I move:
That in view of the heavy losses sustained by farmers who stall-fed cattle for beef last winter, Seanad Éireann is of opinion that the Government should introduce a system of subsidy or deficiency payments to offset similar losses this winter and thus ensure an adequate supply of such cattle for the home and export markets.
If this motion had been taken when first put on the Order Paper, the substance of it would have more relevance than today; but even at this late stage perhaps some good may come of it, and what I mean by some good is that the Minister, having heard the arguments in its favour, will accept the motion.
I believe there is a good argument in favour of farmers who stall-feed cattle having some form of protection against such severe losses as they experienced last year, and in the event of a similar collapse in beef prices next January, February and March if some scheme were devised whereby their losses will be met, it will be an incentive to them to stall-feed again this year.
My personal opinion is that last year's disastrous beef trade will not be repeated, but there is not much use in my saying to farmers, who got their fingers badly burned this year: "Do not worry. Beef will be a good trade early in the New Year." Such an utterance from me would carry little, if any, weight, and even if it did, in the unlikely event of my prediction not working out as hoped for, I would find myself a very unpopular man in the eyes of many farmers.
In the case of the Minister, his position would be different because if he felt as I do, he could say to the farmers: "Stall-feed your usual number of cattle and if my prediction is not right, I will see to it that you will not lose money from your efforts."
I am firmly convinced that the Minister could make such a statement and find himself not paying any subsidy or deficiency payment; but such an assurance would make a big difference to the numbers of cattle being stall-fed for beef. I can assure the Minister that there are not one quarter the number of cattle being stall-fed at this moment that there were this time last year. If that position is not changed, there will be a definite scarcity of beef for the home and export markets. Such an occurrence could also have a serious effect on the store trade because, if the numbers of cattle that would ordinarily be fed for beef come on the market as stores in January, February and March, the result might easily have a depressing effect on the store trade by virtue of the law of supply and demand.
Another serious effect deriving from a beef scarcity would be tremendous unemployment in meat factories. I know the management of many of these factories are very perturbed about the present situation, not to mention the unfortunate people who may find themselves unemployed.
On the head of the Minister, and on his head alone, lies the responsibility. He cannot say he was not warned or that the seriousness of the position was not pointed out to him. I believe that even at this late stage if the Minister accepts this motion all my forebodings could be averted.
I am well aware that the Minister does not like subsidies. I know and I admit that the last time a subsidy was paid on cattle that it was abused. But I also think that the scheme lent itself to abuses. From that experience I am sure the Minister with the help of his advisers could, if the occasion necessitated it, devise a scheme that would be watertight. I would suggest that whatever payment that would have to be paid, if any, should be paid direct to the farmer who feeds the cattle. Over the past nine or ten years we have built up a very useful dollar-earning business selling prime beef to the American forces in Europe. If the supply of stall-feds is not available, as I predict, this very useful trade may be lost. There are other countries in Europe that would be only too pleased to see us unable to fulfil the requirements of this valuable market. Have no doubt, if we fall down and they step in, it might well be that we would never regain our foothold.
I know on previous occasions the suppliers to this market have lost money and plenty of it to fulfil their contracts, and I know on many occasions they have tendered for contracts knowing they were going to lose money, but wanting to keep their grip on the market. If the situation that I predict arises it does not matter if they are prepared to lose money or not to stay in the market, they will not have the supplies to meet their requirements. That in itself creates a serious position.
In today's market, the average price for beef was around £6 5s. 0d. per cwt. I believe that anyone who stall-feeds cattle for around two months would require to get £1 per cwt more than the purchase price to meet his expenses. If the Minister would take today's prices as a basis and say that as and from 1st February he will make up the difference, if the average price is not up to £7 5s. per cwt., such a guarantee would give encouragement to farmers. They would at least feel that even if they wouldn't get much profit they wouldn't lose money.
Other sections of the farming industry have guaranteed minimum prices for their produce—the milk producer, the pig producer and the wheat grower —and while they may at times be dissatisfied with the minimum guaranteed price they at least know where they are going.
I see no reason why our producers of beef should be left to compete with Government-subsidised Yugoslavian beef and cheap meat-producing countries like the Argentine, Uruguay, Australia and New Zealand. Too often, we have to sell our beef for half nothing in Great Britain when, as frequently happens, these importing countries make nothing better than a dumping ground of the English meat market.
What amazes me is that foreigners can come to this country and get all the money they want for industry— building hotels, and so on—but when the unfortunate farmers ask for something such as the substance of this motion, when they ask for what is no more than a guarantee to help them to stay in business, all kinds of excuses are made as to why they are not entitled to get it. The moneys given to foreign industrialists are meant to create employment, yet, if no beef cattle are available for export next February, March and April, many thousands will find themselves unemployed, not alone from the meat factories, but from the allied industries. Surely that reason in itself justifies acceptance of this motion.
In conclusion, I appeal strongly to the Minister to accept this motion. If he does, he will find himself a more popular Minister for Agriculture than he thought he ever would be. I sincerely believe it will not cost the Exchequer one shilling but acceptance of the motion will give the farmers an incentive to produce the goods for which I believe there will be a ready market.