I move:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
There are two matters of major importance that, in the judgment of this Party, fundamentally affect the whole economic structure of this State and because of the significance of the one and the reactions that the other must inevitably have on the whole future economy of this country, we feel this opportunity should be availed of to bring to the notice of the Taoiseach, in his dual capacity as head of the State and Minister for External Affairs, consideration of these matters, so that the Dáil and the country as a whole may hear from him in unequivocal terms what, in fact, is the true position and what his policy is with regard to them. The matters I refer to are, first, the question of our power to bargain and, secondly, the fact that one great branch of Irish agriculture, the pig industry, has been permitted to die, and another, the dairy industry, to decay to an alarming extent without any effort being made to save either one or the other. We are of opinion that these are matters of such vital import to the whole community that they should command the immediate attention and consideration of this House.
The Minister for Supplies on the Vote for his Department made reference to these matters in the following terms as reported in the Official Report, Volume 87, No. 4, column 1633:—
"If, by going to London to discuss matters of trade, and assuming that discussions in London could be confined to matters of trade, supplies from Great Britain could be improved then some indication of that fact would have been given during the many official contacts with the administrative heads of British Departments. No such indication has been given."
I suggest that the obvious reply to that is that they were quite satisfied with the type of trade they were getting from this country, that we were prepared to give them all our surplus agricultural produce and, to a great extent, take a credit in their books at the other side. Further on in the same column he says:—
"There is no point in disguising the fact that in present circumstances our bargaining power is practically nil; our production of bacon and butter has fallen to the point where there is no export surplus, where in fact it is inadequate to supply even the whole of our own requirements."
Notwithstanding the fact that the exports of two well-known commodities of Irish agriculture, namely, bacon and butter, have disappeared, as the Minister has pointed out, we feel it right to express the view of many people in this country that there are still left with us weapons to bargain with. I feel that the Minister who made such a statement is responsible for a very grave indiscretion and has earned the severest censure of this House. A great many people were amazed at the stupidity of such a statement being made in public when they considered the advantage the British were likely to take of it in the future, and our neighbours must have regarded it as a matter of much importance when they gave such prominence to it in the B.B.C. news. I think the House is entitled to full and frank information on this whole question of bargaining; what efforts have been made to bargain, what use is being made of our present exports as a bargaining counter, through what channels did representations pass, and why did not the Government consider this matter of sufficient importance to warrant the sending of a Minister or Ministers on such an important mission.
The Minister for Supplies, in his capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce, referred to this matter again when he said:
"In point of numbers and in point of value, our main cattle trade is in store cattle, that is in exporting what is in fact a raw material of the British agricultural industry, store cattle which go on to British farms, there to be fattened. Because of the scarcity in feeding stuffs in Great Britain, they announced that they would have to restrict the importation of store cattle from us. It is not that the British are so anxious to get them, the position is the reverse; their circumstances require a restriction upon their movements."
Now I should like to ask the House what is the position with regard to the cattle industry and what is the position in regard to the type of cattle that the British require. I suggest that it is a total misrepresentation of the actual position when he says:—
"Because of the scarcity of feeding stuffs in Great Britain, they announced that they would have to restrict the importation of store cattle from us. It is not that the British are so anxious to get them, the position is the reverse: their circumstances require a restriction upon their movements."
Some officials of the British Ministry of Food came across some time ago and entered into a price arrangement with officers of the Department of Agriculture here with regard to the price of cattle and the price of fat cattle for export to Great Britain was arranged, one might say, almost on the basis of last year's price, notwithstanding the fact that the price of British beef has been raised by 6/- per cwt. The price of British beef to-day is 76/- per cwt. for best grades and the price of Irish is about 57/-, or 11¾d. a lb. Between the price of British fat cattle and the price of Irish cattle converted into beef in England after a two months' stay, there is a difference of 5/- per cwt., leaving a margin of about 13/- per cwt. between the value of Irish fat cattle landed in England and the value of Irish store cattle converted into beef in England after a stay of two months there.
I want to make this position clear. The policy of the British Government at the present time with reference to the export of store cattle from this country is contrary to what the Minister for Supplies represented here the other night. It is not because they are short of food, or that there is any restriction whatever on the export of store cattle, or any restriction on the export of fat cattle. It is because the British have very considerably increased the amount of land under cultivation. They have increased the cultivation of their arable land by 6,000,000 acres. The Minister of Agriculture boasted about that figure recently. From the huge amount of land under cultivation in England—some 6,000,000 acres of an increase compared with what they tilled in pre-war days—they expect to reap a huge fodder crop. Their root crops are quite promising. They are already looking for stores to consume that huge fodder crop and root crop. Those stores will be converted into beef in British stalls and they will be used for the purpose of producing farmyard manure, which will go back into the land in Great Britain in order to preserve the fertility of the soil.
That is an aspect that the British, with their foresight and vision, took into consideration. They considered it would be good policy for them to secure a difference in price between Irish stores and beef, so that we would be forced to adopt a policy of exporting our cattle as stores and not as fats. That would enable them to utilise their fodder and root crops and so produce ample supplies of farmyard manure in order to preserve the fertility of British soil. Are we, by allowing the machinery of the Civil Service to operate, going to permit the British to force on us a type of trade suitable to their own economic requirements without any regard to its reactions on our agricultural economy, or will there be any attempt on our part to secure, in the goods that are available there, a quid pro quo?
The House is aware that recently the British lifted the ban on the export of young Irish cattle, any cattle that had not two prominent teeth. What was the implication behind the lifting of that ban? The greatest problem that the British have in the matter of food requirements is the production of sufficient milk. The British Minister of Agriculture has given precedence to the production of milk. A well-known authority on British agricultural matters, Mr. A.G. Street, writing in The Farmers' Weekly on the 24th April last, in reference to “Dairy Cows for 1945,” with this as a second heading: “It's impossible to get a milk production increase without them... but where are they to come from?” said:
"The great concern of the authorities to-day is the provision of an increased supply of milk for next winter... Therefore, there are only two ways to increase next winter's milk supply. Firstly, to increase the number of autumn calvers by importation from Ireland; secondly, to see to it that the available autumn calvers find their way into the hands of the most efficient dairy farmers in the country."
Further down in the same article he says:—
"Again, if autumn calvers cannot be imported from Ireland, dairy stirk heifers can be. Every extra stirk heifer that is bulled next Christmas will mean a definite increase in the milk supply for the winter of 1943, and every arable farmer can somehow manage to see a bunch of bulling heifers through next winter. He may not want to do this, but if milk is now—and is likely to continue to be—a munition of war, it is difficult to argue against his being compelled to do so."
The same man, writing again on the same subject on the 19th June, said:—
"This week I have been asked to mention something that is puzzling some of my friends. Apparently, under existing regulations, no beast can be imported from Ireland unless it has moved its first two broad teeth. This rules out the bulling dairy heifer, 15 to 20 months old. Not only does this age make the best dairy cows, calving at 24 to 30 months old, but it is impossible to guarantee the older heifers from Ireland as being barren. In fact, somewhere about 60 per cent. of them always come over in-calf but with no dates. Would it not be possible to permit the importation of young Shorthorn dairy heifers that have not moved their milk teeth, and retain the present ban on beef cattle —Hereford, Polled, and all steers?"
Very shortly after that was written the ban was lifted on all young cattle here. The House will appreciate that Mr. Street advocated the lifting of the ban on Shorthorn cattle only, the type of cattle suitable for dairying purposes, and that the ban should be held on Hereford. Polled and all steers. The British Government, in lifting the ban, were not so bare-faced about it as Mr. Street suggested they should be. They lifted the ban on all young cattle from this country. In effect, that means that the British intend to pick the plums of our herds for the purpose of supplying basic stock for their dairying industry.
I do not cavil at that. I think our attitude should be to make every possible effort to supply them with the type of stock they need. What I do suggest is that, as that is the type of stock that we can supply, we should use it as a bargaining weapon and get some goods of which we are short as a quid pro quo. The British can get wheat and bacon in Canada, beef and maize in South America, wool, chilled lamb and mutton and butter from New Zealand and Australia; but there is only one country where they can get basic stock for dairy purposes, and that is Éire. We hear the Minister for Supplies saying that our bargaining power is nil. We permit the British to lift the ban on the importation of our stock for the purpose of replenishing their herds, without consultation with us. We have not made any effort to utilise that situation.