember it, means nothing. We want to get the people on the land, but as a first step we must ensure that those now on the land remain there. That is why we are in favour of a tariff policy. We have a much greater appreciation of the farmers' position than the alleged Leader of the Farmers' Party who talks about land in Tipperary and tells us that it is too good for sub-division.

I regret that this tariff has been introduced so late in the day. Of course the Minister for Agriculture was so busy with his harvest, as was stated in the Press, that he had not time to think where the other farmers of the country were going to sell their harvest. Of course the other Ministers were too busy in other countries fixing up the fight between the Chinese and Japanese to think of anything at all in this country. The delay in the introduction of this tariff has cost the farmers in my county something like £37,000. In September the farmers in my county threshed and had to sell their oats. They grew 103,000 acres of oats last year. In September the price for white oats for feeding was £5 and for the merchants £4 10s. per ton. It is now £6 10s. per ton. We can take it that at least one-fourth of their produce was immediately to pay the tribute to John Bull. You can take it that 25,000 tons of oats were sold at a loss of 30s. per ton to the farmers. That would amount to just about the same sum as the votes of the six members of the Farmers' Party cost the farmers of the country this year in regard to the relief of rates. They cost practically the same amount as the £37,000 that was lost to the farmers because the Ministers would not come back from their holidays for one day to bring in this tariff on oats.

What did you cost the farmers of Cork?

This is the Leader of the Farmers' Party.

I want to hear the Deputy about the tariff on oats.

Deputy Heffernan told us of his attitude in regard to this tariff and that tariff. The farmers of the country have very little thought of what Deputy Heffernan's opinion or attitude on anything at present is, and I can promise him that when the next election comes along the indication of appreciation we have here will be missing. The farmers of County Tipperary do not stand for the 400-acre farm that will not be sub-divided. Deputy Heffernan stated to-day that he was very doubtful whether this tariff would be of any use next year, and that the farmers will go back again to the old method and will not grow any more oats. Deputy Heffernan loses sight of the fact that if we only increase the production of oats to meet the amount imported last year we will give employment to 1,625 men. He ignored the fact that 1,625 men have to be kept on Home Assistance, which comes out of the farmer's pocket. That does not matter, of course, to the man who talks about 400-acre farms— the man who solemnly told us a few moments ago that if racehorse owners were against the tariff he would oppose it. He does not represent the farmer; he represents the racehorse owner. I hope they will give him a good horse to take him away quickly after the elections.

Speaking for a county which produces one-sixth of the total amount of oats grown in the Free State, I welcome this tariff, late as it is. It will undoubtedly be of benefit. Deputy Heffernan, who comes from Co. Tipperary, doubts whether we can grow proper seed and states that we would want fuller education in that respect. I bought seed in his county three years ago, from his colleague Deputy Hassett and it was the best seed I ever got.

We always give you good value for your money.

I do not know whether the dairy farmers got good value for their money when they put in Deputy Heffernan here. Even at this hour of the day he advised them owing to the price of oats to turn to maize.

A Deputy

To grow maize.

He told them to buy maize. That is the teaching we get from the Leader of the Farmers' Party. Some capital was made here out of the fact that the Farmers' Union in County Cork opposed the tariff on oats. A paid official of the County Cork Farmers' Union came to Dublin and made a speech against the tariff on oats in alliance with the grain merchants of Cork. Immediately he returned he was attacked by his Farmers' Union Executive, of which Deputy Donovan is chairman, for daring to misrepresent the farmers of Cork County in Dublin. The following week at a meeting of the Cork County Agricultural Committee a resolution was also passed in favour of the tariff on oats. This famous gentleman's proposal was turned down. So much for the power of the Farmers' Union in Cork. It is about time—and I am glad even on the eve of the General Election—that this proposal was brought in and if the closeness of the General Election has no other good effect than to bring in this tariff and the tariff that Deputy Gorey is looking for,—he voted against it last year—the tariff on bacon—we will all be grateful also.

If the nearness to the General Election will also bring in a tariff on foreign barley we will be also pleased, but it is extraordinary to see the conversion that occurred here since the 20th November, when we had solemn statements made here by the gentlemen who will vote now in favour of it. I am glad to see that we are such good missionaries and that we have power of conversion and that the leader of the Farmers' Party, who voted against a tariff on oats last year, is going to vote in favour of it this year. He stated last year that he was opposed to a tariff on oats. He talked about the extra cost. He voted for a tariff on rosary beads, the only tariff he ever voted for. I must congratulate the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party on the new converts we have got lately. It is said that there is more joy for one converted sinner, but I do not know. There is always a very grave doubt with regard to sinners, and I am afraid when people catch a hold of sinners of this description that they will put them in limbo for a while. I am sure when the farmers catch Deputy Heffernan in the country that they will remember not the deathbed repentance but the actions here during the last eight years and what those have cost the farmer. It has cost the farmers of Cork County £45,000 in relief of rates. Owing to the extended holidays of the Minister they were not able to bring in this proposal until the 4th November and that cost the like £37,000 this year. They have suffered that through the absolute neglect of the gentlemen who are too well paid and cannot do the business they are paid for.

It is customary to make allowance for party political speeches. The object of that class of speech is to distort and to make the situation as unreal as possible. It is said by some Deputies of responsibility—Deputy Ryan — I do not mean some of the other Deputies—that people on these benches have been converted. There is no conversion or no change of attitude. The attitude last November, the November before and the November before that, and as long as this Dail has been in existence, has been that tariffs should be decided upon. The motion was that they should be decided upon without any examination. We voted against that motion and supported the principle that tariffs must be examined before they are decided upon. Play has been made of the loss the farmers this year have suffered because the tariff was not imposed earlier. It was not because of any delay in the tariff. It was because of the climatic conditions in June and because the oat crop was 40 per cent. below the average. A bag of oats, instead of weighing from 17 to 20 stone, will not weigh this year any more than from 13 to 15 stone.

Did you ever see a bag weighing 20 stone?

I did and 21 and 22 stone. A sack of oats may weigh 22 stone. It is decent oats certainly. It is not because of the shortage in acreage, but because of the shortage in barrellage and production. Last year the same difficulties prevailed. The oats were flattened out and had to be cut by a reaping machine and only two-thirds were available. That was the reason for our discrepancy. One of the real reasons of this is to keep out communist oats and anything that will keep out communists and communism will have our support any year. I never heard a funnier argument than that 1,625 people are going to be employed. I make the statement no matter what is in the Tariff Commission Report, that the addition of this 52,000 to our 600,000 acres will not mean the increase of five people in employment. We are not going to take up a ranch and grow thousands of acres of oats. It is going to be grown all over the country. Where there are five acres this year there may be five and a half next year or six at a maximum. A pair of horses and a plough will sow these and it will not mean an increase of one man in the country.

Would he not be a few hours longer at the six than at the five acres?

Yes, but that is all it would mean; it will not mean any extra employment or extra wages.

They will have to work harder.

Men will have to work harder and may have to take off their coats where they were wearing their jackets before. It will not mean increased employment at all and it could not. The acreage too has been referred to. Previous to last year we had bad oats in this country and had an unusual influx of foreign oats. The average imports for five or six years would amount to about 200 cwts. or a little over. That would mean very little in acreage. I would like to know what 200 cwts. would mean in acreage. In a normal year it would mean very little and it not worth talking about. I said that 12 months ago. That is my opinion now and the farmer in two years' time will know from experience that he will not derive five shillings advantage from this tariff.

So far as my county is concerned and so far as the working farmers there are concerned, this is a case of locking the door when the horse is gone. In the case of a great number of the working farmers of Kildare, their oats are sold at 9/- or 10/- a barrel. That was a big loss to them. The benefit of the tariff will go to the merchants and dealers who have bought these oats. Whether they knew a tariff was coming on or not, I do not know. The people entitled to the benefit of the tariff will be deprived of it. Next year, according to Deputy Heffernan, the big increase in the acreage of oats, which he anticipates, will reduce the price. He anticipates that there will be an exportable surplus which will bring the price down. I suggest that the best protection against that would be to improve the price of barley by prohibiting the importation of a lot of the barley that finds its way in here. In that way, much of the land which might be devoted to oats would be devoted to barley. If the Fianna Fáil wheat policy was adopted, it might have the same effect. I do not think it is too late yet. The tariff on oats would be more effective and more beneficial if it were combined with prohibition of foreign barley and encouragement of wheat growing.

We are glad that the Minister for Agriculture has changed his attitude so far as the importation of oats is concerned. It is not so long since he expressed the view that the more foreign oats and the cheaper it came in the better for the farmers. This tariff indicates a change of attitude so far as the Minister is concerned. As late as last Friday week, he said that the tariff was going to be no good. Although he introduced it, he believed that it would be no good. Immediately it went on, the price of oats went up 4/- or 5/- a barrel. It will take more than the Minister's power of persuasion to convince the farmer who has since then sold corn that the tariff is of no use.

I should like to refer to the question of imperial preference. I understand that imperial preference amounts to one-third the amount of the tariff. That will mean that German and Russian oats need only be brought across the Northern Border in order to obtain the same preference as English or Canadian oats. The Minister has no way of proving that the oats imported are Russian or German oats. All countries will get the benefit of imperial preference so far as oats are concerned. The tariff means that there will be no direct shipments of oats from Germany or other countries but that they will be landed at, say, Liverpool, and tran-shipped here. They can then get the benefit of imperial preference without any difficulty.

We hope the Minister will continue doing his good work so far as tariffs are concerned and that before long we will have a tariff on bacon, which the farmers all over the country are seeking. It is to be hoped that the Minister will introduce that tariff and that he will not condemn the farmers any longer to sell their pigs at 25 per cent. under the cost of production. This tariff was too long delayed. In Wexford one-third of the oats was sold at from 6s. 6d. to 8s. per barrel. I hope that when the Government make up their mind to put a tariff on bacon they will put it on immediately. During the bye-election in Kildare the Minister, as Deputy Aiken mentioned, said that he would give the farmers a tariff on oats if they would vote for the Government candidate.

Mr. Hogan

Do you believe that?

I know it and I can prove it. You could have given a tariff on oats then as easily as you can give it now in the middle of November.

In this House, the mere contemplation of any tariff seems to generate in certain deputies a condition of intellectual vertigo. Deputy O'Hanlon seems to be one of these. Deputy O'Hanlon gave us a remarkable example of arithmetic. He said that oats were sold by a certain farmer at 8s. a barrel and that in consequence of the imposition of a tariff of 3s. a barrel these oats were going to be sold at 16s. a barrel. He argued from this —and if his premises are correct I agree with him—that the person who is going to reap the benefit of the tariff in this instance is the merchant who will sell the oats. I did not quite appreciate what Deputy O'Hanlon's attitude was.

You have had that information from your own benches.

I did not quite appreciate what Deputy O'Hanlon's attitude and action in regard to this tariff was going to be. He seemed to indicate that he was opposed to the tariff. If so, is he going to vote against the tariff?

If so, how is he going to reconcile his vote in this House with the policy of that collection of rather peculiar people who have recently found in Deputy O'Hanlon a sympathetic spirit and kindred soul, and who are hailing him as the latest acquisition to their fold? I refer to what is known as the Centre Party. According to any statements I have heard, the Centre Party is wholeheartedly in favour of protection.

Would the Deputy kindly prove to the House that I have any connection in any way with the Centre Party?

Am I to take it that Senator O'Hanlon disowns the Centre Party?

Would the Deputy be good enough to show me what connection the Centre Party has with this resolution?

The policy of the Centre Party.

Has nothing whatever to do with this resolution.

I merely wanted to know whether Deputy O'Hanlon was still in a position of complete detachment from any party in this House, and whether he was in a position of equal detachment from the economic conditions of the farmer.

I am very pleased that the Deputy has introduced the Centre Party. It has given me the first public opportunity to dissociate myself from the Centre Party.

We will leave the Centre Party out of the question. But the Deputy's attitude, as I said, to the tariff seemed to be based upon the fact that so far as this year was concerned it was not going to benefit the tillage farmer; it was not going to benefit the farmer generally. It was only going to benefit the corn merchant. If that is the case who is to blame for that? As has been already pointed out when we this time twelve months introduced a motion in this House calling for the imposition of a tariff upon oats that tariff was opposed by the three blind mice of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party—the Minister for Agriculture, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and Deputy Gorey. The three blind mice are now running after the farmer and the farmer's wife, and they are going to go into the division lobby against Deputy O'Hanlon and vote for a tariff on oats.

The three blind mice are now coming around to the Fianna Fáil policy, but they are not coming around quickly enough to save their tails, because the farmers and the farmers' wives in every constituency in the Twenty-six Counties at the coming General Election are going to serve the Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Gorey in exactly the same way as they served the Cumann na nGaedheal candidates in Longford-Westmeath and Kildare. Deputy Heffernan speaks in this House, in a chastened mood. He is not infallible, he says. He quite admits that he was misinformed when he opposed this tariff on the grounds that it was going to be detrimental not to the interests of the farmers but detrimental to the interests of the racehorse owners. He admits that he was incorrect when he opposed this tariff on the ground that it was necessary to import seed oats in this country. And having admitted that every single ground upon which he opposed this tariff is, in the judgment of the Tariff Commission, an erroneous and misleading ground, he now comes along and says that notwithstanding the fact that he is not infallible and that he has been proven to be fallible, he still holds to the contention that this tariff will not be of permanent benefit to the farmer. And he bases his opinion I think on paragraph 42 of the Tariff Commission Report and upon this statement:—

If production and the proportion thereof retained for use on farms were such that there would be an insufficient home supply to meet non-agricultural needs the price of oats on the home market would, prima facie, advance in the event of a tariff being imposed. Then, if the higher price obtainable proved attractive to growers, a large acreage would undoubtedly be placed under oats, and production would once more be increased to the point where a surplus would be available for export. This process would gradually equate the home price to the world price, and a grower, producing oats with a view to sale as a cash crop, would, in the long run, find himself no better off than he was before the tariff was imposed.

Agreed. If the tariff is going to be effective at all, if it is going to enable the grower to meet all the requirements of the home markets and to have an exportable surplus, the tendency will be to equate the home price to the world price. And what is the conclusion to be drawn from that? First of all that if this tariff is effective, in the long run it will not act in any way detrimentally to the farmer with whom Deputy O'Hanlon professes to be primarily concerned—the farmer who has to buy oats for feeding purposes. Because in the long run the price of the home-grown oats, having been equated to the world price of oats, that farmer even under a tariff will be able to buy oats in the Irish market at the same price as he would be able to buy it if the tariff were not there.

The point that I suggest is of first importance is: At what point will the home price be equated to the world price? Will it be under present conditions when we have only 650,000 acres under oats and giving employment approximately to 20,000 people, or will it be when our production has increased to something over 1,000,000 acres, as in 1919-1920, and giving employment to 30,000 people?

Why say 1,000,000 acres? In 1925 there were 666,000 acres under oats and according to the Tariff Commission there was an export surplus in that year. Why does the Deputy propose to grow a million acres? Will he explain that?

I am not going to explain it. We know that there were a million acres under tillage in 1919-1920 and a million acres can be grown again, and when we get to that point when we shall be able to influence the world market and when the home price will be equated to the world price and when our exportable surplus becomes great then we shall have not 20,000 people growing oats but at least 30,000 people; and in the meantime we shall have those two advantages, first of having 10,000 people additional in employment and secondly that the price of oats in the Irish market will not be above the world price and that no section of the Irish farmers will suffer in consequence of the tariff. And even if one section of the farmers were to suffer, surely it is the duty of the Government to see that every section of the farmers is benefited and not one class only, notwithstanding anything which Deputy Heffernan has said and notwithstanding any of the specious arguments which may be advanced at present against a tariff.

We have benefited one class of the farmers by the imposition of a tariff upon butter. Deputy Gorey wants us to benefit another class of farmer who is interested in the bacon factories by imposing a tariff upon bacon. If the dairy farmers of Limerick and the Waterford farmers and the Kilkenny farmers who are sending pigs to the bacon factories want protection so also do the tillage farmers of Leix-Offaly, Westmeath and Kildare require protection.

The tillage farmers of Westmeath wanting protection!

Well the tillage farmers of Longford and Kildare and other counties that are in exactly the same way. We cannot in a matter like this, if we are going to put certain sections and classes of the community under apparent disability by imposing tariffs, refuse to give fair play to other sections of the community. If we put a tariff on one class of commodity we have got to equalise that so as to give fair play to the other classes of the community by imposing tariffs for their benefit as well. In that way we will counterbalance any detrimental effect of the tariff on butter or of the tariff on bacon or the tariff on oats. In that way every section of the community will be benefited. I am glad to say that already we have brought the Cumann na nGaedheal to two-fifths of the Fianna Fáil way and we are now going to get a tariff upon bacon.

You are getting tariffs after examination, not before.

After the examination which we have made before we introduced our Motion. We had examined the question of oats and we had satisfied ourselves that it was practicable to impose a tariff upon it. We satisfied ourselves it would be beneficial to the farmers to impose a tariff upon butter so as to protect the dairying industry. We also satisfied ourselves that it would benefit the farmers to impose a tariff on barley and wheat and other things. We introduced a motion in connection with wheat. The Tariff Commission has said that in two cases the Fianna Fáil policy was right and that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, the Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Heffernan were wrong. Later on when the bacon tariff will be imposed we will also be found to be right. When these parties go to the country and when both policies are put before the people of this country and not before the Tariff Commission, I am sure that the people of the country will find that the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party is right and that the Cumann na nGaédheal Party and Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Gorey and the rest of them will be thrown into exterior darkness.

I have listened for the last couple of hours to the speeches of the Deputies on the Opposition side. I do not think I ever before heard so much piffle in the course of two hours. I do not mind Deputies like Deputy MacEntee and people like him, who do not know the first thing about farming, talking nonsense about it, but when Deputies like Deputy Ryan, Deputy Allen and Deputy Corry, who is a farmer, talk about one-third of the oats being sold in November, and when they talk about first-class oats being sold at 6/- to 8/- a barrel, what am I to think? These Deputies know that that is all nonsense and so much silly propaganda. Now what are the facts? Not five per cent. of the oats is sold on the 1st November. Not even three per cent. of the saleable oats is sold by the 1st November. Not one barrel of oats was sold for 6/- or 8/-, and every Deputy on those benches opposite who happens to own a bit of land knows that all that sort of thing is wrong.

It is extremely difficult to get back to anything like reality when people get up and make silly political speeches and talk drivel for two or three hours. One wonders whether it is worth while at all to get back to the realities of the situation because one feels that he is speaking to people who though their knowledge is very limited still they are people who are bound to know something about these matters. Labouring these points is not a pleasant occupation for anybody. Now to get back to the question of oats. Here are a few figures I want the House to remember. We produce 13,000,000 cwts. of oats yearly. I do not like to give the House statistics because as I have already said statistics have done more harm to the Party opposite than even seditious literature. But let me give a few modest figures. We produce 13,000,000 cwts. of oats in the Saorstát. We require for seed cats 1,300,000 cwts. We import seed to the amount of 120,000 cwts. to 150,000. I wish Deputies would get these figures into their heads.

We have them now by heart.

Mr. Hogan

That is the trouble. Would the Deputy try and understand them and try and put them into their proper perspective? I want to give the House the imports figures and exports figures for the last five years, beginning with 1926-'27 and down to 1930-'31. In 1926-'27 we exported 887,000 cwts; in 1927-'28 the exports were 1,400,000 cwts; in 1928-'29, 700,000 cwts; in 1929-'30 500,000 cwts; and 1930-'31 200,000 cwts. These were our exports of oats for these years. I have given the matter in round figures of so many hundred thousand. Now in 1926-'27 we imported 260,000 cwts; in 1927-'28 150,000 cwts; in 1928-'29 241,000 cwts; in 1929-'30 286,000 cwts and in 1930-'31 695,000 cwts. What is the moral of that story? All this took place before this tariff was imposed. Taking one year with another the exports are twice as great as the imports. There is only one year in which the total of the imports was greater than the exports and that was last year.

What was the reason?

Mr. Hogan

A bad year—do you not know that as well as I do?

A bad year and Russian oats.

Mr. Hogan

I do not think Russian oats had anything to do with it. Russian oats does not count. What counts is the cheap Argentine meal, as Deputies Allen and Ryan know. Last year you had a particularly bad year for grain, and this year you had another bad year. These years were worse than for a long time previously. This year was better than we expected it to be, but still it was a bad year. In addition to the bad year last year, what had you? You had Indian meal coming in last year at a wholesale price of £4 a ton. You had wheat at 16s. a barrel. You had imports of grain coming in cheaply. What is the result? There is bound to be a fall in the acreage under oats. Any farmer who would increase his acreage under oats this year, if he expected that cheap imports would continue, would be a fool. Of course I will hear some Deputy saying, "What are you going to do about it? What about unemployment?" Is not the moral of that story that the cheaper our imports are the better? The cheaper the grain and feeding stuffs come into this country the better. Would we have a pig in the country at 38s. per cwt. unless we were able to get Indian meal at the cheap price we had been getting it? Does not every intelligent farmer know that it is only the cheap feeding stuffs with the price of butter, and other farm produce as it is, that saved the farmer from bankruptcy? Every Deputy who knows anything at all about farming knows that. The price of oats was cheap last year. The imports of feeding stuffs were big. The acreage under oats this year is low. Why is it low this year? Because the people realise that they can get cheaper grain, and if we are not to have cheaper oats we are to have cheaper Indian meal, cotton cake, wheat, and other grains. There is only one way to get permanently high prices for oats, and that is to impose a tariff on Indian meal. The Deputies opposite know that. Do they stand for that?

It might be necessary very soon.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. Hogan

Very well. If you do stand for such a tariff, what will happen our exports of bacon?

What about the imports of bacon?

Mr. Hogan

Why stop at the imports of butter? We have a surplus of £4,000,000's worth of bacon; £3,000,000 to £4,000,000's worth of butter and £3,000,000 to £4,000,000's worth of eggs. If we are to impose tariffs on imported feeding stuffs in order to put up the price of oats, if we are to put up the price of feeding stuffs in order to put up the price of oats, what is going to happen to our export trade and our export surplus? It does not matter what is my view on tariffs or what your views on tariffs are, except that it is a little painful, having come to a mature age, to have to listen to a debate on tariffs here which I could hear in a debating society in University College, Dublin, when I was an undergraduate. You would expect a little more from people who have passed the age of from eighteen to twenty years, and who are in business themselves. The sort of debate I have listened to here on tariffs I heard twenty-five years ago in University College, Dublin, when I was young.

Did you learn that since last November?

Mr. Hogan

I said exactly last November what I am saying now.

What about Deputy Heffernan?

Mr. Hogan

I said exactly last November what I say now. I say now that apart from politics every Deputy on the opposite Benches knows that this tariff on oats is quite futile from the point of view of increasing the price of oats unless you accompany it with a tariff on wheat, as Deputy Haslett stated, and a tariff above all things on Indian meal. Deputy Ryan almost came over to my point of view to-day. So far from my being converted the conversion has taken place on the Benches opposite. Deputy Ryan said that it would make no difference except that it would bring about 40,000 or 50,000 more acres of oats. It would make no real difference in price in the long run, he admitted.

I did not. Withdraw that or prove it.

Mr. Hogan

I will tell you how I prove it. The Deputy read paragraph 42 of the Tariff Commission Report.

I said oats had gone up 4/- a barrel.

Mr. Hogan

I shall come to that. Let me make my point.

Give him time to wriggle.

Mr. Hogan

In any event, I knew that before. Deputy Ryan read paragraph 42, which reads as follows:—

If production and the proportion thereof retained for use on farms were such that there would be an insufficient home supply to meet nonagricultural needs, the price of oats on the home market would, prima facie, advance in the event of a tariff being imposed.

That is, of course, the temporary effect. I am talking of the permanent effect. I shall come to that later and spend some time on it. The paragraph continues:—

Then if the higher price obtainable proves attractive to growers, a larger acreage would undoubtedly be placed under oats, and production would once more be increased to the point where a surplus would be available for export. This process would gradually equate the home price to the world price, and a grower, producing oats with a view to sale as a cash crop, would, in the long run, find himself no better off than he was before the tariff was imposed, and would not, therefore, be inclined to increase permanently the area under oats.

What is Deputy Ryan's comment on that?

I did not read it.

Mr. Hogan

You gave the substance of it. You had just referred to the report, and what was the comment? That in any event it would increase the area under oats, even though it would not increase the price.

I did not say that.

Mr. Hogan

The trouble about Deputies opposite is that you never know what they mean. I took him to mean that.

I know what the Minister means, and he will have to withdraw it. I never said that it would not increase the price of oats.

Mr. Hogan

I accept that. The Deputy thinks it will permanently increase the price of oats.

Tell us what you think yourself.

Mr. Hogan

I have been telling you the whole time.

You have been telling us nonsense—piffle.

Deputy Smith was not interrupted when he was speaking.

Mr. Hogan

There is a terrible lot of hesitation on the opposite Benches whatever the reason is, especially amongst some Deputies. Deputy Ryan said he never meant anything of the kind. Deputy Ryan gives it as his opinion that this will permanently increase the price of oats. That is what he means now. Am I right in that?

I did not say anything about the price of oats when speaking.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy wants to have it both ways.

I do not want to have it both ways. The Minister wants to have it both ways—last year and this year. He is trying to put it across us.

Mr. Hogan

Now we know where we stand.

I said the Report stated that it would at least increase the acreage by 52,000 acres. I said later that since the tariff was imposed the price went up four shillings per barrel.

Mr. Hogan

I will come to the temporary effect. I will not let the Deputy get away with that. It is Deputy Ryan's position that this tariff will permanently increase the price of oats? Let us have it one way or the other.

What is your opinion?

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy will not answer.

I agree with the Report that it will permanently increase the price of oats up to 52,000 extra acres.

Mr. Hogan

That is a silly quibble.

It is not a quibble. If so, the Report is a quibble. The Report says that the price will increase as long as we supply our own needs, but if we begin to export, the price will come down. Is that a quibble? If so the Report is a quibble.

Mr. Hogan

The Dáil has heard what has passed and we will leave it at that.

Does the Minister still hold that what I said is a quibble?

Mr. Hogan

I hold that what you said latterly is a quibble certainly, a complete quibble.

Are you quoting the Report as a quibble?

Mr. Hogan

No.

Does the Minister deny that the Report says that the price will increase as long as we supply our own needs, but if it comes about that we have to export, the price goes down? Is that a quibble?

Mr. Hogan

I do not deny that the Report says that the moment we export oats we will equate to the world price.

That is what I say. Is that a quibble?

Mr. Hogan

That is not what you said. However, let me clear it up. Let me put the position. I am dealing now not with the temporary increase in the price of oats, but with the permanent increase in the price of oats. I can afterwards deal with the temporary increase in the same way as we had a temporary increase in the price of butter. I am dealing now with the permanent increase. I understood Deputy Ryan to admit that whatever the reasons might be there would be no permanent increase. He says he admitted no such thing, and I accept that. All I am concerned to point out is that that was the case that the Tariff Commission made—that there would be no permanent increase in the price of oats. That is their case. That is obvious to everybody who knows anything about the subject. It is obvious to everybody that there can be no permanent increase in the price of oats by a mere tariff on oats, and that the only way to bring about a permanent increase in the price of oats is by a tariff on Indian meal, cotton cake, wheat, and all other cereals coming into the country.

Let us come now to this question of the increase of acreage. There is no doubt that our crop of oats is short this year. Why is it short? As I pointed out before, it is short because cheap cereals came into the country. What are the cheap cereals? Indian meal, largely. When will an increase in acreage come about? An increase in acreage will come about again when the cheap cereals are no longer available. A tariff on oats will not have the smallest bit to do with it. There is a fall in acreage this year because this year follows last year when cereals were extremely cheap. If the cereals remain cheap, next year there will be no increase in the acreage under oats, and there will be a slight rise, as a result, in the price of oats. If, on the other hand, cereals go up, there will be an increase in a year or two in the acreage of oats, and you will have the price of oats here equating to the world price. This tariff will make no difference—good, bad, or indifferent— to the price of oats.

Why vote for it then?

Mr. Hogan

I shall come to that. I said last November that this tariff would not make twopence difference to the farmers and they realise that already and they know that way it will make no difference. The position about this tariff is exactly the same as regards the tariff on butter. I would not waste time debating whether we put on the tariff at the right time or not. I know that we put on the tariff on butter exactly at the right time, at the beginning of the winter, which was the only time at which it would increase the price. Deputies opposite who say to the contrary know that they are talking nonsense. We put on the tariff on oats in the month of November, not only before any quantity was sold, but exactly the right time again.

Question.

Mr. Hogan

Oh, I do not mind the Deputy. What happened in regard to butter? Here I am talking with some knowledge of the subject. I control four or five creameries, the largest creameries in Ireland, and the Department of Agriculture has been selling butter all the year. What was the immediate effect of the tariff on butter? The immediate effect was that it put up the price of butter to the full figure of 4d. imposed by the tariff. What will be the immediate effect of the tariff on oats put on in a period of shortage? It will put up the price to the full amount just as was the effect of the tariff on butter. What was the effect of the tariff on the price of butter in May, June, July, August, September and October, up to the present day? It did not fetch one penny more than in England —no not even one halfpenny. I did not wait nearly for a year to find out that and point it out to the Irish farmer. For four years I have been pointing out to them that taking the long view and considering their production as a whole tariffs could be of no use to them; that taking their production of livestock and livestock products, of which they have a surplus on every item, while there may be temporary rises due to dislocation immediately after the tariff was put on, tariffs can be of no use to them because they would not put up prices and will not increase production. The butter tariff proved that up to the hilt and it is Deputies sitting on these benches who can come in and say "We told you so."

What happened? Is there any Deputy sitting on the benches opposite who will deny that the price of butter this year has been the same as the price of butter in England, notwithstanding the tariff here and notwithstanding that it was a prohibitive tariff? Does anybody deny that? We had a lot of nonsense before the event, but we put the duty on and it amounts almost to prohibition. What has been the result? Not one single penny more on the price of butter. The price of butter is 15/- per cwt. this year less than it was before the tariff was put on at all. What good was the tariff then? It is quite true that the farmers got something out of it immediately after the tariff was put on, but remember they lost something as well. I am not now talking politics and I want to warn the farmers what they have to be on their guard against. Our exports of butter amounted to about £3,000,000 per annum—it is a little over £3,000,000, the balance between three and a half million pounds and five million pounds is made up of cream, condensed milk, and milk products of other kinds. Now the export of butter from Denmark to the British market amounts to something like £20,000,000—I forget the exact figure. By exporting £20,000,000 worth of butter of a uniform character from Denmark to England the Danes have got a good-will in the English market which we can never get with our small export. We could get a better price if our exports amounted to £15,000,000 and if our exports were continuous for the whole year round.

There is no big grocer in England who is friendly to this country who has not put that point of view. Remember the home market is no good to us. I am talking now when all our imports have been stopped and when we have this export surplus. Remember too that every friendly agency who handles our butter has put up that it is first-class. Someone has asked what the Dairy Produce Act did for our butter trade. It saved the butter situation. We are closer to the Danish than ever we were. Our butter is now admitted to be first-class. But we can never reach the Danish figure until we export bigger quantities and quantities sufficient to supply the needs of the big merchants who are catering for the big centres of population. Remember when thinking of this butter situation and when you say that it does not do us any good, ask yourselves this question: Did the situation created by the tariff do us any harm? Our supplies are £500,000 smaller now by reason of the fact that certain exports have been kept at home to supply a market that was formerly supplied by £500,000 worth of cheap imports.

Take the case of bacon. I do not want to say very much about that because it is before the Tariff Commission at the present moment, but remember the question is becoming very acute. There will be a question of that, and I have no doubt the Tariff Commission will avert to it. What is going to happen your good-will in the British market which is essential to you, because if you stop imports you will have a huge surplus.

Are you going to make the case now in regard to a bacon tariff? Would it not be as well to leave it alone?

Mr. Hogan

Both the old and the new Tariff Commission have always tackled these questions on their merits. Deputies opposite who talk politics ought to realise that I am saying now, and I make no excuse for saying it, that when we come to consider this question of a tariff on bacon we cannot consider it like the tariff on oats or the tariff on butter and say it will do no harm and therefore clap it on. I am not giving the answer. We have to consider this further that bacon is in a slightly different position, and that if we prohibit the import of bacon we are prohibiting almost one and three-quarter million pounds of bacon which will have to be supplied by Irish production which in turn will have to be withdrawn from the British market. That is one consideration which, of course, even though I never saw it, is quite present to the minds of the Tariff Commission and will get the fullest consideration.

Does the Minister suggest that that one and three-quarter million pounds will have to be withdrawn from the British market?

Mr. Hogan

Yes. Take the case of butter. In spite of the tariff our production has been less. The one and three-quarter millions of bacon that will have to supply the home market instead of the imports will have to be supplied by home production which formerly went to England.

What Deputy Ryan said about oats, that this tariff will increase production, was also said about butter. Has it increased production? The production of butter has fallen in this country, but not because of the tariff. The only point I am making is that in spite of the tariff the production of butter has fallen. But I want to go on and say that the production of butter does not depend at all on the tariff. The tariff has nothing to do with it; it will not be affected by a tariff. Whether there is an increase or a decrease in the production of butter will depend on factors entirely outside a tariff, and whether there is a decrease or an increase in the production of oats will depend on factors entirely outside this tariff. The production of oats and the price here will depend absolutely and always on the price of Indian meal and maize, and as far as this tariff is concerned it will make no difference whatsoever in production or price, though I expect that there will be an increase in the price this year, due to the shortage, and to the imposition of a tariff, in the same way as there was an increase in the price of butter. I expect there may be an increase in acreage next year. Why then impose this tariff? I stated last year that a tariff on oats did not matter twopence. Deputies seem to think it does. Some of us are paid as Ministers and some as Deputies, and we are wasting three hours talking about this tariff when we might be doing something else.

Every Deputy who spoke, not only Deputy Aiken and Deputy MacEntee, who know nothing about it, but Deputy Allen and Deputy Corry—who tells us that he is a farmer and a good one—say that it is important. Remember that there are a lot of people in the country persuaded by political propaganda that it is important just as they were persuaded that the butter tariff was important. They were persuaded that a tariff on butter, on oats and other things was very important, and that it was going to make easy money. A tremendous amount of the mental energy of farmers that might have gone to creative work is being deflected to political expedients and to political panaceas which amount to nothing. I am in favour of this tariff in much the same way as I am in favour of the republic. If we had tariffs and a republic we would have no excuse but to settle down to work. The republic is being used in this country as an excuse for not working, and so is a tariff on butter and a tariff on bacon. My point of view upon tariffs on bacon or butter is that they make no difference, none whatever, and that a tariff on butter or oats makes no difference; that anything which will deflect farmers' attention from a perfectly futile issue of that sort and get them back to real business is a good thing. I think, with Deputy Heffernan, that the effects of these tariffs in the long run will be extremely educational. The country will begin to realise that after all these tariffs are not going to have the advantages which professional politicians say they are going to have. I think people will begin to wake up as a result of the tariffs on butter and oats to the real danger.

What is the real danger? The real danger of the position is that there are a very large number of people who want industrial tariffs. They are very well organised. Being organised, and having funds at their disposal, they are able to get at politicians and political parties by efficient propaganda. We are extremely good at propaganda, much better at propaganda than at work. My point of view on industrial tariffs is that the people that are behind the propaganda realised long ago that there is one step in their way. They realise that they cannot get away with the propaganda, and cannot get away with industrial tariffs, with a constant increase in the cost of living to the consumer, who, to a great extent, is the farmer in this country, unless they can promise the farmer a quid pro quo. Deputies on the opposite benches know that perfectly well. They are in the same position as the industrialists. They are not very much concerned at all with the farmer. Their main interest in the farmer is to trick him, to fool him.

They did not try it in Kildare.

Mr. Hogan

Their main interest in the farmer is to try to persuade him that if he agrees to industrial tariffs they can give him a quid pro quo in agricultural tariffs. I flatter myself that the tariff on butter has definitely killed that. There was a real danger three or four years ago that farmers would be tricked into the point of view that they could afford to agree to all sorts of indiscriminate and extravagant industrial tariffs, that were certain to increase their cost of living, on the promise that they would get instead agricultural tariffs. I believe that, to a great extent, that danger has passed. I believe that the tariff on butter has definitely shown the farmer that there is a very big difference between putting a tariff on products of which there is a shortage in home production, such as industrial products, and putting a tariff on a product of which there is a big export surplus. I believe that the tariff on butter has done more than anything that I or anyone could do to show the farmer that there is that distinction. I believe that this tariff, if it has no other advantage, will tend further to press home that lesson, and I am personally in favour of this tariff for that reason, and for no other.

Resolutions agreed to.
Barr
Roinn