In reply to four Parliamentary Questions yesterday, with reference to a change in the price of Irish turkeys in Britain, the Minister for Agriculture stated:
"In an Order made by the British Minister of Food increased prices were prescribed for turkeys as from 1st September, 1946. There was no differentiation in the Order between home-produced and imported birds and consequently the increased prices applied to imports from this country. In a letter dated 23rd October, addressed to the High Commissioner, London, the Ministry of Food stated that it was decided to have a differential price between home-produced and imported birds; that this was to be effected by reducing the price for imported birds and that the imported price was to apply to our turkeys. This was the first official intimation received of the proposed reduction in our price. Appropriate representations have been made to the Minister of Food on various grounds including the superior quality of our turkeys but, so far, these representations have not proved effective."
Because of the seriousness of the cut in price to many housewives, we were forced to put down these questions, with a view to eliciting information on the matter from the Minister, but the information we got in the reply was not very helpful. We all appreciate the care and personal attention given by many housewives to the rearing of turkeys and to bringing them to a point at which they have earned a name second to none in the British market. As a matter of fact, Irish turkeys to-day are the finest birds and are superior to the best Norfolk. The report in last week's daily Press came as a bombshell to these people who looked forward to a decent price around Christmas. The report emanated from the other side and our Department was completely silent on the matter.
The problem affects an export quantity of goods valued at approximately £1,000,000. I think we export in the neighbourhood of 70,000 cwts. and the loss, if it is to be a loss, of 9d. in the lb. means a substantial sum of approximately a quarter of a million. The Minister got notice, he informs us in his reply, of this action on the part of the British Minister of Food on 23rd October. In his reply, he I presume, inadvertently omitted to reply to that part of my question in which I asked whether the price for the coming season was discussed by him or by officers of his Department during their recent food talks in London. In reply to a supplementary question of mine, he informed the House that this question was discussed, and, having examined the whole problem, I am forced to conclude that the Minister must have fumbled and completely mishandled the negotiations in London in recent weeks, because if the price of turkeys was discussed in London, agreed to by both parties and copper-fastened there by the Minister, it is inconceivable that there should be unilateral action of this sort by the British Minister. If it is unilateral action in face of a definite agreement made a few weeks ago, surely the Minister has a case which could be and ought to be straightened out in a very short time.
It seems an extraordinary situation that our birds should be put into the category of foreign birds. They are put into the worst class, on the same basis as birds from the Argentine and Hungary, when, on merit alone, they are far superior to that class of poultry. One is entitled to ask what has become of Imperial preference and what has become of our rights. If we are entitled to all the advantages to which the Taoiseach claims we are entitled because of the peculiar association he has in his mind with the Commonwealth, are they to be ignored by the British Government and the British Minister of Food and are these products of ours to be put into the foreign grade?
It seems extraordinary, in view of the fact that a special invitation was sent by the British Minister to come over to London a few weeks ago to see what could be done in the way of increased imports of food from this country into Great Britain, in view of the seriousness of the food situation there, and, I take it, to see what could be done to stimulate and expand production here with a view to increasing exports, we get, as a result of the visit of that special mission and all the expenses incurred by our delegation, an increase of 1d. per 1b. on a mere handful of beef animals—about 20,000 animals, animals which are misfits and which do not fall into the category of forward stores. We get a mere 1d. per lb. on that small number of animals. The Minister told us yesterday that, as a result of the negotiations, we are not to get a better price for our eggs, that we are to get only the same price as we were entitled to get under the 1943 and 1945 agreements and are to be fined 9d. per lb. on turkeys, if the decision of the British Minister is to be implemented.
I do not think the House can commend or congratulate the Minister on his work and the work of his delegation. The result is certainly very poor and very disappointing. It has often been said here that we do not want to go hat in hand, and we do not suggest that we should go hat in hand, but we certainly feel that when a responsible Minister goes across to London to meet the responsible Minister on the other side, whatever negotiations take place, clear decisions ought to be taken and a definite understanding arrived at, so far as the various categories of food discussed are concerned.
I hope the Minister will have some satisfactory answer for the House on this matter. We are at least entitled to a full and frank statement as to the position. The country is entitled to know what has taken place and why it is that, a few short weeks after the Minister's discussion in London, action of this sort is taken by the responsible Minister on the other side. I hope that the Minister is in a position to inform the House that everything is being done by himself and by his Department to readjust that figure. I am anxious to give the Minister all the time he may require because I understand that he is to make a full statement on the matter.
