Vol. 14 No. 7
The House will now proceed to consider the following motion which appears on the Order Paper in the name of Senator MacEllin:
That in the opinion of the Seanad the importation of bacon is unnecessary and is injurious to pig production, and that such importation should be gradually reduced and ultimately stopped by a tariff beginning at 20/- per cwt., and increasing to a prohibitive import duty.
In view of the small attendance of members, I do not know that we should proceed with this motion to-day.
We are all here.
For the reason I have stated, I do not think that the motion would get the discussion that such an important matter is entitled to.
It may get a dismissal.
If you remember, Senator, the motion was put on today's Order Paper to facilitate you.
I quite understand that, but I understood then that there would be a full assembly of members for the discussion of the motion. At the moment I think we have less than one-fourth of the members present. In view of that, I do not think the motion would get the discussion that such an important matter is entitled to. Even though there may be urgency as regards dealing with the matter, I think, in view of the fact that three-fourths of the members of the House are not sufficiently mindful of their business to be here to discuss this motion, that it would not be right to go on with it.
There is not such a small House. There is a reasonable attendance, neighbouring on about thirty.
It is the frivolity of the business that made members absent themselves.
I think before entering into any further discussion on the matter we had better wait until we see whether the Senator intends to move his motion or not.
I would like to have the opinion of the House on the matter.
Do you desire, Senator, to get the permission of the House to withdraw the motion?
Is it necessary that I should withdraw it? Could I not leave it over until the next meeting? I would feel inclined to withdraw it as a protest against those members who ought to be here and are not here. As a protest against the frivolous way— Senator Gogarty used that word—that some members seem to treat matters in this House, I would feel inclined to withdraw the motion and bring it up for discussion on the next day.
The Senator has been ignored by members on his own benches more than by members in other parts of the House.
It is not my desire to have this discussed as a political matter at all.
Quite so, but the Minister for Agriculture is here at, I am sure, much inconvenience to himself, to speak on the motion. Do you desire, Senator, to withdraw the motion?
As a protest against the small attendance, I will withdraw it until the next meeting of the House.
I think it would be very discourteous to the Minister for Agriculture, who has come here to speak on the motion, to have it withdrawn now just because there is not a crowded attendance.
Of course, you are aware, Senator, that the motion can only be postponed by the permission of the House. Is it the desire of the House that the motion should be proceeded with?
I will accept the decision of the House.
I do not think the motion ought to be adjourned at this stage merely as a protest. We are now on the eve of Christmas week, and it is well known that it is extremely difficult for a number of Senators to be here at 11.30 in the morning. There may be a considerably larger attendance of members within the next half-hour, judging by our previous experience. Two days' notice of the motion has been given. Simply as a matter of convenience, I would not be opposed to the postponing of the motion, but I would certainly oppose the suggestion to postpone it as a protest.
I think the motion should be gone on with and have it disposed of.
Is it the desire of the House to go on with the motion?
Agreed.
I move the motion. There are two aspects from which this motion might be considered and debated. One is from the point of view of political economy, and the other as to how it affects the farmer or the producer. It is from the latter point of view I would rather discuss the motion, as I do not pretend to know anything about political economy. There are three distinct parts in my motion; first, that the importation of bacon is unnecessary; second, that it is injurious to pig production, and, thirdly, there is the tariff proposal. My reason for saying that the importation of bacon is unnecessary is that it might be said we are the producers of the finest bacon in the world, so that there is no need to have such heavy importation of bacon. Further, with the prices that prevail at present the importation is not only unnecessary but a hardship on the class of people who are the greatest consumers of foreign bacon. The reason I say it is a hardship is that not alone are the retail prices that prevail to-day for foreign bacon on a level with the prices for Irish bacon, but actually American bacon, that is, even the lower grade American bacon, is a halfpenny or a penny per pound dearer, and sometimes more, than Irish bacon. Because of the peculiar taste acquired for foreign bacon people have to buy it even though they have to pay more for it than for home bacon. That is the actual fact as to the way it is working out at present from my own knowledge.
Another reason why I believe the importation of American bacon should be stopped is that I believe it is injurious to the health of the people. When I say that I might be a bit out of bounds, but I am going on what I have been told about it. I suppose the West of Ireland is most affected by this question of foreign bacon. I have the highest medical authority for stating that a disease, ulcerated stomach, at present prevalent in the West of Ireland, is directly due to a great extent to the consumption of American bacon. I give that statement for what it is worth. I also believe that the importation of foreign bacon is injurious to pig production,
The heavy importation of bacon has undoubtedly created instability in the Irish pig trade, and the reason I say that is that the relationship between the price of the bonhams and the price of the heavy pigs is altogether out of proportion. The highest priced pigs to-day would be those of about 1 cwt. or 1½ cwts. I hold it is harder to produce with profit a pig of 1 cwt. or 1½ cwts. than it would be to produce a pig of a heavier weight, because animals of 1 cwt. or 1½ cwts. are growing animals, and for that reason it is far harder to put on the condition required for the trade than it would be in the case of pigs from 16 to 20 stone weight. Where people have to go into the market to buy bonhams at the prices ruling the position is more difficult. The price of bonhams for a long time past has been about £2 a bonham. Taking the price paid for the bonham and the price paid for a pig of 1 cwt. or 1½ cwts., it is impossible to show a profit.
The point I want to get at is that if foreign bacon were not imported, the class of pig required to meet the trade would be the 16 to 20 stone pig. That pig would undoubtedly increase in price and the difference ruling between the price of light-weight and the price of heavy-weight pigs would be more in proportion. There would then be a greater inducement for the feeder to feed animals to 18 or 20 stone, because there would be more profit when the pig is more advanced. It is easier for a feeder to put on condition on the older animal. At the present time the price of the 16 to 20 stone pig is most unprofitable. That is the reason why a lot of people who did feed pigs in times gone by do not now feed them. They reared pigs when the industry was more stabilised and they went out of feeding because they could not afford to pay the price now obtaining for bonhams. If you buy an eight weeks' old bonham at the present time in the West of Ireland the average price would be about £2. If a trader buys a bonham at £2 he has to feed the animal until it is at least four months old. At the November fair in Claremorris I saw a pig weighing 18 stone sold for less than £5; that was the ruling price that day. If a pig weighing 18 stone is sold for less than £5 and the bonham originally cost £2, where is the profit? That is the reason why a good many people who would be feeding pigs to-day have given up doing so.
If the price of the heavy-weight pigs were stabilised the people might again take up pig feeding. We have not a greater production of pigs because of the discrepancy in the price of bonhams and the price of heavyweights. I do not claim to have any technical knowledge as regards the requirements of bacon curers, but I am given to understand that our heavy-weight pigs could be utilised by bacon curers to replace the American product now being imported. The result would be that the price would go up, and that would help to even out the relationship between the heavy-weight pig and the bonham. In that respect the importation of bacon, is, in my opinion, injurious to pig production.
There is another aspect somewhat injurious to pig production. I refer now to the customers who purchase our bacon. Our exports of bacon to the English market are confined to a certain class of customer. Irish bacon on the English market is the highest grade bacon, and it is sold at the highest price, although it is subject to the dictates of another country in the matter of price. The fact remains, however, that Irish bacon has a certain select trade in England. It is purchased by the wealthy people in England, and consequently there is a very limited trade. Because of the limited trade there is a saturation point. Irish bacon, having a great name, can be purchased only by the wealthy classes in England. It may be the result of our system of curing, but certainly the curers in Ireland go in for one particular quality of bacon, and that suits the special trade there is for it in England. The bacon curers get a profit, and they are satisfied; they are perfectly content to continue with that trade. But it affects us as producers. It brings us back to the point that there is a ridiculously high price for the bonham compared with the price paid for the heavy animal. That is because the only animal bought by the Irish curers at present is the light-weight pig. The light-weight pig is suited for the class of trade the bacon curers have in England. It is for the reason that we are only producing for the high class trade in England that this reacts injuriously on pig production in this country.
There is another aspect of this question that affects us in the West of Ireland and from the producers' point of view. I have not at my disposal the figures on this question and, consequently, it is a very complicated job from my point of view. As the position stands, we find that the number of bonhams brought from the South of Ireland to the West of Ireland for sale to the pig feeders would be about 30 per cent., or perhaps more, of the bonhams sold in the local market. I think that would be the position in Connaught—that we get over 30 per cent. of our bonhams from the South of Ireland. Why is that so? I contend that it is not in the interests of the people of the West of Ireland that this state of things should prevail. I would like to see the farmers in the West producing at least enough bonhams to supply the feeders in the West of Ireland. I believe that we have the best feeders in the West of Ireland.
In my view, the reason for what I have just stated is that the majority of the farmers in the West of Ireland are men with small valuations. This matter of keeping sows is one that presents some difficulty to these farmers. Most of them cannot afford to take any risk, and there are risks and difficulties in keeping sows at present. These difficulties are too great for these farmers considering the struggle they have to make in order to make ends meet. Very often it is found in practice that it is almost impossible for a pig breeder to get his sows in young. There are various reasons for that. If a farmer cannot keep a sow in young, he suffers a very great loss. In practice he cannot afford to take the chance. Having worked out the matter for years he has satisfied himself that because of these difficulties he cannot continue to take the chance in this matter. The difficulty is that invariably the sows will not go to service, for what reason I do not know. I have got an explanation of it from people who profess to be experts in this business. They say that sows very often come into service but the farmer does not realise it. It may be that the sows are not fed or kept in the proper condition. The sow after the original litter is not kept in proper condition. I was a victim myself of the difficulties of keeping sows in young.
Very large numbers of sows in the West of Ireland do not come round for service or, having got service, do not prove in young. I believe that a very good reason for that is the absence of a station of some sort where a sow could be kept for a week, or as long as is necessary, and allowed to run with the boar. This could be done at a reasonable price to the pig breeder. If that were done I believe that sows that otherwise do not come round for service would do so while running with the male animal. That is one way to meet the difficulty. We have no such station in Mayo. There are two of them in Galway. I do not know to what extent the Galway farmers have made use of those stations at Athenry and Mountbellew. At all events, I believe that is one great reason why small farmers are not keeping sows to the extent that they should.
Of course there is always the tendency, when prices are worth while, for people to keep breeding sows. When the price of bacon goes up, opportunists jump in and keep sows and produce bonhams. This always happens when prices go abnormally high and when some money is made out of it. But the very moment that prices drop again they get out of pigs. I know that is a fact. That does not apply to the ordinary farmer; he does not jump in and out because of the rise and fall in prices.
The Seanad may take it that the principal reason why people in the West of Ireland do not keep sows is because of the difficulties and the risks I have mentioned. There is another class in the West of Ireland who do not keep pigs for this reason and for another reason as well. That is because they have to pay hard cash to the extent of £8 or £10 in order to purchase a sow. To a small farmer that is a very big sum of money. Then there is the added risk that after having paid the £8 or £10 there may be no production from the animal. I believe that if there were some system of premiums for sows such as applies in the case of boars it would be the greatest possible inducement to men with small valuations to go in for breeding sows. If some such system were available to the small farmers— giving them sows at such a price as they can afford—I believe it would be a great inducement to right the discrepancy that exists between the number of bonhams required and the number produced in the West of Ireland. As a result the pig feeders of the West of Ireland would not have to look to the South of Ireland for their supply of bonhams for feeding purposes.
Farmers with small valuations cannot take the risk of breeding sows. If there was a direct inducement and encouragement to them they would undoubtedly right the shortage that there is at present of bonhams for feeding purposes. That is another reason why there is not a greater production of pigs. I believe they would be inclined to produce more pigs if foreign bacon was kept out and there was a better price and more demand for our pigs.
As to that part of my motion that proposes that the tariff should begin at 20s., increasing to a prohibitive import duty, my reason for putting it in that way is that undoubtedly there would be an increase in the price of the home bacon if the importation of foreign bacon was prohibited straight away. But I do say that a tariff of 20s. per cwt. on American bacon would not increase the price of that bacon here, and I will tell you why. In England, at present, because of the enormous supplies of Danish bacon put on the market, prices are ruled by the price of Danish bacon. In my opinion, it is not the price of Danish bacon which rules here—it may to a certain extent —but that of Irish bacon. Because of that fact the price of American bacon at present goes up and down with the price of Irish bacon—it follows it directly and consistently. For that reason, I say that a tariff even of 20s. per cwt. would not raise the price of foreign bacon here. Those who supply us with American bacon sell it at the best price they can get. They know the trade is here for them because of the taste that has been cultivated for American bacon amongst the people. They have developed that taste and they know they have the trade, and while the bacon is allowed to come in here they know they can get their price for it, within reason. Therefore, I believe they would reduce the price of American bacon on the Irish market by the 20s. per cwt.
How did this American bacon get such a grip on our people? At one time, that peculiar class of American bacon which most affects us in the West of Ireland was sold there at 2d. per pound. I have not got the figure for Irish bacon at that time, but I know that there was not a big difference between the price at that time and at the present time. If American bacon were sold to-day at 2d. per pound as against the present price of Irish bacon, I would be very slow to put down a motion of this kind because of the difference between them. The fact remains that it was the ridiculously low price for American bacon which prevailed in those years that brought our people to eat that bacon and to develop a taste for it. As the taste for it developed, the price gradually rose, with the result that at the present time those who supply American bacon can quote any price for it they think fit, consistent with the price of Irish bacon. That is the reason I say that Irish bacon is the dominating factor in fixing the price of American bacon. The people having developed a taste for American bacon to the extent that they cannot do without it, actually in the West at present they are paying 1d. per pound retail more for American than for Irish bacon. While the American bacon is on the market, the people will not do without it. Is it not a hardship on these people because they have developed a taste for this bacon that we should leave it on the market and allow them to pay more for it? I say it is, and that is the reason I have brought this motion forward.
I have not tried to argue this matter from the point of view of political economy, but from what I have seen in practice of the way it affects the people. I believe that it is no advantage even to the poor people to have this commodity on the market. It may be said that American bacon goes further with a poor family than Irish bacon. I grant that it might, but what is the reason for that? Poor people in the West buy it, in the first place, in order, as they say, to dress the cabbage, and it goes further, simply because it is not as palatable as Irish bacon, and they will not eat so much of it, and for no other reason. I have put all the cards on the table in reference to this matter. I have some figures here bearing on my argument, but there is hardly any necessity to quote them as the ordinary farmer does not know much about figures, and probably the less he knows about them the better.
I am satisfied, at all events at the present time, that it is a hardship in the part of the country I come from, and that it is injurious to pig production because of the reasons I have stated. I do say that if the importation of this foreign bacon was stopped it would be a greater encouragement to people to go in for more pig breeding by stabilising the price between the bonham and the eighteen stone pig, and would be a very great encouragement to people who do not produce pigs, that is to say people in the towns who have offal will be more inclined to buy bonhams. All these are factors that will undoubtedly lead to increased production in pigs.
Then there is the advantage that the two millions of money, which is now going in the purchase of foreign bacon, is bound to produce at home. The home producer is bound to get a good deal of it. It will be divided in some way between the producer, the bacon curer, and the factory worker, but the fact remains that undoubtedly the two millions will do good at home. At the present time none of the people at home are getting any of it; it is going into the foreigners' pockets. I do not think there is anything further I need say on the matter. I have approached it, as I said in the beginning, not from the political economy point of view, but from the point of view of the farmer and breeder of pigs and the community as a whole.
I desire to second this motion. I confess I do not know much about the subject at all and would like to hear the views of Senators who are well up in this business. I understand that the Irish pig market has gone to the mischief altogether, and that there is danger of the pig rearing industry disappearing. At present round Dublin, as I understand, there is no great danger of a shortage if this tariff motion is carried, because on Thursday last there were from 600 to 800 pigs returned from the market in Dublin. That shows, whatever the explanation be, that there is no great danger of a shortage in Dublin.
There is one matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the public. The great objection to foreign bacon, I understand, is that it is not at all wholesome, certainly not all of it. It would be much safer for our people not to consume it and to pay even more for home produced bacon than to get the foreign stuff cheap. It would be dear at any price. I believe there is a system by which foreign bacon when it comes into our ports is disinfected and cleaned by hosing it with some boracic solution. The bacon is cleaned and appears quite different to what it was originally when covered with green mould which almost looks like verdigris. Of course, it could not be verdigris, as the substance is not metal, but it is green mould. The bacon is then quite clean. These are the sort of things that are served up to our people, and I understand from those who know that an expert could hardly tell the difference. I am told this bacon is sold in tremendous quantities all over the country. As one man put it to me, Moore Street is reeking with it literally and figuratively. That is rather a dangerous state of affairs, and I wonder something is not done to prevent it.
We hear a lot of talk of being overloaded with inspectors. Surely we ought to have an inspector to see after this state of affairs. There are, I understand, Government inspectors whose business it is not to object to rotten food but to see whether it is taxable or not. A medical man is the man that should be on the spot. I would like the Minister to tell us what exactly is the procedure in these cases, whether a medical inspector is supposed to go down and examine this imported bacon or whether it is inspected by an official whose business it is to report to a medical inspector. We should not consume foreign bacon but should insist rather on getting our own home bacon.
There is only one real argument against this tariff and that is that it might lead to an increase in price. Senator MacEllin has dealt effectively with that point. I understand that the difference in the price between home bacon and this foreign stuff is about 20s. per cwt., but the consumer does not get the advantage, and there is only a very small difference in the retail price. The profit is divided between the big wholesaler, the retailer and a whole lot of middlemen. The consumer will not be affected at all, apparently, by fixing the Irish price as the standard price. The Irish price is the ruling standard price in this country, as Senator MacEllin already explained. As I said at the beginning, I know relatively nothing about the subject, and I would be very much more interested to hear farmers and breeders talking about it.
I move as an amendment to the motion of Senator MacEllin:—
To delete all, after the word "Seanad" in line 1, and to substitute therefor the words "the question of the imposition of a tariff on imported bacon is one which should be considered and reported upon by the Tariff Commission on the application of persons substantially representative of the bacon industry."
Perhaps I should not say very much about this amendment, because I suggest, with great respect, that both Senator MacEllin and Senator Robinson have conceded the point which I wish to effect in my amendment. Senator Robinson prefaced his remarks by stating that he did not know much about this subject. He said that twice. Senator MacEllin, in his remarks, also said that he was looking for information on this subject.
Not at all.
The reports will bear me out in that respect. Senator MacEllin said that he was looking for information on the subject, and if they are both looking for information, and if both think that further information on the subject should be secured, there is one way of getting it. I submit, with the greatest possible respect, that, like myself, both of them are groping for information on this subject; there is a tremendous lot on which the three of us are ignorant. I say that as much with reference to myself as to any of the previous speakers.
That is a petty point.
The other points will not be so petty. A body has been set up in this country called the Tariff Commission. Its specific purpose is to ascertain facts relative to any application which is submitted to it. Its job is not to impose a tariff or to remit a tariff. Its job is to ascertain the facts in relation to any application made. Its recommendations are of a subsidiary importance—subsidiary entirely to the collection of facts and to submitting them in the form of a report or otherwise. The evidence which goes before that Tariff Commission is available in the Oireachtas Library. That evidence is secured on oath.
All the facts are inquired into by such means as the Tariff Commission can devise, and I submit, in connection with this motion, that there is a vital principle at stake, that vital principle being: Is this House, having been a party to the setting up of a Tariff Commission whose specific function is to inquire into the matters submitted in the application—is this House going to pass a motion giving as its opinion that a tariff should be imposed on imported bacon without attempting to ascertain the facts? I submit, with great respect, that there is a vital principle at stake and that if the Seanad or the Dáil is inclined to disregard that principle, there is only one logical course open, and that is to scrap the Tariff Commission. The question of the personnel of the Tariff Commission does not arise at present. The other principle does arise—if the Seanad is to pass a resolution giving as its opinion that a tariff should be imposed on bacon, without attempting to ascertain the facts, it seems equally logical that the Seanad should pass a resolution giving as its opinion that a tariff should be imposed on imported oats or imported barley without attempting to ascertain the facts. I submit that the logical and reasonable thing to do is to submit this matter to the Tariff Commission and when the Tariff Commission have ascertained and correlated the facts, and when the matter comes before this House, that will be the time for this House to express an opinion.
Senator MacEllin and I do differ fundamentally in our opinions on this matter. Senator MacEllin said that low grade American bacon was selling at a halfpenny or a penny per pound more than Irish bacon, and he deduces from that that it is a hardship to allow the people here to purchase American bacon. Is it a hardship? The poorer people in the West of Ireland have two bacons from which to choose. They can only purchase if they have the money. One is Irish bacon and the other is American bacon. Is it a hardship to allow those who have the money to select the bacon they like the best and for which they are prepared to pay? Of course it is not. There is no reason in any such assertion as that. You are putting a hardship on these people if you eliminate one bacon and leave them only one which they can purchase.
Senator MacEllin said that American bacon was injurious to the health of the people. I have heard very little on that subject. I submit that some proof should be submitted in that connection, and I submit that the real injury to the health of the people is due to the fact that the poor people who buy American bacon have not sufficient money to buy more of it. That is the real injury. The Senator's third point was that the absence of a tariff was tending to create instability in the bacon trade. The fact is that there is greater stability in the bacon trade here at present than there has been for many years. There is greater stability in the bacon trade here than there is in the bacon trade in England. We are not subject to the same fluctuations in price. If the normal conditions are at present making for stability in the bacon industry, it is quite right that we should allow those normal conditions to continue. The Senator suggested that we should replace American bacon by Irish bacon. His contention is that we should put a tariff of 20/- per cwt. on American bacon. He says that if that is done we shall not have to import American bacon and, at the same time, he says that if you put on this 20/- tariff, or import duty, the American bacon exporters will so adjust their prices that the bacon will still come in. I suggest that there is something like inconsistency there. That is a point upon which we can afford to differ. Even if we were to replace the foreign bacon coming into this country to the value of 1¾ millions, is there not a great possibility that we would lessen our exports to the extent of a big proportion of the 1¾ millions and that the bacon we are putting on foreign markets would be placed on our Irish market?
There is only one way to get the Irish farmer to increase production, and that is by offering him, and securing for him, a better price. It is admitted by those favouring the tariff that a tariff will not increase prices to the consumers, who in this case happen to be the poorer people. If the tariff does not increase the price to the consumer, there will be no resultant advantage to the producer. Surely, we know the producer, who is the farmer in this case, well enough to realise that unless we are able to add some little incentive in the way of price-addition he is not going to produce more. That is a simple, logical proposition, which does not admit of any argument to the contrary.
Senator MacEllin said that in England there is only a market for the light-weight pig. That is not altogether correct. There is in England about the finest market in the world for the heavy-weight pig. There is such a market in Birmingham and in Northern England. The strange thing is that when we talk about a market at home and about catering for our own people, we forget that we are producing, unfortunately perhaps, a considerable amount of heavy-weight bacon, and that the price ranging for that bacon in this country is more than we can secure when we place it on the market abroad. To argue for the elimination of foreign bacon, and to say that by putting on a tariff the price is not going to go up, is not logical.
Senator MacEllin also mentioned that the farmers in the west did not supply their own bonhams. He submitted that in support of his contention for a tariff. One of the main reasons that the farmers are not producing their own bonhams in the west, is the risk involved. Accordingly, they bring bonhams from the South of Ireland, which they rear up and fatten. The risks are the same. There are no greater risks in breeding bonhams in the west than in the south. Surely, it is not an economic proposition for farmers in the West of Ireland to buy bonhams from farmers in the south, who have to incur the same risk, and bear the cost of carriage to the west. That is not an economic proposition. Instead of putting forward that as an argument for the imposition of a tariff, I think it would be more logical if someone would teach the farmers in the West of Ireland that it is a sounder economic proposition to rear their own bonhams and to incur equal risks with the farmers in the South of Ireland than to buy bonhams in the south and pay freight charges to the west. Senator McEllin said that even a tariff or import duty of 20s. per cwt. would not prohibit the importation of American bacon, as the Americans would so adjust their prices, keeping their eye on this market, that they would still continue to export bacon to Ireland. The fact is, that the imports of American bacon are falling away. There is not as much American bacon being consumed in this country as there was, and there is a lot more Irish bacon, particularly of the heavy type, consumed here than there ever was. There is concentration in order to secure the Irish market for Irish bacon.
As a matter of fact, there is only one big firm in Ireland exporting in any great quantity to England and that firm recently opened a depot in Dublin for smoking and distributing their bacon. Then there are indications that there is much bigger concentration on the home market now than there ever was before, and the facts and figures prove that American bacon is coming in in less quantities than ever before. So far as the home market is concerned, it is righting itself. How long it will take to right itself is more than I can say.
Senator Robinson stated, in regard to the type of bacon that is coming to this country, that it was covered with green mould and that the medical authorities or somebody should take an interest in it. Perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or whoever is in charge of the Obnoxious Weeds Act, might give some attention to that matter. If there is green mould on the imported bacon, it may require attention. Perhaps somebody other than the medical authorities would intervene. The medical authorities are responsible for public health, and they have not intervened. There has been very little complaint by anybody that imported foreign bacon has injured the health of the people. Until some proof is forthcoming in that respect I do not think that that contention should continue to be made.
My endeavour has been to prove that there are matters of vital importance to this industry on which the two Senators who spoke and myself differ fundamentally. Even with the limited knowledge that I possess, I venture to differ with them. I submit, in support of my contention, that an attempt should be made to ascertain the facts, and that the Tariff Commission, specifically set up for that purpose, is the body to do so.
There are some other data which might be relevant to the issue and which I might submit as well. The fact of the matter is that the English market, which we practically controlled in pre-war days, is being lost by us and lost steadily. We are being pushed out of it by one competitor. That is the Dane. In the English market we have various competitors, but principally the Dane. We also have the Latvian, the Hollander and the Swede. Further down the list, we have the United States and Russia. The bacon imports into England from these countries are more or less normal and regular. But the import of pigs in bacon into England from Denmark is steadily increasing. The pig population in Denmark is steadily increasing, and our pig population is diminishing. In Denmark, in July last, the pig population was 4,936,000. In July, 1929, the pig population of Denmark was only 3,616,000. In practically one year the Danes have increased their pig population by roughly 35 per cent. The killings in Denmark were regarded as wonderful by the pig-producing populations of the world when they numbered 50,000 per week. Four or five months ago the pig killings in Denmark were about 100,000 a week, and more recently they reached the amazing total of 129,000 per week. The Danes accordingly control the market. Because they control the market, they are responsible, in a sense, for the regulation of prices. They absolutely control prices. They are producing the right pig — a cross between the Danish and the Landrace pig. They are putting on the market a rather lean pig, with long sides, tapering from the end, with light shoulders and heavy, plump lines and ham. They have gone in for that type of pig by crossing the native pig with the Landrace pig, and they are holding the market and pushing us out. Why do the Danes do that? They are taking advantage of the reduced prices of feeding stuffs to increase the number of their pigs. They have had the ability and foresight to come right in, take advantage of the drop in prices, seize the market and practically control it. They are controlling it, and eliminating us to a great degree.
What is our position? I have shown the way the Danes have increased the number of their pigs and the number of their killings. President Cosgrave, when making his statement on the economic position of this country, drew attention to the fact that there are 241,000 head of pigs less in the country now than there were in 1923. Our pig killings for the twelve months ended 30th September last were 680,000, as compared with 845,000 for the previous year. The year before the number was 828,000. There has been a considerable decrease in the number of killings. The actual killings were, roughly, 13,300 per week, as compared with the Danish figure of 130,000. We do not count for very much in that market—England—and it is the best market for bacon in the world. There is only one other importing country in Europe at present, and that is Belgium. Our exports are falling away. They are falling away, to a great degree, because there is not sufficient concentration on the part of our farmers on the production of the right type of pig. I agree with Senator MacEllin that we are producing much of the best bacon in the world, but we are not producing enough. It is frightfully hard to get our farmers away from the production of the short, stumpy, thick pig. That pig is not so much in demand by the people in England, though there is a market in the north of England for the heavy-weight pig. In regard to heavy pigs, and the closing of that market to ourselves, there is a higher price obtainable here for them than there is in England—even in the north of England. We are getting more of the home market and we are concentrating more on that market. There is less American meat coming into this country. In arguing against what Senator MacEllin said about the Americans adjusting their prices, I would remind him that there is another market than this country for the Americans, and that the Americans are not going to sell at a price which is uneconomic to them. The world is big. Why should they reduce their prices, which might be below the cost of production, to get over any tariff which we may impose? The imports of American meat to Europe from January 1 to October 25th, 1930, amounted to 105,000,000 lbs. of ham, 84,000,000 lbs. of bacon, and 549,000,000 lbs. of lard. Half of that is imported by Continental countries, and the greater portion of the other half was imported by England. It is not to be assumed, accordingly, that if the American has this market he is going to adjust his prices so as to bring them to the cost of production line, or below the cost of production line, to get over any tariff wall we may construct. That line of argument cannot be substantiated, and the contention should not be made. There are a number of matters in connection with the imposition of a tariff, or with an expression of opinion by the House that a tariff should be imposed, on which we should press for an answer. I take it that amongst the purposes of the Tariff Commission is the ascertainment of the probable effect of the granting of an application, in whole or in part, on other industries of the country.
We have not examined that. Very few of us have any definite information as to what effect the imposition of such a tariff should have. We have very little information, and, as well, we have very little means of ascertaining the efficiency, the relative importance, and the extent of the industry in respect to which this particular tariff has relation. It is the specific job of the Tariff Commission to endeavour to ascertain these things. They should be given an opportunity to ascertain the facts, examine witnesses, make investigations, inspect all relevant documents, visit factories, and adopt such methods as they may think fit. Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word on the general question of tariffs. If the Seanad is going to express an opinion that a tariff should be imposed on bacon, immediately the question will arise: why not impose tariffs wholesale and be done with the whole thing? After all, you must have some regard for the farmer's point of view, and I submit that the farmer has, in my humble opinion, been led astray in this respect. It has been suggested to him that if tariffs are put on certain commodities he will reap a great reward. If advantage is going to be taken of that by tariff reformers, who will press for the application of tariffs generally in respect of industrial commodities in this country, the farmer is going to lose, and the imposition of a tariff will do more harm to him and the agricultural labourer than to any other members of the community.
The farmer, in standing behind any movement which asks for tariffs in respect of certain commodities out of which he gets no real advantage, is, if he allows himself to be led astray like that, standing against his own best interests. Personally, if I could see anything to be gained by the imposition of a tariff, it might be if I could assure myself, or be assured, that a tariff on bacon would mean an increase in the pig population of this country. If it is admitted, however, by the spokesmen for a tariff that the price which the farmer will receive for his produce is not going to go up, it must be admitted that the farmer will not produce many more pigs. Prices have fallen for one reason, not because the farmers are not producing good pigs—some of them produce the best pigs in the world. Prices have dropped because of over-production and on account of the immense production on the part of the Danes. To counted at the same time, in the face of these facts, that while the price of bacon would not go up, even if a tariff were imposed, the pig population would be increased, is rather illogical and not borne out by facts.
There is greater probability, if prices remain as they are and if we get control of the home market, that the export of pigs will be considerably reduced, and that the five and a half million pounds which come to us in respect of exports will be reduced by one million or one and three-quarter million, which represents the amount imported into this country. Senator MacEllin says that if we sell one and three-quarter millions' worth of bacon to ourselves the money will remain at home. That is quite true, but if we sell one and three-quarter millions' worth at home and one and three-quarter millions' worth less to some other country to which we usually sell pigs, how would we be any better off? That is a matter to which the Tariff Commission might address itself, and on which, I submit, the Seanad is not able to give a considered opinion. Personally, I am not able to give a considered opinion, and I submit that the matter should be referred to the Tariff Commission. I stated already that the home market was a good deal steadier than the market abroad. I might argue further and say that we should concentrate on increasing the pig population and on producing a better type of pig to meet the demand for higher-priced bacon in England.
The Department is engaged on that work. There is no reason why we should not endeavour to meet modern requirements in respect of bacon. Years ago the teaching was to concentrate on producing a stout, hardy pig, to keep it indoor practically all the time, to fatten it, and to try to get it on the market at five and a-half or six months old. The modern idea now is, I think to rear the bonhams, let them run around until four months old, and then proceed to fatten them. You then get a lean side and a good, stout, plump loin. We are all learning, and we should apply the results of our investigations in this respect and try to produce the right type of bacon. We should compete with the Danes in England, not slink away from that market by getting into our own fortress and trying to hold it, while we allow the foreign market to go to anyone who cares to come along. My whole object is to emphasise the fact that this problem bristles with difficulties, and that there is a tremendous lot which we all have to learn. Even amongst those of us who are engaged in farming there is a difference of opinion, and, if we differ on matters such as these, I submit that members of this House, who are probably less informed even than I, should be put in possession of more information on the matter before expressing any opinion as to whether a tariff on bacon should be imposed. For that reason I submit that this matter might justly and rightly be submitted to the Tariff Commission for investigation in order to get them to report upon it.
I desire to second the amendment. I think that the House would stultify itself if it accepted this motion which has been proposed by a Senator who admits that he is imperfectly informed on the subject, and which has been seconded by a Senator who says he knows nothing about it. The Tariff Commission was set up for this purpose. There are two ways of approaching the matter. One is by adopting the attitude of Senator MacEllin, who thinks that this matter is so simple that all you have to do is to secure the home market and keep the money here. The other attitude is that adopted by people who recognise the intricacies, the complications of the trade, and the consequent repercussions once you begin to tamper with such a delicate piece of mechanism. The easiest course is the simplest one; it is the one that should be adopted by people of intelligence, and that is to leave the whole thing alone and allow it adjust itself.
Apart from the information we have received to-day in regard to the subject we are discussing, I think there is a general feeling that something should be done to check the importation of bacon, particularly the importation of bacon which is smoked, dried and sold as Irish bacon. I do not, however, think it is reasonable to ask us to vote on this question by means of a simple resolution. I think we should have more information than that contained in the speeches we heard to-day, or in the terms of the resolution. The only way in which we can get a report on which to base our final vote, if we are to vote in this matter, is through the Tariff Commission. We may not like the Tariff Commission, or the report which would come from that Commission after they had considered the matter, but at all events it would provide us with a basis of thought. I would be prepared to vote for the amendment were it not for the final sentence in it, which states that it should be considered and reported on by the Tariff Commission on the application of persons substantially representative of the bacon industry. Very many of those substantially represented in the bacon industry are the very people who are importing foreign bacon, smoking it, drying it and selling it as Irish bacon. There is no doubt that a lot of that is going on at present, and I do not think it should be left to these people to ask for a tariff. If Senator O'Hanlon would withdraw that portion of the amendment he would get entire unanimity. The present Tariff Commission can consider the question of a tariff without an application, but the previous Tariff Commission had to have an application. If the Senator does not withdraw that portion of the amendment I shall be unable to vote either for the resolution or the amendment.
I only wish to intervene in the debate in so far as the statement made by Senator MacEllin is concerned, that American bacon is injurious to health. I can quite see that that statement could do a great deal of harm amongst the poorer classes if it were believed. It is quite untrue. There is no reason to think that American bacon differs from Irish bacon, as it is cured with salt. Some years ago it may have been cured with a certain amount of boracic acid, but that practice has been altogether stopped. There is no such thing now as curing American or Irish bacon with boracic acid. It is quite true that some years ago not only American bacon but bacon coming from the Continent was cured with boracic acid. The same applied, to a certain extent, to Irish bacon, but that has been altogether stopped. American bacon is now cured in the same way as Irish bacon.
I should like to deal first of all with the remarks of Senator Bigger. Irish bacon is cured under the inspection of the veterinary inspectors of the Department, and, as far as Irish bacon is concerned, we have a guarantee that inspection takes place when the animals are being killed. I might remark that a pig suffering from tuberculosis might perhaps only be affected in the head, and that the remainder of the body might be cured and exported to this country. It might happen that while the meat was apparently not affected, there still might be germs of the disease which would be injurious to human beings. Inspection at the port is not sufficient to guarantee that the animal is free from the disease. The motion put forward by Senator MacEllin aims at the provision of a home market of £2,000,000 for the farmers of this country, and with that object I am entirely in sympathy. As Senator O'Hanlon stated, there is a difference of opinion amongst farmers of this country on the question of tariffs, but I suggest that there should be very little difference in dealing with this question and the butter question, which has already been disposed of. The same argument used by Senator O'Hanlon against the imposition of a tariff on bacon might be used as regards a tariff on butter.
I am glad that a tariff has been imposed on imported butter. I only regret that it was not imposed a few months earlier, before the farmers had finished selling all their butter. They would not then have been obliged to sell their butter in the month of October at 95/- per cwt. However, it gratulate the Minister on abandoning his free trade principles in this matter. I hope he will go further and do for bacon what he has done for butter. The Tariff Commission can come along afterwards and have their inquiry. If it is then found that the imposition of a tariff on bacon has been injurious to the country, let them recommend that it be taken off.
I have not any statistics or figures, and I accept the figures given by Senator O'Hanlon showing that the pig population of this country is decreasing. I submit that by passing this motion we will give a great incentive to the farmers of the country to increase the pig population, when they know that the Government will see that the market will be protected and that they have a market at home for their products. I suggest that this matter could be dealt with by the Tariff Commission now under the new Bill. The Government could refer the matter to them.
The new Bill is not law at the moment.
I know it is not, but I assume it will be soon. The Seanad has passed it, and I dare say it will be law in a short time. As regards the use of the products of the country by the people of the country, I am of opinion that wherever we can produce or grow anything here, preference should be given to it, and that as far as possible this country should be self-supporting.
Irrespective of price?
Irrespective of price. In other countries, in order to help agriculture, they have imposed tariffs and restrictions of various kinds. In Sweden, in order to help agriculture in that country, the Prime Minister, Leader Ekman, has suggested the idea of compelling Swedish millers to use a stated proportion, probably 50 per cent., of Swedish grain in all flour milled by them and prohibiting the importation of foreign-milled flour. The motion of Senator MacEllin, if adopted, will be an indication that the Government are inclined to help farmers over their present extraordinary difficulties. I shall conclude by quoting an extract from the Pastoral of the Bishop of Kildare, who, I believe, is not a politician, in regard to how we ought to act in getting over the great crisis which we have in this country at present. It states:
If people utilised the food that is grown, and the clothes that are manufactured in their own country, there would be less room for pessimism. Providence has given a special type of fertility to the soil of every country, and it is reasonable to suppose that what the soil of a country produces is suited to the needs of its inhabitants. If this truth were realised and acted upon, there would be little evidence of depression. The present day tendency is to ignore the products of our own country, and to look to another land to supply our needs. Such a practice is contrary to self-interest as well as to patriotism, and will eventually lead to national disaster. What sympathy can there be for a nation that plans its own destruction? People are convinced, or should be, that the home-grown product can serve their purpose as well as the foreign article, and yet they ignore their own, which has been grown by native labour, in favour of an article no more suitable, which has been grown on foreign soil and by foreign labour. The inevitable result will follow: land will go out of tillage, unemployment will increase, the emigrant ship will be filled, and in due time people will talk of the Irish nation that was. There is no use in overlooking the consequences of cause and effect. If people want to prevent the effect they must remove the cause. The people have the remedy in their own hands, and if they wish to use it no one can prevent them. Furnish your table and your farmyard with the products of your own country; never touch the foreign article when its place can be supplied by the native one.
That expresses my opinion on this motion much better than I could do myself.
Senator Linehan drew an analogy between the type of prohibition or tariff recently imposed upon butter and the proposal to put a tariff on bacon. I do not know that it has been argued—at least it has not been shown—that the proposal of Senator MacEllin regarding a tariff on bacon would have the effect that he seeks. There can be no question that, if the action of the Government regarding butter were effective, it would prevent a catastrophic fall in the price of that portion of the Irish-made butter stored in this country. We have not yet had it proved to us, or even argued seriously, that the effect of a twenty shilling tariff on bacon would raise the pig population or the price of pigs to the Irish farmer. It seems to me that until that is proved the case for this tariff has not been made.
A contribution towards the answer was provided by Senator O'Hanlon when he drew attention to the fact that the present tendency amongst curers is to transfer their trade from the English to the Irish market. He said that amongst the Irish bacon-curers and hitherto shippers there was a tendency to concentrate upon the home market, and that only one curing firm is exporting Irish-cured to any great extent at the present time. The effect of the proposal of Senator MacEllin, therefore, would be to assist the present tendency, not to add to the number of pigs that are being cured in this country, but to change the destination of those pigs and bacon.
That is the conclusion that one must draw from the facts submitted by Senator O'Hanlon. It would be necessary for Senator MacEllin and his colleagues to give some reason for believing that the Irish curers would be prepared to pay a higher price to farmers for pigs with the object of inducing a much larger supply of pigs for curing. That has not been done. I think, in the absence of any other means than a tariff, that the change would simply be to transfer the present pig population to the home trade instead of to the export trade, and that sometimes, one would conclude, is the desire of those who rely upon tariffs alone—to make a change, to transfer the destination of the bacon from Britain to Ireland, but until there is an addition to the number of pigs cured in this country, then there is no benefit, I think, coming to the Irish farmers. I can see the force of the argument that if the bacon-curers could be fully supplied with pigs they could, and should, be able to afford to give a higher price to the farmer; that if the present export trade in pigs was maintained, and the new home market fully provided, the curers would be in the position, by the fact of reduced overhead charges, to pay a higher price to the farmer for his bacon. That is an argument undoubtedly in favour of Senator MacEllin's motion; but if the tendency that Senator O'Hanlon indicated, a tendency which I have had confirmed in another direction, is to be continued, it does not mean that there is going to be an increase in the supply of pigs for the curers.
I agree with Senator Mrs. Wyse-Power that the last words in the amendment should be deleted, because there is no assurance that the Tariff Commission is going to get applications for a tariff. Therefore, there is no assurance that there will be an inquiry, although I think there ought to be. The Minister for Agriculture has indicated that he is going to be very slow to submit inquiries to the Tariff Commission. He might not in any case submit this question to inquiry, but I think there is a good case for inquiry into the pig and bacon-curing industry. I am not quite sure that the Tariff Commission is the right body to do that. I am inclined to think that there is a certain limitation in their terms of reference as to the effect of tariffs, and that something more is required than an inquiry of that kind. But it is the best machine that we have at the moment, and therefore I am distinctly in favour of the amendment, provided that the last few words in it are deleted in the hope that the Minister would submit a case for inquiry to the Tariff Commission into the bacon-curing industry.
There are some really disquieting facts to be deduced regarding this question. Senator O'Hanlon quite appropriately quoted some figures regarding the Danish trade. I want to supplement them. That trade has been steadily increasing year by year. I have the relative figures from 1888 as between Denmark and the Free State. The pig population of Denmark in 1888 was 771,000, and in the Free State 1,111,000. With variations of perhaps 100,000, 150,000, or 200,000, the Free State population of pigs has remained fairly constant. This year's return gives the figure of 1,052,000. There has been a fairly constant pig population in this country in all those years from 1888. In 1900 the Department of Agriculture was set up, and, without very much difference, it has followed the policy which is the present policy of the Minister for Agriculture. Whatever may have been the effect upon the finances of the farmers feeding pigs, the position is that the pig population is to-day much as it was in 1900, when the Department was set up, and twelve years previous to that, in 1888, whereas the Danish position, as Senator O'Hanlon has pointed out, reflects a steady increase year by year. In 1888 the pig population in Denmark was 771,000, while in 1930 it is 4,900,000. That inevitably means, considering that the great proportion of the Danish-cured is sent to England, and that the larger proportion of the Irish-cured is also sent to England, that there is the tendency the Senator indicated of a change-over and a supplanting of the Irish trade in England by the Danish. In view of that, one has to have some regard to what is the future of the Irish pig-breeding, feeding, and curing industry. There is undoubtedly room for inquiry.
It is perhaps within the memory of many Senators that there was an inquiry in to the shortage of the supply of pigs in this country in 1915, and a good deal of valuable information was supplied. I think the evidence was very largely affected by the war conditions that were then beginning to show themselves, and while that evidence was of very great value, and would be of value to-day, a new inquiry is required. I hope the Minister will favourably consider either a reference to the Tariff Commission of this question, or the setting up of a special expert body to conduct a further and perhaps even wider inquiry than the Tariff Commission would be able to do. There is a concentration on tariffs and prohibition by some of our friends as the only method whereby changes can be made, which is, I think, unfortunate. I believe that in very many cases the tariff method is perhaps the easiest to apply, and perhaps the most effective method in regard to many industries for immediate results, and it is doing a real disservice to the general principles of the encouragement of home industries by always using the thought - saving and action - saving method of the tariff. A tariff is not the only method, and in many cases it is not the best method, and in any case a tariff ought to be preceded by or accompanied by other methods, particularly the method of better and higher organisation.
I would like to see the problem of the pig-raising and curing industry in this country approached from the point of view of better organisation in such a way that the curers, whether private or co-operative, would be in fact the agents of the farmer raisers of pigs rather than the alternative method which seems to prevail at present, that the farmer raiser of pigs is looked upon as the supplier of raw material to the curer as the main feature of the industry. I think, to use a word which has become so common, "rationalisation" might well apply to the bacon-curing industry, and that there should be a re-organisation with a view to supplying the actual needs of these people with all the bacon required for maintaining and developing the export market. You often hear of the high price Irish bacon commands in the English market, and so much above Danish, which is next on the list, but I am not able to satisfy myself what proportion of the Irish export is able to maintain that high price in the English market.
Ten per cent.
Senator Wilson says it is only 10 per cent. of the Irish export that is able to maintain that relatively high price in the English market compared with the Danish competitors. What is the relative position of the other 90 per cent. in the English market to the Danish price?
It is about the same price as the Danish.
So that we have the position that it is only 10 per cent. of the Irish bacon going to the English market that is able to maintain that high price. Why is there only that 10 per cent.? One hears frequently that the curers are unable to obtain from the farmers the supply of pigs they require, and that they are prepared to pay at the prices prevailing, or higher prices, if they could get a supply from the farmers of that particular class of pig which sells at top price in the English market. The information I have is that the bacon-curer makes no difference as regards the first, second, and third-class pigs. An inquiry should be made to know why that is so, while there is a single price for the various qualities of Irish bacon in the market. There is no inducement to the feeders to turn out the particular type of pig required by the Western farmers, who at present are favouring American bacon, and which is selling even at a higher price than Irish bacon, according to Senator MacEllin. Is there not the possibility that Irish bacon-curers, or some particular selected curing establishment, would concentrate on supplying that particular class of bacon and satisfying the demand there is now for bacon of the American quality?
There is a possibility, in view of the comparatively small number of curing establishments in the country, if industry was organised thoroughly, with the clear intention in the minds of those controlling the industry, of selecting certain curing establishments to supply the particular type of bacon required in a particular market.
One knows that the northern counties adjacent to the border do provide a pig of a different type to that supplied in the southern counties. I do not know why there could not be something in the nature of concentration on one particular type of pig for one particular type of market, and another type of pig for another type of market. If there were less laissez faire and better organisation I think we could look to the future for greater prosperity in the bacon industry and great increase in the pig population, and consequently a great improvement in the position of the farmer, particularly the small farmer who is a breeder of pigs. I, therefore, think there is need for very much more knowledge to be made public than we have at present. The Minister has a great deal of information at his disposal. I am sure every Senator has a copy of a valuable booklet issued some time ago by the Imperial Economic Committee which gives valuable information and throws some light on the position of the Irish export trade as compared with the Danish export trade in the British market. The information available seems to point to the necessity for a very thorough inquiry and a considerable change in the method, and, perhaps, I might say, the purpose of the present pig breeding industry. One reads in some of the evidence adduced by the 1915 Committee that the prices in the Irish markets are practically ruled by one firm of curers, which is not an Irish firm alone and which has an establishment in Denmark, and I think, in Holland, and has factories in other parts of Europe supplying the English market. It is that firm, whose prices are determined by the London market, which determines all the curers' prices in this country. All these things will have to be inquired into by the Commission which is referred to in the amendment. Senator MacEllin has dealt with the technicalities of the breeder and the feeder, but he has not given very much argument in favour of the motion and the implications of what we are asked to assume from the motion, that a 20s. tariff at present, and a later prohibition would have the effect that he seeks to achieve. That is the fault, I think, of the case that he has made, and until that fault is remedied it would be unwise for the House to agree with the motion. I, therefore, will support the amendment, but I would ask the mover if he would delete his last few words so as to suggest to the Minister that this question should be submitted by him to the Tariff Commission, to see whether any responsible or substantially representative persons engaged in the industry will make the application or not.
This subject of tariffs has been always a very important question, in my opinion, with regard to our country and our country's prospects. The suggestion from Senator MacEllin with regard to putting on a tariff of 20/- per cwt. on bacon is only one of the items in connection with tariffs of which I have always been in favour. Personally, without introducing anything that might be looked upon as contentious, I may say I have always been in favour of the taxation of manufactured articles coming into this country. That includes bacon, as well as any other article which we can manufacture in our own country. From the farmer's point of view he is concerned with the bacon industry. There is, I think, a very strong feeling now all over the world in favour of tariffs. It is especially so with regard to England. The people of the mighty Empire on which the sun never sets have changed their minds considerably. I venture to prophesy that in about five years you will see tariffs adopted by the Government in England.
I am entirely in favour of a lot of the statements made with regard to increasing the number of pigs and helping the country by having more production. The class of animals that are dealt with in the amendment is a class that appeals to the small farmers throughout the country. The small farmers are a more numerous and perhaps more deserving class than the large farmers. Consequently I intend to vote in favour of Senator MacEllin's proposal and against the amendment proposed by Senator O'Hanlon. When the Tariff Commission is sitting there will be more light thrown on the subject than if it were allowed to pass now merely as an expression of opinion from the Seanad. With regard to the remarks about Denmark's great success and the increase in pigs there, I am of opinion that the reason for that is that during the last fifty or sixty years Denmark was not disturbed by the political troubles that we had here. We had the Land League and other movements that prevented people applying their minds to industry. We never heard of any such upheavals in Denmark. They concentrated on sending into England the most necessary articles. We had, first of all, to contend with the importation of cattle from America and Canada. I happened to see the first consignment landing in Birkenhead. Their shapes and sizes were unpopular. They have sent over agents since to find out the most popular class of animal required in England, and they have concentrated in producing these. The Government are supplying agents to attend the markets.
I would like to see all foreign meat marked with the brand of the country of origin, so as to avoid the possibility of any fraud taking place, such as doctoring it and selling it as Irish bacon. It should be so marked or branded that no mistake could occur. The first American bacon that came here was so cheap that it was more or less unpopular; now it is made on a lighter scale, and it is much more popular. The very low prices that prevailed when American bacon first came into Ireland have changed. I remember hearing two of our farmers' wives discussing the matter. One of them said that the bacon was so dear that it was cheaper to buy meat. In their opinion bacon was bacon and beef was meat. On account of the price it has become more popular. One of the reasons why cold water was thrown on the suggestion of tariffs was that it would raise the cost of the poor man's dinner. I do not believe that the cost of living would be so much increased. I believe that the people would have money to buy articles, and that that would be much more sensible than to be unemployed. It would also give some chance of improved conditions here.
I believe that in England it has now become a recognised principle that a tax will be put on all imported manufactured articles. At one time we had to put up with every law passed by England in the interests of free trade. We, being an agricultural country, could not afford to stand in the same line at all. We had to suffer in silence to suit the policy of our predominant partner, but there is a big change since then, and the countries which were customers of England are now producers, and consequently we are up against a different situation altogether. To come back to the motion, I am entirely in favour of putting a tax on bacon coming into the country as a manufactured article. I think we can get all we want from our own industry.
I feel that Senators must have learned from the discussion that this is a question that demands inquiry. Personally, it is immaterial to me how that inquiry will be constituted. I think that the case that has been made both for the amendment and the original motion is such that the Seanad should unanimously decide that this matter should be referred to some body for inquiry. It has been suggested in the amendment that it should be referred to the Tariff Commission. I do not want to entertain the House with my views on the Tariff Commission. I think the snag in the amendment is contained in the last two lines which have been referred to by Senator Mrs. Wyse Power. If those two lines were deleted I would be in favour of referring the question to the Tariff Commission rather than that the matter should drop entirely. I would join with Senator Johnson in asking the proposer of the amendment to delete the last two lines: "On the application of persons substantially representative of the bacon industry." If it were worded in this way: "On the application of a substantial number of persons associated with the bacon or pig producing industry," it might meet with approval. I think the grievance is, as Senator Mrs. Wyse Power has pointed out, that American bacon is coming in and probably bacon from other foreign countries and is being sold as Irish bacon. That matter in itself should satisfy the House of the necessity for an inquiry.
It seems to me that both the motion and the amendment aim at the one thing. They arise apparently out of a threatened danger to a native industry. The danger apparently comes from the importation of foreign bacon and that gives rise to a fear that the bacon-curing and pig raising industry which has always been a very big one here will eventually be killed through this foreign importation. From what I can hear it is a real danger and it requires to be looked into at least. I would be more inclined to support the amendment than the motion if the words at the end were deleted.
I do not know enough about the industry to commit myself definitely to a tariff of any description. I think a tariff, though I am a protectionist, requires examination. We would want to know exactly what it would mean and whether it would be a real protection, and not, as happens in some cases, merely a revenue tax. If Senator O'Hanlon would agree to delete the words suggested I would join with Senator Mrs. Power in asking Senator MacEllin to withdraw his motion in favour of the amendment. I think an agreed expression of opinion from the House would have a very big effect on the Tariff Commission, particularly in getting them to do their business a bit quickly, because, from the criticisms I hear of the Tariff Commission, the trouble appears to be that they are too slow and they only wake up to do a thing when it is too late to save an industry. An unanimous expression of opinion from this House to the Tariff Commission, I think, would be effective in at least hurrying up their deliberations.
I should like to answer from practical experience the question asked by Senator Johnson as to whether or not buyers pay more for small weight pigs than for any other class. From practical experience I can say that a suitable pig for the merchants makes from 10/- to 15/- a cwt. more than an unsuitable pig, and the difference between the price of bacon and pork is as high as £2 per cwt.
Within a class?
Within a class up to £1 per cwt. If Senator Johnson will look up the report of the Dublin market yesterday he will see that that statement is correct. It took a long time for the Department's inspectors to convince the farmers that it would be more economic to sell pigs at a lighter weight than at a heavy weight. In nine years out of ten it is better to sell them at the weight the merchants require them at. In regard to tariffs I would say that the Government should be very careful in putting them on and that this House should be careful in recommending them.
In my opinion, the reason for the present great slump is because the ordinary course of supply and demand does not operate. Wheat for the last eight or nine years has been controlled by pools and the ordinary course of supply and demand did not operate. If you allow our trade to go on as it is I think it will work out very much better in the end. I have no objection to the question of a tariff being submitted to the Tariff Commission. I think the amendment by Senator O'Hanlon is a good one and, consequently, I will vote for it.
I have practically nothing to add to what Senator O'Hanlon has stated. The Senator put the whole case just as I would like to put it. This seems to me to be rather an historic occasion, because we have apparently now reached the point where Fianna Fáil has definitely turned over a new leaf and has decided that, after all, a tariff is not a simple remedy which can be imposed without examination. Rather has Fianna Fáil, it would seem, decided that a tariff could not be imposed without previous examination.
We did not make any such suggestion.
As I have said, this would seem to be an historic occasion. I take it from what one Fianna Fáil Senator has stated——
If the Minister is saying anything about me, I would like to make it clear that I am a protectionist, but I was not prepared to commit myself to the definite figure of 20s. per cwt. I would not know enough about this question to realise whether that was a fair figure. I am in favour of tariffs. I know how tariffs operate. Do not take me as being different from Fianna Fáil as a Party.
I do not think I misinterpreted Senator Mrs. Clarke. She has stated just what I said myself. I am a protectionist also in the sense that a tariff on oatmeal was quite sound; so both the Senator and myself are protectionists. The difference between us is this: that a certain Party considered a tariff should be imposed without examination by any Tariff Commission. We think that that should not be so. Now we come to this tariff.
We have not said that tariffs should be imposed without examination.
After a debate lasting two hours, and after certain Senators who know something about the subject have made speeches and showed that there are certain difficulties, Senator MacEllin leaves the motion and his own Party deserts it, and they suggest that this tariff should be examined by the Tariff Commission. That is rather historic, and we have, at least, common policy on one thing.
On a point of personal explanation, the Minister refers to some sort of a Commission. I definitely stated that I was not in love with the Tariff Commission, but that I preferred leaving the question to that Commission rather than that the House should divide upon a question which is of such great importance to the country.
The difference does not amount to twopence. The Senator has mentioned that the matter, in his opinion, might be examined by a Commission. All Parties in the Seanad agree that it would be a mistake to impose a tariff without previous examination by a Commission. That is a great advance, and I was waiting for that for a long time.
We will make the Minister a present of it.
No other attitude is possible. The attitude that tariffs should be imposed indiscriminately without any examination by some sort of an independent and semi-judicial body was indefensible. It is a good thing that at this hour of the day the only Party that adopted that attitude has changed its mind. That Party makes a public admission to the effect that it is necessary, if tariffs are to be properly imposed, that they should be examined by the Tariff Commission. Senator Mrs. Clarke says she is a protectionist, but she would like to know what would be the effect of the tariff. That is exactly the position we are all in. We also would like to know what would be the proper tariff, whether it should be 5 per cent., 10 per cent., or 15 per cent. We also would like to know what is to be the effect of the tariff or whether there should be any tariff imposed at all. If Senator Mrs. Clarke thinks over the matter a little further she will advance another step and will come to the conclusion that she would like to be satisfied whether any tariff should be imposed at all.
On this question of a tariff on bacon I would like to draw attention to one point. There is agreement on one point and certain people tried to hide the fact that they are in agreement upon this point. There is general agreement between all parties, political and otherwise, on the question that a tariff on American bacon will not increase the price of Irish bacon or the price of Irish pigs. There is practically general agreement upon that. That was admitted by all Parties in the Dáil. It was admitted in public by the leader of the Opposition that a tariff on American bacon will not increase the price of Irish bacon. Of course, a moment's examination will show that. Senator O'Hanlon said quite rightly that the tendency amongst curers was to absorb more of the Irish market. That is so. But what is the Irish market worth in American bacon? Our total imports come to 1¾ millions. The percentage of first-class bacon would be worth a quarter of a million. Other imported bacon would not be more than one and a half millions. Even with the whole of that, we will still have on this year's figures an export surplus of over £4,000,000.
How does it arise that the Danes will not eat American bacon? Why does not the Minister make an order to the same effect here?
That is merely begging the question.
I think the Senator's interruption is not relevant to this matter.
Let the Irish farmer do what he likes.
Quite so.
Do you not eat American bacon?
No.
Then the Senator is not addicted to American bacon. I understand it is a vice and that homes will have to be set up in this country for people addicted to American bacon.
The Minister regulated everything—agriculture, bacon, beef. Why does he not now issue a decree that the people will not be permitted to eat American bacon? Why does he not do it when he is doing almost everything else? Every day in the week we have licences for this, that, and the other.
The Senator must not interrupt.
The whole question is: is it good business?
It is.
That has to be decided. It is practically admitted by everybody that a tariff will not increase the price of Irish bacon or of Irish pigs. Will it be good business? The Senator is a farmer and he knows exactly what it means. He knows what prices mean and from his point of view there are no great advantages unless the price is increased. He knows also that unless the price is increased nobody will want to keep more pigs. I do not know any farmer who feeds a pig because his neighbour will eat it; I never met such a farmer. The argument would appear to be that if the pig is eaten at home people will eat more pigs. What is really the question for the Tariff Commission? I am sorry Senator Mrs. Clarke is gone, now that I come to that point. The question is: is it worth while to increase the price of the imported bacon? That is all that is to be put up to the Tariff Commission.
Senator Johnson pointed out that there are other methods of tackling this problem, that it is a big problem, and that it has a great many phases. There is a lot that might be done to rationalise the industry, but it would seem to me that by common consent the only question for the Tariff Commission is, is it worth while to increase the price of imported bacon or, if imported bacon be increased in price, will it be good business? It is admitted, ex hypothesi, that the price of Irish bacon and Irish pigs will not be increased. The important question is, will there be any great national advantage gained by increasing the price of imported bacon?
I do not want to go into the merits of the case. As Senator O'Hanlon pointed out, this is a matter for examination by a commission. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power raised the point first that she would agree to the amendment if the words: "On the application of persons substantially representative of the bacon industry" were omitted. I think this is essentially a tariff that should be put up to the Commission by somebody representative of the industry. I think so for this reason—it can hardly be said that this is so unimportant that there is no body of opinion in the country taking sufficient interest in it to put it up before the Tariff Commission. That is really what the suggestion made by Senator Mrs. Wyse Power amounts to—that the matter is so unimportant that no body of opinion in the country is sufficiently interested in it. Personally, I do not regard it of very great importance myself. But I do not believe that the matter is so unimportant that there is no organised body in the country prepared to put it before the Tariff Commission.
Why not your Department?
I agree with Senator Mrs. Power that there are a number of people representative of the bacon industry in the country who are also interested in the import trade; but on the other hand there is a very large number of people representative of the industry in the country who are not interested in the import trade in bacon. There are farmers and people in the export trade, and there are very large numbers of other people interested who are not concerned in the import trade. It is open to any one of them or to any two or more of them to put up a case for an import on bacon. Why has not that been done? I would put this point of view to the Seanad as to whether the Government or the industry itself should put up this application to the Tariff Commission. The point of view is that you always get a better inquiry if the industry itself puts up the application. Supposing the export curers of bacon put up the application you have the position that they have commercial information that I could not get. They might profess to give that information to me, but I could never get it. These exporters are in touch with the market and with the people in England in a way that I could never be. They understand the reactions of every tax and every change that is made in the trade in a way that I never could. They are in a position to get details, and they can concentrate all the information in the matter in making their case in a way that the Department of Agriculture could not possibly manage to get this information. If the people who are representative of the industry are not going to put it up then some body like the Department of Agriculture have to make a case. We are not able to make a case. We could not. The Department of Agriculture does not know the trade as well as the bacon curers. This can be made a matter of general principle. Are you to apply the same principle to everything else. Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce to apply the same and put up a case for tariffs? If so his Department will be in the same difficulty as we are.
It is far and away more satisfactory to get somebody really interested in the trade to make an application and to put up a case for a tariff. For this reason, first of all such a person would make a better case, and when such a person makes a better case on the one side you will get better evidence in opposition. The people will take the matter more seriously. People will realise that business is meant. The opposite interests will come forward and organise themselves in a way they never would if the case were put up by a Government department. What would happen is this: We put in this application before the Tariff Commission and it is a couple of months before the exporters wake up to it. We have communicated with them and asked them for this and that information under this and that heading. We do not get that information in a hurry. They do not take the care to give it as they would if they were making the case themselves. On the other hand, the position the Government is in is this, that everybody is content to sit down and fold his arms and await the Commission's report. You will not get the same report as if the application were made by somebody interested, when people would bring forward every argument not beneficial or not favourable to the tariff and weigh up the interests on the other side. For that reason it is much more satisfactory to have an application like this put up by the trade themselves than by the Government. Remember the function of the Tariff Commission, to use the words of Senator O'Doherty, is to get at the facts. Senator Johnson says there are certain limitations in connection with the Tariff Commission which he does not like. What limitations have they except one, and that one is that they should not decide policy? That is what it comes to. The Commission will get all the facts on which the Government can decide national as opposed to individual policy.
Might I ask a question, and it is this? Are the facts that are placed before the Tariff Commission at the disposal of any body outside the Tariff Commission? Is the evidence given at the Tariff Commission confidential.
No.
Is the evidence given before the Commission available?
The evidence is, but the confidential evidence, of course, is not. If X.Y. come along and open their books and show the profits and losses they are making every year, do you expect that these things that are given in confidence to the Commission should be published? Is it not a long step that they open their books to the Commission and give them that information confidentially?
Will the Minister say whether the non-confidential information given before the Commission is available?
It is.
It is not available in the Library. All the public can get is the newspaper reports.
I daresay if there was any demand for the evidence on the part of any members of the Oireachtas that the evidence would be made available. The Official Reporters are there to take down the evidence, and in that way it could easily be made available.
It is not in the Library.
That can be made available. It may be that it is not published, but that is not a weakness in any way in the Tariff Commission system. That can be made available at any time if necessary. The evidence was taken in public and taken down by the Official Reporters, and it can be published, if necessary.
I would ask the Minister to bring pressure to bear on the Minister for Finance, and then we will have it.
That is another question. It is sufficient for me now to say that the evidence is there, but you cannot blame the Tariff Commission for the fact that the evidence is not published. The system of the Tariff Commission is correct. The Tariff Commission are asked to report on seven or eight issues. I am sorry that I have not the Act before me. The report of the Tariff Commission on these seven or eight heads certainly elucidate all the facts. Whatever body is to decide on policy that body must have the facts before it. The Government has the evidence and all the facts. It can make up its mind not on narrow lines, but from a national point of view. If the evidence taken by the Tariff Commission is before the Dáil and Seanad and if that evidence is published what objection can there be to the procedure? Of course there can be none, but that is exactly the reason that the parties who were formerly against the Tariff Commission from a mistaken notion that tariffs were a remedy for all economic ills now admit that it is a matter for examination and that examination is absolutely necessary. I put it to the Seanad that it would be better if the amendment were passed in its original form. I think the examination would be more complete and thorough. I think if people representative of the industry put this to the Tariff Commission you can get information not only at home but you can get information in England, and you would obtain information from both places that we could hardly get otherwise. I certainly prefer Senator O'Hanlon's amendment, but it is a matter for the Seanad to decide.
I am very glad to see my motion served a very good purpose, and I think we have had a very useful debate on one of the most important matters in connection with agriculture. As I have said, I introduced this motion, not from the point of view of any political tactics but from the point of view of seeing what is the best to be done for the pig industry. I am sorry to see that the Minister for Agriculture appeared to be more concerned about political tactics than the question of finding out what is the best thing to do. As far as Fianna Fáil Senators are concerned, we kept away from political tactics this time any way. We are more concerned as to what is the best decision to come to on this important matter rather than scoring political points. We go further and we accept the principle of a permanent Tariff Commission and of sending most of those questions to a permanent Tariff Commission. I do not see why we should object to that course in this instance. It was the Fianna Fáil Party in the other House that originally proposed setting up a permanent Tariff Commission. Consequently I do not see why we should have objection to anything going before it except perhaps from the point of view of the personnel. There is only one person on that Tariff Commission that I know, and that is Mr. Twomey, and if he knows as much about the questions coming before the permanent Tariff Commission as he knew about his own business formerly then, certainly, he will be a success. That is all I can say about him.
The result of the debate certainly shows that the House is definitely in favour—perhaps I ought not go the length of saying definitely in favour— but shows that the feeling of the House is that the importation of American bacon should be stopped.
Certainly not.
I would not personally care to ask the House to accept my motion or to rush them into saying they should actually accept it as it stands. Under the circumstances, looking at this matter more from the interest of the pig producers, I have no objection to Senator O'Hanlon's amendment, but like Senator O'Doherty and Senator Mrs. Wyse Power, I do not agree with the latter portion of the amendment, which appears to me to show that it is a matter for the bacon curers to say whether a tariff should be imposed or not. It is not. It is far more important to us as pig producers than to those people.
Are they not representatives of the industry?
They are not representatives of the industry. They have no interest in the pig producing trade except to get pigs as cheaply as they can.
My point is that the farmers are substantially representative of the industry?
My impression of this particular amendment is that it is more in the interest of the bacon industry, and I would like that statement clarified.
Let us say the pig industry.
That might cover it, because, after all, as far as the question of prohibition of foreign bacon goes, it is a question as to how it is going to affect the producers, and it is from that point of view that I raise it. As to the points made by Senator O'Hanlon that it is as cheap for the farmers in the West of Ireland to produce bonhams as it is for the farmers in the South of Ireland, and that there is no more risk for them to do that than there is for the farmers in the South of Ireland, I think I pointed out effectively in my opening speech the reason why the small valuation farmers in the West of Ireland cannot take the risk. I should like to stress that it is because of the risk that a lot of people are not producing pigs. Furthermore, they suffer from lack of capital. If the State would give them a certain amount of inducement or encouragement by giving a supply of sows on the lines of the boar system, and enable the small farmers to get a sow for a couple of pounds, it would tend to increase production.
For £2 in six months you can have a sow in young.
The point is the farmer has to pay from £5 to £7 for a sow of the breeding class.
I suggest you would get an excellent bonham for two pounds, and in seven months she will farrow. The capital is two pounds.
That is ridiculous. If the sow after seven months does not farrow you will have to wait another seven months before you succeed. As far as the killings in Denmark go I have a quotation here from the "Grocer" which shows that they amounted to 139,000 on December 6th, 1930. In the following week, December 13th, there was an increase, when the figures were 145,400 pigs killed in Denmark, the biggest on record. I believe that is not the result of leaving the pig producing industry to seek out its own salvation as it is left to do here. The people in Denmark are getting inducement and encouragement.
What are they—tariffs?
No, I did not say anything about tariffs.
There is not nearly as much money spent in Denmark in that respect as is spent here.
Last year Poland went in for a system of subsidising the production of rye. Denmark realised the possibilities that there were in selling its bacon in England, exchanging the money received for marks at the rate of two to one, or thereabouts, of their coins, according to the rate of exchange, and taking advantage of the cheap rye that was going on account of the subsidy. In that way they brought rye at a considerably reduced price, owing to the rate of exchange, into Denmark, and succeeded in getting it at about £3 10s. per ton.
In other words, they bought Russian oats cheap.
I shall deal with that.
We shall not go into the question of Russian oats to-day.
The Minister has made his point, and I should like to develop it. The point I want to make is that they have that rye in Denmark at £3 10s. a ton, while the Government here has not sufficient foresight to see the possibility of it, and are allowing Indian meal to come in at £6 10s. per ton.
£4 5s. or £4 10s. is the price of maize.
The point I want to make is that Denmark at present can produce bacon at considerably less than we can.
Why?
Because of the fact that they have the cheap feeding stuffs.
They have not them any cheaper than we have.
I have proved that they have.
Not at all. Indian meal, pollard, and bran are the same price ex-ship anywhere.
I am talking about rye.
We have better feeding-stuffs than rye.
No. I can prove to you that there is no difference between the feeding quality of rye and that of Indian meal.
I would rather Indian meal at £4 5s. than rye at £3 5s.
I can tell you the feeding qualities of rye in detail.
All these intricate financial manoeuvres are rather outside the question that we are discussing.
If we had done what was suggested by the Senator's Party we would have put a tax on imported feeding stuffs, and made them dearer.
I will bring up a motion in order to have that discussed.
Yes, at another time.
I should not like to let the occasion pass without making reference to Senator Linehan's remarks. I wish to congratulate him on the points he made. From the practical farmer's point of view, without making any petty political points, he showed how this affects pig production. Senator O'Hanlon's statement was sufficiently tactical, so that it is not necessary for me to give an opinion upon it. As far as his amendment is concerned, I could not accept it except be adjusted it.
Senator MacEllin, while he did not pass any congratulations, has behaved so very fairly that I would not think of adding a word to what I originally said. All I say is that, in deference to the wishes expressed by Senators Johnson and Mrs. Wyse Power, I was inclined to eliminate all the words from the middle of the second last line of my amendment. My reason in putting down the amendment in that form was because of the existing legislation, as I wanted to keep it in order, and also because I am personally aware that certain substantial interests representative of the bacon industry are preparing a case for submission to the Tariff Commission. There is every point in the world in what the Minister has said. I think it is a sound principle to establish and follow that those interests which are directly representative of the industry should have cast upon them the duty of making their own case in respect of their own industry before any Commission which may be set up. Inasmuch as we have absolute unanimity that we know very little about the subject, and have a lot more to learn about it, I would ask permission to alter the second last word of the amendment in order to meet Senator MacEllin's point and substitute the word "pig" for "bacon." That will definitely include the farmers.
I accept that.
