Appropriation Bill, 1933—(Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

A Chathaoirligh, this Bill, as the Seanad no doubt is aware, provides for the issue from the Central Fund of the balance of the Estimates for the period of service for the current financial year not already covered by the Central Fund Act, 1933, together with the addition of a sum of £3,696,409, being the total amount of the eight Supplementary Estimates which have been passed by the Dáil since the commencement of the financial year, as follows: For Public Works and Buildings, £500; for Local Government, £20,000; Science and Art, £200; Land Commission, £800,000; Industry and Commerce, £60,709; Relief Schemes, £350,000; Export Bounties and Subsidies, £2,450,000, and Beet Sugar Industry, £15,000.

The Bill also provides the Seanad with an opportunity of raising any matter in connection with the general administration of the public services upon which further information may be desired. In that connection, it is customary for members of the House who wish to raise any matter to furnish an intimation beforehand to the Minister for Finance so that he may make arrangements to have in attendance whatever Minister may be specially concerned with the matter it is desired to raise.

This year no intimation has been received that any Senator desires to raise any matter, except one which has been raised by Senator Sir John Keane. In that connection, I should like to say that, when speaking on the Finance Bill and when asked as to the amount of arrears which were being funded under the various moratoria that have been granted and now being regularised by the Land Bill before the Dáil, I stated, to the best of my recollection, that the total amount of arrears was £2,500,000. I should like to correct that and to give this fuller statement on the matter. The amount of arrears forgiven altogether to date has been £236,000. The amount of arrears funded on the gales up to and including the May-June gales, 1932, was £632,000; the amount on the gales up to and including November-December, 1932, was £1,600,000; the gales up to and including May-June, 1933, was £1,900,000. In that connection, I should like to explain to the Seanad that when I mentioned the figure of £2,500,000, I left out of consideration the gales up to and including the May-June gale of this year amounting, as I have already said, to £1,900,000. The Seanad will understand possibly why in that connection, because they are aware that days of grace are given and that this figure of £1,900,000 had not come formally before my notice up to the date upon which I made the statement in the Seanad. If we take that sum of £1,900,000 from the total amount of arrears forgiven or funded, we are left with a sum of £2,468,000 which was the basis of the statement which I made to the Seanad.

Mr. MacLoughlin

I should like to take the opportunity afforded by the discussion on this Bill to draw attention to the way in which County Donegal is being injuriously affected by the application of certain tariffs. I did not give any notice that I proposed to raise this because I was under the impression that the Minister for Finance had everything to do with tariffs. As a result of being shut out from the natural markets for the sale of their agricultural produce, the farmers, and especially the small farmers in Donegal, are suffering more acutely than their fellows in any other part of the Free State. The small cattle in the congested areas of Donegal are not generally ready for sale until they are over two years old, and the British duty of £6 per head has made this class of cattle practically unsaleable now. It is the same with sheep and pigs.

The woman of the house who used to provide the home with groceries is no longer able to do so because the price of butter and eggs has fallen to the lowest price within living memory. But, while the household income is so disastrously diminished, the price of household necessities is considerably increased. This is particularly the case with flour. Flour is now costing the Donegal consumer 5/- and 6/- per sack more than it is costing his neighbour across the Border. Owing to the geographical position of Donegal and the difficulty of transit, it would be cheaper for traders in Donegal to pay the duty and buy flour in Derry than to pay the Dublin or Limerick price plus the freight to Donegal. Traders who had been doing this when the duty was first imposed are not now permitted to buy their flour in Derry and pay the duty. The importation of flour is now absolutely prohibited— except, perhaps, to those traders who are influential enough to secure licences to import flour duty free. Indeed, the working of this tariff on flour and quota system, as far as Donegal is concerned, is giving rise to feelings of the utmost dissatisfaction and distrust amongst traders. When the duty of 5/- per sack was imposed in June, 1932, a provision was made that restricted quantities might be imported into Donegal under licence, duty free. This provision was withdrawn last November, but importations were allowed to continue upon payment of duty until the early part of this year. But, immediately after the general election—in the month of February—it was found that a well-known brand of Liverpool made flour was being offered for sale in three or four Donegal towns at prices which suggested, either that the duty was not paid or that the traders offering the flour were philanthropists who were selling flour at a loss. As this class of trader is as rare in Donegal as elsewhere, this suggestion was ruled out, and, as it happened, very correctly so. In answer to a question put in the Dáil on 15th March the following information was given by the Minister:

"That in January, 1933, 3,936½ units of 280 lbs. of wheaten flour were imported into Donegal, and in February, 1933, 5,796 units. The amounts of duty paid were—January, £984; February, £869. The quantities imported into Donegal free of duty were—January, nil; February, 2,320 units."

Accordingly we see that while no flour was admitted duty free in January, in February—immediately after the general election—2,320 sacks out of 5,796 or two-fifths of the total were allowed in duty free. So that a sum of £580 was remitted, practically, to a few favoured importers, who were thus able to make a bit of extra profit for themselves, and undersell their competitors who had to pay the duty.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce in reply to a question in the Dáil stated that these licences were issued for the supply of bakers' flour only. But it is well known that these licences were used to import ordinary household flour. In fact, only one of the four firms reported to have secured these licences was in any way connected with a bakery. None of the other three ever handled bakers' flour. In fact, one of them was an ordinary retail shopkeeper. I should like to be informed why an ordinary retail shopkeeper was selected to get a licence to import flour, while licences were refused, not only to all other retailers, but to wholesale firms who for years were the most extensive importers of flour into Donegal. These firms took cargoes from Liverpool but were refused licences to import flour duty free.

I should also like to know if one of the conditions attaching to these licences was that bakers' flour only should be imported. Why did the Minister not use the powers given him under Section 35 of the Finance Act, and have penalties prescribed there enforced against those who contravened the conditions of the licence? I wonder was it because this particular trader was one of the patriots who was out during the election denouncing John Bull, but who evidently did not scruple to import John Bull's flour— duty free of course—to undersell his rivals who could only stock Saorstát-milled flour? The whole business connected with the issue of these licences in Donegal is a glaring example of the exercise of discrimination amongst traders, of the public danger of this system of licences and quotas, and the policy of Governmental interference with trade. Flour traders in Donegal have now now no longer any choice in the brands of flour they buy. The Government policy of tariffs and restriction of output on the flour mills has resulted in the establishment of a monopoly.

I read in to-day's papers an official contradiction of the statement that the quota of wheat to certain mills has been reduced. I cannot reconcile this official contradiction with the experience which a Donegal flour merchant has had recently. I know from correspondence I saw that one firm of Donegal importers which formerly bought cargoes of flour from Liverpool, made arrangements, when the duty was imposed, to get flour from Limerick by sea, and entered into a contract for that purpose. This went on for a couple of months, but last month, without any warning, they got a communication from the Limerick firm stating that they could no longer supply as the Government had cut down their quota by 3,000 sacks a week. The Donegal firm had then no alternative but to buy from a combine or group of mills in Dublin, which have now a monopoly of the Donegal trade, and can exploit the consumer in the matter of price and quality. This quota system, which compels an efficient mill to slow up, in order to keep pace with a less efficient mill, is simply putting a premium upon inefficiency.

Does the Minister think that this restriction of trading and the creation of monopolies is good for business, and conducive to that state of prosperity which the people were assured would follow the advent of a Fianna Fáil Government? If the prosperity which we are at present enjoying in Donegal continues much longer we shall soon require three county homes instead of one. In January last, as we saw from the Minister's answer, almost £1,000 a month was being paid for duty on flour imported into Donegal. As this was about half the amount of the quantity of flour used, it is not wide of the mark to assume that it costs the Donegal consumer another £1,000 a month to pay the extra price for the other half which he buys in the Saorstát and which as I have stated, the Dublin price, plus the freight to Donegal, makes as dear as if he had to pay the duty. So that for flour alone no less than £2,000 a month is being taken from the pockets of the small farmers and poor congests in Donegal by this poor man's Government, in order that 150 extra men may be kept working in the flour mills of Dublin and Limerick.

That does not take into account the extra amount Donegal is paying for its bread bill, because the 2 lbs. loaf costs the Donegal consumer to-day 3d. more than it costs in Derry. This would probably amount to another £2,000 a month. With this system of restricted trading in bread and flour, more money is being made by those engaged in this business than ever they made in their lives. That money is made at the expense of the poor consumer. Donegal has, therefore, something to be grateful for to the idealists of Fianna Fáil, whose policy is diminishing the incomes of the poorest of the poor and, at the same time, extracting extra thousands a month from their poverty. I apologise for giving this resumé of Fianna Fáil's achievements in the flour trade in Donegal. It is representative of that Government's record in other parts of Ireland. Wherever they interfere they leave a trail of poverty and destitution behind them. Their record during the past year and a half is more destructive and more costly than their petrol policy was outside the Dáil in 1923-23.

There was one class in particular for whom Fianna Fáil when in opposition professed the greatest solicitude, and wept salt tears over their hard fate, the fishermen of the Donegal seaboard. Now, when Fianna Fáil is in power, the fishermen know how much they can rely on the promises made to them. They know that the action of the Fianna Fáil Government has cut them off from their best market, and that that Government, which was supposed to be the fishermen's friend, and the poor man's Government, has refused a bounty to enable the fish to be sold in the only market available.

During the summer months lobster fishing was a source from which the small fishermen could earn a few pounds. Not a lobster pot has been dipped around the Donegal coast this year, because the lobsters cannot be sold on the British market at a remunerative price, owing to the duty imposed in consequence of the retention of land annuities. Yet our beneficient Fianna Fáil Government has refused the appeal of the Fishery Association for a bounty on lobsters.

There is another matter which the presence of Senator Comyn reminds me of and that is that when the Cosgrave Government was in office its Ministers were denounced for what Fianna Fáil alleged was a shameful betrayal of the rights of the fishermen of Lough Foyle. Fianna Fáil orators asserted that as the Free State had jurisdiction over the territorial waters of Lough Foyle, the fishermen had the right to fish there unmolested, and that it was only the weakness and cowardice of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government that prevented the fishermen from peacefully enjoying that right.

The fishermen were promised from election platforms that when a Fianna Fáil Government got into power a tribunal would be set up before which would be summoned the Irish Society and their lessees. If they failed to prove their rights to the fisheries their lease would be confiscated and the fisheries taken over by the Government.

The Fianna Fáil Government is in power to-day. I might borrow a phrase from a famous man, "The sons of Anak have come to Jerusalem," the giants have arrived, and what have they done for the Foyle fishermen? Absolutely nothing. Although the second season's fishing is now in progress since the Fianna Fáil Government took office, there has not been the slightest attempt made to take the bold measures which Fianna Fáil promised, or to assert the rights of the fishermen which the Cumann na nGaedheal Government were denounced for neglecting. We hear nothing now from Fianna Fáil about the Foyle fishermen except that here in the Seanad recently we had a learned dissertation from Senator Comyn about "how a grantor cannot derogate from his grant." But, in the Dáil, when the subject was raised last session, President de Valera got up, not on his high horse to announce heroic measures for the relief of the fishermen, but on his favourite mule, merely to say that he refused to have any settlement of the question unless it was arrived at by a non-Commonwealth tribunal. Of course, that is the only tribunal from which this country could expect justice, with perhaps a Dutch Prime Minister or a Montenegrin general. Meantime the unfortunate fishermen dare not dip a net in the Foyle, except at the risk of having their boats and gear swept away by the patrol boats of the Irish Society.

Having ceased to be any further use to Fianna Fáil for propaganda purposes, the case of the Foyle fishermen is now conveniently forgotten and not a word is heard from the Government and its supporters about the sad plight of fishermen which used to move them to tears in the past. Just as in the dispute about the land annuities, the Government has a vested interest in keeping the Foyle question unsettled. They know that they can rally to their side the unthinking elements in the country by affecting to carry on the traditional fight against England. But, even the most unthinking elements will in a very short time realise the folly of continuing a feud with 40,000,000 of people whose market is the only one available for the surplus produce of this agricultural country.

Mr. Counihan

I would like to refer to the item of £2,450,000 which appears in this Bill for the payment of bounties and subsidies. I have refrained for a considerable time from making any public statement on the economic war. Several references were made by Ministers, statements which I desire to refute, but I was afraid if I did so I might embarrass the Government and delay a settlement of this unfortunate question. I would have kept silent but for the statement of the Minister for Finance on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in this House. On that occasion, the Minister made some statements which, as a representative of the cattle trade and of agriculture, I cannot let pass unchallenged. Several of these statements have no relation to facts. The Minister quoted Mr. Baldwin and Major Elliott as having stated that the bounties and subsidies given by the Free State Government had the effect of overcoming the restrictive tariffs imposed by the British Government on live stock and live-stock products entering the British market. By that one would imagine that the exporters of live stock and live-stock products from this country were receiving in full in the bounty what they were paying in tariffs. Such is not the case. We are paying practically a duty of £6 a head on most of the live stock which we export and we receive a bounty of 35/-. The question I would like to ask the Minister, and, if possible, the two British Ministers who made the statements is: Do the British Ministers contend that a duty of £6 is compensated for by a bounty of 35/-? My impression of the British Minister's statement is that the competition of Irish cattle and Irish produce in the British market has helped to reduce the price of the British produce, and that but for the Irish competition British live stock and British produce would be very much dearer. I would agree with that statement.

It has been stated time and again that we cannot live without our export trade and that the only market we can find is the British market. The President told us in this House that there were other and better markets to be found. He tried to find them. He sent some experts, one expert at least of the Department of Agriculture, an expert cattleman, to find these markets, but these experts failed to find them and, judging by the President's statement after their return, they must have convinced him that there were no other markets to be found. The Minister for Agriculture is not yet convinced although his experiments up to the present are abject failures. He has tried Belgium. He exported to Belgium 160 cattle— three consignments, I believe—and, as stated in the Dáil by the Minister, the loss on them was £540. He has also tried France. He exported, I think, two or three consignments of sheep to Paris. I do not know the result, but it must not have been satisfactory, because the export of sheep to Paris has been stopped. He is now trying Germany. German buyers have come over to the Dublin markets for the past four or five weeks. I do not find any fault with that. I welcome anybody who comes here to buy our stock, but to suggest that Germany is an alternative market to the British market is a farce.

We have had three buyers here for the past five weeks. They buy 200 or 250 cattle per week and export them to Germany. The cattle which they buy are principally old cows, which are worthless in this country in consequence of the tariff entering the British market. The Germans therefore are working at a great advantage. They ought to be able to trade with this country under present conditions when everything is in their favour. I understand that the equivalent of £1,200 in German money, together with a subsidy of 35/- per head which the Germans are getting for exporting these cattle, would allow them to buy 250 cattle in the Dublin market. I understand that the equivalent of £1 in Germany would be 25/- or 30/- at the present rate of exchange. That is a great advantage for the Germans, but even if the Germans continue to come here, even if the trade were going to be a continuous trade, under the present restrictions we could not exceed the quota which we are allowed in respect of cattle exported to Germany. That is 6,000 cattle for the whole year. To suggest that the export of these 6,000 cattle would compensate us as an alternative market for the loss of the British market is nonsensical, to say the least of it. That is the only market we have discovered, a market for 6,000 cattle in Germany. What are we going to do with the balance of the 800,000 cattle which we exported annually to the British market for the past few years? What are we going to do when the quota is exceeded?

Our export of live-stock to Great Britain was the best export trade in live-stock of any country of the world. It was the wonder and the envy of the world. We had a monopoly of that trade which the Government have ruined and are trying to kill. We had a 10 per cent. preference on all our exports. That has been rejected and we have now to accept a tariff of 40 per cent., and in some cases of 100 per cent., on our exports. Nevertheless we are still exporting to Great Britain. I am afraid I have wearied the House with these depressing statements, but I want to conclude by appealing to the Minister to settle this dispute with England. Let the Government by all means develop industries and promote tillage, but let them remember that this country is in a unique position for the production of live-stock. Our climate and our soil are more suitable for that industry, more suitable than they are for tillage.

The whole world is engaged in tillage, and in the production of cash crops. We should only look upon tillage as a means of producing beef for we have an unlimited market, the best market in the world, for the sale of that stuff at our door. Other countries against whom we are trying to compete in the production of butter and eggs are as I have stated in a very bad way. The bright spot in our agricultural industry was the live stock trade, because of the price which we received and because of the monopoly of the British market which we had. We were not in the same position as farmers in other parts of the world, in New Zealand, Denmark and other countries who go in for butter solely. They neglect beef production and the live stock industry. We were in the happy position of producing cattle for a dual purpose—for milk and butter. That is why we were able to wipe out competition in live stock in the British market.

It has been stated that England does not now want our produce, that she has plenty of her own. England is still importing hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of agricultural produce, and I believe she would still be satisfied to give us a preference if goodwill were established between the two countries. We could always sell more to England than the CzechoSlovakians or the Patagonians and she is buying stuff from them. I am sure that if goodwill were established we would get a preference beyond any of these foreign countries. Against that, we are England's best customer and there are millions of our kith and kin in England. I think it was Senator Crosbie who stated that there were more Irish in Manchester than in the City of Cork. These people would have a great influence in pushing forward our trade in Great Britain. England I believe is anxious for a settlement. She wants us to be prosperous. She does not want a Bolshevik State set up at her doors and that is what the policy of the present Government is bound to lead to if it is persisted in.

Mr. Wilson

I propose to deal with Supply Vote No. 25. The Minister on the last day, speaking of the condition of the farmers, gave the impression that we did not realise the happy position we were in. I was wondering under what heading this happy position existed. The impression is gaining ground that the farmer has his rates paid by the taxpayer, that he is getting bounties on his produce, that half his land annuities are being remitted, and that everything possible in the circumstances is being done for him. Senator Counihan has spoken on the question of the price of cattle. Generally, while there is depression all over the world, resulting in a low price for cattle, the farmers in this country, in addition to feeling the full effects of that depression and the low prices consequent on it, have to bear the difference between the amount of the bounty and the amount of the tariffs imposed on our produce going into England. They have to do that on top of the depression because the price of cattle in this country is ruled by the price in England. While the prices are depressed in England, we have in addition to bear the difference between the bounty and the tariff.

When the county councils were set up under the Act of 1898 there was a grant given to them which the Minister has now to foot. There was, by statute placed on the Central Fund, a liability for half of the rates paid in a given year on agricultural land. There was a grant given of half the rates paid in a given year. The year 1897 was taken as the standard year, and ever since 1898 there has been paid into the Local Taxation Account a sum of £595,000 odd. That is the Free State portion of half the rates paid on agricultural land in the year 1897. In England and Scotland that particular grant was meant to compensate the rural dweller for services with which he was debited, but from which he never received any benefit. These services took the shape of lighting, sewerage and water supplies to the cities and towns of England and Scotland. The farmer did not receive any of these benefits and the agricultural grant was given to compensate the rural dweller, as I say, for the services for which he was debited and which he never really got.

That particular system was continued in this country, until recently, in many areas. The towns obtained water supplies, sewerage systems, lighting, and the law up to a few years ago placed the charges for these services on the dispensary area. That is to say, if you take a town like Malahide, the dispensary area of Malahide paid for the water supply of Malahide. About last year these particular services were made a county-at-large charge. In order that towns like Lucan should have these amenities it was decided that these services should be paid for on the basis of a county-at-large charge. I just want to mention that one item to show the anomalies that existed.

Furthermore, the Cumann na Gaedheal Government brought in legislation which imposed a charge of 10d. in the £ for vocational training, educational charges and one thing and another. It is only about two or three years since they put on 10d. in the £ more. To meet all these extra charges, which year by year are mounting up and which are made much more difficult by the fact that the cost of able-bodied relief is now placed on the rates, the Minister proposed in this year to give £900,000 under Vote No. 25. In the White Paper which was circulated last week with the Finance Bill Senators will notice a payment to the Road Fund for 1933-34 of £900,000. That is paid from the Central Fund to the Road Fund. It comes from the local collector of rates, the county council. The county council collects this money, it is seized on by the Treasury and is then paid out to the Road Fund. That, in effect, is what happens in connection with these supplementary agricultural grants. We are getting back moneys which really belong to the local ratepayer. The £900,000 odd which is collected from motor licences is seized upon by the Treasury and, under Vote 25, the amount which is supposed to go in relief of taxation is transferred back and that is supposed to be a great benefit to the farmers. The local ratepayers' money is collected by the county council in each county, brought into the Treasury and then paid back under Vote 25 as a supplementary agricultural grant.

At the end of the White Paper it will be noticed that there is an item, "Rates on Agricultural Land Relief, £250,000." That looks a very big amount, but all the relief that the farmer gets from that item is £1. That is all I got and all anybody I have heard of got, and, so far as that £250,000 is concerned, I, as a farmer, would be glad to strike it out because it pretends to give us something which we do not get. There is some differentiation in the way in which it is administered, but any farmer I met got a credit note for £1. We could do without that £1 and save the £250,000 to the Treasury. I do not know who is getting it, but that is what happens. The Minister spoke of land annuities to the extent of £236,000 being forgiven in the new Land Act and he proposes to carry on the Guarantee Fund as the machinery of the Land Act. That means that the Guarantee Fund is to be raided every year in order to meet the deficiency created by farmers who do not pay their annuities. The Guarantee Fund, in turn, will be fed from the relief of rates grant. The position is that the Guarantee Fund is to be raided to pay for those farmers who will not pay their rents, and the local taxation grants are to be raided to make up the Fund. The Minister proposes to carry on in that way. When we took over from the British there was a considerable amount of arrears and these arrears were paid, of course, by deductions from the grants to the farmers and, after a year or two, a position was reached in which there was a deficiency every year and there was a collection of arrears every year, so that every year the Guarantee Fund was raided for a certain amount and the collection of the arrears that accrued previously made up that amount, with the result that the Fund came to be more or less normal. Now, the Minister, in the goodness of his heart, has forgiven £236,000 of moneys that would eventually have come into the Guarantee Fund. In fact, it means this, that the £236,000 are rates paid by farmers who pay their debts for those farmers who do not. I would ask the Minister what reason could any man give, four or five years ago, for not paying his rent? If he did not pay his rent four or five years ago, how can he pay it to-day and why should he be forgiven? Prices in 1926, 1927 and 1928 were 50 or 60 per cent. above what they are to-day. Why were these people not made pay, and why is it now proposed to have a position in which all the Minister has to do is to raid the Guarantee Fund and replace the moneys he takes out of it from the grants to local rating and allow the people who have not paid to carry on that non-payment?

Of all that has been done for the farmers up to the present, with the exception of the bounties—the land annuities and all these other sums of money which have been withheld from England—not one penny has come to the farmers because, for the last three years, the arrears have been funded and placed as a debt in front of them. They have not been forgiven but the arrears have been put in front of them as a debt and the farmer has got nothing with the exception of the bounties. The arrears have been frittered away and spent on other services and the November half-year is the first occasion on which the farmer will obtain anything whatever out of the land annuities—one and a half years from the time they were withheld. I agree, of course, that bounties were paid out of these moneys. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the necessity for the Guarantee Fund. Here we have our own country and we have been sending this money to England. The Land Commission are taking very strong powers to collect this money and it is right that they should collect it because if it is not collected the efficient farmer is paying for the farmer who does not pay his debts and there is no reason whatever why the responsibility for these moneys, if they are not paid, should be placed on the shoulders of men who are doing their duty and paying their way. That is my case against the Minister in this matter of local rating.

I want to refer now to the position this year as against last year. Last year we got a supplementary agricultural grant of £1,349,011 but, this year, we are getting only £900,000, which means that close on £450,000 will have to be found by the rates.

Mr. MacEllin

What did you get in 1931?

Mr. Wilson

We got £750,000 in that year plus double the original agricultural grant, making it something like £1,950,000. That is what we got.

Mr. MacEllin

Who gave it to you?

Mr. Wilson

The original £600,000 was doubled in 1924 through the efforts of myself and others in the Farmers' Party. The President of the day heard our case and agreed to consider it in the next Budget and, in 1925, we got £1,200,000. That held good until the Derating Commission came along composed of a lot of officials put up specially to stop us getting anything. They all sat—24 of them—around a big table and spent hours examining the question and deciding on matters like this: A farmer, speaking at a meeting of a cow-testing society in Kilmallock, said:

"If we had all the cows in the country giving 800 gallons, it would bring in millions of pounds more to the country in the year,"

and then they asked:

"Do you believe that and, if so, why do you want derating?"

Miss Browne

I have before me a report issued by the Department of Agriculture with regard to agricultural conditions in the Saorstát on the 1st July. In my opinion this report furnishes the strongest indictment of the work of that Department that has ever been issued. The prices given in the report are, I believe, exaggerated. They are certainly higher than the prices the people are getting for their cattle, sheep and everything else. Even so, this report furnishes a very fine illustration of the work of the Department of Agriculture and of the Government's policy in general. I think it would pay the country well if the Minister would shut up the Department of Agriculture, and if he went down the quays of Dublin and threw into the Liffey the sum of money for which provision is made in this Bill for his Department. It would pay the country well to be rid of that Department and of the Minister who presides over it.

Mr. Wilson

And he a Wexfordman.

Miss Browne

To our discredit we have to acknowledge that. The Minister for Agriculture has come here and, when asked about the economic war and the value of the British market, his answer invariably has been that that market is not worth £5,000,000. I am leaving out the moral question which I have stressed here so often. I propose to speak on this from the point of view of a purely business proposition, and I ask Senators is it good business to lose a market worth £30,000,000 a year for the sake of saving £5,000,000 a year, even supposing that we had a right to the £5,000,000, which we have not. That is what it amounts to. I ask again: is that a good business proposition for this country? A great economist has estimated that the loss to this country, due to the economic war, is at least £40,000,000, and his figures cannot be challenged. Tillage is now being set up as part of the policy of the Department of Agriculture as a kind of sacred thing, as if when you put a plough into the land you are going to turn up gold. We are told that all sorts of virtues are to be found in turning up the land of Ireland.

I attended a lecture recently by a great English economist in which he spoke about the live stock industry of England. There was no reference in his lecture to Ireland at all. The lecturer referred to the live stock industry of England as the sheet anchor of that country on account of the peculiar conditions and climate of the country. If it is the sheet anchor of England, then, for 1,000 times stronger reason, is it the sheet anchor of this country, because of our peculiar climate and the richness of our soil. The soil of this country is far richer than that of England. Yet we have a Government which pitches overboard that sheet anchor and goes out afloat on a wild sea without rudder or anything else. In fact, we do not know where we are being led. Some very extraordinary things have happened in connection with the Department of Agriculture. We had a heifer scheme promoted by the Department which, to any practical farmer, was really amusing. There was a heifer sale held in the town of Wexford by direction of the Department of Agriculture. It reminded one more of a circus than of a business transaction. The thing was a huge joke and, to any practical farmer, was simply laughable. We had one Fianna Fáil supporter from one part of the county, and another Fianna Fáil supporter from another part of the county coming there with their heifers, one buying from the other. That is what the whole transaction amounted to. I forget the amount of money that was lost over it.

A few days ago the Minister for Finance came to this House and read some extracts from, I think, the London Times with regard to the policy of wheat growing in France, but what he read out had no relation whatever to the conditions that prevail here. The conditions in France and in this country are totally different. The people are different and the climate is different. When our people make up their minds to work as the people in France work and when we get as little rain as they do in France, then the Minister's quotation with regard to France might apply here. I was greatly amused when I read some time ago in the newspapers a statement from no less a person than the President that he hoped to bring about conditions in this country when the women here would work on the farms as they do in France. I remember that in my father's time we never had less than 12 or 14 women working on the land. Of course, that was before the war, but I remember it well. The women did all kinds of lighter work. I seem to remember that the first change came about—when women began to consider it beneath their dignity to work on a farm, that it was not suitable work for them—when a certain Labour agitator came to the village and made a speech saying that it was a dreadful thing to see women slaving and working on farms. He said it was a terrible thing.

It seems to me, and it is becoming clearer every day, that there is an object in this economic war. If we look through the provisions of the Land Bill which is now before the Dáil we will see what that object is, but when that Bill comes before this House we can discuss that in greater detail. It seems to me that the economic war is something which was done deliberately. It looks like it, at any rate. Senator MacEllin said we had no need to go and look for markets outside: that we have a market at home. Is it seriously suggested that the farmers of this country are going to form themselves into a great philanthropic society to produce food which they will hand out to everybody and get nothing for it, or next to nothing? Who is going to buy the stuff that we produce at home? Where is the money to come from to buy it? We all know that practically all of last year's oat crop is still unsold.

There is a very fine oat crop in the country, but we do not know what will be done with it. A man said to me the other day: "A sack of oats will not be worth the price of the sack." It is not worth while fattening live stock, or using oats, as that crop was used in Wexford for fattening live stock. People are going out of the production of live stock to a much greater extent than the Government and others outside farming circles realise. Wexford was a great county for rearing poultry. An enormous amount of fat poultry was exported to England, and to the London market, via Rosslare. That very fine industry has been practically killed. There is an egg distributing station near my residence, but only one setting has been sold this year for every six sold last year. That will give an idea of how in poultry alone people are going out of production.

Most of the references to the economic war have been about the cattle trade. A great hardship has been caused to farmers by the loss of the trade in horses. Wherever an Irishman went he could always hold up his head with pride and claim that this country produced the best horses in the world. It is pitiable now to travel on the train from Wexford to Rosslare, through the south slob, to see the number of beautiful horses that are there, unsaleable. Not a single army remount was bought in this country for the past two years. These were only second-rate horses. For hunters, and the better-class horses, there is practically no sale. The trade in horses for which this country was noted is being killed. Few people realise what a great industry within the country, hunting is, and the amount of money that is distributed where there is a big pack of hounds. Those who follow the hunt purchased the farmers' produce, as well as mangels, hay, oats. I am very much afraid that hunting, which is an industry, as well as a grand sport, is going, in the opinion of those who can speak on the subject, to be badly injured.

The Minister for Agriculture goes through the country from time to time and makes statements which are an insult to the intelligence of every practical farmer. I suggest to the Minister that it would pay the country well, and that it would pay the farmers well, if he drew a blue pencil through the amount being provided in this Bill for the Department of Agriculture, and shut it up altogether.

Mr. Toal

I am anxious to know from the Minister how the motor taxation account stands. As £1,000,000 has been taken from that grant, local authorities fear that the money may be used for purposes for which it was never intended. Motorists are very jealous of the manner in which the money should be spent. The intention was that it should be used for improving the principal roads. There is a fear that some of it may be diverted to relief schemes. I hope that is not so. The county councils get a substantial grant each year from this fund, and they hope to get the usual grant this year. It will be very difficult to meet the demands of local bodies this year, but, if any inroads are made on this fund, it will be nearly impossible to balance the accounts. I do not wish to touch on the economic question, but, for some reason, things are very bad in the country. It will be very difficult for local bodies to collect rates and pay accounts. It is well known how local bodies felt when they learned that £500,000 had been deducted from their grants. I am anxious for an assurance on behalf of local bodies that there will be no further inroads on the grants which local bodies expect to get for local administration. In all honesty, motorists are entitled to get the benefit of improved roads for the taxation they pay.

Mr. O'Farrell

In discussing the Second Stage of this Bill, I presume it is permissible to depart from the dolorous subject of the economic war and the woes of the farmers. I want to get a little information regarding what might be looked upon as a frivolous question, that is, wireless broadcasting.

In paragraph 63 there is an item of £43,530 for salaries and other expenses of wireless broadcasting. I would like to know from the Minister if that includes the whole of the receipts from wireless licences, and also the proceeds of the tax on imported wireless sets and parts. There is a very heavy tax of 33? per cent. on wireless sets and wireless parts. I think the whole of that should be devoted to giving those who pay for licences to have wireless sets a much better programme than is at present given. The erection of the high-power station at Athlone means that programmes from Dublin and Athlone now go very much farther afield than formerly. To that extent we should try to pay more attention to the type of programme we send out on the ether, if we are to have any regard for the good name of this country. I understand that there is an Advisory Committee of some kind.

Mrs. Costello

Not now. It is abolished.

Mr. O'Farrell

A committee was set up, but it disbanded because of the niggardly manner in which the Department was dealing with the finances of the Broadcasting Station. It is only quite recently that the orchestra has been increased to 19, whilst the smallest orchestra employed by the B.B.C., in the Belfast Station, numbers 33. I am not sure what the position is now, but previously the orchestra was entirely composed of ladies, again making for cheap labour. The Hospitals' Trust, Limited, broadcast certain programmes as a matter of compassion and, having some regard for the name of the country, they installed an organ in the studio, a thing that should have been done by the State. Although the programme broadcast from Athlone and Dublin is one of the shortest in Europe, still one hour is given each evening to what is known as a sponsored programme; in other words, to advertisements for toothpaste, pills, and matters of that kind.

Mr. Johnson

Gin?

Mr. O'Farrell

Yes. Out of that hour you get thirty minutes of very mediocre entertainment, and thirty minutes' exhortation from some fellow with a voice like an auctioneer, telling you you need not worry about the economic war, or about trade depression, if you take bile beans one day and clean your teeth with a certain toothpaste twice a day. I must say, in regard to the sponsored programmes, that I would make an exception in the case of the Hospitals' Trust. They give a decent broadcast which is far above the standard of the official programme, and far and away above any of the other sponsored programmes that are inflicted upon us. Regarding the official programme, a few people seem to have established prescriptive rights there, so that there is dished up, week after week, to the unfortunate, longsuffering holders of licences, the same people. You have the same husky tenor with the same songs, the same piper with the same tunes, and the same complete disregard for any observance of the time table or delays in between. I notice that in the Scottish Regional and the Western Regional, when they broadcast song recitals of the native songs of Scotland and Wales, they only employ the very best talent. It is a pity the same principle cannot be observed here, when we have song recitals in the Irish language. Too often we have to fall back on most non-melodious warblers who will be most unlikely to popularise the immortal songs of the Gael. There must be people here who can sing in Irish, who are well worth listening to. It is a pity that they would not be employed when song recitals in Gaelic are broadcast. Otherwise the impression will go abroad that no one sings these songs except third-rate artistes.

The British market will not help us to pay.

Mr. Jameson

If we do not get this item of £2,500,000 out of our appropriation accounts, even I myself may live to see the day when we will be forced to end this thing somehow or other, no matter what happens. No country with the assets of this country could possibly stand the continuance of this war for any great length of time. My own personal experience is that although we have spent £2,500,000 already, I am not going to make a blessed farthing out of the use I have made of my land for the past 12 months. I have already mentioned external affairs. I have talked about the extra bounties and the Minister and Senator Johnson have explained to me what was wrong in my statement about the first part of the Bill. I do hope that when this year is ended we shall not have a Supplementary Estimate for another £2,000,000, which may accumulate between now and the end of the year. I hope that this Appropriation Bill with its £2,500,000 bounties will end our troubles so far as this year is concerned.

Mr. Johnson

I hope that Senator Jameson will not be met in his last request because I do expect that there will be a further Vote required before the end of the year to deal with the matter Senator Wilson raised—the utilisation of the labour that is waiting to be employed to produce wealth in the country. That will require, I think, some such expenditure and will necessitate an item in next year's appropriation Bill not dissimilar to the item in Part I of the Schedule of this year's Bill. As a matter of fact if the Senator would look back year after year, he would find that there always has been a schedule dealing with expenditure during the previous year. However that by the way. There were one or two points raised with which I do not want to deal except in a general way and perhaps, though not quite to the full extent, to support what Senator O'Farrell said about the desirability of improving the broadcasting programmes. I am just a little afraid that the Minister might take the hint and reduce the funds at their disposal. I think that would be an entire mistake and I suggest that, as the general policy of the Government is to raise the cultural standard and the prestige of the country in such matters, it would be calamitous to reduce the funds at the disposal of the broadcasting station. On the other hand I think these moneys could be very much better spent than they are.

I am afraid that in the discussions that have taken place in this House and outside the House, the antagonists have been inclined, on either side, to give figures that seemed to support their case and to give no heed to the facts and figures that seemed to support the opposition case. I think that is a mistake when dealing with economic affairs and, for what it is worth, I want just to quote two or three figures which are I think quite impartial.

In the House of Commons on the 10th July there were given certain figures in answer to a question as to how far the prices, per cwt., live weight, of fat cattle in June, 1932, compared with those in June, 1933, in England, Wales and Scotland. I have the figures for England and Wales as follows:—Fat cattle, shorthorns, steers and heifers, first quality—June, 1932, 49/3; June, 1933, 39/6; second quality—June, 1932, 43/9; June, 1933, 35/1. That is a decline in the year of about 20 per cent., almost accurately. Then there are fat cows, first quality—June, 1932, 34/9; June, 1933, 27/7. In the case of second quality the figures are:—June, 1932, 27/1; June, 1933, 20/4. There is, therefore, a decline in the price of first quality cattle of 20 per cent. and in the case of second quality cattle of 25 per cent. That is the price in the English markets, collected by the British Department of Agriculture. I shall next take the prices collected by our own Department and quoted in their agricultural prices returns. I have got the prices for June of last year and May of this year.

Mr. Counihan

They will not do.

Mr. Johnson

I am going to make a reservation. There has been a decline since May but to what extent I cannot say, because I have not been able to get the figures. Nevertheless, comparing June, 1932, and May, 1933, in the case of store cattle from one to two years old, there has been a decline of 38 per cent. In the case of store cattle from two to three years old there has been a decline of 46 per cent. In the case of fat cattle one to two years old there has been a decline of 41 per cent., two to three years old 53 per cent., and three years and over 47 per cent. I think these are impartial figures. Whatever side they support does not matter if they throw light on the actual situation. It is no use blinding ourselves to the fact, what I think is the fact, that the price of cattle in England has rapidly fallen and is still falling, whether they are Irish cattle or English cattle. The price of Irish cattle at home has fallen still further.

I read in this morning's Manchester Guardian a report of a debate in the House of Lords yesterday at which Lord Strachie raised the question of the negotiations of the Minister for Agriculture with the Dominions, “in order to prevent British agricultural produce from being undersold under the Ottawa Agreements by unlimited importation from the Dominions.” The report goes on:—

"There was a good deal of unrest, he said, in regard to this matter. In his view the House should know before they adjourned what the position was. Lord Strachie said that British farmers were suffering a good deal from the competition of butter which was being ‘dumped' here from the Dominions. The Minister himself had stated that the price of this Dominion butter had fallen from £5 5/- per cwt., to £3 15/- per cwt., ‘I want to know,' he added, ‘what has been done to stop this dumping which Major Elliott complains of.' (Major Elliott being the Minister for Agriculture)."

Another peer, Lord Polwarth—and this would interest Senator Miss Browne if she were here—said:—

"The Government should do something to restrict the importation of Canadian oats into Scotland, where the farmers were passing through very difficult times."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Lord De La Warr, in reply, in the course of his remarks, said:—

"In some respects the position of the farmers was worse to-day than it was before the Ottawa Conference. Regulation of imports, he added, we recognise is quite useless if the imports from the Dominions are free to fill in the gap that might be created. Their co-operation, therefore, must be sought and obtained if any measure is to be effective for the regulation of imports. This aspect of the problem has been engaging the very serious attention of the Government."

Referring to the agreements made at Ottawa between Britain and the Dominions he said:—

"If they wish to stand by the letter of this agreement there is no one who could challenge their position. But if they do so, it must inevitably mean that the markets in this country, which are so important to them, will continue to deteriorate.

"It must mean, and we have evidence of it, that what is called the Ottawa spirit among farmers is weakening, and that if one side to an agreement continues to stick to the letter of the agreement they might drive the other side to take up the same line. He added that the Government was taking a very serious view of the situation. It would be a very brave Government which would resist the British farmer in his present mood unless they were put in a position of doing something to relieve the situation in the near future."

I have quoted this rather extensively because it throws light on the situation that is developing in England agriculturally quite irrespective of the position of agriculture in this country and the export of Irish produce to the British market. It is obvious that British agriculturists are straining every effort to strengthen their own position in their own market and to improve the price of their own stock and their own produce in their own market, as against the Dominions unless the Dominions are prepared to penalise themselves in respect of their outlet in the British market. Whatever may be the merits of the immediate case, one cannot blind oneself to the danger that there is, I think, for even agriculture in this country to be relying solely, as some advocates here would seem to suggest ought to be done, upon that market which, in the opinion of the British Ministers and the British agricultural advocates, must be protected for British agriculturists. I think the Ministry is right, however much they may exaggerate, in the essential thing when they say that total reliance, as has been the case in the past, on the British market for the sale of Irish agricultural produce is an unwise reliance and will have to be replaced by some other outlet for the produce of the land of this country. That, I think, is the essential matter that we ought to face—how it is going to be dealt with and how it is being dealt with is a secondary consideration, though it may seem to be the most acute at the moment. As a basis, however, for general policy, I think the Government is bound to take into account the general situation that is developing in Great Britain.

I rather thought that the general procedure in regard to Appropriation Bills was that, on the Second Reading, it was the larger question of policy alone that was dealt with and that minor matters were touched upon on Committee Stage after notifying the Minister. There will, however, probably not be much of a Committee Stage, and I just want to make one point for the enlightenment of Senators. There is a good deal of misapprehension, I think, in regard to the extent to which the Civil Service generally is responsible for the sum of £2,750,000 estimated in this Supply Grant. I desire to draw the attention of Senators to certain figures that are available in the Report of the Cost of Living Index Committee, which can be obtained at the Library by application, but which, I understand, is not to be circulated to Senators. I would suggest to those who desire to see these figures that they should put in an application at the Library for a copy of this report. The point I wish to draw attention to is that in all these departments the civil servants total about 20,000, established and unestablished and, of that number, 7,437 or 37 per cent. had incomes, inclusive of bonus for the previous year, based on the figure of 65, which was the estimate, not exceeding £100, and of the male, married, whole-time civil servants, numbering 7,000, the average official income inclusive of bonus was about £287. I am calling attention to those figures because I know from my conversations and from my reading that there is a very grave misapprehension as to the proportion of the State expenditure which goes to pay for the services rendered by the various staffs. It will be seen from those figures that the sums are on the low side generally and very greatly below what some people imagine so far as affects a very large proportion of the total number. I have taken this opportunity to refer to that matter because of certain things that came to my notice and because I want the facts to be on record in a way that Senators will have available, but I would suggest to those who are interested in these matters that they should put in their request to the Librarian for a copy of that Report. For some reason or other it has been decreed that it shall not be circulated voluntarily to Senators.

Mr. Dillon

There are just one or two matters I desire to mention in connection with statements made by the last speaker and by the Minister during the discussion on the Finance Bill to the effect that we were supposed to be competing largely against the British and Scottish farmer and that our position is likely to be worsened on that account, in any case, notwithstanding anything that may arise out of the economic war. In that connection I had an experience some years ago when connected with a co-operative society and meat factory in this country. We sent some members of our organisation to England and Scotland to inquire into the possibilities with regard to the sending of our meat to Smithfield. At the time, we had in contemplation the starting of a first-class beef killing trade, and if Senator Sir John Keane were here, he would have personal knowledge of it. We sent those gentlemen over to the principal markets and the information they gleaned at the various markets was that our products did not compete with the British or Scottish farmers' products and that, notwithstanding all our pride in our products, they were competing only against products from the Argentine, Australia, New Zealand and other distant countries and that we came nowhere near the quality of what is known as the Scots quality in meat or the quality of meat from some of the first-class fattening counties in England. The same thing applied to fowl, but it applied particularly to beef and mutton, so that I cannot at all agree with the last speaker or with the Minister when they say that our position is being threatened on account of our competition with the British farmers. I think the reverse is the case.

——or matters connected with the cattle trade, he was not quite correct. It looks to me as if it were necessary to get a permit from Senator Counihan to talk on such matters. I cannot understand the attitude of Senator Counihan in criticising bounties and in criticising the action of the Government in that respect. Perhaps the Senator will suggest that bounties should be taken off eggs and milk, for example, and given to the cattle exporters. If one follows up the debates in the Dáil one finds here and there a Deputy finding fault with the subsidy on the beet industry. If you look up the locality from which such Deputies come you will invariably find that the industry which they declare should not be helped in any way is not the main industry in their native areas. For instance, in County Limerick you will find people criticising the assistance given to the beet industry, and in certain sections of County Carlow you will find them criticising the bounty on butter. In Wexford you will find them criticising everything that is done by the Department of Agriculture—that is, if one is to judge by Senators' remarks.

When people who say that the cattle trade and every other trade is suffering are cornered and find that the majority of the people in the country are refusing to believe their propaganda, they then turn to the horse trade. Their talk about that will also, I think, be proved to be a bit of a fairy tale. I am just wondering what they will turn on to next.

Mr. Garahan

In the interests of fair play, I would like to give my opinion in regard to what Senator O'Farrell said about the announcer in the wireless broadcasting station. I think the Senator was rather severe in the strictures he made. I happen to have heard the lady announcer's voice on a few occasions. I could easily distinguish the voice as being that of a lady. She seemed to me to have a very excellent voice. Her announcements, in my opinion, were always very nice and very clear. I would not like this occasion to pass without saying, in the interests of fair play, that I disagree with a good deal of the criticism Senator O'Farrell indulged in with regard to that. As regards Vote 56, I desire to call the attention of the Minister to the fact that the town of Ballymahon, which is adjacent to where I live, has not yet got a supply of electricity from the Electricity Supply Board. It is not a very large town. It has a population of about 700, but it is the largest town within a radius of 14 or 15 miles. I think there are towns with a smaller population already connected up with the system. I would like to know from the Minister why the system has not been installed in Ballymahon.

In view of all that has been said on Vote 52, I find it difficult to say anything new on it. A large number of Senators spoke on it. Even Senator Jameson and Senator Johnson entered the arena and joined the gay throng. There is no doubt that the live-stock trade of the country, and agriculture generally, is in a desperate state. Senator Johnson gave a lot of data which indicated that agricultural conditions are very bad. I think one might go so far as to say that they are almost hopeless at present. I am sure it is the desire of all of us that a remedy which will help to bring about an improvement will be found in the very near future. Those who give a helping hand in that direction will be doing a good day's work for the country. People, of course, will differ in their opinions as to the best methods of agriculture. Even in the various counties different methods of farming prevail, due to the condition of the soil and to other causes. One Senator said that a person's opinion about farming is largely influenced by the locality from which he comes. I think that is true. I think, however, that, no matter what method of agriculture we adopt, we ought to concentrate on bringing about an improvement in our markets. The results to be obtained at our fairs and markets at the present time are certainly very disappointing. Therefore, I think the time has come, when, instead of wrangling, people should try to come together and, if at all possible, bring the present conditions to an end.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister to conclude.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

It has been intimated to me that it might possibly meet with the acceptance of the Seanad if I were not to reply at any great length to some of the points that have been raised, particularly as on the other stages of the Bill I shall have an opportunity of enarging upon anything that I may say now.

There are one or two points that I propose to touch briefly on. One, is the point that was raised by Senator Toal with regard to the position of the Motor Taxation Acount, and how it stands at the present moment. I am not in a position to give exact figures, but in regard to the Motor Taxation Account I would like to point out that a very great change has taken place since the Road Fund was first established, and since this tax was first imposed on this method of transport. At the time that the tax was first introduced, the roads of the country were in anything but a satisfactory state from the point of view of the motorist. Since then, considerable sums of money have been spent on the roads, and a general improvement in them has taken place. When the tax was first introduced, the number of motors in the country was comparatively few. Now the motor has become very general, and has to be taken, not merely as partaking of the nature of a business service, but also, very largely, as a luxury service. Now, it would seem to me that anything in the nature of a luxury must be fair game for a Minister, for Finance for the general purposes of the Exchequer. Therefore, I could not give any acceptance whatever to the point of view which Senator Toal wished to press on me: that the proceeds of the motor taxes should be reserved entirely for the upkeep of the roads and the maintenance of local services. I think when a sufficient sum is set aside for that purpose from year to year to enable the roads to be adequately maintained, that any surplus above that may be legitimately used by any Minister for Finance for the general purposes of the Exchequer, and for the relief of the general burden of taxation on the community as a whole.

Senator Wilson and Senator Sir John Keane raised questions as to what we proposed to do with the amount of arrears funded and forgiven prior to the May and June gales of 1932. Senator Wilson seemed anxious to set up some special claim for recoupment on the part of local authorities, to an amount estimated at £236,000, which are being forgiven by the Government, and, in respect of which the Land Bill now before the Dáil provides for complete remission. It seems to me that those arrears, if they were ever collectible, should certainly have been collected within the past three years. They are arrears which were outstanding for more than three years, and the natural thing, which any ordinary business would do, if the position was that there was an account on its books outstanding for over three years, which could not be collected, would be to wipe it out. There was never any possibility or probability that the local authorities would ever get anything in respect of land annuities outstanding for more than three years. They have been written-off, and with the writing-off goes the claim of the local authorities —a very timorous and shadowy claim —for recoupment of the arrears. After all the idea of instituting a Guarantee Fund was that local authorities, and people of influence in an area in which these arrears were accruing, should bring pressure on local opinion to bear upon the defaulters and to make them pay.

Mr. Wilson

The State collects the money.

Mr. MacEntee

But when the Department goes to collect the money it certainly never gets any assistance from the local people. At any rate, the general theory underlying it was that local authorities should have responsibility in this matter, and should induce, or compel by force of public opinion, people wilfully in arrears to discharge their obligations in regard to land annuities. Having failed to do that, and the arrears having become uncollectible, when they are written off the local authorities have no ground for complaint.

The deduction is one that I have already put before the Seanad that, irrespective of whether there had been an economic dispute or not, we should have had to accept a serious restriction upon our exports to the British market. That is the deduction. Whether any difference had arisen between us and Great Britain with regard to the land annuities, in present circumstances, in the opinion of the British Government, and of British agriculturists we have far too large a share of the British market. Therefore, if prices are going to be kept up, not for our benefit, but for the benefit of British farmers, we would have to keep a large share of our cattle at home and either allow them to die on the land or eat them. There is no alternative. We are going to be put out of the cattle trade, not by any thing we do——

Mr. Jameson

That is the point.

Mr. MacEntee

——not by anything we do, but we are going to be put out of it, because the British think we have too large a share, and that they should give what we have to their own people, just as if we were in the position of the British Government, we should think of our own people first, so are they. There is no escaping from that dilemma. If there had been no tariffs, and if our cattle were going freely to the British market, prices in Great Britain would fall lower and lower and the pressure on the British Government to restrict that inflow would become greater and greater. This crisis was going to come upon us sooner or later. The position that possibly we shall have to face up to, sometime before the close of this year, would have confronted us much earlier. Nothing that we or any other Government in our position can do would have prevented us from being brought face to face with a problem of this kind. However, I promised that I should be brief and I end on that. No matter what Government is in power, and no matter what Government may be in power here in the near future, they will have to deal with the position which will be created in this country, when the free flow of our cattle to the British market is further restricted. That is the deduction which any person must draw from the statements made by responsible members of the British Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, July 25.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 20 Jul 1933