During the recent election, one of the most notable statements made repeatedly by Fianna Fáil spokesmen was that they had a plan to beat the crisis. This was repeated from many platforms in many parts of the country. The electorate were led to believe that if Fianna Fáil were returned, some proposals would be introduced which would not only solve the crisis but lead to an expansion in trade and employment.
Since this Government was elected, many speeches have been made by Ministers referring to the need for greater production. The need for greater production has been emphasised on numerous occasions by different Governments, but the present Government appear to labour under the illusion that, provided they talk sufficiently often about the need for increased production, that, in itself, will act as a solution to the problem and will act as a sufficient incentive. We have to recognise that talk is no substitute for an incentive or for a policy that will produce results.
It has become fashionable to speak in disparaging terms to the effect that agricultural production has not increased sufficiently. In fact, some people go so far as to say that any increase that has occurred has been negligible and that the position is static. It is well for a moment to reflect on what has been accomplished. It is no harm to examine briefly the position as it existed in 1948 and the expansion in agricultural production that has taken place since.
In 1948, prior to the introduction of the land reclamation scheme, prior to the negotiation of the trade agreement with Britain in that year, the position in this country was that the total value of agricultural exports amounted to about £23,000,000 and that in that year, and for some years previously, butter was rationed. Deputies will remember that at one period in that year and in the previous year the ration was as low as two ounces per head per week. The total income derived from our agricultural surplus amounted to £23,000,000. Since then, a very dramatic change has taken place. The numbers of live stock at that time were the lowest since statistics were first recorded. As a result of measures taken by the Government of that time, the calf mortality rate has been reduced considerably from an average annual death rate of 80,000 to something over 10,000. That substantial improvement was effected by better veterinary services and better application of modern veterinary science to diseases affecting young calves such as fluke, white scour, and so on. The results of that improvement were to make available for export a substantial average annual increase in the number of calves reared and brought to maturity.
It does not require much examination to see what an improvement that has made. The export figures for last year—which were not quite as high as those for the previous year—and particularly the trade figures for the first three months of this year indicate that the policy that was put into operation achieved considerable success. Not alone did we have the largest exportable surplus of cattle probably in our history but, in addition, we had a record production of milk and butter. When we talk of increased production and increased efficiency remember that there is no advantage in producing something which we cannot sell. After we supply the home market, the only place where we can sell our exportable surplus is abroad, wherever we can get a market for it.
During the course of this debate, I listened to Deputies on the Government Benches claim that what they have done in the alteration of the levies in respect of motor cars, and so forth, will provide increased employment. No one disputes that it may give some improvement to the motor assembly trade but does any Deputy opposite believe that we in this country can provide a permanent exportable surplus of motor cars? We are selling secondhand cars to limited markets and maybe occasionally new ones but, by and large, it is obvious that we cannot develop a permanent trade that will prove of any serious value to the community in the export of cars.
What is the effect of this Budget on one exportable commodity which we have? The abolition of the butter subsidy must have serious repercussions on the dairying industry. We now have an exportable surplus of butter. We have the largest output of milk since statistics were first compiled. In recent years we have been eating more butter than ever before but, after we supply the home demand, we have to sell our surplus some place and, unless we can export it, the inevitable result of the proposals in the Budget will mean that farmers will go into some other line of production.
Similarly, this year, we have more than enough wheat from home sources. I do not think the most ardent advocate of the "grow more wheat" policy would expect us in present world conditions to sell wheat abroad. The Minister for Finance said that not alone have we a carry over from last year's production into this cereal year but that if we did not sell what he described as the "bad" wheat for animal feeding stuffs we would have a carry over into the next cereal year not alone from this year but from the 1956 harvest. That position has been reached at a time when the United States has a two-year surplus supply of wheat. There is also a large surplus in Canada.
It is obvious that we cannot sell abroad any surplus supplies of wheat which we may have. We are left, therefore, in the main with live stock and live-stock products. The figures of trade returns published recently indicate that for the last three quarters of last year and for the first quarter of this year we were exporting increased numbers of cattle. Probably the most significant feature of last year's return was that our shipments to countries other than Britain and the Six Counties rose substantially. They rose from a value of £5.5 million in 1955 to £11.2 million in 1956, primarily due to increased shipments of cattle to France, The Netherlands, Germany, and other continental countries. The numbers of cattle shipped to countries other than Britain or the Six Counties increased from 8,710 head in 1951 to 68,196 head in 1956—and that compares with average annual shipments of 21,900 head in the five years 1951 to 1955. These figures are on page 12 of the Trade Statistics for the year ended December, 1956. That shows what was accomplished not alone in the expansion in the numbers of live stock available for export but in the successful negotiation of trade agreements with those continental countries. Last year, for the first time, we secured a substantial foothold in the continental market.
It is not sufficient for Ministers to lecture the farmers about increased production without indicating where the commodities which the farmers will produce can or are likely to be sold. One of the permanent features of economics is that, once a policy is put in motion, it takes some time to change it or that if a set of circumstances develops and it is in the wrong direction it may take time to arrest it. The policy of the inter-Party Government substantially increased agricultural production. It may be—and we freely acknowledge it—that it is not sufficient but there is not the slightest use in this country's producing a surplus of a commodity if, after providing for the home market, we cannot export the surplus.
This Budget places an increasing burden on the farming community as well as on urban dwellers. If we are to sell butter, milk or milk products profitably abroad, we must facilitate the farmers to produce at the lowest possible cost. The imposts on petrol and diesel oil must affect in so far as they affect the cost of transport and the cost of distribution—which is an element in the cost of production—the cost and the price at which the farmer will be enabled to sell his commodities.
It is quite obvious from recent trade figures and from the quantity of butter and milk and wheat produced that, unless we can walk these commodities off the land in the form of live stock, we shall not be able to sell abroad at a profit, and in so far as this Budget will increase the cost of production of these commodities, it will affect the cost at which the farmer will be enabled to sell these products at a profit. The result of the measures that were taken, the achievements of the policy that was put into operation, have been quite considerable. In 1947, the net output of agriculture was £99.3 million; in 1955 it had increased to £111.8 million. I have listened here to Ministers decrying the fact that we had not increased production to a greater extent, that we had not expanded output from the land. Comparing the position as it was prior to the introduction of the land reclamation scheme, prior to the negotiation of a number of trade agreements, and in particular the agreement of 1948, that was the position. We had butter rationed; we had a heavy death rate in the number of calves each year. An equivalent number of calves has since been made available for export. We had a position in which, with the exception of live stock, we had no exportable surplus of any commodity.
Since the initiation of the land reclamation scheme, we have succeeded, not alone in expanding substantially our exports of cattle, but we have been able to secure for the first time since before the war an exportable surplus of butter. I do not know what effect the decision to abolish the butter subsidy will have on butter production. It is certain it will have a dramatic effect on the work of the Milk Costings Commission. It is obvious, and I believe an understatement to say, that not alone is there no hope of any increase in the price of milk paid by the creameries, but the difficulty will be to keep the price at the existing level. That is a very different situation from the picture painted by Deputies opposite when they pressed the previous Government to furnish the Report of the Milk Costings Commission. I do not think anybody would hazard a guess at the value of the report at the present time. The abolition of the butter subsidy must have a serious effect on the possibility of exporting either milk or milk products at a profit.
