I have to say about this Vote is that the total amount to be provided for export bounties and subsidies in this year is £2,250,000.
Vote 70—Export Bounties and Subsidies (Resumed)
Are we not going to get any more information from the Minister about this Vote? Are the same tactics going to be adopted to-day as were adopted yesterday and every Vote moved by a Minister whose job it was not to administer the Vote? Can neither of the Ministers opposite give any further information? Surely the Minister for Agriculture knows something about agriculture?
You are beginning to see that now.
And I am waiting a long time.
There is an amendment on the Order Paper in relation to this. Is Deputy Cosgrave not moving it?
Put on the record.
Dr. Ryan
They have to wait until Deputy Belton is finished.
I suppose the Ministers are beginning to learn. It is the first sign they have shown of learning.
Is the Deputy moving his motion that this Vote be referred back?
I move: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration." On the occasion of the Finance Bill an amendment was put down to include, for the purpose of assessment of income tax, persons who kept stallions on farms. The Minister for Finance said that any relief in that respect should be the subject of consultation and consideration between the persons affected and the Minister for Agriculture. The allowance made in respect of the export of horses is 10 per cent., with a maximum of £100. What I want to know from the Minister is whether that statement of his was merely the postponement of a difficult problem at the moment, or whether he was really in earnest when he said that the Minister for Agriculture is prepared to consult the persons affected with a view to seeing what extension there should be made in the matter of these bounties, or what other assistance should be given to horse breeders. I should like to hear from the Minister on that point, because it will save time if he is able to give an answer.
The position is, as I quite clearly indicated, that I am prepared to consider sympathetically proposals put up to me by the Minister for Agriculture after the interests concerned have approached him. The Minister for Agriculture is naturally the proper authority with whom to discuss these matters and, as I have already indicated in the House, if the Minister for Agriculture is convinced that there is a good case, I am prepared to see how far that case can be met.
Has the Minister for Agriculture nothing to offer in connection with this matter? He must be aware of the special circumstances of the horse-breeding industry in this country, of the very big drop there has been in prices and of the change that has taken place with regard to the industry. It is not necessary to go over the ground again. I mentioned the names of those sires which have been exported and which are now in British breeding establishments, and while we have animals here of outstanding merit and of great advantage to the horse-breeding industry, nevertheless, the reduction in the number affects very seriously, and will affect more seriously in future, the precise position which this country occupies as a horse-breeding country. If we had the half-dozen horses which have been exported in this country, their progeny during the next couple of years would be regarded and spoken of as Irish-bred stock. The most notable of them was bred at the National Stud, and is now in England. I mentioned here the last day, when the Minister was not here, that the owner of that animal had informed me that he had 16 nominations here and, I understand, the price of the nomination was 400 guineas. Of the 16, six had been withdrawn, leaving ten, and of the ten, he did not believe he would get more than six.
If he had kept the animal here he would have had six mares. I think a fair estimate of the progeny would be five yearlings. That horse is brought to England and he fills at once with 40 nominations and not alone does he fill those, but the fee advances from 400 guineas to 500 guineas. In 12 months time, possibly 30 yearlings will go to the hammer or into training establishments, as the case may be, and in three years time those 30 yearlings will be raced and their winnings will be regarded as the winnings of English-bred stock. Normally, they should be Irish-bred stock. In the first place, there is no man sitting on that bench over there who would have acted differently from the owner of that animal. The possibility of having £2,400, subject, mind you, to 5/- in the £ income tax in Ireland as against 20,000 guineas in England—that is what the owner was presented with; but still more important was the fact that if he once left his place, as having a progeny of 30 foals as against five, his competitive potentialities were at a discount of six to one. That is a serious consideration.
What has this got to do with export bounties and subsidies?
It has this to do with it, that by reason of the fact that a horse here in this country is subject to a tariff, the owners of British mares will not send those mares over here. A mare when it foals should foal in the stud farm and, in nine days, it is due for service again. It must be kept on the stud farm with the foal and when the foal makes his journey across, supposing it is kept in England, it is subject to duty. Do I make that point clear?
Might I remind the Deputy that the fact that a problem exists is already admitted? There is no use in labouring the point. The Deputy is merely repeating the speech he made last week.
I asked, in order to save time, whether or not the Minister had anything to say on the matter. It is a problem and I do not know whether in all its ramifications it is understood at its true value. What I am concerned about is that we are going to lose what we call our first-class place as a breeding country and go down by reason of the loss of these animals. When that foal goes over to England, no matter for what purpose, it is assessed and tariffed at an arbitrary figure and that is what is doing the damage. That is the question for consideration and what I want to know is whether the Minister is fully conversant with all the circumstances and whether, having regard to the serious damage done to the breeding of Irish bloodstock, he is prepared to go into conference with the persons concerned. The 10 per cent. is not enough. Take one case—the case of, perhaps, the biggest breeder in this country and he does not keep a stallion at all. He paid £2,500 duty on a single animal that was sold for £6,000 in Great Britain.
Obviously the man cannot go on doing that sort of thing. Consider for a moment how he stands. Suppose he has 20 mares, he will sell probably from ten to 12 yearlings. If these mares foal here the foal will have to bear the tariff duty going across. I submit that if a man gets £6,000 when he pays a duty of £2,000 off that it eats into his profits so that it disturbs his balance and destroys his business. I am in very grave doubts as to whether that man balanced his accounts last year. He gets 20 mares and the service fees are high. It is not exactly a money-making business with a number of those people. If not pressed for money their major consideration would be the improvement in the breeding of animals. That situation of the foals and mares in this country is a very serious one.
During the last 20 years there has been an enormous increase in the number of thoroughbred mares kept here. It so happens that no country in the world is so suitable for horse-breeding as this. It is held by those closely identified for the last 40 or 50 years with the horse-breeding industry that the progeny of what would be styled a second-class thoroughbred and a second-class mare in Great Britain would, on coming here, go up by one step. It has been held that the progeny would go up one-half between the first and second class in the first generation, and that in the next generation the progeny would go up into the first class. As I mentioned here before, there is on record the history of horses that will bear that out. There are cases such as Kendal, which were not so successful after they went to England. Kendal was bought here for £5,000, and afterwards sold for £20,000, but he did not do so well in England. The sire Galteemore was sold to the Argentine, where he did not do well either. There are other cases, but one hesitates to deal with matters of this kind because of the complexities of the business and because one may feel that the horse-breeders may think that one is interfering in their business.
Take the case of a mare coming here to the stud. When the foal is taken over to England that foal has to carry a big tariff duty. Is the Minister for Agriculture prepared to meet the persons concerned and to devise a scheme which will preserve to the country the position it has built up and earned for over 40 years? That is a position from which the present situation is likely to dislodge this country. This is a first-class horse-breeding country, none better, and it had every prospect of further expansion. It is not entirely a question of money, though it is very largely a money question. My own view is that it would pay the Government to put up all the money concerned. It would pay the State in the long run. Once we lose the position we have attained in the horse-breeding industry it may take a decade to get back to it.
Dr. Ryan
The interests concerned in this matter, as mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave, have never come to me on the question. The owners of these stallions did not, before they were obliged to take the stallions out of the country, approach me or any Minister, as far as I know, to say they were compelled to take that step. If these owners are responsible for the debates that have taken place in this House on this matter I must say that they are themselves to blame if things do not succeed with them. They used the situation to make political propaganda against the Government—
Now let us be clear on this. Not one single one of these persons has spoken to me on this matter from the political point of view. They have not asked me to raise the question here and they do not know that I am raising it.
Dr. Ryan
That makes the case a little bit different. Having been a member of the Government himself, I think the Deputy knows that if it is desired to have co-operation this is not the best way to approach a question of this kind. If the horse-breeders wanted themselves or anybody else to come to the Minister on this question, either the Minister for Finance or myself would be very glad to discuss the whole problem with them. Deputy Cosgrave says that any man on these benches, in the same position and in the same circumstances, would take his horses out of the country. I do not know whether that is so or not, but I know that some of the owners in this country did not take their horses out of the country. Perhaps they had not the same bias against conditions here or against this country and they seem to carry on all right. It is quite possible that there is a case to be made on this matter, and I would like if the interests concerned would say what plan they wish devised. But I think Deputy Cosgrave in his speech was more concerned with the question of income tax than with the bounties and subsidies.
The Minister cannot raise the question of income tax on this Estimate, but it was raised already.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy succeeded in raising it.
It had been raised previously.
Dr. Ryan
This is not a case in which we should make political propaganda on either side or in which we should go in for airing our knowledge of the horse-breeding industry. I would advise the Deputy to adopt some of the modesty of the Minister for Justice, who has more knowledge than he has of the horse-breeding industry.
That is very cheap. The Minister for Justice was asked this morning if he had anything to say on this subject, which was already raised the other day, and the Minister said nothing. I do not know if he knows anything about it. I may tell the Minister for Agriculture this, that I made it my business 12 months ago to see one of those men, one of the most important of the bloodstock owners, and tried to persuade him to remain here. His answer was that he wanted to remain, that he was most anxious and willing to stay, but that he had obligations towards his family. He said he would remain as long as he could. I have not seen him since, but I see his manager occasionally. Those people do not want to come to see the Minister or anybody else.
Dr. Ryan
That is true.
They consider that they ought to be able to carry on their business free from political interference of one kind or another. They are as concerned about this industry as anybody. It has taken some of them a lifetime to build up their industry here. I invited the Minister this morning to say something on this. Had he done so he would have saved me the necessity of going into the matter.
Dr. Ryan
I will be glad to meet them.
Is he Minister prepared to make a special effort to deal with the complexities of the situation?
Dr. Ryan
Certainly.
Last year on this Estimate I heard it argued for the first time, and I heard it argued here several times since throughout the year, that the export bounties given to the dealers find their way down to the producers. I think in theory that would hold good. It might in practice after a time substantially hold good. Here we have a Vote for £2,250,000, which is about £100,000 less than half of the reduction in the prices that were got for our exports. These bounties are intended as a set-off to recoup the producers here, mainly agricultural producers, for the loss they sustained through the imposition of the British special duties. The bounties as shown on the figures here were £2,450,000 last year.
This year they will be £2,250,000. I am taking it, subject to the Minister's correction, that £700,000 of that belongs to the butter bounty. I think I am substantially correct in saying that the direct contribution of the creameries is £700,000, so that in fact, what the Central Fund proposes to give in bounties or subsidies this year is not £2,250,000, but £1,550,000.
Dr. Ryan
That is wrong. The bounties under the Butter Stabilisation Act are in addition to this.
This money comes out of the Central Fund?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, all of this.
I take it the principle adopted by the Government is that on our export trade £4,500,000 roughly have been commandeered from us by the British, and our Government come along with a little less than half of that as a set-off against the loss. It is a peculiar coincidence that the sum proposed should be £2,250,000. The actual amount of the annuities or interest on the principal involved in the annuities payable to England, or claimed by England, is approximately £2,250,000.
When the Minister proposes to provide subsidies from the Central Fund on agricultural exports to the extent of two and a quarter millions, because the British have collected from the farmers' produce on the other side a sum exceeding that two and a quarter millions, but including that two and a quarter millions on foot of interest on the outstanding purchase money advanced by the British, in effect the Minister is proposing to pay the annuities to the British. What else is it? The British collect from agricultural produce going into England, say, two and a quarter millions for annuities. Our Minister for Finance comes in here and proposes to hand over to the farmers, from whom the British have taken that amount, a sum of two and a quarter millions. Supposing the farmer is cut out of the deal altogether, what is the position? The Minister for Finance hands over two and a quarter millions to the British to satisfy their claim for the annuities. The thing is so simple and obvious that it does not bear arguing. Now, who is going to surrender in the economic war?
But there is another sum of £2,300,000 which has been taken off the prices. If the Government want to deal with this matter equitably it is not two and a quarter millions they should be giving, but four and a half millions. A sum of four and a half millions is commandeered from our goods going into Great Britain. Why do the Government not give us four and a half millions to make good that deficiency? When that sum is not given, what does it mean? It means that, on the value of our exports to Great Britain, the general level of prices has been reduced by the difference between this proposed subsidy and the produce of the British duties. Spread over all the goods exported, it means a lowering of the total sum by £2,300,000, and that loss has to be borne by agriculture here. It is even greater than that, because I believe that there are some manufactured goods exported on which the subsidy equals the special duty.
I put it to the Government that if they want to make good the deficiency, they should equate the subsidy with the special duty. They are not proposing to do that. Therefore, the producers of the goods which are exported are going to lose £2,300,000. But that is not the only loss. They are losing £2,300,000 on their exports. The value of the agricultural produce consumed at home is now considerably greater than what is exported. I should say the proportion would be two-thirds consumed at home as against one-third exported. In 1929 they were 50-50. The value of our exports has gone down very considerably since then. I have not the figures indicating the exact decline. We are told by the Government, however, that production has gone up. If the claim of the Government is correct, it would be erring on the conservative side as regards my argument in estimating the home consumption of agricultural produce at about two-thirds of the whole, and the export at one-third. That would mean a loss on the home market of, say, five and a half million pounds.
If the Government want to be fair to agricultural producers they should give a bounty and a subsidy that would equate with the special duties and that would keep the prices up to the level that would be established if there were no British special duties, and that level would stabilise the prices in the home market. By not giving a bounty equating to the product of the special duties, they are depriving the producers here of the difference between the two. They are lowering the general price level in the home market by a similar amount per unit of produce. As there are two units of produce consumed at home for the one unit exported, it means that the loss to the producer on the export market is £2,300,000. The loss to the producer by this artificial depression of the general level of prices at home would be twice that amount, or £4,600,000. That would leave a net loss on agricultural trade of about £8,000,000.
I hope when the Minister is replying he will apply himself to the arguments we are putting up, arguments built upon the figures governing the situation. Since the Vote of £2,450,000 for bounties and subsidies was introduced last year a new element has come into the situation, and I think it is due to the House that the Minister should inform us how he proposes to deal with this new element. I refer to the restrictions on our imports of certain produce to Britain. When asked recently about the quota system the Minister said he was bringing in a Bill in the immediate future to deal with the matter. He said reference could be made to it on the Estimates. There are several important motions on the Order Paper, some since last January, and when the President was asked as a matter of urgency and of national importance to give Government time to discuss them, he refused. If I remember correctly there was a division and, of course, the Government Party voted with the President. The President's explanation was that certain Bills-had to be considered, that the Estimates were coming along and anything embodied in those motions could be discussed on the Bills or on the Estimates. We have had on the subject matter of those motions what I might call subsidiary discussions, especially in regard to the quota system. The Minister for Agriculture showed that he was aware of the difficulties confronting him in this matter. I agree that the Minister will find great difficulty in handling this quota system. To be handled anyway successfully at all it will have to be handled nationally rather than politically. I think it was on this that, so far as my little influence or my little knowledge of the matter goes, I offered the Minister full co-operation and the Minister took that offer reciprocally, took it in the spirit in which it was given. I think I am correct in saying that.
In connection with this Vote, the Minister for Finance says: "We want £2,250,000 for next year," just as a year ago he said they wanted a little more. This amount is £200,000 less than last year. That is the sop that was flung at us yesterday as a partial restoration of the £450,000 lopped off the agricultural grant last year. The Minister, when proposing this yesterday, swelled his chest and, by juggling the figures in a manner that was not accurate, he endeavoured to show as a final result that the Government proposed to give for the relief of rates on agricultural land £20,000 more this year than the previous Government gave in their last year of office. I analysed that statement yesterday, and I do not want to repeat it now. The Minister for Finance should bear in mind that he cannot slip away so easily as that. Even if the case he made yesterday was correct, it meant he was restoring only less than half of what had been cut off. How does he get the £200,000? Here the amount estimated for export bounties and subsidies for the coming year is precisely £200,000 less than they were last year. So now, if we are to take the net amount given to agriculture this year compared with last year, counting the bounties and subsidies the same, we are getting precisely the same as we got last year from the Government, because by the amount by which the agricultural grant is increased, the subsidies and bounties are diminished, and the net decrease from the year before is £448,000.
Even in matters of Estimates, when debates on those Estimates should not be speeches but thoughtful, deliberate talks as to where the money is to be found and how it is to be expended, we can understand why attempts are being made to camouflage the situation by rainbow-chasing political speeches from the Government Benches here. We can understand how the Minister for Industry and Commerce will rush in to talk about agricultural matters or how the Minister for Finance will debate on agriculture, but the Minister for Agriculture will be either absent or have nothing to say. I wonder is the Minister thinking that I am going across the border line?
You certainly are.
He is getting very restive over there. I will not cross the border, however, because I have plenty of material to consider within the border.
What border are you talking about?
The Deputy has left his seat, and in his new abode he should not interrupt. I think that if he came nearer he would hear better. Anyway, we are getting the same in bounties, subsidies and agricultural grant, all combined, as we got last year-no more and no less. There is a little juggling in its application. That is all. We are getting £448,000 less than the year before, and we are getting in money value, without going into the conditions that have changed in the meantime, £250,000 less than was given by the Cosgrave Administration in 1931-32. That is the position cleared up. It is not on that aspect of it, however, that I expected the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Agriculture to clear up the position. The Minister for Agriculture is confronted this year with what he was not confronted with last year. He gave us figures here —approximate figures—I do not want to tie him to them, but it is not the figures that I want to use, as figures. I just want to use them to give an idea of the problem that is before the Minister, the Government and the country. Last year, when he was introducing his Vote for subsidies and bounties, there was no restriction on our output, no restriction on our export to Britain. There was just a barrier there, that we had to pay a certain duty on the stuff going in. If it paid us, we could afford to pay that duty, but whether or not we could afford it, if we paid that duty we could send it in. Then, to meet the loss sustained by that duty, it was for the Government to measure their resources and to say how much they would give the producers to balance that loss. Now, however, the Minister is confronted with the fact that there is a restriction on the volume of produce that will be admitted into the British market, and his proposition is to give bounties and subsidies in the current year as he did last year.
Quite obviously, if he is to come anywhere near an equitable application of this money in order to get it down to the producer, he must devise different machinery from that which he had in operation or in his mind a year ago. The new situation demands it, and I expected of the Minister, and it is due to this House and to the country, that he should tell us what that special machinery is that he has in mind to meet the new situation that has arisen. He gave us figures about a month ago or so, that the fat cattle that we exported to Britain averaged, roughly, 20,000 a month. The quota that has been instituted by the British cuts that to half. Of course, that is only an average figure. In some months there is a heavier volume of fat cattle or beef going over than in others, but we will take it as an average in order to help us to understand and appreciate the position. When we were sending over those cattle to Britain at the rate of 20,000 a month, we had an ample supply here for our own requirements. If, by merely a stroke of the pen, that 20,000 is cut down to a half that we cannot send over, we still have our own requirements here. We can send only half over to Britain, which means that we have 10,000 on our hands that we have no use for-10,000 that, as it were, should be shot and dumped into a hole and burried. The Minister is confronted with that situation and all he has told us here is that he will throw in a subsidy into the pool just as he did last year.
In principle the theory was sound enough last year of giving those subsidies and bounties to dealers, based on the belief that when these dealers got a subsidy, aggregating £2,000,000, they would go to the fairs and markets and compete with one another. They were given a subsidy of £2,000,000 in the belief that that money would automatically raise prices, and that the benefits would pass down the line to the producers. I doubt if that was the best way of dealing with the situation, but we will leave it there. The benefits could only go down when there was open competition for every beast offered, and when there was a market on the other side for every beast on which duty was paid. But a new situation arose when only limited numbers are allowed over no matter what duty is paid. Take it that there are 20,000 cattle available every month. I presume the Minister offers the same subsidy as last year, 35/- a beast. In his wisdom he decided to hand that over to the dealers. Let us assume that 20,000 cattle are ready. The dealers can go into one fair green for their requirements. There is no need for any of the cattle in that fair in this country, because a supply is available without them. Only 10,000 cattle will be allowed into England. A couple of dozen shippers are handed 35/- a head as a subsidy for the buying of 10,000 cattle. If only half that number is required, where is there competition to raise prices? How does the subsidy of 35/- produce competition? I would like any of the Ministers to show me how a subsidy or a bounty to ship these cattle would increase prices by one threepenny bit. The proposition is to give 35/- on cattle exported. If half the fat cattle cannot be exported, what is going to happen then? Who is going to suffer the loss? The Minister is asking for £2,500,000 of public money to meet the situation.
But the really serious part is not touched at all. What is going to happen to these 10,000 fat cattle? It is not proposed to give the owners one bob. The money will be given to the cattle dealers who can go down and offer any prices they like. There is no need for these cattle at home. The dealers are offered two cattle for every one they want, or that is of any use to them. How does the subsidy meet the situation? It does not meet it at all. I was going to say that this Vote, instead of being referred back, should be rejected. I will not say that. It should be referred back and, as I suggested to the Minister some time ago, there should be a committee of all Parties in this House set up to deal with this vitally important matter.
The licensing system has been made incumbent on the Minister by British quotas. The whole question of subsidies and bounties should be referred to a committee representative of all parties in the House, and presided over by the Minister. If I were in the Minister's position, certainly I would not take the responsibility of handling this situation. I would spread the responsibility. I suggest to the Minister for his serious consideration that this Vote should be referred back. If he wants it to go as it is, it is up to him to tell the country what he proposes to do with the surplus fat stock that the people have now on hands. It is up to him to justify the giving of a bounty from public money to dealers to buy cattle in a market that is gultted, in which they can get them at any price, or to give them licences, even when there was less competition.
The Minister knows that a licence consisting of a slip of paper with a stamp, giving power to ship a fat bullock or a heifer to England, after paying the £6 tax on the animal, would be freely bought in the Dublin market for £5 or £5 10s. The matter was put before the Minister and, to be fair to him, he said that he agreed in principle that the licence should be given to the producers. Presumably producers would get licences in proportion to the fat stock they have. When cattle are taken to the market to be sold invariably the price of a beast with a licence is £5 or £6 above that given for a beast without a licence. The Minister knows that. The Minister now proposes to give out licences to dealers. It is hard to fix the worth of the licence, because if a dealer is offered two beasts, and if he has no use for one, he can buy at any price. In addition to that, this Vote proposes to give dealers a bounty of 35/- out of public money. Such a proposal would not be made outside Grangegorman. I do not blame the Minister. He is up against a more difficult situation than any Minister was ever up against in this country. I am not raising this question for political reasons, or in order to criticise the Minister. I offered the Minister the co-operation of our Party in agricultural matters, because he knows the situation is rendering valueless half of our exports of beef. Beasts two or three years old become surplus, and behind these is an equal number of beasts one year old which are surplus, and an equal number of younger animals that are not wanted. If the Minister pursues this system the only remedy is to shoot half the cattle, dump them into a hole, to come on down and shoot an equal number of stores a year younger, dump them into a hole, and to shoot an equal number of animals still younger and to dump them into a hole, as well as the calves.
The Minister is not at all as thorough as the circumstances in which he finds himself should make him. It is not at all sufficient if he is to pursue this policy, to cut the throats of a few calves. He will have to kill off at once about 500,000 cattle more. I should like to hear the Minister on how he proposes to utilise any of this money to meet that situation. Taking last year even, without the quota system for the first three months of this year, we lost £8,000,000 on this game. The cattle are carrying over the annuities, and to recoup the man who is sending over the cattle the Minister proposes to pay the annuities. It would be just as well to throw off the mask and to say that you are paying the annuities. That is what this Vote means. It means nothing else, but the serious matter is the trade. I should like the Minister to tell the House how any part of these bounties will benefit anybody but the cattle traders. I should like him to explain to the House the justification for changing his attitude in taking the export licences from the producer and giving them to the exporter. There are other aspects of the matter which, perhaps, we shall have an opportunity of discussing later, but on these bigger matters I should like to hear the Minister now.
Dr. Ryan
I should like to approach this matter in the spirit in which Deputy Belton has spoken on it, because I take it Deputy Belton wanted to be helpful in approaching this problem.
Quite.
Dr. Ryan
First of all, although quotas are not relevant to this discussion, I should like to say just a few words in reference to them. You cannot generalise on this subject of agriculture. Some of those quotas gave no trouble whatever; others have given us great trouble. They are restrictive quotas. In fact, I think I can say that the cattle quota is the only one that has given trouble. For instance, in the case of bacon, the only trouble we have at the moment is to try to fill it. We are anxious to fill it, because we know it is most important that we should keep that quota to absorb the big supply of pigs that will be there next autumn. We did not know whether in respect of the pig supply we would ask the British to reduce our quota because our trouble is to fill the quota in the case of bacon.
That is no trouble.
Dr. Ryan
Well, it is rather troublesome just now. Then, for instance, take the case of eggs and potatoes. The same condition applies there. We have no great difficulty there because we were successful in these cases in getting the market outside the United Kingdom to absorb the surplus that was there after the British had imposed the quota. Then, in the case of condensed milk we could turn out more than we are exporting at the present time because our foreign markets have expanded enormously. In fact, I think at the moment our market outside the United Kingdom is larger than the United Kingdom market itself, but even so, with the great expansion that has gone on, particularly in the case of condensed whole milk we have had to cut down temporarily, at any rate, our production. Cattle are the big difficulty. We have discussed this matter here so often that I think it would not be fair to tax the Ceann Comhairle by asking him to allow us discuss it again. I think I indicated here on three or four occasions at least, how we mean to deal with that question by trying to lessen the numbers to meet our present requirements under the quota. I expect that the Cattle Bill, to which I have referred on a few occasions, will be along in the very near future. At any rate I am very keen on having it passed through this session and I hope Deputies will not get too impatient if they are asked to wait two or three weeks more before it is introduced. The matter of giving licences to cattle dealers has been discussed here before also and I would only ask Deputy Belton this question. If he were here, and there were, say, 100,000 farmers—and that is only one—fourth of the number of farmers in the country—asking him for licences in the same period how could he distinguish between them or how could he distribute 20,000 licences between them, because he would have only one licence for every five farmers? The only way we can do it for the present is to give the licences to the dealers. In the Cattle Bill I hope to see that the producer gets a fair price for his cattle, to whomsoever the licence may go.
Might I ask the Minister a question? Has there been any communication with the British Government on the question of the quota because I take it, when the quota was introduced by Great Britain, it was introduced for a particular reason. In that connection it has not, according to the most recent pronouncements on the subject, effected the purpose that was recently in mind, that is, to increase the price of beef. That is the problem which they have still to face and it has not been solved by the cattle quota. The question arises in connection with the consumption of fresh beef. From the point of view of the consumption of fresh beef and health, there is no doubt that the quality of fresh beef is far superior to frozen or chilled meat from any part of the world. It was said that the imports of frozen or chilled meat were of such a character as to limit the market for their own beef. When I say their own beef, we have ourselves, as one would describe it, common ground with them because Irish bred cattle are fattened over there for the English market as British beef and if our production is not maintained there will be a reduction in the quantity of British beef. There is, I believe, a problem there which might be made the subject of negotiation and settlement apart from any other question.
Dr. Ryan
I think the Deputy will admit that the consumption of beef in general in Britain has decreased very much in the last few years.
Only of fresh beef.
Dr. Ryan
Of all beef, I think. I think the Deputy will find that even the imports from the Argentine have been cut down during the last few years. It is true that there has been an increase in the imports from the Dominions of New Zealand and Australia but it is not sufficient to make up for the reduction in the imports from the Argentine. There has been a decrease in consumption generally and many Ministers in Great Britain have mentioned that in recent speeches.
The same remarks apply in the case of our own Ministers as in the case of the British Ministers. They are not speaking ex cathedra when these statements are made. They have in mind the trouble that faces them at the moment and the easiest solution that occurs to their mind is offered as an explanation.
Would the Minister allow me to intervene on this point for a moment? I read recently with interest, in some British newspaper, that one of the difficulties of the British farmer was that the quality of the home beef was not kept as high as it ought to be, in relation to chilled and frozen beef from overseas. It has been suggested that the proper line of advance, for getting the home beef, which would include Irish beef, into a position of supremacy in the market, would be to secure that what is called cow beef should not be used at all. Cow beef being inferior, should not be used for consumption in the ordinary way but turned into various kinds of food, meat meal and so forth for cattle. Following upon Deputy Cosgrave's suggestion it is quite possible that co-operation between the British and Irish Governments, whose interest is the same as regards the improvement of the home farmer, might result in some advance being made along those lines which might be of great value to cattle exporters.
Dr. Ryan
I think there is a good deal in what Deputy MacDermot said in regard to the quality of the beef, as reported in some of the farming journals and other technical journals that I have seen, but it is put the other way: That the imported chilled beef is practically as good as the home beef and, sometimes, presented in a better form and that the housewife takes it in preference.
So far as that has any truth in it, it would be because steps have not been taken, that could be taken, to get cow beef off the market.
Dr. Ryan
Yes. Deputy Cosgrave asked whether we had had any discussion with the British Government with regard to these quotas.
To put it more clearly, any discussion with the British Minister for Agriculture?
Dr. Ryan
The British Minister for Agriculture, before imposing any quotas, notifies our High Commissioner in the ordinary way and gives him ample time to let us know here and to put our views, so that he can convey them to the British Minister for Agriculture. That is the ordinary line of approach that has been adopted in regard to all those quotas. As a matter of fact, some of the quotas were modified in our favour as a result of these representations.
To come to the point of the bounties under discussion. These bounties, one would be inclined to think from the speech of Deputy Belton, were given as a direct result of the British tariffs so as to negative a proportion of the tariff charge. That is not, however, the idea. I think it will be seen that, in some cases, the bounty given is higher than the British tariffs, and in some cases it is lower. We have put on these tariffs when, in some instances, world prices are too low for the Irish farmer to compete against. Where we have any surplus it is quite easy to deal with the matter by direct protective measures for our own producers. For instance, in the case of wheat and beef we can fix the price according to quality. In the case of fruit we put on a tariff which raised the price, internally, in the market and in that way gave our producer a better price than he would get in world competition. On the other hand, where we have a surplus and must export, the only way I see to raise prices above the world prices would be to give a bounty.
Above world prices?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, if the world price is too low. Take butter. We believe the world price for butter is too low, apart from British tariffs, and therefore we give a price higher than world prices. In the same way we brought eggs above world prices and also potatoes. I think sufficient proof of what I say will be found in the fact that we have summoned people for smuggling these articles across the Border because they are higher here than across the Border.
Is it true that you let any of them in free?
Dr. Ryan
Oh, no. There are other cases—sheep and lambs—where the bounty we pay is not as high as the tariff charged in Great Britain, but where we believe, however, under the circumstances, it is as much as we can afford, and the farmer will have to be reasonably satisfied with the price he is getting for sheep and lambs. There are other instances—pigs and bacon— where we have to vary the bounty very much. Practically every four or six weeks, for some time past, we had to vary the bounty, in the first place, in order to give the exporter a good return, and in the second place, because it is rather difficult to get the quota filled at the moment. The curers are inclined to fill their contracts at home rather than export unless we give them a large inducement to export. There again, just as in the case of the quota, there is the difficulty in the case of cattle with regard to export bounties. I have come to the conclusion, for some little time past, that the biggest trouble with cattle is not our own restrictive quota, or the tariff, but that it can be limited to a great extent by the organisation in the market here, to see that the producer gets the best that he can get in the existing circumstances. For instance, Deputy Belton mentioned that a licence is worth £5. I am not aware that licences are as high as that. I have heard of people getting £2 10s. It is possible that Deputy Belton is right, but I do not think they are worth that. It is possible that a person with a contract in Great Britiain for 20 cattle, having got 17 here, would be prepared to pay that amount on the ground that the other three were worth it in order to enable him to fulfil his contract. I do agree that £2 10s. or £3 was given rather freely for a licence. That is so. We want to see that the producer gets the very last penny. If the producer is getting £2 10s. or £3 he will be considerably better off at any rate. Therefore, if we tried to regulate things internally we would be in a better position to see whether we can do more in other ways or not.
Another point raised by Deputy Belton is the point about the £8,000,000. I think the Deputy is making a mistake here in indulging in generalisations. It is true that we are consuming two-thirds of our agricultural produce now. In 1926-27 we were exporting £30,000,000 out of £64,000,000—about 46 per cent. Of course, we are consuming more now. Let me give one instance. At that time, we were importing £1,500,000 worth of bacon. We are not doing that now. We are consuming our own bacon instead.
Another instance would be: the consumption of cattle was estimated at about 120,000 a year. It is estimated now by our Statistics Branch at over 200,000 a year. Taking all these items into consideration, Deputy Belton is probably right in saying that we are consuming practically two-thirds of our total output at home. But you would have to go through each item to get a picture of what the farmer is really losing on the economic war. Take the case of cattle, which is the big item. In the case of cattle we are not consuming more than 25 per cent. of our total output, so that we are exporting 75 per cent.
Could you put a figure on that? Would 750,000 of a surplus be approximately correct?
Dr. Ryan
The average export of cattle for five or six years would be about 750,000, but this year, on our estimate, the number is not likely to exceed 550,000, taking into account the restrictions and the numbers likely to be exported in the classes not restricted. That is somewhere between two-thirds and three-fourths of our exports in that case. In that case, where the losses are heaviest, the internal consumption is not by any means two-thirds. It is the other way round. That is the really big item. That is why I think that Deputy Belton's figure of £8,000,000 would be wrong. I should like to draw attention to a few other items to show where error might arise. There is, in that total output, £6,000,000 worth of turf. That is all consumed at home, and it does not come into the calculation at all. There is also £4,000,000 worth of potatoes involved. In that particular year there were £100,000 worth of potatoes exported, but in the last few years the export of potatoes would be very much lower. During the last three or four years, I do not think that these exports could have amounted to more than £30,000 or £40,000. The export of potatoes has gone down very much during the last three years, and they have been declining during the last six or seven years. Turf and potatoes account for £10,000,000, practically all of which are consumed at home.
You would not call turf "agricultural produce."
Dr. Ryan
It is included in the output. Therefore, if you base your calculations on output, you must omit turf.
Turf is far removed from bounties and subsidies.
Dr. Ryan
That is so. We have, then, the case of pigs and bacon. In 1926-27, when these calculations were made by the Statistics Branch, we had an output of pigs and bacon amounting to £9,000,000, with an export of £6,000,000. There is a very big difference there. We estimate that, during the present year, we are going to export somewhere between 400,000 and 450,000 pigs as pigs, bacon or pork carcases. We estimate that we will consume at home between 600,000 and 650,000. That figure is practically reversed since 1926-27. We are going to consume at home about 60 per cent. of our output. When these figures were arrived at, we were exporting 66 per cent. Before Deputy Belton could fix upon this figure of £8,000,000 or any other figure, he would have to take each item. Take the case of milk products, on which we give a bounty and subsidy which bring the price over the world price. The bounty and subsidy are relatively small in total, because we export only 25 per cent., but they make an enormous difference to the 75 per cent. consumed at home, bringing that also over the world price.
Would the Minister mind making that point again?
Dr. Ryan
In the case of milk products, we export only 25 per cent. of our total output. Assuming that the bounty in that case amounts to about £600,000—I am not sure of the figure, but that sum will serve for the purpose of the argument—that £600,000 brings the price of the one-fourth exported over the world price, and it is worth £1,800,000 to the three-fourths consumed at home.
Are we not charging ourselves for the extra money for the 75 per cent. we consume at home?
Dr. Ryan
Certainly.
If we get extra for that, we are paying it ourselves?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Where do we make a profit when we are charging ourselves?
Dr. Ryan
I am making the case of the farmer-producer against everybody else.
Remember that the farmer is the biggest consumer.
If the Deputy desires to put questions to the Minister for the purpose of eliciting information there is no objection, but he must not engage in argument.
I merely want to get at the point. The Minister does not take it as an interruption.
Dr. Ryan
I take it in the spirit in which it is meant. It does not make much difference to the farmer whether the butter he himself consumes is worth ¼ or 9d. if he produces it himself. But it does make a very big difference in what he sells even to the townspeople. I do not want to show that any figure—£8,000,000, £4,000,000 or £2,000,000—is correct. What I want to prove is that the Deputy cannot be right in assuming straight off that if we export one-third, consume two-thirds at home and lose £3,000,000 on what we export, therefore our total loss is £9,000,000—£3,000,000 multiplied by three. It is necessary to take out each item. Unless the Deputy approaches the problem in that way, he will not get a reliable figure. As regards milk products, if the Deputy makes out his case in that way, seeing that the subsidy on butter and milk products increases the price beyond the world price, then the farmer is in credit to that extent against any loss he may sustain.
Will the Minister tell the House the price on the home market of butter in other butter-producing countries?
Dr. Ryan
So far as I know, the price of butter in New Zealand is much higher than it is outside. In Holland the same position obtains. So far as I know, the price is about 2/- per lb.
Who is paying that?
Dr. Ryan
According to Deputy Belton, they are paying it themselves.
But you are making the point about world prices.
Dr. Ryan
Personally, I should be quite prepared to put up the price on the consumer here a little higher than it is at present for the benefit of the farmer. I should be with Deputy Curran in that, when he wants to follow the example of New Zealand.
The cost of production ought to be the first thing to be taken into consideration in the case of any article or commodity.
Dr. Ryan
Quite right. We are not dealing at the moment with what other countries are doing so far as their internal trade is concerned. Holland, Denmark and New Zealand have higher prices than the world price in their own markets at home, just as we have here. I am only dealing with this point that if we had no economic war, no British tariffs, no restrictions or bounties or anything else and compared that position with the present position—that is what Deputy Belton dealt with in his speech and that is what I am dealing with now—then I say that Deputy Belton did not go into the thing sufficiently to give a true picture. In order to do so he would have to take each individual item and find out whether there was a credit on the farmer's side or a debit. I hold that there would be a credit on the farmer's side in the case of butter, eggs and potatoes, and a debit as regards some other things. It would be necessary to do that to find out what the net figure was. It is the only way in which Deputy Belton could get the figure of what the farmers' loss or gain might be under the economic war. The Deputy said we were only paying half of what we are losing by way of tariffs in bounties. I would remind him that the other half is being made up by halving the land annuities.
I am afraid the Minister did not give sufficient thought to that point.
Dr. Ryan
I do not agree with Deputy Belton that we are paying the annuities three times over. I have often heard him make that statement in the House and have read in the newspapers where he made it outside the House, but I have never seen it demonstrated yet that we are paying the annuities three times over.
Will the Minister show me how the having of the land annuities affects the situation so?
Dr. Ryan
The land annuities were halved under the Land Bill passed in 1932. Where, for instance, a man was paying £20 in annuities before, he is now paying £10.
That is to meet the situation when there is no economic war. Does the economic war not affect the situation at all?
Dr. Ryan
If the economic war was over we would still leave them with half the annuities. The farmers are all on our side, and they know what the gain to them is going to be by winning the economic war. They know they would get that anyway.
The Minister would say anything.
Dr. Ryan
I would say that there is practically no genuine farmer in the country who is not on our side. You have farmers, of course, who are not real farmers—ranchers and so on.
Like Deputy Belton.
Dr. Ryan
There are a lot of them anyway who are engaged in other businesses besides farming.
The Minister should come to the serious side of it.
Dr. Ryan
I think I have dealt with most of the matters that were referred to by Deputy Belton. The Deputy made a complaint. I do not know really whether he put it as a complaint or not, and I would like to say that Deputy Belton was very fair in his arguments this morning. He made the complaint, however, that there were certain motions on the Order Paper that had not yet been taken. He said that when he questioned the President about them, the President said that there would be an opportunity of dealing with these matters on other Bills and Estimates that were to come before the House. I think the Deputy cannot deny that he has dealt with the subject matter of those motions over and over again since they were put on the Order Paper. I have not been here for all the Deputy's speeches, because I am not too strong, but I am sure he will admit that he has dealt with these questions over and over again.
You look a delicate fellow since you started drinking more milk.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy tried to prove that we had not done any more for agriculture—in fact, we had done less, he said—than Cumann na nGaedheal had done for it in 1931. I think it is a great pity that Deputy Belton did not recognise the merits of Cumann na nGaedheal when they were in office, because it is much better to join a Party when they are in office than to join them afterwards when they go out.
Like a great many more people, he had to see others in office before he could appreciate them.
Dr. Ryan
That is really going very hard on Deputy Belton, and I think the Leader of the Opposition should withdraw it.
One look at that crowd was enough for him.
Dr. Ryan
I think the only other point that was raised by Deputy Belton was this, although I do not think he made it explicitly: that we were not giving enough for export bounties if we wanted to compensate agriculturists for what they were losing, and that we were giving too much in export bounties if we wanted to fight the economic war properly. He made the point that we were paying the annuities and the other sums withheld from England by giving those bounties. I think I would be able to deal with either of these points if I knew which side the Deputy was going to come down on.
That is the art of making a point, Minister. I will show you the side that I am going to come down on when I see your hand.
Dr. Ryan
As I have said, if I knew the side that Deputy Belton was going to come down on, then I would be able to deal with either point.
Deal with both, and then I will meet you.
Dr. Ryan
I do not think I will deal with either now.
With regard to this question of the Government not having been able to find time for the motions on the Order Paper, I think I am entitled to point out that there is a motion down in the name of an exceptionally praiseworthy Deputy limiting speeches in this House to half-an-hour, except by the unanimous consent of the House. If the Government had found time to take that motion, and had given it precedence, they would have had no difficulty in finding time for all the other motions.
Is the Deputy asking us to save him from his friends?
It is not my friends only who make speeches of more than half-an-hour.
Dr. Ryan
We are all friends.
The Minister for Finance himself is no mean performer in that respect.
Is not the record for long speeches held on the Government Benches?
One or two complaints have reached me lately of unnecessary delay in the payment of bounties, and it is causing hardship to producers. I should be glad if the Minister would take steps to accelerate such payments as much as he possibly can, because it is really very hard on men to be kept out of their money for six or seven weeks. The amounts involved sometimes run into quite a large sum. I have a letter from an egg producer saying that £500 is owing to him.
Dr. Ryan
I would be glad if the Deputy would give me an opportunity of saying something on that, because I had intended to deal with it. The position with regard to egg exporters is being made right. I hope that within three weeks, at any rate, payments will be kept up to date from that on.
The Minister has not disposed of Deputy Belton's argument that in justice the amount of those bounties ought never to be less than the amount of the special tariffs imposed by the British. There may be cases where, even so, the price would be too low, and where an additional bounty is needed for that reason. But in any case I suggest that in justice the bounty ought never to be less than the amount of the special tariff. It is no answer to talk about halving the annuities. You must take, in order to understand the position, the very worst case possible from the Government point of view: the man who is unaffected by any reduction in the annuities. Take the case of a farmer who has saved enough money, or who borrowed enough money years ago to acquire the freehold of a farm of 100 acres, or even a couple of hundred acres. There is no reason why he should be branded as a rancher, and told that he doserves no consideration from the Government. I have known of cases of men who have worked hard all their lives, and who have put all their life's savings into such a purchase. Such a man may be living in a part of the country that is not a dairying district. He may have land that is unsuitable for wheat growing, and he may be to all intents and purposes dependent on raising livestock. He gets not a penny-piece benefit out of the Government's action in halving the annuities. He has to bear the full brunt of the economic war, and the Government has done nothing appreciable to lessen the hardship falling on such a man, and he stands out as a glaring example of social and economic injustice, an example the Government ought to be ashamed of. If, as Deputy Belton suggests, they took care to see that every bounty was at least as big as the special tariff imposed by the British, they would be doing something to meet the equities of the case in the matter of an individual such as that.
This is a specially interesting Estimate because it is the Estimate, of all the Estimates, which is the hardest to reconcile with the Fianna Fáil philosophy. It is very difficult to reconcile this Estimate with such statements as that made the other day by Senator Connolly, that he thanked God it would not take anything like one hundred years to get rid of our export trade with Great Britain. If that is the point of view of the Government, it is difficult to understand their delaying the destruction of our export trade by paying out any bounties at all. It does give one to think, and each time this Estimate is produced, one has the same difficulty in making sense of the policy of a Government which is constantly declaring that the British market is gone, and declaring at other times that if it is not quite gone, it is highly desirable that it should go, and then bringing in an Estimate such as this, and asking us to pay for entry into that self-same market.
There is only just one other point I should like to allude to. The Minister for Finance when he told us that he proposed to meet this expenditure not out of current taxation but by way of borrowing it, expressed the view that he was justified in doing that because these bounties were not regarded as a permanent feature of our finance. I was glad he took that view especially when he based it on the belief that some settlement of the conflict which makes these bounties necessary was bound, sooner or later, to be reached because commonsense would tell in the end. I should like to draw his attention to an announcement that appears in this morning's newspaper to the effect that a group of British members of Parliament have been suggesting to the British Government that a way out of the impasse with regard to arbitration might be found, and that, without prejudice to this disputed point of principle as to whether differences between members of the Commonwealth should normally be adjusted by bodies drawn from outside the Commonwealth or from inside the Commonwealth, the British Government might join with the Irish Government in asking the Council of the League of Nations to nominate a panel of, say, five persons who would be regarded as suitable chairmen for the tribunal and that then the representatives of the British and Irish Governments—say, two appointed by each—should choose one of these five persons to act as such chairman and further, that the function of the tribunal should be confined to the purely legal issue concerning the annuities. Of course, there is a good deal more in the dispute between the two Governments than the purely legal issue, but as might have been gathered from my recent remarks in the House on the subject of possible arbitration I felt that to take anything more to an arbitration court than the purely legal issue would be to court disaster. It would not, in fact, be a practical proposition. Even though the dispute involves more than the purely legal issue, it would be a great gain to have that legal issue out of the way. The equities of the case could be discussed afterwards whether the legal issue was decided in our favour or against us. I take it that if we wish to preserve our right to discuss the equities of the case, however the arbitration might turn out, the British would wish equally to preserve their right to discuss the equities of the case. The point I want to make is that if the Government are sincere in hoping that commonsense will somehow or other intervene and settle this dispute, and if they are sincere in the belief which they have put forward as justifying them in raising this money by borrowing instead of out of current taxation, namely, that the dispute would not go on indefinitely, they should not overlook any opportunity such as may, perhaps, be presented by the movement to which I have referred and which is reported in this morning's papers. We should not get away from the attitude expressed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce just before he went abroad to attend his recent Labour Conference in Geneva that the Government remained entirely willing to submit the legal point at issue between the British and themselves to any arbitration tribunal of whose impartiality they felt confident.
I do not intend, in discussing these bounties and subsidies, to make any particular reference to the economic war which produces the necessity for these bounties and subsidies. I dare say it will be impossible to conduct the debate without some passing reference to the primary cause, but I think it would be well if we, as far as possible, confined ourselves to the particular principle of bounties and subsidies. The main point that concerns the agricultural community in general is whether the farmer is getting the full advantage of this expenditure of £2,500,000. It might be argued on this that he does and again it might be argued that he does not. Personally, I believe that for the greater period of the time during which the bounties were in existence the producer did not get the full advantage. Possibly within the last six or seven months when the British put on a quota on cattle exports, particularly, and when the licences were given to the producer for a short time, or for part of the time, the farmer did get greater advantage from these bounties or subsidies than he got previously.
But that is coming to an end at the end of this month and it is not proposed later to give licences for the export of cattle to the producers so that I very much fear that the advantage from the bounties on cattle at least will be gradually reduced so far as the farmer is concerned. On this matter of the bounties or subsidies for exports in general some of us on this side of the House contended for years that the development of agriculture by bounties or subsidies would be impossible in a country like this where agriculture is 80 per cent. of our production. If there were a prospect of any diminution in bounties and subsidies it would be a poor outlook for the economic condition of this country. One hopes that the necessity for these particular bounties and subsidies will be only temporary.
At the end of his speech, the Minister for Agriculture made, possibly, the most effective allusion to these matters when he said that the butter and bacon industries were reaping more advantage to the producers than was any other section of industries in the community. That is a fact, and it is, I might say, a primary fact that it is only the highly-organised industries or sections of industries that can get the full advantage of any bounty, or subsidy. It is because the dairying industry in this country is a highly-organised industry and it is because the bacon industry is in the hands of a few big firms, themselves highly organised, that they are able to take the full advantage of the privilege which the Minister gave them in bounties and subsidies. The dairying industry has reaped a greater advantage from the bounties than any other section of the agricultural industry.
In this respect, one would like to pay a passing tribute to the ex-Minister for Agriculture. If it had not been for his efforts in retaining the dairying industry, and in taking care, four or five years ago, that the great organisation built up had not broken down, it would be impossible for the dairy farmers of this country to take advantage now of the bounties and subsidies to carry them on through this particular period. The Minister said that their attitude in regard to bounties was to approach them from the standard of increasing prices beyond the world prices. Perhaps that is the Minister's intention and, I must confess in debating this question generally, I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the Minister. The Minister is, perhaps, placed in a more difficult position than any Minister was ever placed in here or I hope will ever again be placed in—trying to carry on in a most impossible position. I venture to say that any Minister in the same position at this particular time would be practically deluged with difficulties. I would like to pay him the tribute that in his own way, as far as possible, he is trying to carry on by experiments and expedients which cannot possibly be effective. The Minister is forced to turn to some new avenue or experiment in an effort to get agriculture out of the position in which it is.
I want to point out that the Minister would set himself an impossible task if he tried to raise cattle prices above the level of world prices. I have here an instance of a particular agriculturist who had 12 fat cattle for sale. He had a licence for six of these cattle. He exported the six cattle for which he had a licence, and received a sum of £21 10s. Incidentally, his case disposes of the argument we so often hear that economic war or no economic war there was no price for cattle in England. For the six cattle sold in the Dublin market he got £10 10s. That is a clear contrast in this particular case between the two sets of prices. At any rate, he got more than 50 per cent. addition for the six cattle he sent to England.
Let us see what is the advantage to the people from these bounties. The section of the community which they are supposed to benefit does not always reap the full advantage. As far as cattle are concerned the great bulk of the cattle producing people in this country derive no benefit whatever from the subsidies. The subsidy given, it is clear, can only be effective as far as that portion of the stock that we export is concerned. It is only in cases where there is high organisation in an industry that the portion of the production that we keep at home can benefit in price. That is only possible to a highly organised industry such as the dairying industry and the bacon industry. The very intense organisation in the dairying industry has enabled it to keep the home prices up to the level of the export prices, even where the export prices are fictitious prices caused by bounties. In these industries, they are able to keep up the prices in the home market. The bacon industry is a highly organised industry in the hands of a few firms who take jolly good care that they are organised. After they get what advantage they can out of the bounty on the export portion they pass on to the consumer as much of the increase in prices as they possibly can.
That is not possible in the case of the livestock industry. At any time, only a very small portion of our cattle are fit for export. The number of fat cattle in relation to the rest of the cattle is very small. At the present moment only 50 per cent. of the fat cattle can be exported. What about the rest of the cattle? What about the cattle raised by the unfortunate farmer who lives on what I may call the poorer lands, who is limited in the extent of land he has, who produces a class of store which is not fit for export, who produces a poorer class of store which is usually sold to the grazier who eventually exports it? He is not benefiting in any particular manner by these subsidies. He sells to his neighbour or to somebody else at a fair, and the benefit of the export price is not passed on to him, because he is not organised. It would be impossible to organise the numerous farmers who produce livestock in one way or another. The 400,000 farmers who sell stock here and there could not be organised as far as local markets are concerned. It will be, therefore, impossible to pass on the benefit of any subsidy to them.
I am not satisfied that the full measure of the benefit that one would expect from this £2,250,000 is passed on to the farmer. Even if it was, we have had from the Minister for Finance the statement that any benefit which we farmers derive from this particular method we pay the most of it ourselves. Agriculturists contribute the greater proportion of the taxes in this State, and where we are relieved by subsidies or any other method we are paying the greater proportion of the relief ourselves. In effect, it is not what it pretends to be in the way of relief. I do not believe that it would be possible in normal times to do very much good for the agricultural community, either by bounties or subsidies, but desperate diseases require desperate remedies. When, owing to the economic war, we were faced with practically the cessation of our exports, or, at least, if we did export, would receive such a sum of money for our produce, when the tariff was paid, that it would not be worth exporting, the Ministry were forced to devise some method of temporarily helping the farmers. They adopted, possibly, the one method they could have adopted in instituting the subsidy system. It will, however, absolutely fail to maintain agriculture in anything like the position where it would be possible for farmers to carry on at a profit. Bounties or subsidies can never put the farmer on his feet sufficiently to make farming a paying proposition. While saying that, I will give the Minister credit for doing all that he could in the difficult circumstances. One can only hope that the need for all this will soon pass away, and that we may be able to revert, at some not very distant date, to a condition of affairs when we can carry on our trade and be free to get the best price we can without any restriction, and that the Ministry will not be put to the trouble of all these expedients to try and prevent us from disappearing.
There is one point to which I should like to make particular reference. At the end of this month the licensing system for fat stock is to be changed. Hitherto, licences for fat stock have been given to the producers. After July 1st, I think it is, they will no longer be given, and only exporters will get licences to ship fat stock. I very much fear that, whatever temporary advantage producers of fat stock have reaped from the subsidies or bounties within the last six or seven months, will now pass away, because the position will be that those who have any stock to sell will be absolutely at the mercy of the exporters. If I have 50 or 60 head of stock to sell, and a buyer, who has a licence to ship 15 or 20, comes to buy from me, it would be useless for me to say to him: "You have a licence for these cattle and you will get £4 or £5 a head more for them on that account; what are you going to give me?" He will give me what he pleases, and I will have to take it as I have no other alternative. I had the alternative for the last few months that if I had fat cattle to sell I could get a licence for some of them and reap the full benefit. I am afraid, however, that after July whatever advantage we did get in that way will be taken from us.
Honestly I have every sympathy with the Minister. I do not know that it would be possible for him, as he said himself, to spread the licences equitably over the number of farmers who produce fat stock. I recognise the Minister's difficulties and, beyond expressing my fear that the subsidy is going to be very little use to the producer, I really cannot devise a remedy. The sum total of the whole debate is that whatever temporary remedy in the way of bounties or subsidies this Government or any other Government adopt in a period such as this, when our chief market is restricted for reasons which might possibly be ended, the only hope is as the Minister for Finance said when introducing the Budget, that the time when these subsidies and bounties would no longer be required is approaching. I trust that it is approaching much quicker than the Minister visualises and that, if possible, even before this summer is passed a set of circumstances which one expected to see ended long before now, and which really ought never to have arisen, will be ended; and the only real hope for the resuscitation of agriculture will be given to the people—that is an open free market, as far as it is possible to get a good market for our agricultural produce.
Some of us are not pessimistic. We still believe that there is a good market at our door; that we can get, by proper care and organisation of our business, a better share in that market than any other country in the world; that we can get a share in that market much easier than any other country as our transit charges to that market are less than those of any other country; that if other countries, thousands of miles away from that market, can contrive to send goods and produce there and pay high freights we, who are up against it, certainly can. I do not want to make a political speech on this occasion, but one does venture to hope that at least advantage will be taken by the Ministry of recent statements made by politicians on the other side, as Deputy MacDermot said, and that a new attempt will be made somehow to renew the negotiations which were suspended, and thus put an end once and for all to the present condition of affairs in which agriculture is the principal sufferer.
Do rinne an Teachta Beinéad gearán mar gheall ar an luach atá dá fháil ag na feirmeoirí as a gcuid stuic agus beithidheach. Do léigheas san bpáipéar, tá seachtain o shoin, óráid a thug Stanley Baldwin uaidh i Sasana. Dubhairt sé, d'ainneoin gach rud a rinneadh chun cabhruithe leis na feirmeoirí agus chun luach stuic d'árdú, go raibh an luach ag teacht anuas. Cé'n mhaith bheith ag cainnt agus ag cur sios ar an luach atá dá fháil i margadh Shasana nuair a hadmhuítear go bhfuil an luach ag teacht anuas d'ainneoin gach rud atá déanta ag Rialtas Shasana chun é d'árdú.
Tá fhios againn go léir go bhfuil an scéal go holc san tír seo, agus i ngach tír sa domhan, maidir le luach stuic. Tá an luach ag ísliú le fada. Ní hin aon lá amháin a tháinig an t-ísliú. Ní hé seo an chéad uair a cailleadh airgcad ar stoc. B'éigean do sna feirmeoirí beithidhigh do dhíol ar bheagán airgid faoi réim an Rialtais dheireannaigh, agus ní raibh aon ullagón ná clampar ná gearán faoi. Ní raibh aon chogadh economice idir an tír seo agus muinntir Shasana an t-am san. B'éigean dóibh cur suas leis an scéal. Níl ach ráiméis ina lán den chainnt seo mar gheall ar phradhasana. Admhuighim go bhfuil na cáineacha a chuir na Sasanaigh ar ár dtáirgthe ag déanamh díoghbhála dhúinn. Tuigeann gach duine an méid sin. Ach ní hé sin an t-aon rud amháin atá i gceist. Ní thuigeann na Teachtaí ar an dtaobh eile den Tigh go bhfuil atharú mór ag teacht ar chúrsaí feirmeoireachta agus go bhfuil an t-atharú san ag teacht chun críche tré sna deolchairí. Ní hí seo an chead uair a baineadh úsáid as an scéim seo. Rinneadh é in aimsir Feis Ghrattan.
Dubhairt an Teachta Beinéad go raibh margadh Shasana i bhfogus dúinn agus go raibh dóchas aige go mbeadh an margadh san ag ár bhfeirmeoirí arís. B'fhéidir go bhfuil dóchas ag an dTeachta Beinéad, ach, do réir mar atáthar ag dul ar aghaidh i Sasana, ní thuigim conus mar atá an dóchas san ag an dTeachta san ná ag aon Teachta eile. Deir Rialtas Shasana go bhfuil sé socair aca, mar atá sé socair ag gach Rialtas eile nách mór, a margadh féin do chosaint ar son a muinntire féin. Nách bhfuil i bhfad níos mo stuic ag feirmeoirí Shasana anois ná mar a bhí dhá bhliain o shoin? An thaid atá an scéal mar sin ní féidir mórán dóchais a bheith ag éinne. Tá sé leagtha amach ag Rialtas Shasana a margadh féin do chosaint ar son a muinntire féin agus, pé socrú a déanfar, ní dóich liom go mbeidh mórán athruighthe ar an bpolasaí sin. Ba cheart dúinn é sin do thuigsint agus gan bheith ag súil feasta le margadh le hagaidh ár gcuid stuic thall i Sasana. Ní bheidh an margadh san mar a bhí blianta o shoin. Is dócha gur léigh an Teachta Beinéad an óráid a thug Mac Uí Chamberlain i bhFeis Shasana cúpla lá ó shoin. Is léir ón óráid sin nach mbeidh mórchuid de mhargadh Shasana ar fáil ag feirmeoirí na tíre seo feasta.
Dubhairt an Teachta Beinéad go mba chóir do mhuinntir na n-uachtarlann bheith buidheach de Phádraig O hOgáin, a bhí in a Aire Talmhaíochta tamall ó shoin, mar gheall ar a ndearna sé ar son an tionscail sin. Dubhairt sé go ndearna an tAire Talmhaíochta i Rialtas Chumann na nGaedheal a lán ar son na ndaoine sco. Ní aontuím leis sin. Dá n-eireodh le Cumann na nGaedheal dhá bhá bhliain ó shoin san Togha Mór, ní bheadh a lán de sna huachtarlanna i gContae Luimnigh ag obair anois in aon chor. Is ag an Rialtas atá againn atá an moladh tuillte mar gheall ar a ndearnadh ar son na n-uachtarlann. Nuair a cuireadh an scéim atá i bhfeidhm anois os cóir na Dála, do chuir a lán de sna Teachtai ar an dtaobh thall in a haghaidh ach ní raibh sé de mhisneach ag an Teachta Beinéad é sin do dhéanamh. Do shábháil an scéim sin an tionscal so san chuid seo den tír.
Ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil na feirmeoirí i gContae Luimnigh buidheach den Rialtas so mar gheall ar a ndearna said maidir leis an tionscal so. Ní hé an cogadh economice fé ndeár san. Thuig an Rialtas nárbh fhéidir leis an tionscal so dul ar agaidh gan congnamh agus cosaint. Tá súil agam go leanfaidh siad den scéim sin go dtí go mbeidh feabhas ar luach an ime. Tá sé riachtanach leanúint di toisc nách féidir leis na feirmeoirí an tionscal do choimeád ar siubhal gan na deolchairí seó. Tá áthas orm go ndearna an tAire tagairt don cheist seo san díospóireacht so indiu.
I would like the Minister to give a more detailed statement as to how the bounty was applied during the past year. For instance, I would like to have heard from him how much of the bounty was paid over to live stock, how much to butter, eggs and so on. I do not propose to follow either Deputy Belton or the Minister for Agriculture into the realms of high finance arising out of what was lost to the farmers in the economic war. In the case of manufactured goods, the tariffs put on by the British Government are given. Why would not the same thing be done in connection with agriculture? Take the case of lambs. There is a tariff of 12/- on each lamb, and the bounty is 2/6. It is no use saying that that compensates the farmer for his loss. It certainly does not in these days of falling prices. It is the same with cattle. The tariff on cattle is £6, and you get a bounty of 30/-. The worst of the bounty is that it is very doubtful if it goes to the people for whom it was intended. The Minister and everybody connected with the agricultural industry know that licences have been sold for anything up to £5. Deputy Bennett gave an example of a man with 20 cattle. He quoted the price he could get for the licensed cattle and contrasted it with the price offered for the unlicensed cattle. That is exactly the position. There is no use in being bitter across the floor of this House in connection with so vital a matter as the agricultural industry. We should all try to see what can be done to ameliorate the hardships of the farming community and to compensate them for the losses they have sustained.
I know this Vote will be talked about up and down the country by every member of the Fianna Fáil Party and pointed to as showing what they are doing towards the relief of the farming community. Even the President has referred to it from that angle. Let us take the case of horses. There is no bounty on a horse that makes over £100, and only ten per cent. on a horse under that. That does not compensate the farmers for the losses they have suffered by the economic war. It is a pity the Deputies on the Government Benches would not face up to the situation. There is no doubt that things are very bad in the country. Any person who goes to a farmer's place and investigates the circumstances under which he is now living will find that every other item pales into insignificance when compared with the losses arising out of cattle. When a farmer wanted to get money from a bank the first thing he was asked was what stock had he on his land and what was their value. Recently, in Limerick, heifers were bought under the Government's loan scheme and they were seized and put into the pound for annuities. Mention has been made here about what the Government have done for the dairying industry. Deputy Bennett said that the dairying industry was in a position to take advantage of any help which the Government could give it, owing to the fact that it is organised. That might be true to an extent. It can only be done where there are creameries. But there are a good many parts of this country where there are no creameries and where butter has been sold at 6d. and 7d. a lb.
There are a good many other places where it is sold at 1/3d.
Quite so, if they are only able to take advantage of the Government policy where there are creameries.
I am referring to home-made butter.
I have not come across that. What the Deputy says may be correct as regards some limited areas, but I am aware that in the butter market butter has been sold at 6d. and 7d. a lb., and that cannot be denied.
It is not general.
There is no good to be gained disputing that point. I cannot understand the mentality of some Ministers. The Minister for Agriculture to-day said they were anxious to fill their quota of bacon in the British market, and they intended making great efforts to keep up that quota. Contrast that statement with what you read every day in the papers, and is not the whole thing silly? Much more is expected of people occupying prominent positions in the life of this country than statements such as we have had from Government Ministers. We are told the British market is gone. I say it is not gone. Prominent Ministers say it is gone and that it is a good job it is gone, and they hope never to see it restored. Contrast that with the Minister's statement to-day when he said that as much as they could do was to fill the quota of bacon for the British market. That is the silly part of it, and I can call it nothing else but silly. The cattle problem is affecting everyone in this country. The Minister intends to introduce a Bill to try to relieve the position. It is a pity he has not done it already. I take it the intention to introduce a Bill on those lines is an indication that the Government at last realise the serious position of the cattle industry. There is no doubt but it is in a terrible plight. People have invested all they had in the livestock and dairy industry —they both go side by side. I have taken up the view, before ever I came into this House, that the dairy industry and the rearing of young stock should go side by side, and that the dairy industry in itself was not a profitable proposition except for the rearing of young stock. We all know that, so far as they are concerned now, they are absolutely a dead loss to the farming community. I hope that the Minister, when this proposed Bill is introduced— I do not know what it will be like, nor do I know what Bill he could introduce to rectify the position—will do something to solve the problem of the farming community and the position that has been created as a result of this economic dispute with Great Britain. I should like the Government to realise that if it be true that we consume about two-thirds of our agricultural produce at the present time—I believe that was the Minister's statement—there is no doubt that that two-thirds has gone down considerably in price owing to the fact that the home market is governed by the export price.
I do not yield to anybody in my statement that the basis of everything should be the cost of production. I do not care what article or what commodity you take up, I think that should be the basis on which prices should be founded. It is idle to say that, because the world price of butter, or rather the price in the British market, might be from 70/- to 80/-, that that is the price that should prevail and the price which the people should get; or that, because the prices have been somewhat enhanced here above the prices in the British market, that is any justification at all for saying that that is the price. As the Minister for Agriculture admitted, the price in Holland, I think, is 195/- per cwt. The price in New Zealand is considerably more.
How much butter do they eat?
I have not the faintest idea.
I think there is more margarine than butter consumed in Holland, and the Deputy should remember that practically no margarine is consumed in this country.
I would not be in a position to go into these things, but I say that I do take my stand on the cost of production. I do not care what article or commodity you take up. I think that everybody, if it is at all possible, should get the cost of production. Again, I say that what I expected from the Government was that they would give the equivalent to the duties which are being imposed by the British Government. If they want to fight this war, there is no reason at all why the whole responsibility should be put on the agricultural community, and it is no justification to say that, by a Vote like this and half the annuities, they are coming to the rescue of the farming community. They are not. I think that it is a pity that they do not face up to that situation.
I am very sorry that the Minister for Agriculture has gone, because I had a small proposition to put before him. He seems to think that the farmers should not grumble and that everything is all right. I am prepared to put at the disposal of the Minister for Agriculture a farm in Tipperary. I will hand it over to him and let him work it for one, two, or three years, and let him show the people how he can make that farm a paying proposition. The only stipulation I will put in is that that farm will be kept in the same state of fertility in which it was before he took it over. If he thinks he can do that, it is a good proposition and everybody will be very anxious to find out how it is getting on. We will all go to see in what way the Minister adapts himself to the situation. I repeat, however, that the least we could expect from the Government, if this economic war is going to continue, is that they would give, out of some funds—let them provide a fund, if necessary—an equivalent of the special duties that have been imposed by the British Government. I think that is a fair and reasonable proposition. Nobody could say that because, as I mentioned before, a farmer gets 12/- for a lamb and the Government gives him 2/6, that that is compensation to the farmer. Everybody knows that it is not. If you want to give compensation you should give the whole amount of the duties that have been imposed, and that might be some compensation to the farmer.
I listened to the speeches delivered this morning by many of the Opposition Deputies, including Deputy Belton, Deputy MacDermot, Deputy Bennett, the last speaker, and some others. I gathered from all the speeches that there was one predominant note in them all, and that was an anxiety to give expression to the opinion that the economic war, which has been raised again on this Vote, might be brought quickly to a termination. I do not think that there is anybody on these benches here that does not re-echo that wish. Deputy MacDermot, in particular, referred to a report in the newspapers, this morning where a number of members of the House of Commons had considered the matter, and were considering the matter, and making certain suggestions whereby this dispute should be brought to an end. I think that it was this day fortnight that that aspect of the question was discussed in this House very fully. Deputies on the far side ought to know that the attitude of the Government, and of Deputies who support the Government, is the same as they have always expressed— that they are willing to arbitrate on this matter at any time, and that the only obstacle is the question of an arbitrator. The matter of who shall be the arbitrator is a very important matter, and it is a matter that, I think, could and should be definitely decided.
When that kind of note is struck by the Opposition, and particularly when the quotation is given about the activities of members of the House of Commons to bring about a situation of that kind, naturally one must, of necessity, take cognisance of the statements and speeches of leaders of the House of Commons. The one speech that has been made recently—the one of any importance which does react, will react, and must react on the final solution of this matter—was the recent speech made by Mr. Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether Deputy Curran read that statement in last Monday's papers, but certainly it is a matter that people should consider very deeply. I am sure that Deputy MacDermot read it. At the conclusion of his speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it did not matter whether they got the money or not; that there were graver and deeper issues involved in this dispute than the economic issue; that there were political issues which had got to be determined; and he would give no guarantee as regards the future, not even if this country paid all the arrears that the British are claiming. After making a statement that, although at the end of three years the English would have been entitled to £14,500,000 by the application of tariffs, they were only able to collect, on his own admission, something over £10,000,000, which would leave, at the end of March, 1935, the sum of £4,000,000 odd to the credit of the Irish Government, he said that, even if all the arrears were cleared up, and the economic war settled on that basis, there were some graver and deeper political issues than the economic issue.
When I heard Deputy Cosgrave this morning wanting to separate the economic from the political issue, it struck me that that did not fit in with the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Neither did some remarks made by Deputy MacDermot. To a very great extent, most of the opinions that came from Opposition Deputies were more or less pious wishes. In this quarrel between the two Governments on the issue between them, would it not be much better if they attacked the English attitude towards their own Government instead of—whether they do it consciously or unconsciously—as the net result of criticism of details of the present Administration, inevitably weakening the morale of our people, and shaking their allegiance to their own Government? In this dispute the English Government have taken up a certain attitude as a result of something the Irish Government did. Sandwiched in between the two are the Irish farmers. I recognise that that is a fact. The other parties to the struggle will not separate the economic from the political issue. I was glad to hear Deputy Belton say that in any negotiations which must take place, when we approach this matter with a view to having a complete settlement, it must be from the national standpoint. I was glad to hear that from Deputy Belton, and I think Deputies who compose the Opposition in this House would be well advised to approach this subject from that angle.
If I might interrupt the Deputy, there is no inconsistency between, for instance, what I said this morning, and what Mr. Chamberlain said a few days ago in the British House of Commons. I agree that we cannot iron out the whole of our difficulties with Great Britain, if we leave out of account the political aspect. I feel that the political aspect stands in as much need of being dealt with, once and for all, as the other side. You have to remember to distinguish the special tariffs on the one hand, and the quotas which necessitate a trade treaty on the other hand. As regards the second part, the quotas and trade treaty, obviously they raise the whole political issue of our relations with the British Commonwealth, and before we can get that matter satisfactorily adjusted, we have to make up our minds, once and for all, about what our constitutional relationship to the British Commonwealth has got to be. At least, it would clear something out of the way, if we could deal with the special matter of the land annuities claim by way of arbitration. Whether the British Government would agree to that, and whether an arbitration board can be arrived at, is something that no one can speak confidently about. It is at least hopeful to see a movement starting again on the other side in that direction. I was only anxious, especially in these times of an election campaign, when all sorts of things are being said around the country, that the Party opposite should have in mind the desirability of not prejudicing such a possibility as that.
I am glad to get that from Deputy MacDermot. I read Mr. Chamberlain's speech very carefully. When people here say that we, the back benchers of Fianna Fáil, have no particular interest other than blindly supporting the Government, I say that is not so. There is not one of us who would not be as anxious as any Deputies in opposition to have this matter arranged, and arranged satisfactorily. The President is in the House now. This speech of Mr. Chamberlain was referred to three or four times. It is the most important contribution the English side have made. This contribution from Mr. Chamberlain does not at all fit in with the wishes expressed by the Deputies in opposition. Even if all the moneys were paid to-morrow morning, the big political issues on which, I presume, the President will have something to say, must be definitely decided. There is nothing according to Deputy MacDermot to prevent us declaring a Republic for the Twenty-Six Counties. Mr. Chamberlain does not say that. The English Cabinet Ministers do not say it. These things have to be cleared up. If the question of the land annuities was settled, even to Mr. Chamberlain's satisfaction, the political issue would be still there. Why cannot Opposition Deputies take that into consideration, instead of wasting the time of the House, and their own energy, criticising details of a question which, certainly, in the opinion of English Ministers, cannot determine the question or effect a settlement?
I was informed this morning that Deputy MacDermot had made reference to some suggestion which appeared in the British Press. I did not have an opportunity of examining the suggestion that was made until I came to the House, but I can see that it does not at this stage call for any comment from me. There is, however, a matter which I think does require some comment. Deputy MacDermot suggested that it is good to see at the other side a movement to bring about some settlement of this question. But, before there can be any real movement to bring about a settlement of the question, it is necessary that there should be, on the part of the British public, some understanding of the positions. I have read the debate that took place in the British House of Commons, and I do not think it would be possible to create greater confusion of thought than was done by that debate. It completely misrepresents all the fundamental facts of the situation. I will take one extract from the speech of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will read it for Deputies, and ask them to judge whether it would be possible to press into narrower space so many misrepresentations as it contains. He starts off like this:—
"The British Government in this matter, is merely a channel between the Irish farmer, who bought his land and agreed to pay annuities on it, and the owner who sold the land to the farmer. The British Government agreed to pay the owner; the Irish Government agreed to collect the annuities from the farmer, and hand them over to the British Government for the purpose of meeting the obligation which the British Government had undertaken towards the owner. The Irish Free State is still collecting the annuities from the farmer, but is withholding them from this country. There is a great difference between a default of that kind and the default of a country which says: ‘I do not repudiate my obligations, and I should like to pay if I could, but my financial position is such that I cannot pay."'
It is no wonder Deputies smile at that, because, as I have said, practically every sentence is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. The first thing to note is that the advances that were made for Irish land purchase were made, not by Great Britain or by the Government of Great Britain, but by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the moneys that were borrowed, and the obligations undertaken, were based on the credit, not of Great Britain, but on the joint credit of the two countries. There was a joint obligation then to pay the dividends to the bondholders, and to provide for the Sinking Fund up to the Act of 1920. By the Act of 1920 the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as it then was, transferred the obligation to meet dividends, and to provide the Sinking Fund, to Great Britain alone, relieving Ireland, North and South, of that obligation, and assigned to Ireland the revenues which were collectable from Irish farmers. There was a definite transference of the obligation to Great Britain, and of the right to receive the annuities, as part of its revenues, to Ireland. The Treaty did not affect that assignment. It did not purport to affect that assignment.
Surely, the President before he passes from the 1920 Act, should, in all fairness, deal with the other financial obligations that were imposed on us by that Act.
I will deal with that in its own place. Let me for the moment present this argument as I see it. This argument is the argument on which we are basing our claim—that there was a definite assignment in the Act of 1920 of the annuities collectable from the Irish farmers to Ireland—that is a fact, and that is a question of law —and there was a translation of the obligation to meet the dividends from Ireland to Great Britain. The considerations on which the British Act was passed are not for us to go into at the moment. That is another matter. The Act was passed, at any rate, and therefore any obligation to meet the dividends is an obligation of Great Britain alone, and the right to receive these annuities is a right given to Ireland, a right which is exercised at this moment in the Six Counties.
I say that the Treaty did not affect in any way either the right to receive these annuities or the right to be relieved of the burden. In regard to the latter, some hold that Article V. of the Treaty re-imposed on Ireland part of the obligation to meet the dividends on the stock, but if that view is held then the Agreement, the Supplementary Treaty of 1925, once more relieved Ireland of the obligation. Therefore, following that Agreement of 1925, the position was again as it was after the Act of 1920. The obligation to meet the dividends is a British obligation pure and simple, and the right to receive, as part of their revenues, the annuities payable is an Irish right. The question, therefore, of the Irish Government being a channel does not arise. It has a right to collect the moneys. It has not the duty to transfer the moneys anywhere, and anything like a suggestion that there was some contract between the bondholder and the tenant farmer is absurd. No such contract exists.
Mr. Thomas bases his claim to the annuities not on the point of view which some Deputies on the opposite side apparently hold, but on Agreements which were made by Ministers of the previous Administration with British officials or British Ministers. Our answer to that is that the terms of these Agreements were never brought before Parliament for approval, and were, in fact, never approved by Parliament. To hold that these agreements commit this country is contrary both to the very idea and basis of responsible government and to the almost universal international usage. It was said in that debate that we are not pleading our inability to pay. There is no reason why we should plead inability to pay as long as we hold that there is no just debt. It is not that we could not do that, if we had to, because it is obvious that an agricultural country like ours under present conditions is far less fitted to bear a financial burden of that magnitude than Great Britain is. The fact is that the burden is demonstrably several times heavier on us than the burden of the American debt on Great Britain. If the British Chancellor then says that there is a great difference between the non-payment of a claim, such as exists between the British and ourselves, and their default, surely that is not an argument in favour of Great Britain. We are simply refusing to meet a claim which we regard as unjust, as not founded either on law or moral right. As regards the position between Great Britain and America, the debt is admitted. They are refusing to pay because the payment would be too great a burden upon their people, they say. If we wanted to base our claim on the latter contention, we could and, as I have just indicated, we could do it with a far greater basis of truth than they could.
Deputy MacDermot wants us to enter into the question of the other financial obligations that were set up under the 1920 Act. What were the obligations that were supposed to be imposed there for? They were for services which, according to that Act, Britain was going to perform for us. We were to pay Britain for the performance of certain services, but by the Treaty we were enabled to perform these services for ourselves, to perform them and to meet the cost of them, and why should there be any payment to Great Britain then? As a matter of fact, the Treaty itself clearly indicates that that position was recognised. It was recognised to the extent of altering just these financial obligations of the 1920 Act. They were changed to an obligation of a different sort, an obligation to meet a certain share of the public debt of Great Britain—that is Article 5, to which I referred a moment ago—but whatever liability was involved in that obligation was removed by the subsequent agreement of 1925.
There is another matter of which I might remind the Deputy. Even if we were put down in that Act for certain financial obligations, and if the Treaty had not expressly altered them as it has, there would be the fact that these obligations were not a fixed contribution. They were changeable in a certain way. You just examine the accounts of Northern Ireland, as it is called, and see how these payments have been scaled down in the result. You will find that if we were, under the terms set out in the 1920 Act affecting these obligations, treated in the same way as they are now treating the Six Counties, there would be a very much smaller sum to be claimed than Britain is claiming from us now.
I made that point myself before now, and, if I may say so, I think it is the strongest case that the President could put forward, if he had thought it worth it, from the outset.
In any case the Treaty expressly changes this provision, and are we to take the view in the case of a Treaty made like that, adverting expressly to this financial change, that those who signed it, and drew it up, could possibly forget that there was in the Act varied there a very definite assignment to Ireland of these annuities? I think the contention is ridiculous, and the whole of the debate in the British House of Commons is simply calculated to throw dust in the eyes of people readily deceived through their want of understanding of the facts of this particular dispute.
I do not think I should go into the matter any further. I have indicated, on broad lines, our view of the situation. If there is to be any movement, on the part of the people of Great Britain, to try to bring about a settlement of this dispute, it must be based upon some understanding of our case. And an understanding of our case is not possible by the means adopted by the British Government at the present time through propaganda and misrepresentation of the whole situation.
I want to say a word in reference to what the President has just stated. In no case of an international dispute like this is the case of one country fully and properly represented in the Parliament of the other. If I were to say everything I could say in favour of the British point of view, I am sure we would have Deputies on the opposite benches calling out that I was a traitor to my country.
And quite right.
I do not think that applies to the same extent in the British Parliament as here, because the British democracy have a long education in matters of that sort. But it applies to some extent, and I am sure the President is too sensible a man to expect that his case would be presented in the British House of Commons as he would like to have it presented. If anyone in this House spoke in reference to the matter as Sir Stafford Cripps spoke in the British House of Commons, he would be denounced as a traitor.
Not a bit of it.
But even he expressed the point of view, that if it came to legal arbitration the President's case would be shattered by the Tribunal. It is too much to expect that the case can be fairly and fully put forward in another Parliament, especially when it arises more or less accidentally, and not in a full-dress debate. The President has said a number of things with which I disagree, but I do not want to go into these matters in detail. It is just as important that we should have some understanding of the British point of view as that they should have some understanding of our point of view. Therefore, it is worth pointing out that to the man in the street in Great Britain, who has no knowledge of this question at all, it must seem absurd that we should attempt here to cite the 1920 Act as being in force only in so far as it suits ourselves and the rest as thrown overboard.
There is no suggestion of that sort at all.
There is a very strong suggestion of that sort.
Not at all.
It would, also, occur to the man in the street that it was an utterly disputable proposition whether the 1920 Act came into force here at all. These are matters on which I do not want to express an opinion, one way or another; but we must not proclaim as a certainty that which is a highly disputable point. The Opposition have been appealed to to accept implicitly the attitude of the Government. That is utterly impossible. Because after all the leaders of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, who are now in our Party, considered this matter in all its bearings, and did make an agreement based on their views as to the equities of the case. It is entirely too much to expect them to reverse their point of view in order to shout with the crowd.
Did you see the agreement?
I did not raise this matter at all for the purpose of arousing fresh controversy or provoking angry exchanges. Quite the contrary. I am anxious that the Government should be on the lookout for every possible olive branch, and they will have encouragement from the Opposition as regards making use of every such opportunity that arises.
With reference to one remark the Deputy made I wish to say that there is no foundation for the suggestion that we want to take one part only of the 1920 Act—the part that suits us. At no time has any person, who put forward our case, made any such claim. The Treaty was obviously grafted by the British on to the 1920 Act. In one of its terms it took on the question of the Financial Settlement between the two countries and provided for it. But it did not repeal the 1920 Act, and a definite assignment of the annuities to Ireland remained and still remains. It is a complete misrepresentation of our case to say that we want to take the portion of the 1920 Act that we like and reject the other. A definite portion of the 1920 Act was superseded by a definite Article of the Treaty. That is our position.
May I ask the President was the 1920 Act ever in operation in this country?
Yes, it was legally in operation.
I never heard of it.
It was a British Act and it was law. There are a number of laws in operation that people make ineffective, but they are law none the less.
I was wondering what happened the Bounties Estimate. I would like to get some more definite assurance from the Minister for Finance than we got from his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, about these bounties. Again, I would ask the Minister is the taxpayers' money to be thrown away or put into the pockets of shippers in order to buy cattle in a glutted market?
If it will save time, and allow the Vote to go through, I can give the Deputy this assurance: that the matter is having the fullest possible consideration on the part of the Minister for Agriculture and on the part of the Government as a whole.
The fullest possible consideration, at this time of day, is not good enough. We were told by the Minister that we would have to go into all the aspects of agriculture before we could arrive at the aggregate loss. I take it that the previous special duties show the balance sheet.
I suggest that, as the Deputy was so helpful in his earlier speech, he might now take the opportunity of resuming on Estimate No. 72—Advances to the Guarantee Fund.
I do not know how Advances to the Guarantee Fund would give an opportunity for a discussion of bounties. The Ceann Comhairle is a very keen member of this House and, while on Vote No. 72, we might be able to mention bounties and subsidies in passing, but if we were to labour them we would soon be very properly reminded that there had been a special vote for bounties and subsidies.
The Deputy will be afforded a field to discuss all that on the Appropriation Bill.
The Minister is not going to slip away with it as easily as that. The Ceann Comhairle would properly say on Vote No. 72 that, while a Deputy could mention bounties and subsidies in passing, so as to help his point, he could not labour the question, and he would be quite right in doing so. I would like to deal with this now and have done with it. Will the Minister, when he is replying, refute this presentation of the case: that what the British are collecting from us never comes back again. That shows that when you deduct from that the amount of the bounties given you get the net loss on the agricultural produce that is exported. The Minister for Agriculture said that we should go into each item and see what we gained in one thing and what we lost in another. He said that we gained on the butter subsidy. How can we when we are paying for that ourselves? I ask the Minister to convey this to the Minister for Agriculture that when you have a surplus left on your hands you cannot get at that by giving bounties and subsidies to exporters to buy it at scrap prices. The only way that you will save losses on that is by fixing a price for beef in this country at the standard British price. That is the only way that you will compensate for that loss. It is a waste of money to be giving it by way of bounties or subsidies. The Minister asked how I would distribute 20,000 licences to 100,000 farmers. That is one way that I would suggest for his consideration: to consider fixing a price for beef. I move to report progress.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Wednesday the 27th June.