What strikes one about these bounties is that though the amount provided for bounties this year is greater than last year, or the year before, yet, as far as one can see, there is not the same bounty paid. Last year we had bounties paid against a high tariff and two lesser tariffs. The highest bounty was 35/-, and then we had the £1 and 15/- bounty. Now we have only £1 on cattle as against 35/- last year. The amount in bounty last year was only slightly over £2,000,000. Now it is about £3,000,000 this year. Where has the extra £1,000,000 gone to, seeing that the bounty on exported cattle has diminished? There is one thing that we are beginning to see. The Government argued for two or three years against a certain principle which they now have to serve, and the Minister is driven to service of it in this mode. Deputy Moore talked in an irrelevant manner about the depreciation of agriculture, and said that we were all in the same boat. That kind of talk is good enough for a political platform, but when we come to talk business in a parliamentary chamber there is no use in putting forward statements of that kind. We know that there has been depression in the world for the last ten years due to financial and economic causes.
But whatever general depression there is in the world there is on top of that, and the Minister has had to admit it by the efforts which he is making to alleviate or ameliorate the position by these bounties, the special depression produced here by the economic war. I asked a question here of the Minister on the 18th December. In effect, I asked—I have not the question, but the Minister will remember it from a summarised description— whether he was not aware that the farmers were bearing the cost of the economic war, and whether he would not consider the setting up of a tribunal to inquire into that position. He said he did not agree that the farmers were bearing any more than their share of the economic war, and that, consequently, there was no need for the tribunal asked for; but he is recognising it now. He will not attempt to deny the figures given by the British Chancellor, and I will go so far as to say that he is not able to deny them. He is not able to accept or reject the figures of the British Chancellor.
I am quite satisfied that there is no bookkeeping in this country—and it should not be very difficult—which accounts for what the British deduct in special tariffs on our goods sent over there, and I will go so far as to say that if the British said they collected only £1,000,000 in tariffs, we are not in a position to contradict them. The British have said that they collected £4,500,000 or a little more, last year. I presume that the same will be collected this year. That is the depression—that sum of £4,500,000 which is not a tariff in the ordinary way but which is a levy on our produce after that produce is sold in a world market. It is a levy on the general price of our goods. The Minister puts against that £3,000,000 this year. I presume the same will be collected by the British by way of the levy in the current year and the Minister is putting £3,000,000 against that. On his own showing, that sum of £3,000,000 is to relieve a certain situation. The same situation existed last year and the Minister gave only £2,000,000. A similar situation existed the year before for nine months and the Minister gave only £622,000.
It is nearly three years ago—July, 1932—since the British declared that they would collect these moneys from our produce, which meant from agriculture, from the farmers. At a farmers' meeting, I put it to them that as the British were going to collect that debt from the farmers, that should be the end of the debt and it should be considered paid then. The Government at that time were in what approximated to agreement with that view. I regret very much that at that period people who claimed to speak for the farmers opposed that view. They have changed their minds recently and I heard of that change of mind in this House last week. They have now come to the view—two and a half years late—that when the British collected their special duties, the farmer's debt was liquidated and the Government is coming near that position also.
Presumably, the British will collect £4,500,000 this year. As a set-off against that, assuming that the principle of giving the money by way of bounties is the best way—and we will come to that later—the Minister is parting with £3,000,000. The people have to pay the £4,500,000 to meet a certain charge which is not theirs, and which, no matter whether the British view or the Irish view is correct, is not directly and immediately a farmer's charge or liability. If the British view is right, it is a charge on our Government; if the British view is wrong and the Irish view right, it is not a charge on the Irish Government or on any Irish citizens. But no matter who is right or wrong, the farmers have to pay £4,500,000 odd. As a set-off against that, the Minister is giving only £3,000,000 and because people say that they have paid the full annuities, they are imprisoned.
There is there a discrepancy of £1,500,000 which, on that direct transaction, the farmers lose, and that is £1,500,000 by which the wholesale prices are depressed. The wholesale prices are depressed by another £1,500,000 on the home market. That is another £3,000,000. Let us assume for the moment that this system of bounties is a good way of recouping agriculture for the British special duties. Has not agriculture a perfect claim to be recouped pound for pound the amount levied on it by the special duties? I put it to the Minister that it should be his aim, and not only his aim, but, as Minister for Agriculture, his duty, to secure that amount of money. We will be asked where it will come from. The total amount will be about £4,500,000. Our Government is collecting half the annuities, that is £2,000,000. Our Government is also getting between £600,000 and £1,000,000 local loans paid into the Exchequer every year both by the local authorities and by individuals. The Government is also levying taxes that would make up, together with the local loans and the annuities the balance of the claim the British Government are making. Now all that money is going into Revenue and none of it is paid out. That would amount to a sum that would liquidate the local loans and the pensions—a sum of £2,000,000. And you had in addition £2,000,000 for the annuities. There are £4,000,000 which the Government has in hand to pay out £4,500,000 in bounties.
In 1931-32 when the present Government came into power, the income from Customs was a little over £7,700,000. Now it is £10,500,000, or at least it was that much last year. That is a further imposition on agriculture. In these last figures you have an increase of £2,500,000 and most of it comes out of the agricultural industry. Even if you take only 60 per cent. of it as coming out of the agricultural industry you have £1,500,000. All taken together that would give you £5,500,000. Then there is the £4,500,000 which the British are collecting.
If the Government were to meet the farmers fairly they would meet every grievance that is reasonably felt by agriculture. The only thing then that would remain as far as agriculture was concerned would be the settlement of the economic war. But the economic war is a big national issue and I admit that it has been decided by a general election. I must admit that the electorate as a whole gave the Government a mandate for that economic war. Having got that mandate the people must abide by the consequences. Even though our Party was beaten we must bear with it, for if people are not prepared to work in that way they must be prepared for anarchy and chaos. But I say this, that whenever any one section of the people is suffering loss, their losses should be recouped to them by the people as a whole seeing that it is not any one section but the people as a whole who are responsible for the economic war.
If we were to accept the bounties as the best way to meet the situation, if our Government gave £ for £, agriculture would not have any particular grievance. But are bounties the best way? I doubt if bounties get right down to the producers. I know there was a time when the bounties were really harmful. That was when the British purchasers manipulated the market in Birkenhead and took counter-steps to every step taken here in the way of an advance in the bounties. I was speaking recently to a number of exporters and they said that money given in bounties was lost money part of the time, especially in the beginning. Even now they would not say whether it would be any loss to the farmers if the bounties were reduced. Personally I do not know enough about the trade to say whether the system of bounties is the best way of disbursing the money. A very thorny point has been raised by previous speakers. That is the matter of licences. It is certainly a disgrace —in saying this I am not making any personal references—but it is a disgrace to the Minister to see the way the licences have been handled. People with cattle for sale cannot get a licence. But people with cattle for sale can buy licences off a drover in the Dublin cattle market. I am sure the Minister knows all about that.
Every Bill introduced in the last couple of years in connection with agriculture bristled with pains and penalties. The Bacon and Pigs Bill which would keep this House occupied until Christmas, is coming up next week and all over it there is running pains, penalties and fines. Why does not the Minister bring in a Bill here dealing with the handling of the export quotas, and dealing with the manner of handing out export licences? Why does he not provide pains and penalties for people trafficking in those licences? Why not, if necessary, make it a criminal offence to negotiate any of those licences? It is quite easy by a mark or number on the licences to trace the licence to the user. At all events the user of the licence could be made to endorse it. If he is not the man to whom the licence has been issued then the licence can be withdrawn or cancelled. Why should school teachers, shopkeepers, drovers, and every kind of people except the people who are producing the animals get licences? Why not give the licences to the people who are producing the live stock and not to people like these? The Minister should not have tolerated that system for one week. To-day Deputy Haslett gave instances of what is going on in the whole country in this respect. I know traders who go down the country to fairs, but they will not go unless they are able to buy a score or two of licences before they start. Why should they be able to buy a score or two of licences when, as I understand it, the system now is to give the licences to the producer? The producer alone should be given the licences. It is he who should have been given the licences from the very beginning and I believe, in theory, that is the system now. It is due to this House and to the country if this House wants the country to have any respect for it and it is due to the Ministry of Agriculture themselves if they want any respect to be felt for them in the country, that the Minister should explain in detail the system by which he allocates these licences.