If it is imported butter that is being sold at that price, of course it is all right. I do not know that. I can believe the Senator's statement if it is imported butter. There was another point that Senator Sir John Keane dealt with. He said that he felt that there was hope of a settlement. The Minister for Lands and Fisheries answered the Senator on that. He told the Senator that when our predecessors in office approached the British Government for a moratorium on £250,000 they were turned down. In spite of that there appears to be the opinion amongst the Opposition that we could get a settlement even now. Why? If our predecessors could not even get a moratorium on £250,000 how could we succeed now? If the Opposition really believe that we could succeed now, then they must believe that we have won the economic war. I cannot see any other explanation for it, because certainly we are not likely to get any favours from the British Government that they would not give to our predecessors.
Senator Bagwell in speaking said that he was not blinded by party spirit. I read in the Irish Times a few months ago speeches on a certain subject. It referred to Senator Bagwell's speech as a non-political speech, and to prove its point, which of course, was against us, quoted this non-politician, Senator Bagwell. I think it was a very good joke, but it was nothing to the joke of the Senator describing himself as a non-politician. However, I think that joke was beaten by Senator Milroy when he said this evening that he was quoting figures but not for any party purpose. The spectacle of the two Senators describing themselves as non-politicians was rather amusing.
Taking this motion in general, which asks for an investigation into the policy that we have been pursuing, I think, there is a great deal to be said for it. I think no one could put up a reasonable case against the motion, but the real difficulty, as Senator Johnson pointed out, would appear to be that the Government themselves ought to do it. There is no commission that I know of, or that could be suggested, that would be useful in a matter of this kind. We can say that we had foreseen some of the difficulties that were going to arise. We foresaw these difficulties three, four, or five years ago. We said at that time that the British market was not a market that was going to last; that it was not an unlimited or an unrestricted market. We were told at the time by our opponents, by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and by other Parties that we were wrong: that the British market was unlimited and unrestricted, that it was there to take as much produce as we could possibly put into it. I think it is becoming very evident now that the British market is restricted. It may be quite competent to absorb all the produce that we have at the present time, but even if it were willing to take ten times what we have to offer at the present time any one can see that the British Government is pursuing a policy to develop its own agriculture. It is bringing in these quotas, and eventually they hope to reach the position of being as nearly self-sufficient as they can be. Whether they will reach that position or not I am unable to say, but their aim is to be as self-sufficient as they can. Therefore, we at least, ought to prepare for the position that the British market is not unlimited. We must face the facts.
The policy which we proposed to meet that position was, in the first place, to confine our home market to our own agricultural produce. Shortly after we came into power, as Senators know, we protected our home market for such things as bacon, butter and other agricultural produce. In that way we gave our own agriculturists, at least, a market that they had not got before. Senator Sir John Keane, in the course of his speech, gave me the impression that that was not a sound economic policy; that it was an unsound economic policy to restrict in any way or to help in any way, by subsidies such as import barriers, the development of agriculture here or elsewhere. He said there should be absolutely free access to every market and no barriers at all: that that was the proper economy to pursue.
Suppose that we had continued to pursue that economy, is it not quite evident that things would have become much worse during the last few years than they had been before with regard to the import of feeding stuffs coming in here? Take the case of Poland, Denmark and those other countries which are restricted in their imports of bacon into the British market. If we had no import duties here they would naturally come along here with their bacon and put as much in here as they possibly could. I do not know if there is any market in the world now without its quotas. Practically none, I think. They would come in here. They would cut one another in price and cut our producers out of the home market altogether. The only safeguard that we had for our own pig producers was to guarantee them at least the home market. That does not apply to bacon alone. The same thing would apply to beef. Argentine beef is being restricted to a certain extent going into the British market. They are looking for alternative markets all over the world. Quite naturally they would come along in here with their chilled beef, which would be selling here at 2d. or 3d. a lb., the price at which it was selling in England up to a short time ago. A good many housewives believe that chilled beef can be cooked, put on the table and presented to the people of the house in just as good a condition as beef that is produced at home.
Even butter which has been spoken of could be landed here at the present time from New Zealand and Australia at 60/- per cwt., so that our own creameries might close down if there was no protection for them, if we had not shut out the agricultural produce of other countries. The same applies to mutton. At the time that we put a tariff on the import of mutton and lamb there were very large consignments coming here from Australia and New Zealand. Even last Spring, to give an instance, New Zealand lamb was landed here and paid a tariff of 56/- per cwt., so that it all comes back to this: the prices at which those countries would be prepared to sell beef, butter and bacon at the present time if they were allowed to come here at all. Therefore, I think that the days of the old and the sound economist are gone—I mean the idea of free trade. When countries are in the position that they are in, it would be foolish to go back to the free trade idea.
In the second place, in order to try to meet a difficulty which was likely to arise by being restricted on the British market and for other reasons, too, of course, we tried to develop our industries. We believe that we can get for our own agricultural producers a better and a surer market amongst our own industrial population than elsewhere. I never could understand why people cannot see that if we get our boots made in Waterford or Cork that the workers in these boot factories are sure to be better customers for our own agricultural produce than the shoemakers in Bradford, New York, or elsewhere. Certainly they are going to be better customers for our agricultural produce, so that from that point of view alone it certainly should be good policy to develop our industries here at home. Senator Sir John Keane speaking on the matter of trying to develop an industrial policy and an agricultural policy at the same time, spoke of it somewhat on the lines of feeding a dog on his own fat. I do not know any reason why we should not have our own industrial population consuming our own agricultural produce rather than have our agricultural population buying their industrial requirements from other countries, and of having a very poor chance of getting much of the market for their agricultural produce, whether it be England or any other country.
We know from the census of agricultural output taken in 1926 and 1927 that every person in a town in the Free State at that time consumed annually £10 10s. 0d. worth of Irish agricultural produce and that every person in Great Britain consumed 16/- worth. Some people in this country have an idea that what we should do is try to develop a great agricultural trade with Great Britain, buy our industrial products from Great Britain and, in that way, help Great Britain in keeping up her industries. But for every person we help to put into employment in Great Britain, we only get 16/- per year in respect of agricultural produce supplied, whereas if we turn to our own country and put people into employment there, we shall get £10 10s. 0d. from every person so employed for the supply of agricultural produce. From the theoretical as well as the practical point of view it is, therefore, better to develop our industries. It is better from the agricultural point of view. The development of our industries and the development of agriculture are in no way compatible with one another. I think that one cannot be developed properly without the other. Having protected our agricultural industry and our manufacturing industries, we turned to see in what respect we could increase our agricultural output. We found we were importing certain agricultural products which we could produce at home, such as wheat, feeding stuffs, certain fruits, sugar, tobacco, and other things. There are certain things, as the Minister for Lands and Fisheries pointed out to-day, which we cannot produce, such as oranges and tea. But the things we could quite well produce would create a market for about £12,500,000 worth of produce. We considered that that £12,500,000 distributed amongst agricultural producers would, in some way, compensate for any losses they might have on the British market. I do not want to dwell on these matters except for a minute or two. The wheat policy I need not delay to deal with, because I considered, when the scheme was being brought forward, that it would want at least two years' trial before we could ascertain whether it contained any serious defects. We have one year over. Wheat is being sown at the present time and, at the end of next Spring, when we see the amount sown, we shall be in a position to judge whether our scheme has been a success or not. If we find that we are not going quickly enough towards getting the requirements of the country grown, we shall have to make some attempt to revise the scheme or get a better one. I think that the scheme has been reasonably successful up to the present.
We did confuse the prophets to a great extent—the prophets who said that everything was wrong in this country for the growing of wheat, that we could not grow wheat because of the soil, the climate, the predatory birds, the weeds in the fields and the unsatisfactory nurse-crop. The prophets have been more or less confused, but Senator Miss Browne says that we were lucky in having a fine harvest and that, if we have a bad harvest this year, our wheat policy will be a failure. Strange to say, I heard Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney say the very same thing this time last year. He said that our policy had not ruined the country yet but that a bad harvest would be the end of us. The only hope now of Cumann na nGaedheal appears to be a bad harvest. There are also the grain crops other than wheat. That matter will certainly require amendment. I considered that, if we provided a certain market for oats and barley, the operation of supply and demand would create a decent price for the farmer. The price which the farmer got for his oats, at any rate, was not remunerative. The price which the farmer got for his barley was, in some districts, very poor. It went down as low as 12/- a barrel. Now, four months after that barley was sold, it is worth 16/- a barrel, so that the corn merchant has come in for the greater part of the profit. The same thing, I believe, is likely to apply to oats. It has commenced to rise in price. That is likely to increase and, in all probability, those merchants who bought oats at 6/- or 7/- a barrel and filled their stores are likely to derive a very big profit. The Government had no intention of bringing in a Cereals Bill to benefit the merchants. Before next year's crop comes in, some Bill will have to be introduced to secure that the farmer will get a remunerative price for his oats and barley when it is sold after the harvest and to secure also that there will be no profiteering subsequent to that, so that feeding stuffs can also be sold at a reasonable price.
This quota system is becoming State policy in many countries, and we have to face that fact. Senator Sir John Keane, in framing his resolution, appears to have accepted the fact that quotas have come to stay and that we had better deal with them. I think that that is the proper attitude. There is no use in making the sort of opposition speech that was made by Senator Milroy. That is in no way helpful. He tried only to throw all the dirt he could. Great Britain has adopted the quota system, and we are more concerned with Great Britain than with any other country. She has adopted the quota system for a number of commodities—bacon, fat cattle, milk products, potatoes and some other things. Great Britain has adopted the quota system because, in the first place, she wants to develop her own agriculture and, in the second place, she is not against fighting an economic war with other people than the Free State. She took on Soviet Russia lately, and she is going to take on France. If we were to settle this economic war with Britain and make some arrangement about what she was to be paid in respect of the annuities and other items, it is quite possible that, in a few months, something might be done which would cause her to start an economic war again. It seems to be her settled policy, when she has a falling-out with any country, to start an economic war. She has adopted that course, and if she thought she had got the better of us in this contest, she would be quite free to adopt the same weapon any time she had anything against this country.
There is a lot of talk about the door being open. Mr. Thomas, we are told, has the door open all the time. Senator Sir John Keane says he is there waiting with the fatted calf and that, if we come along, we can have part of it. I suggest that if we went along he would be much more likely to confiscate it. Mr. Thomas, in another speech, used the phrase, "As soon as they show a desire to honour their just obligations." We have shown the greatest desire to honour our just obligations all the time. In fact, we believe we have done so. But in order not to appear unreasonable, we have suggested and proposed to the British Government that the question should be put to impartial arbitration. The British have refused to put it to arbitration unless the arbitration tribunal is drawn entirely from the British Commonwealth of Nations, which we objected to. If the British have really a strong case, they do not mind very much about procedure and details and they are not usually so inconsistent. It would appear that they are not very sure of their case, and they would like to have another Feetham Commission and would not like to take the chance of an international tribunal dealing with this question. We have stated over and over again that we were prepared to put the matter to international arbitration and abide by the consequences. We cannot do any more than that.
The spirit shown here to-day is very different from that shown on previous occasions. The Opposition appear to think now that the British Government were a little bit at fault also and that all the fault was not on our side. That is a big advance. Perhaps, before long, they may come to agree that the best policy would have been to stand behind their own Government, whether they were right or wrong, as Senator Quirke said.
I find great difficulty in visualising the commission suggested by Senator Sir John Keane. He says that there must not be politicians on it. He leaves out the politicians. It would, presumably, consist of economists and business men. I do not know about the economists. One economist seems to spend all his time criticising another economist. In all probability, if you put two economists on the commission, one would agree with us and one would disagree, because whatever proposition was put up by one would be criticised by the other. I think economists are not very much use for practical purposes.
As regards business men, what would the business men be like? Business men on the whole are very useful in their own business, but I have not found they were any great help to us on many occasions on which we consulted them. I shall give you an example of that. When the bacon quota came along, there was the same outcry that there is now about the cattle quota. There was an outcry in the Dáil and in the Press. I do not think there was any in the Seanad. The Irish Independent was very strong about it. They talked about the blunderings of the Government and, in particular, the blunderings of the Minister for Agriculture, because he did not get a sufficient quota. The Independent stands for business men. It is one of the most businesslike papers in the country. They talked about the blunders we made in not getting sufficient under the bacon quota. What was the real position? We went to the bacon curers themselves and told them what we asked for. They said, “You asked for too much.” So we had the bacon people themselves saying we had asked for too much, and the business people in the Dáil and elsewhere, as represented by the Independent, saying we asked for too little. So far as I can see, we asked for exactly what we wanted. We had too much bacon here in November and December. We knew we would have too much. We knew we would have to store some. We knew we would have too little in January and February. We have too little. We are taking that bacon out of store now. The business men did not take that into account. The business men were all wrong, and we were right. Now, we are taking that bacon out of store and filling our quota as we are going along. But we shall not be able to do more than that.
As regards the Pig Industry Tribunal, we got the greatest criticism in the Dáil and in the Seanad about the setting up of that Tribunal. We were told that we were going to put a few civil servants on that Tribunal to teach business men their business. We got great criticism from the business men. Now we find that the business men are being interviewed and that they are talking about the fine report made by the Tribunal.
We were exporting butter all last summer to Great Britain and elsewhere and on a certain date in September I stopped the export of butter. On that certain date, butter was at the highest point it reached on the British market for the whole summer. On the following day it came down, and it has been coming down since. I do not claim that I foresaw all that, but if a business man had done it he would claim that he had foreseen it and he would be described as a business wizard.
The cattle quota has been spoken of, and, as I say, when the bacon quota came along, we were told that we had got too little while we were told by the bacon curers themselves that we had got too much. The cattle quota comes now, and there is an outcry that we have got too many cattle in the country and so on. We are not very sure of that point yet, and we will not be sure for a few weeks. We are having a census taken of all the cattle in stalls throughout the country and, mind you, it is very bad to lay too much stress on having too many cattle and the quota being too small, because farmers all over the country get panicky and inclined to sell their cattle at sacrifice prices. I am inclined to think it is not necessary. I have got in some preliminary figures—we will not have them all in for another two or three weeks— and I am inclined to think that there is a good chance of dealing with the whole situation in respect of fat cattle and that we have just enough cattle to deal with our own and the British market between this and the end of April, and farmers can hold on to their cattle and get a decent price. Papers like the Irish Independent and speakers from the Opposition side come out and make this outcry through the country about the farmers being ruined and stating that the last blow has been given to the cattle trade. The cattle trade has got the last blow about fourteen times since I came into office, according to these people, and this is again described as the last blow.
