I move the adjournment.
Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement—Debate (Resumed).
In regard to the talks that took place in London dealing with trade relations as presented to us, many Deputies were inclined to find fault with the Government because we did not get a long-term agreement. In my opinion, it would be very hard to arrive at a long-term agreement. particularly in regard to price, due to the unsettled conditions which exist throughout the world to-day. The emergency conditions here, and the war conditions in England and elsewhere, made it utterly impossible for any Government here or there to arrive at prices while such unstable conditions exist. The people appreciate the fact that the talks were carried out in a pleasant and friendly atmosphere which is a clear indication of the fact that the Government here and the Government across the Channel are quite willing to go further in the making of agreements which will be in the interests of both countries. The unfortunate point is that we have not the materials. We have not the store cattle nor the fat cattle in quantity to meet the demands of the people who are quite willing to negotiate with us and who are quite willing through negotiations to establish in the future facilities in that market for which over a long period the people have been crying out. We have not the live stock and that is principally due to the fact that in recent years the source of supply has been very considerably reduced. Yesterday, when speaking in connection with this settlement, the Minister for Agriculture stated that he was surprised to see that the number of dairy cows had decreased over a period of years. That is true. The number has decreased, in my opinion, because there has not been sufficient inducement for the people who are engaged in the dairying industry to carry on. The dangers that might arise due to the decline in the dairy cow population were pointed out to the Minister long ago. When there is a decline in the dairy cow population there is bound to be a decline in the live-stock population. Consequently there will be a decline or scarcity in the number of live stock at our disposal. Cattle do not grow on trees. They do not bloom. They have to be produced by breeding and the only way to breed store cattle or young cattle is through the medium of the dairy stocks. The cow population must be kept up if we want to have live stock. I attribute the failure in this connection to the present Minister for Agriculture and to his predecessor. I do not want to offer undue criticism because I am satisfied that the Government is going a long way to meet the situation as regards our external relations. With regard to our domestic policy I believe that over the past four or five years the Minister for Agriculture did not realise the dangers that would face the country due to the fact that he was not prepared to give that encouragement to the people engaged in the industry. I raised that matter in this House long ago, when people were selling milk at a very low price, much under the cost of production. We know very well the difficulties the country people have to contend with. We are aware of their early hours in the morning, their long hours during the day and their late hours in the evenings in their efforts to provide milk and dairy products and live stock. I went as far as to say on one occasion to Dr. Ryan that the day would come when milk would even be scarce for the tea. I was not far wrong. That condition now obtains in our rural towns, not to mention the cities. Of course, the city may be safeguarded to the extent that they can get milk from the creameries, but in the small rural towns, where the people live in the midst of an agricultural community, they find it difficult even to get supplies of milk for their tea. That is no exaggeration. Other Deputies in this House know that to be true. A courageous attempt must be made by the Department to encourage the people engaged in the industry to improve or to expand that industry. The only way to do so is to give some encouragement by way of price or by putting more money into that particular industry. I am sorry to have to refer to the slaughter of calves. I do not want to offer that as a criticism because of the steps taken some years ago by the Government. I consider, however, that it was wrong to destroy a God-given production. I am afraid that as a result of our policy at that time, and as a result of its continuation by some people who are inclined even to-day to slaughter calves, apart altogether from the Government's idea, our best stocks will be destroyed in their infancy. The Government would be wise to take steps to stamp out that practice or, at least, the slaughter of heifer calves, which is going on throughout the country. The young heifer calf of to-day will be the dairy cow of to-morrow. It will be the source of our economic wealth. She will produce our milk, our butter and our live stock for export. Unless we have an export trade to pay for our purchases of raw materials essential for our industries at home we cannot hope to exist. If the future post-war policy of the Government is to encourage the production of live stock, bacon and poultry, the matter must be approached in a courageous manner. If we are to benefit by the agreement that has been arrived at now, and if we are to benefit by the talks that are likely to be held by the two Governments in the future, we must have something to export which will be the subject under discussion at a future date. How are we to do that? Money is the source of it all. Unless more money is put into agriculture through channels other than those available to-day for the people you will not and you cannot revive agriculture. Money is the source of all our troubles. We find that the well-off people in the country to-day are almost the only people who are in a position to acquire loans. There is established the Agricultural Credit Corporation. You must satisfy the Agricultural Credit Corporation as regards title, and as regards your actual position with your own bank before you are in a position to acquire a loan. It is well known to Deputies on both sides of the House that very few people have complete title to their land. For different reasons, extending way back for years—certain agreements that were attached to their holdings, and families hanging on—many people have not a clear title to their land. They do not know how to get that clear title to their land. I often tried to put before the House the necessity there is for the introduction by the Department of Justice of some method by which it would be easy for people to get clear title to their land who, for some reason or another, have not got that clear title. The Agricultural Credit Corporation is a profit-making concern. Being a profit-making concern, it has ample provision to ensure that that profit will be forthcoming at the end of the year. I have often been criticised both inside and outside the House for my agitation in connection with co-operative societies throughout the country. I do believe in cooperation and I believe in co-operative societies provided that they operate within certain limits. I believe that they could be a more than adequate source of financial accommodation for the farming community throughout the country. A co-operative society has certain advantages over the ordinary banking system inasmuch as the members of the society are familiar with each other's holdings, live stock and general farming economy. I think it would be the best way in which to make loans available to the agricultural community. I think, too, that that is the way in which co-operative societies ought to work instead of undertaking pursuits which would normally be carried on by shopkeepers. Again, they would prove beneficial in helping to speed up production by making agricultural machinery available to groups of farmers. In a society of that kind where you have a collective association of people greater facilities are afforded for examining into the merits of applicants for loans or for accommodation of any kind. Through the co-operative societies it should be possible to speed up production throughout the country.
During the emergency when the Minister for Agriculture visited the rural areas during the tillage drive, I pointed out to him on every occasion the importance of making provision for the direct supply of feeding stuffs to the farming community. I maintain that the offals from wheat should go back to the original producer in the same way as does the beet pulp. He should have the first claim to any offal for the production of milk, live stock, bacon and poultry. That is the type of provision that the Department of Agriculture ought to make so far as feeding stuffs are concerned. Because of lack of feeding stuffs at the present time farmers are compelled to sell their live stock in an unfinished condition. I met a neighbour of mine in Lismore recently who told me that he could not get even a bag of bran to feed his pigs. Is it fair that other people should have priority over the farmer who is, after all, the primary and most important producer in the country?
Is not the Deputy discussing agriculture now?
I am discussing production.
And the rights and wrongs of co-operative societies.
I merely want to make the point in regard to the production of feeding stuffs. With all due respect for your ruling, I want to point out that the feeding stuffs coming directly from the millers and the factories should find their way to the production of bacon, milk, poultry and live stock. Any farmer who is not in a position to take back all the offals offered to him should be allowed to dispose of them himself at their price value and he will always have a customer for the particular commodity.
I come now to the matter of fertilisers. Fertilisers are urgently needed at the present moment to bring back fertility to the soil. The land has been recropped over a number of years now without sufficient quantities of fertilisers being available. I do not blame the Government for that. The Government did its best to provide fertilisers and it is doing its best to provide them now. I am inclined to think, however, that the effort to build up the fertility of our soil must be helped in another direction. The Minister for Agriculture stated yesterday that he was bringing in a scheme to reduce the price of lime with a view to encouraging farmers to use more lime on the land. That is very welcome. I wonder would it be possible to include fertilisers under that scheme in order to encourage the farmers to use more fertilisers and thereby increase their productive output.
Last year the yield from our wheat was very low. I believe that manure would play an effective part in increasing yields. I know that the wet spring and the cold weather, coupled with the worn-out condition of our seed, were responsible to a great extent for the low yield last year. I am not blaming the Government for that. They have no responsibility for weather conditions. The people should be encouraged in every way to apply more elaborate dressings of fertilisers to the land. As regards the quantity of seed, the amount of seed is, I suppose, the best the Government could do. Definitely they had in mind the welfare of the seed grower and the wheat grower. The Minister for Agriculture promised us that he would do all in his power to ensure that adequate supplies of wheat would be available during the coming year. It is a pity the Government were not able to arrange for a larger quantity than 50,000 cwts. That will only represent an area of 25,000 acres. I hope that if further talks take place the Government will keep before its mind the fact that seed is a most important factor here. I will not go further than that, because the Government are as anxious as I am and as every Deputy is to procure seeds for farmers.
With regard to sheep and lambs, to which reference was also made, I doubt if we shall have any for export in the coming year. Owing to the bad weather last winter, I am afraid our exports of these will be very small indeed. I should like, however, to point out that greater protection should be forthcoming for the sheep owners and breeders with regard to the production and sale of wool. Three years ago one woollen manufacturer told me that his quota was 1,250,000 lbs., and that for every lb. of wool he paid 2/6, while the average price paid to the producer was from 1/4 to 1/6, giving a clear profit of 1/- per lb. or £65,000, to the wool dealers, a sum of money which was denied to the farmers and producers who suffered great losses in trying to maintain sheep stocks. The mountainy sheep owners, who are the biggest sheep owners and producers, are always exposed to weather conditions and better protection should be afforded to these people. I think the co-operative societies should engage in handling such a commodity and processing it and putting it on the market in a fit state for the production of blankets, etc.
I live in a big sheep area which includes the Knockmealdown and Galtee Mountains, and I think some co-operative societies should engage in the processing of wool there. It would be a good thing if the Government would take a note of that matter so that a factory of that type would be established on the banks of the Blackwater at Lismore which would give suitable employment to numbers of people who are quitting the local countryside to seek employment elsewhere. When the wool dealers can get a sum of £65,000 out of the quota allocated to one factory, I think these are things to be taken note of. People are asking why such a state of affairs should continue and why licences should be given to the chosen few at the expense of the many. I should like the Department of Industry and Commerce to take note of the representations made for the establishment of such a factory to cater for the producers in the area.
As to the question of turkeys, I am glad the British have seen fit to put our turkeys on the same level as turkeys produced in England, namely 3/2 per lb. I should like to know what steps the Government will take to protect the interests of the producers. We know that turkey production is a very valuable asset to the small type of farmer. We know that there is great difficulty in rearing turkeys and that it is only people with a lot of time at their disposal who can engage in their production. In order that protection may be afforded them, I should like to know if the Government will fix a price for producers so that they will not be exploited by the exporters of turkeys. Every encouragement should be given to the producers and a reasonable margin of profit given to the people engaged in the exportation of the turkeys. I hope there will be a fixed price for the producers, as well as a reasonable margin of profit for the exporters.
The Minister for Agriculture stated that he intends bringing before the House shortly a scheme for the improvement of farm buildings, such as outhouses for stock, machinery, etc. In that connection, I hope the Minister will bear in mind that Deputies have been making representations over a long period for the installation of proper water supplies on farms. There is no good talking about greater production of live stock, poultry, bacon, etc., unless you have an adequate supply of water available to the farming community. I hope that when that scheme is brought in provision will be made for water supplies and that at least the scheme will go a certain way towards providing the cost of sinking pumps on farmsteads in order to speed up production. If that is not included in the scheme, I hope the Taoiseach will ensure that the Department of Lands will make provision for some such scheme under which the cost may be spread over the period of years for which the annuities have to run. I have made representations to the Minister for Lands and to the Department in regard to that matter. The farmers will be prepared to pay for such a water supply if the cost is added to the annuities payable over a period of years. If that were done, it would be very much appreciated by the people in the country districts. If it is not provided for by the Department of Agriculture, I hope the Taoiseach will discuss the matter with the Department of Lands.
The only thing I have to say about the dollars is that we have not enough of them. I hope the Government will accede to the suggestions I made for improving conditions generally so that we will have sufficient dollars in future.
Most of the speeches made in regard to this agreement could have been just as appropriately directed to a vote for agriculture. As a non-agriculturist, I intend to confine my remarks to one or two aspects of the agreement. On an occasion such as this, as agriculture is our main industry, it is only right and proper that other Deputies should make way for those who are conducting that great industry. I want to get some information from the Taoiseach, if he has any information to impart. I am aware of the delicacy of the whole position. Since our last sitting here, I have made many contacts with agriculturists and those engaged in industries ancillary to agriculture. Farmers, cattle dealers, and those engaged in industries ancillary to agriculture endorse fully the agreement reached by the Taoiseach and those who accompanied him to London.
I think undue criticism has been levelled at the Taoiseach and those associated with him in these discussions. After all, we had question after question on the Order Paper from time to time suggesting that Ministers themselves should cross over and discuss with the appropriate Ministers on the other side of the Channel the various problems that have arisen as a result of the last war. We all know that these are delicate negotiations and that it requires a good deal of prudence to get what one can regard as a reasonable agreement. So far as I have had contact with the interests concerned, agriculturists and others, they have all expressed their pleasure at the result of these discussions. There are, however, one or two matters on which I think some further information is necessary. Whilst I feel that all that could be done has been done, I qualify that statement by three or four words—under present circumstances. In discussing this agreement we should always have regard to these three or four words— under present circumstances.
In relation to the coal for cattle pact, I personally am not too sanguine at all, knowing something, as I do, of the coal position across Channel. We know that production in the mines over there at present is scarcely sufficient to satisfy the demands of British consumers. We know that there is a target fixed of some millions of tons of coal for export with the object of relieving the dollar position in the same way as we are trying to alleviate our position here by encouraging exports. As I say, I am not too sanguine in regard to the promised coal supply but the Taoiseach should be in a position to enlighten us on that matter. I have the feeling that whilst the United States has been sending us coal for which we have to pay in dollars, the change over to British coal would be a welcome one but I am not too sanguine that the British can afford to send us coal in the quantities which we would require, particularly having regard to the fact that coal production has fallen by many hundreds of thousands of tons owing to strikes.
I should also like to know if, as a result of the agreement, our position in relation to the supply of building materials could be eased. We have heard several Deputies talk about the lack of housing facilities in rural areas and the same problem presents itself in the cities. Building costs at the moment are enormous and I wonder if the Taoiseach could hold out any hope that our position in regard to the supply of building materials is likely to be improved as a result of this agreement.
The Taoiseach has stated that, as an alternative, he had given some thought to this country becoming a member of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I should like if the Taoiseach in replying to the debate would amplify that statement and if he would let us know what are the implications, if any, of this country becoming a member of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The names of so many of these organisations appear in the Press of late years with their initials only, that one becomes quite confused. I suppose in time the names of these institutions will appear in the Press as I.M.F. and I.B.F.R.D., we have got so used to these abbreviations. I want to be informed for the benefit of all those engaged in industry and commerce what the implications of our becoming members of these institutions are likely to be. I was present the other evening at a meeting of the Cork Chamber of Commerce at which the Taoiseach and his Ministers were congratulated on this agreement. I think it is only fair that these things should be mentioned. I want the Taoiseach when he is replying to tell me, for the benefit of those who are not agriculturists, what are the advantages, if any, of our becoming a member of the International Monetary Fund and also what are the commitments, if any. I do not want to occupy the time of the House further than to have these one or two points explained. I should like to have further information particularly in relation to our future coal supplies and the likelihood of our getting building materials across Channel.
The trade agreement which has been discussed here for the last few days has naturally been looked forward to with great expectations all over the country. No matter on what side of the House one sits, we can all agree that trade between two countries helps employment and industry of the countries concerned. Whilst we may not have an immensity of love for our next-door neighbours, nevertheless we must admit that if we can trade with her, she being our nearest neighbour, it may be more beneficial to us than to her and it may help us out of the difficulties in which we have been placed as a result of the war. Everybody welcomed the fact that the Taoiseach and his Ministers went to London to discuss trade with Great Britain and everybody, of course, expected that this country would benefit in one way or another as a result of these talks. Whether the people will be disappointed or not within the coming year is something which we will have to wait and find out.
Even though we may be critical of Government policy—and I can assure the Taoiseach that very little that he or his Government has done was worthy of any support or encouragement from this Party—nevertheless the trade agreement will, I believe, carry a certain amount of benefit for one side while, perhaps, for the other side it may not be so beneficial at all. The most important thing after all is that we are going to get an increased supply of coal but again the statement in regard to that matter is very vague. We are told that the British Government have undertaken to provide a substantial additional quantity of reasonable quality in the calendar year 1948. We are given no idea as to what the price of that coal will be; we can only hope that it will be as cheap or even cheaper than the American coal. The arrangement has the advantage at least that we will be able to pay for it in sterling and so conserve our meagre supply of dollars.
We are also told that we shall receive improved supplies of agricultural machinery within the coming year but again we are not told what the price will be to the purchaser in this country We have no idea as to whether the prices demanded for agricultural machinery will be within the reach of the ordinary farmer nor do we know the amount of agricultural machinery we are going to get. There again we find ourselves very much in a fog. The statement that we are to receive 25,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia and 15,000 tons of superphosphates is also very welcome but here again no prices are quoted. We have no idea whether this superphosphate and ammonia, which will be used by the farmers over their lands, will be at such a price as will make it profitable for farmers to increase production.
We know very well that the land has been worn out in many districts during the past four or five years because of intensive cropping and the fact that we cannot rotate crops on the smaller farms, as can be done on the larger ones. We are aware that the intensive cropping which we have experienced has brought down the fertility of the soil. We realise that soil fertility is a very important factor. If the cost of putting artificial manures into the land is prohibitive and if our agricultural efforts will not show a dividend at the end of the year, then the lot of the farming community is to be deplored. It is very hard to expect the farmer, our main producer, to purchase fertilisers and distribute them if he finds at the end of the year that the amount charged for the fertilisers will not be covered by the increased output in his crop. I would prefer if we had quoted to us by the British Government the amount per ton of fertilisers. If we had that information, we would know where we stand.
As regards everything we have to sell to Britain, the price is set out for us. We have a list of the prices for our fat cattle, our dressed meat, our eggs and turkeys. All these prices have been fixed in this wonderful trade agreement. It is strange that we know the prices we are to get but we do not know the prices we are to pay. It is a sort of Hobson's choice so far as we are concerned. If we do not take the British articles at the price that will be asked for them by the British Government, if we do not take their agricultural machinery and fertilisers, we can do without them; but they know perfectly well that we will have to send our store cattle, dressed meat and eggs to England because we have made an agreement with them.
We all realise that when there is a demand for more production we have to look the one way for it, and that is to the agriculturist. We have to look to the land of this country, from which we derive the biggest amount for export. We have from this side of the House besieged the Government time and again with requests to help the agriculturist and bring agriculture into its proper place in this country. We find here a futile effort made by the Taoiseach to put the agricultural producer on his feet. Side by side with that we have the flight from the land. As well as a flight from the country, there is also a flight from the land by young farmers and agricultural labourers who are seeking employment in the towns and cities of this little island. Everybody knows—the Taoiseach perhaps better than any other Deputy—the old saying that there can be no prosperity in a country where the fields are devoted to cattle and the towns are filled with men. The Taoiseach knows well that there is an attraction in the towns and the young countryman can get higher wages there as a builder's labourer or a corporation labourer. In these circumstances young men will not stay on the land or give adequate attention to the production that is so essential at the moment.
There is a call for increased production, but let us take a look at our farms and homesteads. We have 20,000 farms from one to five acres in extent; 32,842 farms from five to ten acres in extent; 32,029 farms from ten to 15 acres in extent and 89,311 farms from 15 to 30 acres in extent. Working at his full capacity, what can the farmer with five to 15 acres produce? He cannot grow wheat to any great extent and he cannot produce cattle to any great extent. The two things that always have been and that always will be his backbone are pigs and poultry. The fact that we have had such a decline in both pigs and poultry during the past ten or 12 years is proof of the way in which the small farmer has been neglected.
As regards the 50 to 100-acre farmer, who has room on his land for proper rotation and can rear fat cattle, we find that until the emergency he made no effort to till. The rancher element would not till one acre were it not that the Department's inspectors were on their heels and compelled them to till.
The Deputy is arguing on land division now, and not on the trade agreement.
I am arguing for increased production and I am pointing out how hard it is for small farmers to produce anything on ten or 15 acres of land. I may be wide of the mark——
Somewhat. These are a few hard words as to how certain types of farmers are cashing in on the trade agreement.
The point I am making is that to have increased production we must give the producers room to produce. It is futile, non-sensical, and, as I see it, sheer humbug, to ask the people to produce more when they have no ground whatsoever with which to produce.
To get back, Sir, again to where things are really produced—the pigs at home in the pigsties, the cattle in the farmer's yard, the wheat in the field— are we going to have any improvement in the store cattle trade which is so important to so many people in the country? It is all very fine to see the figures on paper. It is all very fine to see this summary of an agreement between two Governments, but the real proof is to go down to the fairs in the country and see the prices at which store cattle are sold. I can assure the Taoiseach, or any man, of this as I have first class information, having attended three fairs in the past week. The price of store cattle has fallen by almost £1 a head since the agreement was talked of by the two Governments. From that alone, the average man in the country wonders what benefit he will derive from the agreement. We may have more level prices throughout the whole year, but there is a certain time of the year, during spring, when the small or middle-class farmer has to look to the few cattle he has to sell for his greatest profits. We find the fact that continental buyers are going to be cut out in the new year when the agreement will be made.
Who said that?
I have seen it here in the agreement.
There is nothing of that in the agreement.
Then I would be very glad if the Taoiseach would make it clear that continental buyers will be allowed to compete for the cattle and, if they can offer higher prices than Britain, that they will get all the cattle they want. Competition is the life of trade and if one Government is prepared to pay higher prices than another, then it is to our benefit that the purchaser with the highest prices to offer should be allowed to buy. The Taoiseach has argued—and I would grant him that much—that we may not get goods from the Continent as essential as the goods which we are able to get from Britain, such as coal and agricultural machinery. I would be in agreement with him, even if it brought about a slight decrease in the price of store or fat cattle, to grade down the amount of cattle allowed to the Continent. Still, I can assure him that up to date, the agreement has brought a reduction of almost £1 a head for store cattle.
Should we have gone about it the other way, then?
If we bring down the price of store cattle, we should bring down the cost of living and bring down the price of food and clothing.
What is the use of an argument of that sort?
There is no use in an argument of that sort when we have nothing to argue about, but the facts are there.
We find, Sir, another item which we must treat with a certain amount of suspicion. That is the question of seed potatoes. Of course a market for seed potatoes abroad is very welcome, but in the present year the crop of potatoes in this country is not good and it is very doubtful whether, having satisfied our own needs—for we must have an increased supply of potatoes if we are to have an increase in bacon and poultry—we can have many seed potatoes to export. In regard to the price which is being offered, approximately £15 a ton, I can assure the Taoiseach that in my part of the country, where we are very good potato-producing farmers, he will not get seed potatoes at the present moment at £15 a ton. The crop is not so good this year as other years due to the lack of fertilisers.
What varieties do you grow?
Irish Champions and Arran Banners. We have a demand and an outcry for increased production, but I maintain that to have increased production you must have increased population in this country, and yet when we see that our biggest export within the past ten or 12 years has been our manpower, who should be producing and employed in this country, it is very foolish, I think, to expect that we can increase our output any further. We can try; we can do our best; we can all try to pull our weight as well as we can, but when we see our life blood being drained away to the towns and in emigration, and when we see a section of our small farmers being denied the ground on which they would gladly produce, we can look forward to the coming year and the Taoiseach's trade agreement with a certain amount of suspicion, due simply and solely to the Government's policy of failing to provide the necessaries of life which would give to our people the chance of helping out this country.
I have not anything more to say in regard to this agreement except that, after all, the people of Ireland are wondering why, after 15 years, when this famous British market was gone and gone forever, that it should now be so welcomed, and that we should walk into it so happily.
I think that our friends across the Channel have got the best side of the agreement due to the fact that they have quoted to us the price which they will pay for our goods and we have not quoted in return the prices for the goods which they send us.
I had no intention, a Chinn Comhairle, of taking part in this debate at all, but when I listened to statements from Deputies such as Deputy Commons, who appeared to know nothing of what they were talking about, I felt forced to intervene. Deputy Commons told us that since the agreement came into operation the price of store cattle had dropped. If he knew anything about fairs or markets or was interested in buying produce, he would know that this was due to something entirely different. He was interested in addressing public meetings and making all the misrepresentations at those meetings which he could make. The price of store cattle has dropped, not because of the agreement, but because all the fields within miles of Dublin were packed with cattle brought there by dealers who wanted to wait for the agreement and held their cattle before shipping them across. This fact was made pretty clear by Deputies from the Fine Gael Benches and by Deputy Fagan who knows something of cattle markets. The price dropped because the purchasers could not go down the country to buy any more, but that is all over now and the price of cattle is not down.
I would love to believe you.
I do not care whether the Deputy would love to believe me or not.
The Deputy talked of the seed potatoes market, but again he does not know what he is talking about. When I asked him what type of potatoes he produced, he replied Irish Champions, but they are not exported. I come from a part of the country where we export potatoes and you would not get 4d. a stone for this type of potato. The potatoes we export are exported for seed. I will enlighten you if it is possible to do so.
The Deputy must address the Chair.
The varieties of potatoes exported from this country are varieties such as "Arran Banners" which would not be consumed by our people. They are used in this country for animal feeding more than for anything else. They are not used at all for table consumption. Some of us use "Champions" and the vast majority use "Kerr Pinks." I welcome this agreement on behalf of the farmers of the country. The only complaints I have heard about it have come from the shopkeeper element. Some of them have said: "What are we getting out of this?" They forget that the day we improve the lot of the farmer their lot is automatically improved also. I am sick listening to the type of stuff that we hear year in and year out. I have to face out every winter on a campaign to try to get the farmers to produce beet for the Tuam beet factory. For a number of years many of the shopkeepers in that particular town, which is as wealthy a town as there is in Ireland, did not realise the importance of that industry. They only realised it when the industry almost slipped from them overnight. They then discovered that if the factory left Tuam the town might as well shift along with it. Deputies should not make statements which are silly and detrimental. It is very annoying to have to listen to them saying that our farmers are paupers and that they are starving. There is no truth in it.
Why is there a flight from the land, then?
It is due to the fact that Deputy Commons and others like him encourage the people to leave the land.
Yet we were put in gaol because we tried to get land for them.
It is a pity a lot of people were not left in gaol breaking stones. They would be doing better work there than they are doing outside. I deplore this type of political propaganda. We hear talk about no employment being available on the land. I know farmers who cannot get labour at any price and if Deputy Commons knows where we can get it I know a number of people who would be glad to employ it. I welcome this agreement from the farmer's point of view. I am quite satisfied that it is a good agreement. The type of talk to which we have listened for the last day or two is not helpful, either internally or externally. If we had an agreement binding us to something for five or ten years I do not think I would be satisfied about it, but we are not bound for any particular length of time. Deputy Commons in his platform fair-meeting style comes along to misrepresent this agreement in many other aspects in addition to those to which I have referred. If we were a little more honest with ourselves and with the people we represent they would think a lot more about us. That type of false propaganda is not going to get us anywhere. Deputy Commons pointed out that we can sell our stuff to other countries. As far as I understand, the agreement is only with Great Britain. If any other country comes along to-morrow morning we are quite prepared to negotiate and discuss that with them on the basis of equality. Deputy Commons also said that we were flinging away the British market because we think so little about it. None of us thinks little of it. What most of us fought for was equalitythat we would be able to meet them at a future date on equal terms, and that we would be able to sell and buy and make a bargain on that particular basis. We have now arrived at that stage and we should be very thankful to find ourselves in that position. With the world as it is at the moment we should not use that type of propaganda. It is misleading not only to our own people here, but to people in other countries also. The sooner we get down to brass tacks the better for all concerned.
Very little can be said in connection with this trade agreement because there is very little in it. There is nothing definite with regard to prices except a slight improvement in cattle prices. There is nothing definite in regard to the quantity of supplies on either side. In the main, it is merely a collection of pious hopes and wishes. I would not have intervened in this debate were it not for the speech made yesterday by the Minister for Agriculture in regard to this agreement. It is upon our exportable surplus of agriculture we have got to depend for the dollars and for the sterling that we require to enable us to import. Since that is true, anything that tends to expand the output of agriculture and encourage that industry to develop is first and foremost in the national interest. One would expect in this critical period of our history from the Minister for Agriculture, therefore, an inspiring lead to the agricultural community in this State. But what did we get from the Minister for Agriculture yesterday? A promise of a few miserable sops, garnished with a few crude, brutal threats. The speech of the Minister for Agriculture would not impress anybody except a depraved or half-drunken lout. It was not the speech that one would expect from a Minister for Agriculture appealing to an important and intelligent section of the community.
The phrase "half-drunken lout" applied to the Minister for Agriculture must be withdrawn.
I said the speech of the Minister for Agriculture would not impress anybody except a depraved or half-drunken lout.
I misunderstood the Deputy. I am sorry.
The farmers are an intelligent and patriotic body of citizens. They are nationally minded. They have a good tradition of independence and self-respect behind them. Given a lead, the farmers are prepared to put everything they have into their work so as to pull this country safely through the difficulties that face us. All we got from the Minister for Agriculture yesterday were dire threats. We were told the farmer is not tilling the best of his land. What does that mean? It means that an army of inspectors will be sent down to the farmer to point out to him what particular field he is to till and what particular field he is not to till. That is not the approach that was made by the British Government at the outset of their emergency. That is not their approach at the present time. There they appealed to the patriotism of the people. They had at the same time a clear realisation of the difficulties the agricultural producer had to face. So many useful and effective measures were adopted by the British Government to meet the special difficulties of the situation in connection with agricultural production that they were crowned by a tremendous measure of success and brought about a natural expansion of the agricultural industry. Here we have a narrow, shallow approach to the problems of the farming community. I maintain that the farmer is the one man who can be induced by a few small sops to do almost anything. Threats only make him angry.
What was the approach made by the British Government to the problem of getting the old pastures ploughed up? They told the farmer that if he was prepared to plough his old pasture which had been under grass for generations past the Government would provide an acreage payment to compensate him for the sacrifice he was making. That was a reasoned and a reasonable approach to that difficult problem. By that means, the Government got the goodwill of the farmer right from the beginning. There was no question of dictation and no question of sending an army of inspectors through the country to seize the farmer by the neck and compel him to carry out certain orders. I mentioned a similar scheme some years ago in this House and I suggested that it ought to be introduced into this country. It was turned down by the Government and they had neither the commonsense nor the courtesy to express any opinion as to the merits or demerits of the scheme. While our Government, in their wisdom, turned down any idea of acreage payments the British Government have continued the scheme to the present day and are extending it in the present year clearly indicating that, in the light of their experience, the scheme has been successful.
Yesterday Deputy MacBride talked about subsidising agricultural prices so as to enable the consumer to get his agricultural produce at a reasonable price. If there is to be any question of subsidy I think that subsidy should be paid directly to the producer in the manner I have indicated—that is, by means of acreage payments. Yesterday the Minister for Agriculture deplored the fact that there was a falling off in the acreage under potatoes in the current year. He forgot to mention that last year when the farmer had potatoes to sell the price was rigidly controlled so that the farmer was unable to get even the cost of production. Everybody knows that. Last year the potato crop was an expensive one to grow; it was expensive to harvest and it was even more expensive to save because of weather conditions. You cannot have production unless you are prepared to give the producer a reasonable sum to cover the cost of production. It does not matter how many inspectors you have, or how many Emergency Powers Orders you bring in, or what totalitarian system you adopt you will get no return unless the producer has some guarantee that he will not work at a loss. We know within the current year the potato crop has been to a great extent a failure. The output will not average more than 50 per cent. of the normal yield. That is a serious position and it will affect the acreage put under potatoes next year. So far the price for potatoes has been fairly good and it has not yet been restricted by our paternal Government, but the output is so low that it represents a substantial loss to the producer. The British Government are paying a subsidy of £10 on every statute acre under potatoes. That enables the British farmer to obtain the necessary fertilisers in order to grow the crop efficiently and it gives him some encouragement to put the largest possible acreage under potatoes. That encouragement has resulted in a tremendous expansion in Great Britain. Here we seem to be content to blunder along under Emergency Powers Orders and the dictation of an army of inspectors.
The Deputy who spoke last referred to the British market. He said that his Party were never opposed to the British market. If they were never opposed to the British market, then for many years they must have been talking in their sleep. Whatever their internal feelings were, they did openly express contempt for the British market. In the report which has been given to the House of the discussions in London, nothing has been mentioned as to whether our Ministers informed the British Ministers that they had whipped John Bull in the past and were prepared to whip him again.
Is not that old history now, Deputy? It has nothing to do with this agreement.
It is old history, but it is still topical.
Whether it is old or not, it is true.
The truth is eternal, Deputy.
We are discussing a very——
A very specific agreement.
A specific agreement for the preservation of a British market that was supposed to be dead and cold.
Whether the farmers will welcome this agreement or not it does seek to establish the normal relations that should exist between two civilised nations. The Deputy who spoke last said that we could now at least deal with the British on terms of equality. At any time during the past 25 years we could have dealt with the British on terms of equality, but there was a time seemingly when it did not suit us to deal with them at all. It was good Party policy to pretend that the British were deadly enemies and that the Government was fighting Britain with all the resources at its disposal. In the course of that fight we sacrificed the fertility of our soil. We sacrificed the production of butter. We sacrificed the production of bacon. We sacrificed our entire agricultural industry so that the Fianna Fáil Party might pose as sea-green patriots fighting against the old enemy—Britain. Having made all those sacrifices to keep Fianna Fáil in office for 15 years, we are told now that it is a marvellous achievement because we have made a trade agreement that gives us less for our cattle than the British farmer is getting and that provides that British experts will come over to help the hens in this country to lay more eggs. In addition to that, it expresses a few pious hopes and prayers in regard to the things that are not available now for export.
From published statistics it appears that five pigs were exported to Britain in 1946. I do not know who are the lucky people who bought those pigs. Probably they were bought by collectors looking for rare specimens, or by the British Zoological Society looking for samples of the Irish pig to exhibit in their various institutions. That is the condition to which 15 years of Fianna Fáil policy has reduced agriculture, and that is a condition which the Minister for Agriculture claims can only be solved by brutal coercion of the farmers, by sending down inspectors to point out what particular field he is to till and what particular field he is not to till.
There is one particular form of export which was very extensive during the past ten years, and I wonder if it was the subject of discussion when our Ministers were talking to the British Ministers. Did our Ministers ask the British Ministers what were they going to pay for the 250,000 men and women that we have sent over to build up the British nation? Did that matter come up for discussion? While our cattle may be good for the British people, and while our poultry products may be very desirable, I think there is nothing we have given to Great Britain that is of such immense value as the young men and women we have exported to that country during the past ten years. Did our Ministers say to British Ministers: "If you do not give us something in exchange for this valuable export we will put an embargo on that export trade?" Did they use the fact that we were giving Great Britain such a valuable export as a bargaining factor? If that was not used, our Ministers did not know their business when they went to negotiate, because, while the British may find it hard to do without our cattle and our poultry products, I do not think they could manage without the human exports that we send over in such large numbers.
As I said, we expected a very inspiring lead from the Minister for Agriculture. We expected him to indicate what measures will be adopted during the next two or three years to bring about an expansion in agriculture, to divert to agriculture the young men and the young women who are being exported and to put them working so as to increase the output of that industry. It is foolish to suggest that nothing can be done to get our people working on the land. Nothing will be done as long as there is a higher standard of wage and income for those who fly from the land. Let nobody say that I am boosting the wages paid on the other side of the water. Even in our own country we know that the man who works in a factory, the man who works in any of our secondary industries, has a far higher income than the man who works in our primary industry. As long as you have that state of affairs prevailing, the intelligent young people, farmers' sons and daughters, will seek to get away from the land.
Therefore, the fundamental basis of increased agricultural output is to ensure that there is an income for each individual worker on the land higher than the income that any citizen can obtain in any other industry. That is not an impossible ideal. It is nothing wild or extreme; it is simple common sense. It may mean an almost revolutionary change in the standard of remuneration of those engaged in agriculture. It may mean very revolutionary changes in regard to the methods that may be necessary to finance such a scheme. But, until that matter is tackled vigorously and with sincerity, nothing will prevent our young people from getting out of the agricultural industry. It is not alone a question of getting out of this country; it is a question of getting into any secondary industry, getting into a garage, or getting into some of the sheltered public appointments.
I have met dozens of young people who have asked me if there is any way by which they can get to be attendants in mental hospitals or work of that kind. Imagine a young man of brains and ability who has been reared on the land hungering to get into a mental hospital to care for the insane. Why is that? Simply because employment in a mental hospital is more highly paid and more secure than employment on the land. If that fundamental matter is tackled, everything will straighten itself out by degrees.
There are small progressive countries in Europe who have succeeded to an extraordinary extent in maintaining their population on the land and in developing the resources of the land. In Denmark and Holland the number of people employed on the land is much higher than here, and the output per acre is infinitely higher than we have here, simply because, over a long term of years, there has been pursued a proagricultural policy, a policy directed towards making agriculture the foundation on which the whole economic system is built. Such a policy inevitably means, not only the advancement of agriculture but a more substantial measure of advancement for all secondary industries because, with a healthy, prosperous agriculture, other industries tend to grow up around it. That has happened in some of the progressive European countries. If the failure with which our Ministers have met in London—because it is a failure, and it is a failure, not because the men they met were unreasonable but because we have nothing worth while to offer— brings home to our Government the fundamental importance of developing agriculture to the fullest extent and giving the workers in agriculture a real inducement to work, the meeting between our Ministers and the British Ministers will not have been in vain.
Now that we have ranged all over the world, perhaps we could get back once more to the agreement. When I made the statement giving the terms of this agreement, I indicated to the House what the circumstances were which led to our meeting with British Ministers. We had a communication, I pointed out, indicating that the free convertibility of sterling had to be limited. We also have an interest in sterling, because it is in sterling what I might call our national savings are placed. We have built up, by the surplus of exports over imports over a period, a certain amount of external assets which are in sterling. These assets are important to us. Our current transactions being mainly in sterling, it is also important that we should be able to use these assets to buy the things we require. Consequently we have a very important interest in maintaining confidence in sterling and in seeing that a position is maintained in which we can use our sterling assets to buy goods anywhere, not merely in dollars but in other currencies as well. The ultimate transferability of sterling, therefore, is of tremendous importance to us. We realised that, but we realised also that the most important contribution towards remedying the present situation was increased production in every one of the countries in the sterling area—production here as well as in other parts of that area, particularly from our point of view.
Self-help—I repeat the phrase which I used in introducing this statement— and mutual help as regards all these countries in the sterling area were of primary importance, self-help by getting the utmost production we could, here at home, and mutual help, in so far as one country could give to another things which otherwise it would have to get outside the sterling area. Britain and ourselves were particularly well situated for that arrangement.
We have been, traditionally, supplying Britain with a number of things which the British want and of which they are in need at the present time. They on the other hand traditionally supplied us with the things that we required and that we require at the present time very urgently. We, therefore, proposed to the British Government that we should have a talk on this matter, to see how far it was possible for them to give us the things which we wanted and for us, by increased production, to give them a greater amount of the things which they want.
Our production depended on a number of things. As our principal export was agricultural produce, it was obvious that it was of vital importance for us to get the things needed by our agricultural industry in the first instance. We needed fertilisers. Could they give them to us? Now, it is suggested that only a paltry quantity of fertilisers is coming to us, but there is a scarcity over the whole world and Britain wants fertilisers for herself. She wants, naturally, to increase her agricultural production, and it is out of a very limited quantity that we have to try to get our share. We were allotted about 25,000 tons by the international control body. We are getting the quota due to us and there is no use in people saying that we want more. Of course we want more, but the question in this position of scarcity is: can we get more? We would take all that we could get, and we would be prepared to pay a reasonable price for it, but when things, such as fertilisers, are scarce you have to put up with your share. We are not saying that the whole position with regard to fertilisers is now settled because we have got 25,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia or 15,000 tons of superphosphate, or because there is a possibility that we may get basic slag. We know we could use very much more than this quantity, but there is a world scarcity of these things. We pointed out that an increase in our production would be a very important factor in dealing with this situation, but that is all they could give us, and if anybody can get more from them, I will say good luck to him.
We also want agricultural machinery. To what extent can we get that? My information is that it is coming in, and that the prospect of getting a considerable quantity of agricultural machinery in this coming year is very good. They have promised to do their best to let us have agricultural machines so that they will be available here to increase our production.
As regards seed, of course we are not getting all the seed we would take, but seed for wheat or for any other purpose is a scarce commodity, and all you can hope for is to get an understanding with regard to these things. Everything they are giving to us they are, to a certain extent, taking from themselves. They could use them, too. When you are pressing people to give things they could use themselves, you are not in a situation where they had a surplus and it was a question of disposing of a surplus. When we are dealing with them we are in this position, that the things they are asking from us are mainly things of which we have a surplus. They will say: "These things are surplus to your own needs and we are not asking you to make any great sacrifices in giving them." But we have to ask them to make certain sacrifices, and the positions of the two peoples trying to get mutual help are not quite the same. We would take very much more than they are able to give us.
We do not pretend for one moment that these temporary arrangements— because they are only short period arrangements—will solve the position of scarcity which exists here, as it exists throughout the world. We will get 50,000 cwts. of seed wheat. That is not a tremendous amount, seeing what is needed, but every ton of seed wheat, or any other seed, is hard to get from any other country outside. We say that the 50,000 cwts. will be of some value.
With regard to agriculture, then, we have come to this point, that they thoroughly understand and agree that increased production here is of value in regard to dealing with the present financial situation. The more we produce the more the position of sterling is strengthened.
We come now to the question of prices. Obviously another way of stimulating production is to give improved prices. Speakers have tried to make little of the fact that we have got 5d. per lb. over the existing price for the dressed carcase—that is, dead weight. That 5d. per lb. represents 25/- a hundredweight on a beast killing out at, say, 53 per cent., and we are coolly told that prices have gone down as a result of increasing the price by 5d. per lb. or 25/- per cwt. We are told that, as a result of that, the price of store cattle has gone down. I wonder would it have gone up if, instead of putting 5d. per lb. on, you took 5d. per lb. off? How increasing the price by 25/- per cwt. will decrease the price is something beyond me. It is the sort of reasoning that Deputy Cogan is evidently quite adept at, but it is beyond me.
We have got for fat cattle an additional 5d. per lb. for a period of the year. It is 4d. after the 1st March unless there is an agreement to have it higher. We are asked why it is not 5d. for the whole year. The answer is we could not get it. If we could get 5d. instead of 4d. I assure you we would be very glad to take it. If you are able to get 5d. for the most important period of the year, is it not better to accept that and to have 4d. for the rest of the year than to have 4d. all the year round? The important thing there is that it enables us to get rid of the older cattle off the land, cattle that were damming up the ordinary process of cattle rearing. That is being stopped. It was interfering with the natural flow of our economy and that has been got rid of; that is the principal effect.
Then there is the question of store cattle. There is a differential of 7/6 between those that are Irish-bred and kept for a couple of months on British pasture and those that are British-bred. That has been reduced to 5/-. We are told that there should be no differential. Of course we would like to have no differential. I assure every Deputy there is nobody could have put up better arguments than were put up by us against that differential. We do not want the differential; we think it is bad even from the British point of view, but their answer is: "We give that as a special bonus from the point of view of capital development, because we want to put our agricultural industry on a new footing and that is the sum we are prepared to pay in order to get that done."
We know that no matter how it is done, its effect comes along the line and we get a certain benefit from it, but it would be much better from many points of view if that differential did not exist. We fought very hard against it and at least it has been cut down by 2/6. I suppose Deputy Cogan's type of reasoning is that that is a loss, just as the 25/- additional in the case of fat cattle will be a loss. Somebody said that we would get less in the markets now, that the prices have gone down, so I suppose if the differential is cut down by 2/6 it can be argued that we are worse off.
With regard to eggs, the Minister for Agriculture mentioned long ago that one of the exports from this country that promised best, that there was great hope for and that would mean a most valuable export trade, was the egg trade. We realise that. The British are naturally anxious to get the greatest quantity they can and they are prepared to pay on a sliding scale according as the quantities increase. The result of this agreement will definitely be a step forward, and we will get the same price we have hitherto got for a smaller quantity. We are anxious for the development of the egg trade; we are anxious to increase its volume. We want to have here a scheme which will induce people to have as large a number of poultry as possible, and as large a production of eggs as possible. We want to have such a development scheme worked out.
The British Government were not prepared to pay any more for the eggs than the price indicated, and we could get no advance on that price. But as they were anxious, and we were anxious, to increase the quantity, they said that if we had a development scheme and spent money on developing the egg industry, they were prepared to come in on it since they would benefit. They said that they would contribute a portion of the cost. Naturally, if you are going to contribute to anything you want to be satisfied with it, and they propose to come over here, not to teach us how to develop our egg industry, but so that they can be satisfied if they are going to contribute to the cost of a development scheme.
In other words, if they are not satisfied they will not pay, and they are right, naturally. If we were going to pay for the development of some scheme in Britain, do you not think that we would like to have some assurance that it was a scheme of a kind for which we would be prepared to pay money? Nonsense has been talked: "We can only do this after the British come over." This is absurd talk. This is the absurd talk that people go on with when they do not care to speak reasonably or logically.
Before I leave this question I will read again the relevant part of the summary of the agreement, so that Deputies will understand the position.
"In addition, the Ministry of Food propose to pay in the form of an extra price per long 100 for a period to be agreed, a proportion of the cost incurred by the Irish Government in promoting an agreed scheme for the development of the Irish poultry industry."
As I have said, if they are going to pay a portion of the cost, it is not unreasonable that they should be satisfied. It was agreed, therefore, that the details of such a scheme and the extent of the Ministry of Food's contribution, should be discussed at a conference in Dublin between representatives of the Department of Agriculture and of the British Ministry of Food. What is wrong with that? What objection can any reasonable person make to it? They are prepared to make a contribution to a development scheme provided that they are satisfied with the details of the scheme. They are paying for increased production and it is only reasonable that they should be satisfied with the results of what they are paying for. We would do the same.
The other matter is this. In regard to the cattle, the summary of the agreement states that the total number of cattle to be exported from Ireland to continental countries as from 1st February, 1948, will be the subject of consultation between the Department of Agriculture and the British Ministry of Food. The fact that there is going to be a consultation does not necessarily mean that we are not going to send any cattle to the Continent or that we are going to cut out the continental market. I would ask those Deputies who mentioned the matter to read the relevant paragraph.
What is the purpose of the consultation?
Exactly what is stated, and to see whether or not there could be an agreement as to whether or not the number of cattle we are sending to the Continent is too great. Suppose, for instance, that the British were prepared to give us extra prices in order to get an extra supply and we had to decide whether we should send 1,000 head extra to the Continent. Should we not examine whether it would be better for the country to reduce the supply to the Continent, if by doing so we could get better prices for cattle sent to Britain? Nobody in this House is more attached to having a market other than Britain than I am, and I do not believe in putting all our eggs in one basket, but I am not such a fool that, if by reducing the amount sent to the Continent by 1,000 head we could improve the prices on 500,000 or 600,000, I would not consider the proposition. Therefore, the point of the consultation is that, if matters of that sort should arise, the gains and the losses could be considered. Why should we not have consultation?
We were told that we did not approach this from the right fundamental point of view at all. It was approached, as I have said, with a view to present world conditions. Many of the people who talk on these matters take very good care to avoid reference to world conditions. They try to persuade our people, who have been largely sheltered from the effects of the recent war, that there has been no war. We said, when the physical conflict was taking place, that its immediate effects were only a portion of the consequences, and that the postwar period would bring with it, as far as this country is concerned, much more severe and critical problems than we had to deal with during the war. Anybody with the slightest idea of what was happening in the world would know that it would be like that. Hundreds of millions of people were taken from production and put into destructive activities, and wealth which had been created over centuries was destroyed. Was anybody so foolish as to think that, the moment those people got back into production and controls were relaxed, we should not have problems of the vastest kinds to deal with? We have a world scarcity at the present time due to the fact that for five or six years hundreds of millions of people, who had been engaged in producing the things that were needed to carry on life on the standard on which it was carried on, were taken away and put into destructive operations, and as a result not merely of the negative taking away from production, but of the positive destruction, we have now to face the situation in which we find ourselves.
The land used in production has suffered and is famished for want of ordinary fertilisers. It has been overcropped. Agricultural and other machinery necessary for production is lacking. Factories necessary for producing the thousand and one things we need have been destroyed. Houses necessary to give homes to the people have been destroyed. There is, therefore, a lack in the world to-day of practically every one of those things that went to make life comfortable, in so far as it was comfortable before the war began. These are the conditions which we should face and understand if we want to find a remedy.
We have approached this matter from the fundamental point of view, from the point of view of trying to get, as far as we can, the utmost production here. This is the most important immediate contribution we can make to improving the situation. We are told: "Oh, you have learned very late to go and meet the British." Of course, that is just more of the same kind of criticism. It reminds me of the saying that if you repeat a falsehood three times it is true. If you have people repeating, repeating and repeating, they repeat in order to get other people to believe what they say is true, but in the end they themselves believe it to be true. When I hear statements such as those to which I have been listening for the last day or two I ask myself whether the people who have made them have convinced themselves that the statements are true. As far as the economic situation and most of the other problems, with the one outstanding problem of Partition, were concerned, we had settled our economic difficulties with Great Britain in 1938. The war came on. Then, because we were neutral and they were not, the immediate contacts between the Governments which had existed up to then were, naturally, suspended.
Since that time, and even during a good deal of that time so far as Departments were concerned—the Department of Agriculture and so forth— there were contacts. But since that period there has been closer contact between these Departments than there was during the war. It is not, however, merely a question of contacts between Departments. About May, 1940, Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce were in Britain. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was there in the autumn of 1945. Both Ministers happened to be in London in the spring of 1946 in connection with other matters and they were able to meet British representatives. Again, early this year the Minister for Industry and Commerce was in London and had discussions with British Ministers. Why this nonsense of pretending that there have not been contacts between our Ministers and the British Ministers? There are people who think you can do nothing unless you are going across the water every day. What is our representative in London for? What is the British representative here for? What is the telephone for, if not for communications? At any time when there was important work to be done in the interests of this country we were ready. There are times, however, when you can do things and times when you cannot. One of the things people have to learn in life, if they want to do things well, is that sometimes they have to have patience and that they should not attempt at a wrong time to do a thing which there is hope of doing in the future at the right moment. On this occasion we went over because there was a chance of doing business. If there had been a chance of business on previous occasions we would have gone. There was a chance now of a proper understanding, and that understanding has been arrived at fundamentally, not merely by means of these arrangements which we are discussing here, which are only details. There is a fundamental understanding that under the present conditions in the world, and until present conditions change, it is important for Britain, as it is for us, that Britain and ourselves and every other country in the sterling area should produce as much as possible and help each other to produce as much as possible.
Two or three things are accepted at the present time—the first is that our production here is of tremendous importance. That is a very important point. It is also understood that our national programme, as we have defined it, is going to stand and that any co-operation that exists must be on the basis that our programme is the one which we determine for ourselves, for our interests, just as they determine theirs for their interests. The point is that each should know what the other is doing in order that they can see to what extent each can help the other in the doing of it—not that we should stop, for instance, our industrial development. We would not barter our industrial development for any of the things that might be offered to us in exchange for it. We are going on with our industrial development just as we are going on with our agriculcultural development, I hope, because the only safety and security for this country and the only way to keep our people here is to build up our manufacturing industries as well as our agriculture. It is understood, and it is a splendid thing that it is understood, that, as far as Britain and ourselves in the future are concerned, the main things we will be asking for are the things we cannot reasonably produce for ourselves. We want capital goods and a number of other things which we have not got or which it would be most uneconomic for us to produce. These Britain can supply to us in payment for the things we send to her. Another thing has been understood, and it is a great thing that it should be understood, that is, that the employment of Irishmen in Ireland is more valuable than the employment of Irishmen anywhere else. That is something that is worth having understood.
You cannot get it here.
What can you not get here?
Work.
You know well there is any amount of work.
Where?
Everywhere. There is plenty of work in various places. You have not always the workers where the work is, but there is any amount of work at the present time to be obtained in this country and there will be an increasing volume of it, I hope, according as raw materials become available. We have farmers crying out: "Why is there not a ban on people leaving the country? There is work for them here." One of the first people to speak in this House on that matter was Deputy Cogan. I remember it well. It was early in the war period. He was the first to say: "Here is a young man, who is a splendid ploughman, leaving the country." He had good wages at the time. He asked him why he was leaving.
Come down to the present. That was seven years ago.
It is true that quite a number of people left this country who did not have to leave it.
Deputies
Hear, hear!
A number of people did have to go when some of our industries were closed down, when there were no raw materials, when working on different shifts and so forth had failed, when all the artifices that had been tried to keep them in employment had failed. A number of our people in industries had to go then, because there was not a living for them here during that time. But there was quite a number of people who left this country, we know it well——
For fun?
Not for fun.
And over in the danger?
Just as I came from the country, for the same reason these people left the country—because they wanted to do something else. They had other ideas in their minds. A good deal of psychological matter—it is not solely narrow economic matters —is responsible. We know well that if you have a small farm on which there are four or five children, only one boy can remain on the farm. If you cut up all the land that is available in this country into economic holdings of, say, 25 to 50 acres, you will not have more than about 400,000 households. If there is a normal family in each of these 400,000 households there will be three or four children who will have to go off that land and find employment somewhere else—either emigrate or come to the towns and work in industry. The whole purpose of our policy was by building up industries here to give such people employment in their own country. There has been a long, long story of emigration in this country. Our people have gone out. Unfortunately, it is those who do well who are held up as the examples. They are the people who attract others to follow them. The number of people who fail abroad are never heard of again.
The main attraction is supplied because a relatively small percentage of those who go abroad reach high places, and they are held out as examples to the rest of us. I do not say that the wages paid to agricultural labourers in this country are the same as wages paid under the very special circumstances existing in England at the present moment, to the agricultural labourers there. They are not the same. I am told that smaller wages are paid in the country than are paid in the town. That is quite true. But things must balance, and it is no use holding up for any inspection one side of the account and ignoring the other. When you compare the two sides of the account you will find that the balance is a fairly accurate one on the whole. You must take into consideration what the income is, but you must also take into consideration what the outlay is and the conditions of life under which the people are required to live. There is a good deal to be said for people staying in the country where they can lead a decent, good, clean life. But these things cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. I have given an example many times; I will repeat it once more. A certain man lived in the city here and he was paying a rent of £120 a year for his house. He was in receipt of a salary of £10 a week. He went down to the country and there he saw a man living on what appeared to him to be a big estate. The city man had not enough room in his back yard to keep a hen. I suppose not even a man with a 200-acre farm would pay £120 a year in annuities. But the man in the country was impressed by the city man who was in receipt of £l0 a week. He regarded him as a millionaire. He told himself that he would be a long time working on his farm before he could make £500 a year, as if the £500 the city man earned was a completely free income.
The farmer overlooked the fact that the man in the city had to pay for all the services he got and for all the food he consumed. It is not possible to make a just comparison between town and country unless one is presented with both sides of the account; and when you balance out that account you will find there is not much difference. I am willing to bet that the domestic servant who is employed in a decent household in this country is very much better off than her colleague in England, no matter what wages her colleague in England gets. I am perfectly certain of that. The domestic servant in Ireland can live decently, and she will never be exposed to the dangers to which she might be exposed away from her own people. But there are some people who will only look at one side of the account without ever bothering to examine the other. They do it purely for political reasons and they try to hold the Government responsible for tendencies for which they can have no responsibility. They blame the Government because people are attracted away from the country. In the last two or three years I have met here people who have been all over the world—Europe, America, Canada and elsewhere. I have met considerable numbers of them, and the one thing they all say, whether they are here for a week or for a month, is that we do not understand or appreciate how very fortunate we are in this country. Instead of telling the people that that is the position, there are some amongst us who, for purely political reasons, go out and try to give the impression that it is the Government which is forcing the people away from their homeland. They never tell them that they are better off here at home than they will ever be abroad.
Just as there were some people in the past who were attracted away from their homeland, so in the future there will be some people who will leave us for other lands. But it must be remembered that the wages paid here to-day in many trades are as high as the wages paid elsewhere, especially when one takes into consideration the fact that the outgoings are considerably less. A Minister in the Six Counties recently referred to the higher social services they have there. He took care at the same time not to advert to the very much higher taxation they have there—almost twice the taxation per head that we have here. If we doubled our taxation here, we too could have higher social services. If the people here are prepared to bear the burden of double taxation, then we will provide them with higher social services. Again, there are people who go about urging increased social services without at the same time explaining that such services will mean increased taxation and that that taxation will have to be borne by the people themselves.
The word "austerity" has been used extensively throughout this debate. Certain austerities have been imposed upon every country in the world because of certain scarcities. That is entirely outside our power. Only to a limited extent can we supply the things that are lacking. If we are wise we will supply the things we need so far as we can ourselves. If our farmers are wise they will go out now and sow the wheat that is necessary, because I doubt very much if we will get sufficient wheat from anywhere else. The only remedy for us is to increase our output. We can increase our output by harder work, longer hours and better machinery and equipment. That is one way. That is the best way. It is only natural that, in addition, if it is possible for us to obtain goods from outside, we should make every effort to obtain them.
I have indicated the amount of dollars we think necessary in order to get the essentials. We believe that the amount allocated will enable us to get these essentials. In a time of scarcity we must make up our minds that, if there is to be a choice between what is essential and what is less essential or, perhaps, not essential at all, our first aim must be to secure the absolute essentials. These dollars will be used in the main to secure for us those things which we consider essential.
Including motor-cars?
We shall secure the things that are essential. We shall secure lorries, for instance, for road transport, before motor-cars. We shall consider first those things that are necessary and our first call upon these dollars will be for the things that are essential. If capital equipment is required—such as electrical equipment to keep our industries going—we shall take steps to procure it. But we must always keep before our minds the need for increasing production in every direction. As far as we are concerned, that is the way in which to meet any threatened scarcity. If there are things which will enable us to produce more we will be able, with the amount that has been allocated to us, to obtain those essentials if they are obtainable. All these things are very scarce and hard to get. But we believe that we can, within the amount, get the things that are essential.
I mentioned other possible sources from which we might get help if, for instance, we found that there were some essential things that we needed and that the amount of dollars we had was not sufficient. One was the International Monetary Fund. We are not members of that fund at the moment. We want to see the obligations and to see it all round. We are considering seeking membership of that fund. It is a fund which was intended to meet situations, more or less like the present, in which there were temporary deficits. In certain circumstances it might be necessary for us to resort to that fund to get temporary accommodation in dollars.
Could the Taoiseach say what would be the basis of the contribution to the International Monetary Fund?
The basis has not been determined. What our quota is has not been determined. That is one of the things that have to be determined. One of the things that we naturally have to know about would be how we could meet our quota. If it is any ordinary quota, we have the means of meeting it. Then there is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I am not sure to what extent that is available to meet a situation like the present, where, for instance, we might want capital equipment. I would prefer, however, not to go into detail about these things, because they are under examination at the moment and the decision to join or not to join will be taken fairly soon.
Will loan facilities be granted by that International Bank?
The doubt in my mind is whether that was intended primarily for war reconstruction, reconstruction of places which had been affected directly by the war, such as the restoration of factories that were destroyed and things of that sort. At the moment, my information is that it could be used for capital development. For instance, if there was some machinery we wanted, say, for a power station, we might be able to resort to the International Bank. I do not want to commit ourselves to availing of these sources, but they are there and will, I think, be available in case they are needed. But nobody wants to borrow if he can get on without borrowing. If our resources will enable us to get on without it, it is natural that we should incline in that direction rather than in the other. The whole position will be examined from the point of view of our interests.
As I have already said, if persons repeat a falsehood three times they think that people will believe that it must necessarily be true. One of the suggestions I dealt with was that we had to be driven over to meet the British. We were prepared to meet the British at all times and there have been certain communications all the time. It is not only now that such questions as prices have been discussed. The point was that, as we were invited to deal with another matter, we felt that the matter had to be dealt with in a proper way. That might have been done without our going over, just as well as by our going over. I do not want to say that there was no advantage in our going over. I believe there was. I believe that there is always an advantage, when people have dealings with each other, in their meeting and knowing each other as far as possible. You lose nothing by it if you keep your head.
It has also been stated that we have changed our policy; that we have suddenly run away from that situation which Deputy Dillon is so fond of trying to picture us in. We have never been in the situation which Deputy Dillon tried to picture us as occupying. We have never said that we should not have an export market, if we could have it. What we have said is that it was of vital importance for the people of this country not to neglect the home market but to look after it in the first instance because it was a safe market.
Away back in the years 1929 to 1931, prices were tumbling down. You would imagine that it was only when Fianna Fáil got into office that agricultural prices tumbled. They were already steeply on the decline before we came into office. I remember that, between 1928 and 1931, our exports of butter declined from £4,000,000 to £2,000,000 in value. I forget whether the quantities were the same, but I think they were. A situation came about then when butter that was 176/- per cwt. in 1928 and 1929 tumbled down to about 67/-. In order to save the dairying industry we had to come to the rescue and give double what butter was fetching in a foreign market.
Who pushed the prices down?
We did not. They were tumbling down. Like the suggestion that we are responsible for the ills of the world, the Deputy would like the people to think that we were responsible for the agricultural slump that began in 1929 all over the world and caused prices to tumble down. I have given one example of that. Our export of butter which amounted to £4,000,000 in value came tumbling to half of that, and butter which was sold at 176/- tumbled down until it was only about 67/-. There was a world depression.
Created by whom?
By the conditions of the world. The fact was that you had production of primary agricultural products to such an extent that, compared with secondary production, these products were only able to command a very low price. We had to compete in a world market in Great Britain. It was in the world market that they tumbled down.
Was it not the money lords?
The Deputy likes to interrupt like that, and there is no common sense or logical reason behind what he is talking about. We asked the people of the country to realise that we were importing into this country goods which could be produced here and that it was a safer policy for the farmer to have a home market which could be protected and in which he could be given a reasonable price, while in the British market he had to compete against New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Holland and other countries. We stand by that policy to-day as firmly as ever we stood by it—that the home market for the Irish farmer is the first market. People think that all we do is to rear cattle and send them to Great Britain. I think about 36 per cent. of our fat cattle are used in this country. We have a home market for beef and for a number of other things. We are told that butter production has gone down, and that is true. What is not recognised is that our home consumption has gone up tremendously in all these things.
We have got to the stage at which we have got for the Irish farmer a home market and got it almost exclusively, so far as the products which he is able to produce are concerned, and in which he has also got reasonable prices. During the whole of the war period, if you look at the figures, you will find that the farmers' produce has gone up in value and that, as far as prices are concerned, he has got more compensation in fact than other sections of the community have got. The people who have suffered most during all this time are those who have fixed salaries or wages. They have got no compensation, and they have to pay dearly for everything. For instance, we will take one of the cases mentioned here recently. I wish we could deal with it, but we cannot because it is merely one of several types. Take the case of a person awarded a pension of say £50 20 or 30 years ago. With great care, he was able to live on that pound per week. Now it is worth only half what it was worth when it was first awarded to him, if it is worth that. I should like to help people who are in that situation because these are the people who are hit most but, if you attempt to deal with any one section, you will find that there are several other sections in a similar position who would demand equal treatment. There may be others who have an income of say £50 each out of shares. They have received no increase in their incomes. If you tried to deal with these cases, you would find that the bill that would be presented would be enormous and would be entirely beyond our resources.
Our policy, then, has not changed. It is the same policy all the time. First of all, so far as the farmers are concerned, give the farmer an opportunity to supply our home needs; give him that assured market and, over and above that, let us try to have as much exportable produce as possible in order that we may be able by our exports to buy the things we have to buy from outside and which we cannot produce ourselves.
May I call the attention of the Taoiseach to the fact that an arrangement was come to that this debate should conclude at 6 o'clock, and it is now past that hour?
Could we not allow the Taoiseach to conclude? I take it the Taoiseach is winding up. He has been called upon to conclude.
There is no question of concluding but a definite time was fixed at which we should take other business.
I think the Taoiseach should be allowed to continue.
The Taoiseach should be allowed to finish his statement.
The Chair is in the hands of the House.
Was any arrangement made by which the Taoiseach was to conclude?
There was an arrangement made by mutual agreement that this debate should end at 6 o'clock and that the Taoiseach would be called upon about 5.30.
The Taoiseach has been speaking since about five past five.
That does not matter.
This House was orderly until you came in with your blackguardly manners.
I hope the Deputy is not addressing that remark to the Chair.
It was addressed to me. Is it in order to make use of such an expression——
It is not in order.
Can you not get up and leave the place as quiet as it was before you came in?
I would ask you, Sir, to teach Deputy Norton manners. I am here by arrangement with the House, to take a certain measure at 6 o'clock. Deputy Norton apparently was not here when that arrangement was made.
That statement is not true.
I want to press the point of order——
You will have to be careful that the Chair is not insulted again.
The Minister is in possession.
I am not responsible for Deputy Norton's conduct but I am asking you to advert to the fact that he referred to my conduct in this House as blackguardly. I am suggesting to you, Sir, that that is not a Parliamentary expression and I am pressing you to ask the Deputy to withdraw it.
There was no debate in progress at the time and the Deputy used these words in the form of an aside. Of course, it is not a Parliamentary expression and I am sure Deputy Norton will withdraw the expression when that is pointed out to him.
In deference to the interests of decorum in the House I withdraw but I have my own views.
I understand that the Taoiseach wished to continue his remarks for another quarter of an hour. I have no objection to his doing so.
If the House is agreeable, the Taoiseach may continue.
I think the House has agreed.
I shall try to be brief. I was simply replying to the suggestion that there was a change of policy. I was simply reiterating what our policy was and asserting that there was no change in it. I believed 20, 25 or 30 years ago, that this was the best policy for the country. We have been working to get it into operation and I am more convinced than ever that it is a right and a safe policy for this country. I believe, furthermore, that the majority of the people are convinced of that. I was saying that the first point in it was to get the farmers assured of the home market to the utmost extent, and that over and above that we should try to get from our agricultural industry such a volume of exports—it must be surplus to our own needs naturally —to purchase for us the things we must necessarily get in and which we can only continue to purchase by exports of that sort. We have certain assets. Speaking of these assets, it was suggested by a Deputy in the debate— one of the usual suggestions that we hear on occasions of this kind—that there must be some secret agreement again. We heard a lot of talk of that kind when the ports were taken over. Whenever anything is done that seems to be reasonable and satisfactory, the suggestion is made that, of course, it can only have been done by some betrayal.
So far as our external assets are concerned, no question of a reduction of them has been discussed. These assets were created in the ordinary way of trade. They are not of the type of some other assets to which reference was made. These are ordinary assets and there has been no question of interfering with them. We have used them in excess of our current earnings in the last year, and if it is necessary that we should use them in the future, they can be so used. The only way in which they can be repatriated is in the form of goods and services which are rendered in exchange for these credits. There is no use in suggesting to the Irish people that there have been secret agreements made behind their backs. As I have said, it is suggested that when there is nothing in the visible line, then there must be something invisible that has been done wrong.
We were also told about the Spanish agreement, that here again we were guilty of another type of betrayal. We were told we signed an agreement and that then we set out to break it. This Government is not built like that. We made an agreement with Spain to make available certain seed potatoes up to a certain amount. That agreement is being fulfilled. They wanted a certain type, but over and above the type which the Spaniards wanted and for which they were prepared to give potash and other things in exchange, there were other varieties which would be taken by Britain if they were available, and the prices, in so far as they are available, are the prices indicated there. I do not want to say that I am satisfied with the prices, but if everybody who went with some commodity to sell could get the price he wanted, everything would be grand and sunny. As a rule there are two sides to these things. If you have something to sell, you will have to have some agreement as to what the other person is prepared to give in exchange.
Our policy with regard to agriculture, first of all, is to make the home market available, to produce at home, to a reasonable extent, the things that are required, and to have an export surplus. Then our policy is to give employment outside the agricultural industry, because that is essential if our people are to stay here. We must build up our industries. Our policy is to build up industries so as to give employment and produce for ourselves, again to a reasonable extent. In the matter of farming I do not expect that we are going to grow bananas, as was suggested by Deputy Dillon, or, as others suggested, that we are going to produce tea.
We can produce wheat and we can produce beet and, so far as fuel is concerned, we can produce turf. In the case of our industries we are anxious to build them up to supply us with other things and to give employment. If to-morrow the whole country were divided into 50-acre or 25-acre farms, and that was the smallest economic unit we could have, and if we had on each holding a family with five children, of necessity three would have to get off the land. There is no keeping them on the land, once they grow up and want to work for themselves. They have to get employment when they are off the land, and to meet that situation we are anxious to build up our industries.
There has been no change whatever in our policy. The conditions in which we are to-day are not the same as the conditions we had 15 or 20 years ago. Certain modifications would naturally take place with the changing conditions. To-morrow, if the scarcity period blows over, there will be slight modifications. It might, for instance, be better not to produce the full amount of wheat but to produce such a quantity as would enable us to get to the full amount if we wanted it. If we are to build up the pig industry, it is obvious that we will have to import foodstuffs such as maize. If we want the pig industry at its former level, we will have to import a large quantity of foodstuffs, unless we are to change our economy completely.
I am anxious about the position of the dairying industry—I say that quite frankly. As regards the dry cattle industry, the present position seems to be all right, but the dairying industry is one that has given me a considerable amount of anxiety. I know a little more about dairying than I do about other branches of agriculture. In that way I have a keen appreciation of the part it plays in the whole of our economy.
There is nothing abnormal in our making these arrangements with the British Government. They are temporary arrangements and, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce pointed out, the effort was to reach an understanding on the fundamentals of our situation. It is important for us to know what the British agricultural policy will be—very important. An understanding by each of the other's position is of tremendous importance. That does not mean that there is to be any subordination of our interests to theirs. It was a question of seeing to what extent, each nation pursuing a definite policy for the benefit of its own people, the two could be of mutual assistance.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.