Edition Bobbett1. Texts by Elizabeth F. Bobbett: 1.1.3. Correspondence, Letters to newspapers

1943 Elizabeth Bobbett: Letter to the Sunday Independent, 19.12.1943

Food Prices Compared

Sir. In the “Sunday Independent” of 12th instant you published a comparative list of food prices; for the years 1934 and 1943. The very big increase in prices in Eire as compared with Northern Ireland brings one to make conclusions, which, without a proper explanation, may be definitely unfair to the producers of farm produce and to the shopkeeper. These conclusions can be summed up as follows: a) Farmers in Eire must be making huge profits and getting very high prices, b) The shopkeepers in Eire must be making extra large profits.

I write as a farmer and in the interests of the farmers’ side of the case, and leave the shopkeepers to defend their own side of the question. The position of the farmers in Northern Ireland is very different to those in Eire for the following reasons: 1) Northern Farmers' Position: No rates to pay on agricultural land, a bounty of £ 2 per acre for every acre of old grass land ploughed up, and guaranteed prices for most of their farm produce, plus a subsidy direct from the Government. This latter helps to keep the price of food low to the consumer. For example, the position regarding potatoes was explained to me a few months ago, as follows (the prices may be a little different to-day): The Northern farmer sells his potatoes to the wholesaler for £5 10/- per ton, but the farmer gets a subsidy direct from the Government of £10 per acre for every acre of potatoes he grows, whether he sells them or uses them. Now, though the wholesaler buys from the farmer £5 10/- per ton (8¼d per stone), he must sell to the retailer at £4 15/- per ton (7d per stone), but the wholesaler receives a direct subsidy from the Government of 50/- per ton (4d per stone), so his profit is secured. Naturally, if the retailer can buy his potatoes at 7d per stone he can sell them at 10d per stone. In Northern Ireland milk, meat and eggs are subsidised to as to stabilise the price to the consumer and so keep down the cost of living. The Northern farmer also has lime and artificial manure at very reasonable prices: these help him to keep up maximum production per acre, so even though agricultural wages are very much higher in the North, the farmer has “the means to produce” and has fair prices. 2) Eire Farmers’ Position: Instead of de-rating, our rates are more than double what they were a few years ago and approximately four times what they were in 1914, so that even with the concession of halving our annuity payments our increased rates wipe out that small benefit. We have a very, very small quantity of artificial manure available at almost a prohibitive price, and lime is so dear that it would be uneconomic to use it (in my district lime costs almost £5 a ton delivered, while in 1914 it was about £1). In Eire the farmers' cost of production (which must also include his cost of living) has continued to rise rapidly since 1939, and while we hear many complaints about the rise in food prices (which represents only about 50 per cent in the rise in the cost of living), we hear very little about the rise in prices of clothing, which have gone up about 85 per cent. Why, even towels which we farmers have to use in the cowhouses have gone up in price from 4d and 5d to 1/11 each! How can the position of food production and prices be improved in Eire? The first essential is to assist the farmers in every possible way to increase production. This can be done by guaranteeing them economic prices for their produce over a definite period. Secondly, by making the necessary credit available to farmers who need it to get into full production.

Naturally, readers will ask: Where is the money to come from? If we increase prices to farmers, won’t it mean higher prices to consumers and higher taxation? My answer is: No. Let the Government take a bold step and authorise an issue of national credit, interest free, say even ten million pounds, and use this credit to subsidise production and consumption of food. The security for such an issue of national credit would be the increased production from the land and we must also consider the value to the nation of better health to our citizen from being able to purchase more food.