asked the Minister for Agriculture whether he will give the 10/- per ton bounty on any superphosphate which may be procured by Irish importers from sources in Great Britain or elsewhere abroad.

I would refer the Deputy to my answer on the 6th March to his previous question in this matter. The policy is unchanged.

Is the Minister aware that notice was published over his name, threatening farmers in Roscommon with seizure of their lands if not tilled; that the farmers in Roscommon were unable to get supplies of superphosphate to put on the lands that he wanted tilled; and that there were 1,500 tons of superphosphate of lime available for import, which would be brought in but for the fact that the Minister refused to give the 10/- bounty on it; and, in the light of these facts, is this House to assume that the 10/- bounty was intended to benefit the Irish manure ring, or was it primarily intended to benefit farmers who use superphosphate?

All I can say is that I do not agree with the premise on which the Deputy based his supplementary question.

What premise?

That 1,500 tons were not imported because the bounty was not paid.

I tell the Minister that is so.

I am telling the Deputy that I know most of it is already in this country.

And I tell the Minister that the consignment was rejected on the Minister's refusal to grant the 10/- bounty on the manure if sold in this country, and I notified the Minister's Department to that effect.

That is true.

And I also wrote to the Minister. He refused to give the bounty and the cargo has not arrived.

Because it was not necessary.

Why?

Because the cargo has arrived.

I am telling the Minister that this was an addition to any manure which he was able to secure. The Minister knows that is true, and he knows that the manure was not delivered from England because the 10/- bounty would not be given upon it. Will the Minister now say that he will give the 10/- bounty?

No.

Why will he not give it?

Because it is not necessary, and because the manure has come.

Does the Minister tell me the 10/- bounty will not be given for the relief of farmers who use this manure, while it has been given to neighbours who use manure supplied by the Irish manure ring?

No.

Why discriminate in favour of one class of farmer against another?

There is no discrimination.

Is there not discrimination against the farmer who was going to use the manure that was about to come in? He would have bought manure earlier if he could have got it. He would buy it from the Irish ring if the Irish ring would supply it. He cannot get it anywhere. Why should you fine him 10/- a ton while giving 10/- bounty to his neighbour? Would the Minister answer that question?

If the Deputy had a little less impetuosity and a little more knowledge of the subject, he would not make these statements. There was no manure procurable up to 1st April from any of the countries which usually export manures here—Holland, Belgium or Great Britain. These were our principal sources of supply in other years but they prohibited the export of manure this year. It was learned that a small parcel of 2,500 tons was available in France and a broker in this country sent to every merchant here asking him if he would take 500 tons. These merchants, in turn, resold that as if they had already got it. They were competing with one another and whether we gave 10/- or not would not have made the slightest difference. That manure is coming in. We will probably get manure from two of our former sources—Holland and Belgium. That manure, if got, will be sold here as cheaply as Irish-manufactured manure.

The parcel I refer to came not from France, Holland or Belgium but from London.

Through a London broker.

From London. If the bounty is for the benefit of the farmers and not for the benefit of the manure ring, why will the Minister not give the 10/- to the farmers now buying super the same as he gave it to the farmers who bought only two months or three months ago?

Because I was quite aware that this parcel was coming from France—not from London, because no manure was allowed to be exported from Great Britain. It was offered in 500 ton lots to merchants here and every merchant was competing for it. If we gave the 10/-, they would simply have taken account of it in the competition for the supply.

May I ask the Minister——

A debate may not be initiated on the question.

The Minister has repeatedly referred to a parcel of manure, of which I notified him. Does he know that I rang up his office?

I do.

I said to him that there was available from London 1,500 tons of manure to anybody over here if he would give the bounty. That parcel had no relation to the 2,500 tons to which the Minister has referred

It was the very same parcel.

If it is different, will the Minister give the 10/- bounty?

It is not different.

If it is different, will the Minister give the bounty?

I do not think so because, as I told the Deputy, some manure will probably come in from Belgium and Holland and this 10/- will not be necessary.

Will the price of the manure to which the Minister now refers as likely to be imported be the same as that for the local manure?

Yes.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state whether the bounty payable on compound artificial manures manufactured in Ireland has been paid on any manures a constituent part of which was superphosphate manufactured in Great Britain or elsewhere abroad and imported into Ireland.

The answer is in the negative.

Has any foreign manure been used by the manure manufacturers of Éire in the manufacture of compound manures?

No.

Has all the super that has come in to date been sold in the form of super?

All the manufactured super?

Yes.

That is so.

Has any super that came in from abroad been used for the manufacture of compound manures?

No. The manufacturers did not import any manufactured manures.