Vol. 48 No. 19
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £2,450,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun Deolchairí, Conganta Airgid, etc., alos Easportála.
That a sum not exceeding £2,450,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1934, for Export Bounties, Subsidies, etc.
What are the items in respect of which these are to be paid, and what is the approximate amount in each case?
The information as to what the items are has already been disclosed to the Dáil, and time is pressing.
Surely this is the occasion upon which to give us the information.
The items are: live cattle, rate of bounty, 35/- per head for two years old and over; fifteen months and under two years old, 15/- per head; sheep and lambs, 3/- per head; bullock and heifer beef, 7/- per cwt.; cow and bull beef, 3/6 per cwt.; mutton and lamb, 10/- per cwt.; veal, 7/- per cwt.; eggs, extra selected, 2/- per great 100; selected, 2/- per great 100; medium, 1/7 per great 100; pullets, 1/7 per great 100; ducks, ? per great 100; cold stored and pickled, 2/- per great 100; frozen liquid eggs or frozen liquid whites or yokes, 12/6 per cwt. Poultry: Turkeys, 3d. per lb.; other poultry, 2d. per lb.; live pigs, 12½ per cent. ad valorem; bacon and hams, 10/- per cwt.; pork, 7/6 per cwt.; pig offals, 5/- per cwt.; grass seed, 10 per cent. ad valorem; potatoes grown in scheduled districts, £1 per ton; all other districts, 17/6 per ton; creamery butter subsidy, 31/- per cwt.; factory and farm butter, subsidy 27/-; cream subsidy, 2/6 per gallon; biscuits, 10 per cent.; mining and quarry products, including slates, 10 per cent and 15 per cent.; linen and cotton piece goods manufactures, 20 per cent; woollen and worsted manufactures, 20 per cent.; jute, 15 per cent. and 20 per cent.; feathers and curled hair, 10 per cent.; blacking and polishes, 10 per cent.; shirts, collars, hosiery, 20 per cent.; brewers and distillers grains, 10 per cent.; horticultural and nursery goods, 25 per cent.; margarine, 10 per cent.; smoking pipes, 25 per cent.; basic slag, 10 per cent.
How much on jaw bones?
Could the Minister allocate the £2,500,000 under these different headings approximately?
Is there no bounty for cattle under 15 months?
I do not want the Minister to tell us the amount of bounty to be paid on pipes, but, say, as between the different classes of agricultural produce.
I am not in a position to do that.
A question of real importance is the position of factory butter, under these particular bounties. A large portion of the county I represent is not in a position to avail itself of creameries. A lot of the butter is ordinary home-made farmers' butter. Under the scale of bounties in force, I have heard, in fact, that the various butter buyers have told the farmers or the sellers in the local districts that they are not in a position to give more than 6½d. for first-grade butter, 6¼d. for second-grade, and 6d. for third-grade. Those are the prices actually given in the month of May of this year, and it is quite obvious that, though something may have been done in keeping up the price of creamery butter, nothing effective has been done so far as a very large portion of the county I represent is concerned, and therefore so far as a very large portion of the country is concerned, that is where there are no creameries. There are two industries hit in that way, that of the ordinary farmer who makes farm butter, and has not the advantage of creameries, and that of manufacturers who make factory butter. I understand that recommendations have been made——
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present—
I suggest that you might take a motion for the adjournment of the House. This is the second time that attention has been called to the fact that there is no quorum. It shows that the Deputies are not attending to their business, or are not capable of doing so. As I understand it, a large portion of the staff is not able to carry on, and how can you expect it? Will you accept my motion for the adjournment of the House?
With regard to those markets, so far as I am aware, no satisfactory solution has been offered by the Minister. I should like him to turn his attention to it. I am sure he is filled with all the benefits of the case. There is a large portion of my own constituency gravely affected by this whole particular policy of the Government. As the Minister is here, might I suggest if, according as I have been informed, these bounties are to be extended to enable us to keep our place, or portion of our place, on the British market, that, if he will not reveal to this House the markets he spoke of a fortnight or three weeks ago, he ought to reveal them to the President of the Executive Council. Let him tell the President where the markets are. I hope that if he is guilty of revealing secret information of that kind to the President of the Executive Council, the Attorney-General will not prosecute him for giving away some information.
The Minister will remember distinctly that he said there were markets, that he had the markets, and we had the statement from the President the other day, which conveyed as clearly to us, or as far as it is possible for any of his statements to convey anything clearly, that the markets outside Great Britain are in a most unsatisfactory condition and that serious steps would have to be taken against those countries. The Minister ought to clear the matter up or at least not conceal the matter from the head of his own Government. He said the markets are there, the President said they are not there. It is possible that he might have a reason to conceal those markets from the Cumann na nGaedheal Party or the Centre Party but surely he would be justified in giving the President the information. I suggest that the Minister take this opportunity of telling the House or the President about those markets. It is an extraordinary way to run a Government; the Minister responsible for the principal industry of the country making such a statement about markets, and the absolute head of the Executive Council responsible for the policy that has ruined our principal industry says he knows nothing about those markets. The Minister should acquaint the head of his Government with what he has been doing. How the Minister could negotiate those markets without acquainting the head of the Government or the Minister for External Affiairs passes the understanding of the ordinary Deputy in the House. Or, perhaps, the Executive Council is following two different policies in this matter, the Minister finding the foreign markets and the President finding that they do not exist?
I would like to say a just a few words about those bounties. I would like to say, first of all, that I would like if the Minister had segregated the different amounts as to how they were apportioned. I assume that the bulk of the bounty will be in respect of cattle. The Minister might have given us particulars about the distribution of the cattle bounties; what sums of money were being given to foreign buyers of cattle as well as to home buyers of cattle. What amount, for instance, was being given to English buyers in the Irish markets beside the ordinary exporters of stock, or what amount was being given to Germans and other exporters of cattle, and altogether more information in the line of the distribution of this money. It was said to-day that because of those bounties we were flooding the British market with cattle. I think that was the inference from the line of argument of the Minister for Finance. I wonder if the Minister for Agriculture will agree with that statement. Would he even agree with the statement that bounty or no bounty we were flooding the British market with cattle.
The Minister further stated that if it were not for our bounty, and because of some of the actions of the Ministry, we would not at all be able to hold our place in the British market and that we would cease to accept the price which the British would give us. There is no evidence whatever of it. Whether there was a bounty or not we would continue to export to England because we have as yet no other place to export them except the one hundred or two hundred cattle the Germans buy every week or so in Dublin, and for which we are paying £1 15s. per head, for what one might describe as practically the most inferior portion of our fat stock exports. The chief difficulty we have with this bounty is that we don't believe the full amount of bounty is reaching the farmers. That may appear false on the face of it. We have no method of proving it, except when a private individual selling cattle in Britain makes more than through the shippers. The farmer does not believe he is getting full value. While the bounty is desirable some such steps should be taken to ensure that the farmer gets the benefit of the bounty while the present unfortunate economic war lasts. Some more advisable method of distribution should be found. It should not be beyond the intelligence of the Minister and his advisers to devise some way by which this bounty would go direct to the farmers, that it would not be passed on to the exporters who buy from the farmers and from whom the farmer finds it difficult to obtain any proof whether he has paid the bounty or not. There will, under this scheme, always remain a suspicion in the farmer's mind that he is not getting the full value of the bounty that the Minister is supplying to him. He is, to my mind, justified in that suspicion. It would be, I admit, a boon to the farmer if he did get the £1 15s. for two year old cattle or 15/- for young cattle. I do believe that some method could be devised, with all the officials and with the assistance of the Gárda, to see that would not be abused, that some method would be arrived at to ensure that it would go direct to the farmer, while it would only prove a small offset against the bill he has to pay to meet the tariff on the other side. The £1 15s. goes a very short way to meet £6, and vice versa, the other bounties go a very small way to meet the tariffs on that particular animal or stock. However, it is something.
I don't believe that on this Vote I ought to go into the merits of the tariff as an offset to the bounty, but the Minister for Finance rather invited us to discuss that matter when speaking to-day or this morning. The Minister suggested to us that we were possibly getting with bounties, and in spite of the tariff, as good a price as we could have got even if the economic war was not there. The Minister even attempted to prove to his own satisfaction and probably he did prove it to his own satisfaction. It reminded me of the story of two students, one of whom attempted to prove to the other that the moon was made of green cheese. And he proved it. "It either is or is not, but it is not, therefore it is." And in the same way the Minister for Finance attempted to prove that because of the bounties and despite the tariff, that we were getting as good a price as if the economic war was not on. It is bosh—pure, simple, unadulterated bosh—trying to be inflicted on the intelligence of any Deputy. The Minister quoted an extract from some paper that the price of cattle was 17/- in Leicester. I don't know how the paper made that mistake but the Minister should have intelligence to know that there was no foundation for that figure except, perhaps, that the beast referred to was in some way a dilapidated beast. Even a fat cow or an old bull——
What is the Deputy talking about at all?
It should be very clear even to the intelligence of Deputy Kelly. In Dublin market last week there was 25/- per cwt. paid for best beef and take a 10 cwt. beast at 25/- per cwt., that is £12 10s., even to Deputy Kelly's intelligence, and the man who paid the £12 10s. and shipped the beast had to pay a £6 tariff. That makes £18 10s. and it cost him £2 10s. to deliver the beast in an English market, and that was £21 and he got 35/- from the Minister for Agriculture. He had then something short of £20, so that if he was to get full profit—if he was not a philanthropist striving to prove that the Minister's impossible figures were correct—he would have to get £20 to leave him his share of profit. £20 for a 10 cwt. beast is £2 per cwt.— unless they are spending the money to the advantage of the farmers and to bolster up the Minister's case, they are getting £2 per cwt.
What does the Deputy say the Minister's figure is? It was 17/- in Leicester.
He made the basis of his argument 17/-.
So that he only gets 35/- instead of £20—is that your case?
My case was that if there was not the necessity for the bounty and the tariff, the Irish farmer would have been getting £2 per cwt. for his 10 cwt. beast—£20 instead of £12 10s/-.
They were talking about fogs some time ago in the House but that is a fog I can't get out of.
You have always been in one.
The Minister for Finance could hardly convince a House even half asleep—a good many of his own followers were and are—and make them swallow that twaddle. That sort of twaddle does not go down.
Will Deputy Bennett inform us if he got 40/- last week in England?
I did not nor did I the week before. I attempted to prove it by figures and I think I proved it to the satisfaction of any Deputy with intelligence sufficient to follow figures, that the man or woman, English, Irish, German, American——
Or Scottish.
——or Scottish, who bought a beast at 25/- per cwt. in the Dublin market. In the case of cattle sold in the Dublin market at that price, after paying the British tariff, costs of shipping, expenses of- sending those beasts even with the reduction in freight charges, and with 35/- given by way of bounty, the exporter, unless he was a philanthropist, must have got £2 per cwt.
The Deputy can prove these figures for himself. Let him take any weight of a beast to the Dublin market. Deputy O'Reilly himself can prove these figures.
Mr. O'Reilly rose.
The Deputy must be allowed to make his own case in his own way.
There will not be many sold and the Deputy knows it.
You should sell them down in Naas.
Deputy O'Reilly or Deputy Kelly does not suggest that all the exporters of this country are like the Minister for Agriculture was,. some time at the end of last year, a philanthropist, giving more than the cattle were worth to help out the Irish farmer. The exporter of Irish cattle could not dip his hand into the same purse as the Minister did when he attempted to ship cattle to Belgium and paid more than they were worth. If he had to buy them, ship them and pay the tariff in the ordinary way, he would have gone out of business and every intelligent man knows that. Still we have Ministers for Finance, Ministers for Defence and Ministers for everything else coming here and telling us that, war or no war, tariff or no tariff, we would not get a better price for our cattle under any circumstances than we are getting and that the British would not have taken our cattle. There is no proof as yet that there is any cessation of our trade with Britain. The shipping statistics show that during the early months of this year we shipped as many cattle as last year to the market that they are denouncing. The market was there for more if we cared to ship them and take the price offered. We shall continue to ship them even if the Minister dropped the bounty. I hope he will not. I hope that instead of dropping it he will increase it and make it in some way payable direct to the farmer.
Even in the event of the bounty being dropped and even if prices became worse than they are, the unfortunate farmer would still ship his cattle to Britain. He would continue to ship them until the price became so low that it would not pay the shipping costs. There is nothing else for him to do with them. He has to ship them as long as he gets a price that will pay even the shipping costs. The indications are that the production of cattle will be continued in this State. As far as I can see they will be produced ad infinitum. The Ministry know that even under their policy of dividing the land the production of cattle is going to be our staple trade. They can take to wheat growing, beet growing and every other system of tillage. Yet what do you find down the country? The same old system as when Hogan and Roddy were in charge and when they were dividing the land. The inspector comes down and interviews some landless men who are going to get land. He does not ask them can they plough or can they dig or are they going to till. He says to them in a whisper: “If I give you this land can you stock it?”
That is still the policy in the division of land in this State as far as I know, and I believe that most Deputies listening to me will bear me out, that the first question put to any applicant for land is can he stock the land. I see my colleague from County Limerick, Deputy Ryan, smiles, but he knows I am telling the truth. Deputy Ryan knows as well as I do that this is the first question put to any applicant for land, even in Limerick. That is the question that is put to incoming tenants. They do not ask them can they plough or grow wheat, but can they stock the land, and these are the gentlemen who tell us that cattle-raising is a wrong policy in this country. They are carrying out Hogan's policy and Roddy's policy. I may be moving away from the amendment, a Chinn Comhairle, but I was much nearer to the amendment than many other Deputies. This Vote is a drop in the ocean for the unfortunate exporter and the producer of stock in this country—35/- to meet £6 or £7, and even that amount is something that does not reach the producer. I think even the Minister is quite satisfied that it does not reach him. It is up to the Minister to make some change in the disposal of the money, so that it will be quite sure to reach the farmer. I think some new machinery might be devised in that respect. I conclude as I began, by saying that I do not believe that any man of intelligence would say that this 35/- or the 15/- or all the bobs down to the two bob are being paid to the people they were intended for —the producer.
We hear the same old story on this Vote that we usually hear from the Opposition. The Opposition fall back as it were on the last despairing wail of the rearguard of the old Ascendancy. Why is this question raised about cattle raising? It is the doctrine handed down to us from England for generations and generations. In all the arguments put forward here there has not been a single question raised as to the necessity for providing for human beings on the land. Let us get to the origin of things. Deputies have quoted from Charles Stewart Parnell and have tried to use these quotations as arguments against the policy of the Government of the present day.
What is it?
I shall tell you what it is. When I was young I listened to the pupils of Charles Stewart Parnell and his doctrines were decisively put by the Minister for Justice in his arguments the other day. The one gospel that was taught by the leaders of those days we cannot get over. The first item was to divide the land and to increase the population of Ireland. Then you will create a position on which will automatically follow industry and wealth.
Subsidies.
Subsidies undoubtedly are a necessary evil. I possibly disagree with them more than you do. We are thoroughly agreed that they are a necessary evil for the time being but how did they originate?
Tell us.
It originated because your Party got ten years in office. You undoubtedly took over this country at a time when it was weakened and broken, with a small population and with nothing in it. I admit that. But you got a golden opportunity to do one thing. Deputies opposite had spoken to me and all had the one old gospel. What was that? That the whole fight was for an increase of population just as you would increase steam power in an engine when all the other things would automatically follow. Certainly I agree that the classes can be happy in this little country. You can reduce our population to two millions or to one and a half millions or to one million and the classes can be happy at the expense of the masses. But remember that was not what was fought for or struggled for in this country. That is what you have to bear in mind to-day. The Government has asked us to pass this Estimate and Opposition Deputies are going to oppose it. Let us come to the real difficulty now and use our common sense. In a few years we will possibly be all gone. There will be new Deputies and a new Ceann Comhairle here. A new population will have grown up and will have the running of the country. When the mournful procession with the funeral tune of the industries of this country winds its way along the gentlemen who vote against these measures will be held in remembrance for what they have done. With that before your eyes there is only one thing to do now and that is to do justice to your own country for you will not be doing it long.
Perhaps the Deputy would do justice to the Estimate.
He is doing quite well.
I do not intend to delay the Deputies. We should be here, in normal conditions, a sovereign Irish Republic to speak on a definite issue. The Deputies on the opposite benches are arguing a position that is not fair to the Government, to themselves, nor to the country.
What about the second Battle of Clontarf?
It is perfectly clear there is a handicap in this fight but the Government have made every effort to get over it. The first method of coping with the handicap is an increased population.
Increase the population by beggaring the farmers.
The population will be increased and so also will be the cattle of this country. When your population is increased England will want your cattle and be glad to get them whether you like it or not.
They will not like it over there, on the Cumann na nGaedheal side.
Cannot you be honest and straight and when you vote against this Estimate give us your reason for it? Can you not say: "We are against it because we are against the Government"? Can you not say: "We are against it because we believe in the old Ascendancy; we were always wrong: we were wrong in 1916 and all along the line; we never went against the old Ascendancy for we wanted to adhere to them." But remember you are falling back and falling back to a position where you will suffer and you are being driven slowly, surely and gradually into the most disgraceful Ascendancy position worse than any Party not only in the past but in future generations.
Deputy Hales said we were wrong in 1916. Well we surely were——
I did not say that Deputy Belton was wrong.
But you did.
If you vote against this you must automatically admit that you were wrong in 1916. Otherwise you could not be justified in the attitude you took up then or reconcile it with what you are doing now.
We were surely wrong in 1916 if we consider the attitude of the Government to-day; if their utter callousness to the interest of the people of the country is borne in mind and if we remember how they are destroying the country's hopes and chances of progress, we were certainly wrong and we committed a mortal sin against this country. Any man who ever went out in a shower of rain to fight for the independence of this country and who helped to put this Government in office committed a mortal sin against the people——
It would be only a venial sin on your part.
The Deputy has many opportunities of speaking here, but he has not done so.
He is wise.
This is not the way to get down and cope with this business. I was pleased to hear Deputy Hales though I disagree with him. I know he was a man who fought when there was fighting to be done, and to what a man like him says I am ready to listen. We all respect a man like Deputy Hales, no matter how we may disagree with him. I expect, a Chinn Comhairle, you are suffering from the complaint from which we are all suffering and, before any accident happens, I will have to say something about the matter before the House though, perhaps if I did not give this hint I would be able to get away with a lot of things that I cannot get away with now. I am not so enthusiastic about these bounties as my colleague Deputy Bennett is. I am sorry I cannot go in step with Deputy Hales and vote for these bounties. I would submit to the Deputy that his criticism is rather too severe when he brands us as being in step with any kind of ascendancy when we do not see eye to eye with him and his Party in this matter. The figure which the Minister for Finance gave us to-day about this bounty was, I believe, £2,450,000. By some extraordinary process of calculation he informs us that this is all we have to pay out to rectify the balance against us. We have to find this sum of £2,500,000 for bounties. We are keeping, he says, £5,000,000 from the British Government, so that we are making a clear profit of £2,500,000 on the transaction! The Deputies opposite are challenging about the prices. Now if the prices for cattle are as good here as in England why do we send cattle to England? I have asked that question repeatedly here, and not a single Deputy or Minister has addressed himself to it when winding up whatever debate was in hand. None of them attempted to make a case for the Government. Again I invite any Minister or Deputy opposite to give a reason why any goods are supplied by this country to Great Britain if there is as good a market in this country as there is in Great Britain.
You must create a market.
You cannot create a market if there is not a demand for the produce. There can be no movement of goods unless there is a surplus of goods in one place and a scarcity in another, or unless the price of goods in one place is greater than in another-Goods will flow from the cheap to the dearer region. They have been flowing from Ireland to Great Britain because there are higher prices in Great Britain than in Ireland. There is, in fact, no need to go into the question of prices. The fact that goods naturally flow from Ireland to find a market in Great Britain is proof, on the face of it, and you want no other proof that the price is higher in Great Britain than in Ireland. If the market is not saturated here, if there is a market to use up our production here, why does that happen?
You must give the country a chance.
I would be glad to hear Deputy Hales again on this matter, when he finds himself in sufficient form to deal with it. I think it is only fair in this quiet discussion we have here this morning by ourselves, practically nobody looking on and talking, as we are, in a kind of family circle, that we should listen to one another. I put that point to Deputy Hales or to any Deputy opposite, because I am interested to know how Deputies or Ministers can honestly arrive at the conclusion that there is anything at all like equal prices here and in England. Then there is the question of the bounty. If the prices were equal here and in England, why a bounty? Why hand out £2,500,000 to the cattle dealers or the farmers? I am not supporting a bounty. From the little consideration I have given it, if I had anything to say in a matter like that, I would say that I would prefer that this money should be given to agriculture itself, at its source, rather than at its end; because when you go to the source you relieve the overhead charges of production and the benefit comes down the whole line of production and will make itself felt. But if you got to the dealer, at the other end, I am not satisfied at all. I spoke to people in the street about the matter, and they are not satisfied that the benefit comes down all along the line.
I heard the Minister upon this subject one day, and I knew from the line Ministers were taking what they would achieve by this policy. For instance, we are told the bounty is going to the shipper. They argued from that that by giving the bounties to the shippers that would induce them to go down the country and buy cattle. One dealer or shipper would compete with another and would give a certain price. He would give £10 before the bounty. Now he would go down and buy some class of beast and give another 35/- because of the bounty; and if he did not do that his competitor would do it, and so, by the ordinary law of supply and demand he would be forced to part with 35/- more for his beast, and that was supposed to go down all along the line. That is all right in theory; it is all right on paper. But anybody who ever studied the elements of economy knows that in the operation of economic laws there is also the time line. It is extraordinary that the intelligentsia of the Fianna Fáil Party, when bearing these glad tidings to the farmers, always said "S-sh! there will be a settlement. I saw So-and-So at a meeting of the National Executive, and I have it straight from the stable." These were the glad tidings that were given round the country. There were hopes of an immediate settlement. If this bounty was given 12 months ago, when the economic war started on 1st July last it would hardly yet have worked its way down through the whole gamut of the cattle trade.
If I were a supporter of the economic war I should have been a supporter, not of this bounty, but of giving something in the way of help to agriculture. I would plump for giving help at the source of production, and lightening the overhead charges on the land. I would benefit production from the source instead of this kind of trick-of-the-loop with the cattle trade. These cattle traders can look after themselves; it is their trade to do so. No one can blame them if they get the best value they can. It is up to the other fellow to see that they do not pull the wool over his eyes. I would favour giving assistance at the other end. I would help the overhead charges and not the dealers. In going with your help to the source of production you would be going to the producer, and it is the producers that make a nation.
I shall quote some figures, but before I do so I would like to say that I set far more value on the movement of goods and upon economic laws than I do upon statistics. There is a cattle fair in the chief town of every county at least once a month. There is a market in Dublin for cattle every week, and there is an opportunity to sell cattle here at the ruling price, and if there was not the difference in the price ruling here and in England, and if there were not a higher price in England than there is here, one beast would not go to England, so that if you brought a man here from the North Pole and told him that cattle are exported to England and sold in the English market, he will know, if he knows anything about economies, that the price must be higher in the English market, and as much higher as will pay for the cost of transit and give a fair margin of profit, with risk and insurance, for shipping the cattle over.
There has been so much objection to going back beyond the current financial year that I hesitate to do so, but I would ask the indulgence of the Ceann Comhairle to let me quote half a dozen prices for 1931. I do not do it for any political reason, but to show the small disparity between the prices obtaining in Dublin and England for live stock in 1931 as compared with the disparity now and the increased disparity started about the time of the economic war. On the 4th June, 1931, the average price per cwt. live weight in Dublin was 45/-, and on 5th June, 1931, in London, the average price was 48/8. On 11th June, a week after, in Dublin, the price was 46/3, and in London, 48/8. On 8th June it was 44/6 in Dublin and 50/- in London. Those figures are in respect of June, 1931. With respect to January, 1932, it was 38/3 in Dublin and 42/8 in London, on January 1st. On 14th January it was 38/6 in Dublin and 42/8 in London; on 2nd June, 1932, it was 42/6 in Dublin and 50/8 in London. On 5th May, previously, it was 42/- in Dublin and 46/- in London. The prices normally in London were from 3/- to 5/- per cwt. more, but, when we come on to July, we find that, on 7th July, it is 38/6 in Dublin, and, on 8th July, 46/8 in London, a difference of 8/-. On 6th October, 1932, it was 27/6 in Dublin and 38/- in London, while on 5th January, 1933, it was 29/9 in Dublin and 38/8 in London.
Coming to the last dates I have, we find that on 4th May, 1933, the average price is 25/9 in Dublin and 40/- in London. There has been a difference of 3/- or 4/- per cwt., normally, which accounted for the attraction that has always brought Irish live stock and beef to England, and that has given rise to the export trade. You can see the disparity that has started in July of last year.
Would the Deputy be kind enough——
Would the Deputy bear with me for a moment? If the Ceann Comhairle is satisfied, he can talk again and I shall be glad to listen to him.
It is only a question I want to ask.
I will answer any question the Deputy puts to me later, if I can.
Could the Deputy just say what is the difference between live weight prices for best stores and heifers for June, 1932 and 1933?
I have not got the figures for June, 1933, and I have only one quotation for May, 1933, but I will give the Deputy the figures for May, 1932, and May, 1933. On the 5th May, 1932, in Dublin, the price was 42/-, and on the 6th May, 1932, in London, it was 46/8, that is, 4/8 of a difference, which is normal for giving rise to the export trade. On the 4th May, 1933, in Dublin, it was 25/9, and on 5th May, 1933, in London, it was 40/-, practically 15/- per cwt. of a difference. There is the cost of the economic war.
Will the Deputy agree now——
That is the cost of the economic war which the Minister for Finance told us to-day did not matter. I do not want to go outside the question of the bounties, but from other legislation before this House, we know that the position of affairs has become perilous. We are asked now to bolster up a permanent trade arrangement like that, which is purely artificial, by finding £2,450,000—say £2,500,000—for bounties to be given to the trick of the loops who buy the producers' stock throughout the country and export it to England. I do not want to go over the ground again, but if the people opposite want to do the right thing, even if they have made the fatal, or mortal mistake of starting the economic war, to repair the damage as much as they can, or from that starting-point, to do what is the best thing, they should give this money to the producers and let the trick of the loop fellows come along and buy as cheaply as they can after, but make sure that the producers have got the money, and then nobody can deny— you cannot even deny it yourselves if you want to—that you did not get the money. I do not mean to say that the money goes into your pocket, but let the overhead charges that you will be called on to pay be met to the extent of this £2,500,000 or to the extent which the Minister for Finance, and the Executive Council, can afford to meet them.
To boil down the situation, the position I take up is that I am against the economic war, and I would not vote supplies for it but, as it is here, and as you have a certain amount of money to give to help agriculture, then, by all means, give it to the producers at the producing end. Deputies will remember, if they followed it, that when he introduced his Budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, in 1928, Mr. Winston Churchill advocated complete derating for agriculture and three-quarters derating for industrial premises. He said that the place to relieve any industry was at its source, and that is why he stood for derating of industry and agriculture. If you want to help agriculture, therefore, help it at its source and not at the top, which only puts the money into the pockets of the fellow at the top who will never let it go down the line. After all, the exporters of cattle are comparatively few compared to the producers. Knowing on what side their bread is buttered, and being more manageable, they could more quickly meet and combine and say: "The prices we will give for certain stores are so-and-so." I do not suggest that they would form a ring. The Minister for Finance excelled himself to-day when he started to lecture us on agriculture. My remarks will invite certain criticism from Deputies opposite. I will be glad of that criticism. We were asked, in all seriousness, by the Minister for Finance, if we thought more cattle would be shipped to England if there were no tariffs. Of course, there would be more shipped. Why not? I am surprised at such a question being asked. The Minister tried to argue that the small quantity of meat and foodstuffs we export—out of foodstuffs value for £360,000,000 or £400,000,000 that Great Britain imports every year—would have any appreciable effect on the general level of food prices there. It was absurd for the Minister for Finance to wax eloquent and to form the deduction, from the position that now obtains, when we are sending over less than the normal quantity, that it would have an effect on the general level of prices. Our contribution to the British food market is comparatively small, not more than 5 or 6 per cent. How a percentage of that size could appreciably lower the general level of wholesale prices in Great Britain is something that I did not expect to come from the Minister for Finance in his wildest and most hysterical moment. He tried "to put it over" to-day, but it will not wash. Whether the economic war is or is not to continue is a question on which I would have a good deal to say. It does not arise now. I might summarise the position by saying that I am against tariffs and against sucking-bottle treatment for farmers. Give them a free market. If you deprive them of a free market, and if you want to give subsidies, by all means give them, but see that the producer gets them. If you give it to the fellow at the top you cannot prove that the producers get it.
On the general question of bounties I think the Minister, in view of a recent statement about tariffs, bounties or subsidies for agriculture should give us some explanation of where this huge sum of money is going to come from this year, mainly for the assistance of the agricultural industry, and where it is going to continue to come from in future. We had a free export market for two-thirds of our agricultural produce. That is being wiped away. Deputy Belton has quoted certain prices. If we look at the price Irish farmers have been getting for some of their principal products in the English markets—the market that up to the present took two-thirds of our produce—we get some idea of the enormous sums of money that are being lost to the agricultural industry and that it is expected cannot be got out of that industry in future. In spite of the additional staff the Minister for Industry and Commerce has got we will not have the figures of our imports and exports for about a fortnight. From the British figures we find that the average price for each head of cattle sent to Great Britain within the first six months of this year was: £9 10s. against £15 4s. last year; sheep, £1 3s. against £1 18s.; pigs, £2 each against £3 18s.; butter, £2 13s. 6d. against £4 18s. 6d; eggs, 5/- per great hundred against 8/5; potatoes, £2 13s. against £7 3s.; bacon, £2 16s. against £3 12s.; pork, £2 12s. against £3; live poultry, 2/4 against 3/1. These figures give some idea of the loss agriculture has sustained. This country's manufacturing industry bears no relation to its agricultural industry, but it is being asked to bear subsidies for the export of agricultural produce, reaching the enormous sum provided in the Estimate and the Minister tells us it is going to continue. Surely we should get some reasoned explanation from the Minister as to where the money is to come from to support agriculture in future, if it is being reduced to the condition farmers have been reduced to, and if any industrial development is going on, or something that the Minister for Industry and Commerce need not be silent about.
The Minister mentioned that he was considering the peculiar position of small Kerry cattle, and the extent to which the owners are hit by the tariffs on the beasts, instead of on the value which prevailed hitherto. Has the Minister considered any means for dealing with the problem?
In answer to the question put by Deputy O'Sullivan, that matter has been considered but I regret that, so far, I have found no means of dealing with it. Deputy Bennett and some other speakers raised the question whether these bounties go to the farmer-producer or not. I have always held they should. Deputy Belton argued, as I argued before him, that the ordinary law of competition ought to compel those people to give the price. If that does not operate, I do not see why they could not two or three years ago have, in collusion, put £2 per head into their pockets.
How do you know they did not?
There was nothing to prevent their doing it or, if the bounties and tariffs are taken off, there will be nothing to prevent their putting £2 per head in their pockets in the time to come. Apart from that, we did try to verify the thing by having a number of examples in the Department of Agriculture and getting fair proof of the price paid for the cattle and the price realised outside. Taking into account expenses, bounties, tariffs and everything else, we found that the profit which the exporter had was not any more than he usually had, 3/- or 4/- per head. The exporters themselves gave us the impression that times are not as good with them now as they were before the economic war started. I think that, no matter how you take this, it is quite clear that the bounty does go to the producer.
What objection has the Minister to giving whatever relief it is proposed to give at the source of production?
I take it the Deputy has in mind by way of de-rating.
I am not suggesting de-rating.
Several things were suggested to me, and it is only by taking an example I could deal with the matter. Derating was suggested to me. A farmer with one hundred acres and paying rates of £30 might not be a large producer at all. He might have his land let in con-acre. A smaller farmer beside him might have quite a lot of pigs, sheep and other stock, and it would be unfair to give advantage to both equally. We tried to give advantage to the producer in this way because, so far as the economic war was concerned, the person who was hit was the producer and not the ratepayer. Deputy Bennett mentioned, in support of his argument, the case of a farmer who finds it better to export his stock than sell through an ordinary exporter. I must say that, having met some farmers myself, my experience is all the other way. Some were rather large farmers who, thinking they were not getting as much as they should get by sending their cattle through ordinary exporters, tried to export them themselves and did not do so well. I do not think that there is really anything in that. I do not think that any method can be devised to meet the case referred to. I myself was very anxious when these bounties were brought in that they should go direct to the farmer-producer. We found, on examination, that the only way of preventing a bounty being paid twice was to get the goods out of the country when paid, so that they could not possibly pass on to a second man who would get the bounty a second time.
I think that the figures quoted by Deputy Belton are correct, but I do not see how any intelligent man could quote figures as Deputy Belton did and say that if it were not for the economic war a beast fetching £12 10s. in Dublin would fetch £20. The very most you can blame the economic war for is the £6 tariff, less 35/- bounty. If there is that difference of £20 and £12 there must be another explanation than the economic war. There must be the explanation of a general drop in prices. Deputy Bennett also spoke of our policy being the same in the Land Commission as it was under Deputy Hogan when he was Minister and under Deputy Roddy when he was in charge of the Land Commission. When we send down an inspector, the Deputy says, the inspector goes to a man to whom he proposes to give land, and asks him if he has stock for it. Perhaps Deputy Bennett would get some pigs down in Limerick and give them to poor farmers so that they may stock their lands.
You would get plenty down in Macroom if you were able to sing.
I cannot sing.
I could give you a bar if you like.
Deputy Belton generally starts off his speech like a philosopher by stating economic principles. They are sound, I believe, in most respects, but still they do not always apply. For instance, I do not know why cement should be dearer in England than it is here. Still, it comes across here for sale. If you try to fit in questions like that with Deputy Belton's principles, you find that these principles do not stand. If first principles are to have any value, they must stand the test of cases such as that.
Might I ask the Minister if that applied to cement before the economic war?
It did.
I doubt it. I think that happened only quite recently. After the economic war started, British cement was practically wiped out of this market. Belgian and French cement was capturing the market and then British cement came down suddenly from 50/- a ton to 38/ or 39/- with practically no margin of difference, considering quality, between it and Belgian cement. Obviously, they sold at a loss or at very little profit in order to hold the market for another day. I do not think the Minister is correct in stating that in normal trading, before tariffs on either side were imposed, British cement was dearer in England than here. If Deputy Dockrell were here, he would be a better authority than either of us.
I think I am correct. However, it is one blessing that we got it cheaply under the economic war.
You are going to destroy that blessing with your Cement Bill.
The only other question I was asked was by Deputy Mulcahy as to where this money was coming from. I suppose we collect money from certain sources, put it into a pool and take it out again. I do not know exactly where this particular portion comes out of but we place it against the £5,000,000 that had been going to Britain. Our idea in starting these bounties and subsidies was that we felt the agricultural community were bearing the brunt of the economic war and we wanted to soften things for them so far as we possibly could.
Is the Minister aware that, in these items I read out, the farmers received about £4,250,000 less than they received last year for half a year? In addition there was probably a £1,000,000 subsidy thrown in, so that that is, for one half-year, £5,500,000 or £5,250,000 gone. If the money withheld from Britain is going to cover that half-year, what is going to cover the other half-year?
I do not follow the Deputy's calculation.
