The last speaker said, in his opening remarks, that he was rather amused at the diversity of views expressed on this motion. They were certainly rather interesting, and perhaps I may be permitted to make a comment or two on them. Senator Dillon said that he had a certain amount of experience of the dead meat business. He is one of the directors of the factory at Waterford, and said that he was an optimist in regard to the dead meat industry in Ireland. If that has been the Senator's experience with regard to the dead meat factory at Waterford, what I ask is the necessity for a subsidy. I cannot find any necessity for a subsidy in the case of an industry which, as the Senator has stated, has every likelihood of proving a great success. If the industry is to be a real success, the Senator said that we must insist on the production of first grade cattle here. Economically I think we have long since come to the conclusion that, in the cattle trade, nothing pays in this country except the production of first grade cattle. The thing to aim at is to produce more cattle and of higher quality than we have been producing. But, may I ask, what has the question of a subsidy to do with all that? I cannot see the relevancy of the matter at all.
Senator Kenny enunciated the proposition that it was most desirable that this country should be studded over with dead meat factories. I hold equally strong views with the Senator that it is desirable that the country should be studded over with dead meat factories, but I fail to see how the payment of a subsidy such as that suggested is going to hasten that end. The Senator said that the general council of county councils felt that where there was the germ of an industry in the country that that germ should be nursed and fertilised. He applied that observation to the cattle trade of the country. But surely there is no need to apply the term of a germ that needs to be nursed to the cattle trade of this country, which in reality is already fully grown and fully fledged, and is one of the oldest industries that we have in the country. On that line of argument this industry should not need any nursing. Senator Sir Walter Nugent said that the motion had been most carefully worded, that it merely called the attention of the Government to consider this question of granting a subsidy. I submit there is one thing in which this House is concerned, and that is in not asking the Government to waste its time considering a proposition which, in my opinion, is utterly illogical and, from the economic point of view, absolutely unsound. I do not think we should ask the Government to waste its time on an argument that I think is utterly illogical.
Senator Counihan stated that he wanted the question discussed on its merits, and on that was more or less supported by Senator Sir Walter Nugent. He said that some members of the House were opposed to tariffs and subsidies, while others who were more or less the producers of cattle were in favour of subsidies. As a producer of cattle myself, I may say that I am opposed to a cattle subsidy. I think that is a fair indication enough that many of us here are quite prepared to argue against what may seem to be our own interests and to discuss this question on its merits. We are anxious to come to a sound conclusion on the question. We are desirous of discussing it from the national and economic point of view. "Subsidy" in this country seems to be a blessed word. It seems to offer a panacea for all our ills. A subsidy seems to be required to enable us to get over all our difficulties. May I say to Senator Counihan, with great respect, that he seems to have fallen for that.
I admit, of course, that the cattle trade in this country has passed through a period of considerable depression. The natural reaction of that is to ask the Government to do something. That is the usual thing to do in this country. We either ask the Government to remove a difficulty which confronts us or we put forward some form of quid pro quo as against the factors making for that depression, and we ask for a subsidy. Senator Counihan suggests that the way to remove the difficulty is to grant a subsidy. He does not waste time in asking, though I think it would be just as pertinent, that the elements should be a bit kinder, that we should get some more showers so that the grass would grow on our barren pastures, or that steps be taken, with the present reasonably high prices for cattle, to have them kept at their present level. He would not be wasting time if he were to ask that steps should be taken by the Government to bring down the present absolutely prohibitive prices for feeding-stuffs to a reasonable level.
The Senator does not bother about these things. He takes the straight road and goes out boldly in asking the Government for a subsidy. That, of course, is a very simple solution. When we are considering the motion we have to ask ourselves where is all this going to lead to? There has been considerable thinking along economic lines in this country within the last few years. First of all, we had the school of thought that stood absolutely for the imposition of tariffs. Apparently that school has now cooled down in its ardour, and concurrently with that cooling down we have a new line of thought and another school of economics. Some of those who occupy places in the other House stand for a bounty on exports from this country. Senator Counihan belongs to that school. He asks for a subsidy in respect of cattle slaughtered for export from this country. That is reasonable enough, but there is just as much justice in the plea put forward for a subsidy for the producers of fat cattle slaughtered at a particular time of the year as there is justification for the poor farmer in Clare who produces store cattle getting a subsidy. Why should not the poor farmer in Clare get a subsidy for the cattle he produces as well as the man who fattens cattle for export at a certain period in the year? There is no more reason in the one demand than there is in the other. As a matter of fact, there would be more justification for giving it in the case of the Clare farmer. Senator Counihan does not bother about him so long as he can get the subsidy for producers during certain months of the year. In any case why, if there is to be a subsidy for farmers who produce fat cattle during a certain period of the year, should there not also be a subsidy as well for the exporters of fowl, eggs, butter, bacon, pork, etc.? Would it not be just as reasonable to have a subsidy for the exporters of these products as it would be for the owners of fat stock slaughtered for export?
If we accept this principle and vote for Senator Counihan's motion, and if it proceeds to ultimate success, no doubt the directors of Messrs. Guinness will be making a plea for a subsidy on their exports, and Guinness's shares will experience a sharp rise. We may expect a similar outcome in respect of Ford's of Cork, and I suppose Mr. Ford will allow himself to revisit the land of his birth when next he turns his face to the East? Where is this going to lead? Who is to pay the price? Where is the money to come from? The main taxpayers are the farmers, and if they are to pay a tax to subsidise themselves it means in plain economics that they are taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. Who is going to be the better in the long run? One thing that is likely to follow a subsidy is a rise in prices. At present we complain of the high cost of living. The price of products in this country is largely regulated by the price we secure for our exports across the water. Who is going to be in a better position if there is to be a premium on exports following on the lines set down by Senator Counihan? All the farmers will be producing stuff for export. They will be producing cattle for export and having them slaughtered in this country. What will the position be? The price in this country will be the price obtained across the water plus the subsidy. You are going to have a sudden upward curve, a sudden increase in the cost of living. Who is going to be the better, and where is the money to come from?
The Minister for Finance is still confronted with the difficulty of balancing his Budget. Certain economies in respect of expenditure have already been made, and certain other economies will and must be effected. Outside of that there remain two fields from which he can draw to pay that subsidy. One is by increased taxation and the other by borrowing. The House has to ask itself does it favour either step. I take it that it does not, and it has to be very careful before it admits any principle which necessitates such a step as that. A case might be made for what Senator Sir Walter Nugent asked for, and that is a consideration of the advisability of a subsidy in respect of any industry. If in the first place an industry were more or less experimental, and if we had to embark on some field of development we had not touched before, something like the Carlow beet factory, there might be some justification for what Senator Sir Walter Nugent suggests. Secondly, if an industry were, owing to very exceptional circumstances, passing through a period of very great depression, and would in all likelihood be lost to the nation, then you might consider the application of a subsidy. The third case is where an industry is weak and in its infantile stages and requiring a little nursing. Then there might be some case for the consideration of a subsidy. To none of these particulars does the motion conform. The cattle trade is an old industry. The question of feeding the stock better, of having more cattle and of a better quality, and putting them in the market in a better condition, has no relevance. Surely it does not pay farmers to buy stock at the dear time of the year and sell in the cheap time. Farmers should so arrange that they would be in a position to buy at the cheap time and sell when the prices are fairly high. The question of a subsidy does not help that.
My opinion in regard to the dead meat trade is that it should stand on its own legs. I remember in my young days listening to economic teachers who taught us that it was only owing to the force of certain external circumstances that this country was not studded with dead meat factories, and that if we were only allowed to develop our resources there would be several dead meat factories in every county. Now we find the people concerned with the dead meat trade asking for a subsidy. It used also be pointed out to us that if we had dead meat factories we would have the country studded with subsidiary factories manufacturing all these articles to which Senator Kenny referred. The deduction from Senator Counihan's remarks is that the teaching of those economists in those days was fallacious, and there is not in the dead meat trade everything that these people said was in it. In regard to live stock, there are two courses open to us to take. One is to export our stuff alive to other countries and sell it to the best advantage. The other is to slaughter live stock in this country and export the carcases. If one is not economic we ought to try the other, but we should be very careful before we embark on the application of a subsidy or we will not know where we will end. Senator Counihan makes a point of the fact that cattle must be of the best quality and produce 56 per cent. of their live weight. If we are to pursue that line there will have to be inspectors in every factory. The cattle will have to be weighed alive and the dead carcases will then have to be weighed.