Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1939

Vol. 24 No. 3

Public Business. - Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Bill, 1939—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

The expression "the transfer date" means the 1st day of January, 1940;...

Mr. Counihan

I move the following amendment:—

Section 2. In lines 43-44, page 4, to delete the words and figures "1st day of January, 1940" and substitute therefor the words and figures "1st day of June, 1940".

My principal object in moving this amendment is to induce the Minister to institute negotiations with the British Government, with a view to having all restrictions removed on the export of surplus live pigs, at least for the duration of the war. I am concerned on behalf of pig producers and farmers who, like myself, depend on the production and sale of pigs for a livelihood. I am confident that if we had a free export market for live pigs it would very much increase the price of all classes of pigs, would create confidence in the future of the trade, and be the best means that could be adopted to increase production. I know the bad effects of a market that is restricted to certain limited buyers. I know the effects of competition as well as the loss of competition in a market. I also know how that affects any trade which has to be conducted in the way the pig trade has to be conducted at present. In addition, I know the effect of issuing a limited number of licences for the export of live pigs to a favoured few. I know all this very much better than the Minister or any of his advisers. On the Second Reading I stated that the value of export licences represented from 35/- to £2 per pig. It must be apparent to anyone that if an export licence is worth even 30/- to a pig exporter, that 30/- is not coming out of his pocket, but is coming out of the pockets of the producers. That is not good for pig production. Nobody will pay even 10/- for an export licence, unless he can see clearly that there is going to be considerable profit on the export of pigs. In 1938, 74,120 live pigs were exported from the ports of Éire, and 1,044,779 were purchased by the bacon factories. I do not know the figures for last year, but I think they would be slightly higher. Possibly they will be greater next year.

If the Minister agrees to my suggestion for the free export of 1,200,000 or 1,500,000 pigs, whatever the figures may be, I am confident it would put between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000 into the pockets of producers which, otherwise, will go to the bacon curers, or to that section of the exporters of pigs that is fortunate enough to get licences. I do not want to block this Bill. The amendment will permit the Bill to be put on the Statute Book, but the Minister will have power to treat the bacon factories and the bacon curers as he wishes. Under present conditions he can do that by order. The Minister will probably say that the British Government will insist on having live pigs shipped under quota. I do not believe the British Government will insist on that. If the British are properly approached I believe they will agree to take our live pigs when and how we can send them, and that they will be glad to get them during the present crisis. If the Minister can give any assurance about approaching the British Government to make arrangement for the export of live pigs, I will not press the amendment, but, if he insists on saying that that cannot be done, I am afraid I will have to press for a division, in order to see whether Senators in this House are more interested in bacon curers than farmers and pig producers.

Professor Johnston

I think Senator Counihan has made a very good case indeed for approaching this question of the free export of pigs with an open mind. I know of one case where a farmer had pigs ready recently for the local bacon factory, and was told that the quota for the month was filled. He could not sell the pigs to the local bacon factory, and equally he could not export them because he had no licence. The result was that he had to keep the pigs for a month too long, and by the time they were finally sent to their destination, they were, probably, so fat that they were not graded as highly as they should be, and were worth less money. Obviously, the remedy, if the local bacon factory cannot take pigs, is to allow completely free export of live pigs. I am quite certain that there can be no real difficulty at present about getting that freedom to export, so far as our British neighbours are concerned, because they are terribly short of both pigs and bacon. Normally they consume between 8,000,000 and 10,000,000 cwts of bacon in that country, of which we supply a beggarly 300,000 or 400,000 cwts. They import the bulk of their bacon from the Seandanavian countries. I think that more than half of it comes from these countries, but as we know owing to recent events, the British market must be simply clamouring for bacon or pigs, alive or dead. I am sure as far as they are concerned that there is no obstacle whatever to the free export of live pigs. If there is any difficulty it must arise on our side and as a result of our own policy. I cannot see what national interest as a whole is going to be advanced by any restrictions on the free export of live pigs. I suspect it may be that, possibly, certain bacon curers might not get as many pigs as they would like to get, if farmers were free to export live pigs instead of sending them to the factories. Is it part of our national policy that we should bolster up inefficient bacon factories at the expense of farmers and pig producers as a whole?

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I do not find it very easy to relate this amendment to the speech which Senator Counihan has just made. The speech of the Senator appears to me to be a sort of threat to the Minister. The speech in effect is "If you do not do what I ask you I will force the amendment". That seems to be a sort of threat. I do not see what the amendment has to do with the question. Live pigs do not come and never did come into this bacon legislation. It is a form of intimidation and the only way to treat intimidation is to take it as such and try to meet it. Now dealing with the points that Senator Counihan has made I want to point out that there was no restriction whatever on the number of live pigs exported up to 1933. Before 1933 there were live pigs going out but they did not all go out. Evidently before restrictions were imposed on the export of live pigs prior to 1933, the farmers themselves elected to send their pigs to the bacon factories. The dealers in some cases elected to send them to the bacon factories instead of exporting them as live pigs.

If the general tenour of Senator Counihan's remarks were true all the bacon factories would have been broken when there was no restriction on the export of live pigs. But from 1933 up to September this year there was partial restriction on the export of live pigs. Any exporter here sending pigs to England had to have a quota for exporting them. More than half the pigs exported went to pork butchers and they needed no licence. That shows that there was a large quota without restrictions and yet the export of pigs did not take place. Yet it is assumed by Senators Counihan and Johnston that many more live pigs would go out if we had come to an arrangement with the British Government on this question. I do not believe that. It is not deemed proper here to make a bet, but I ask Senator Counihan here to say what he thinks the position will be between March and August next and say how many pigs will then be sent out. Our experience is that there is a flush of pigs in October, November and December, but from January until June it is the other way.

Mr. Counihan

There was not a war on in those last six or seven years. During a war the position might be different.

Professor Johnston

Is it true that people are paying money for export licences for pigs?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know.

Professor Johnston

If export licences are worth money then it is a bare statement of the case to say that it would be in the interest of the farmers to be given licences to export these pigs.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know. A lot of the dealers go around saying that if they had licences they could pay £1 more for the pigs. But they are not paying £1 more for the pigs they are actually buying at the present time.

Mr. Counihan

If everyone dealing in pigs was able to get a licence there would be more competition between the buyers.

Dr. Ryan

We are speaking here at a transitional period in the British market. The British have removed control and if they reimpose it after January 8th, whatever price may be paid for live pigs for export, there is no doubt but the factories here will have to pay the same price because we could not possibly carry on the pig business without the exporting of live pigs. If the exporters of live pigs pay more for the pigs than what the people can get from the factories, the factories could not possibly carry on. But I think it would be a pity to upset everything in this country for the sake of three or four weeks.

The ideal solution for the factories here would be to pay as much for the pigs cured in the factory as is paid for the pigs exported. The board met last week and they thought they could meet that point. I do not know if the board can meet it—perhaps they can. They might bring the present factory price up to what the live pigs are worth. I think that is the only way in which it would be dealt with. But if we were to remove those restrictions and if we were to say to the exporters here: "You may export all the pigs you like now," I am certain 1,000,000 pigs will not go out as live pigs. I am sure if 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 pigs did go out exported alive that would not put £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 into the pockets of the pig producers. If there was an intention on my part to continue the state of affairs by which £1 or 30/- more is paid for live pigs exported than is paid by the factories, Senator Counihan would be right, but this state of affairs is not to continue beyond the 8th of January. In the meantime, I urged the board to see that the farmer who brings his pigs to the factories gets as good a price for them as he would get from the man who buys them for export as live pigs. It is extremely difficult for the board here to fix such a price as will ensure that, because the prices are changing daily. They might bring up the price of pigs at the factory to-day and next day the value of live pigs exported may go up again. However, this will arise only for a few weeks at any rate.

There was one point raised by Senator Johnston, that he knew a farmer whose pigs would not be taken because the quota at the factory had been filled. I take it that is true because there were factories which did have a particular production quota filled before the month was over. They could not take any pigs that came after the production quota was filled. We will try to get that position right. Senator Johnston suspects that the bacon factories would not like to see the export quota enlarged for live pigs. It does not make the slightest difference whether they like it or not. The whole position is this—that as long as the war lasts the British Government is anxious to control the amount of bacon and pigs going into the country as much as possible. But the British Government want to know beforehand what we are to send them. Everyone will realise that if the British Government is bringing in a rationing system they must have a fair idea of the amount of food coming in. Otherwise they could not gauge properly what the ration would be. They have asked us (1) how much bacon we can send them in 1940; (2) to distribute that over the 12 months; and (3) to give a constant proportion of live pigs. We cannot meet them on the matter of the distribution over the 12 months. We could export much more in October, November and December than in May and June. They accept that.

We cannot have a constant proportion over the 12 months. And we cannot get the exporters to send out the live pigs from March to August because the dealers would lose 5/- or 6/- a pig on the exports during those months. We could say at the present time that we would make our exports 70 per cent. of live pigs during October, November and December, but we could not send more than 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. live pigs from March to August. We could probably get 70 per cent. for this month, but during other parts of the year we could not get more than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. For that reason we cannot say that we could make a proportion of 70 per cent. of live pigs during the year. That is our position. Senators Counihan and Johnston are right in this. I am quite sure that the British Government would not mind if we sent them 100 per cent. live pigs. If we do that it would be 100 per cent. for the year round. But taking the sort of seasonal differences in prices that take place here always, it appears more profitable to the producers to have their pigs sent to the bacon factories from March to August. It is after that they have to export alive. For the balance of the year it is better that we should not send out a very large proportion in the form of live pigs. We could send out an extra number of live pigs for November and December. In the latter month there would be a fairly substantial number. There is no objection to that. It is the only way in which we can deal with this position and that is to arrange for a fairly definite percentage of our exports as live pigs. Then when it comes to the months of October, November and December, when the number of pigs for sale is greater we could ask the British Government for an extra quota for live pigs. So far we have not had any great difficulty in getting this export quota.

We sent out a number of licences in November. Senator Counihan here holds that these licences were worth money. But the strange thing about it is that a good many of these licences were returned to us unused. It must be that the holders of these licences did not realise their value because numbers of them came back unused. These licences were sent only to people who had exported live pigs in November, 1938. No one got a licence except people who exported live pigs in November, 1938. It is manifest that these people were in the business in 1938 and yet a good many licences came back unused from these people. If Senator Counihan wants an undertaking from me that I would not allow this condition to continue, where licences are worth money, in other words, that we would not compel people to send pigs to the factories when they are worth more for export, I think I can give that undertaking that we will not allow that beyond the middle of January. It may be difficult to arrange things in the meantime, but we will try to arrange things as well as we can. The amendment would be extremely awkward to accept, because the Pigs Board and the Bacon Board legally are going out of office on the last day of December and we would have nobody to take their places if this Bill is not passed. Senator Counihan, I think, suggested that we could do something by means of an emergency order. I am not sure if we could. An emergency order has been taken to be applicable only to conditions arising out of the war. I do not know if I could convince the Attorney-General that this arose out of the war because he would perhaps say: "It has arisen out of your own neglect; why did you not bring in the Bill sooner?"

Mr. Counihan

I am disappointed that the Minister was not more sympathetic to the suggestion I made and I am sure that the pig producers will be also disappointed. The Minister says that this control is only on for a few months—that pigs will be decontrolled about the middle of January. I can assure the Minister that when they were controlled there was 3/- and 4/- more than the control price got in England by exporters of Irish pigs. The Minister does not know the whole of it. The Minister, like the British Government, may make orders, but from his experience of the economic war he should know that it is impossible to carry out these matters. When he was issuing licences for cattle the condition on which licences were issued was that the exporter should pay 25/- per live cwt. for fat cattle for export. He knows perfectly well that the majority of the cattle were sold under £1 per cwt. He knows well that the butchers were to pay 25/- per cwt. for cattle and he knows how many of them did it—at least I know how many did it. I know I had to take £1 per cwt. when the control price was 25/-. There are several ways of doing that.

To come back to the Minister's statement about what will happen after the control, the Minister seems to forget that we are trading now in war time. All I have asked him to do is to approach the British Government to get free export and free trade for surplus live pigs in the British market. If he does that we will have more competition in the fairs. Except you have an open market without licences the competition will be restricted and the price will be kept down. An exporter having a licence knows well that there is a surplus in a particular market and that there is only a limited number of buyers. The buyers for the curers and the buyers for export are a chip of the one block. When nobody can buy for export without a licence, competition is wiped out and the price of pigs is not what it should be or even what the present control price is. A very big percentage of the pigs at fairs at present are being sent to the factories. If the Minister continues this he will be restricting the number of pigs and there can be only 60,000 or 70,000 exported out of the 1,500,000 which we produce. He will wipe out the export of live pigs entirely and throw us completely into the hands of the curers. That will not be good for the producers and will tend to decrease the production of pigs in the country.

If what I am suggesting were adopted it would be the best means of producing confidence in the future of the trade and it would be the best thing that the Minister could do to increase production, namely, to have free export for our surplus live pigs. All I ask him to do is to approach the British Government and say, even for the period of the war, that we want free export for live pigs without any quota. I am confident that if the Minister approaches the British Government they will not insist on any definite quota, but will be delighted to have all the live pigs we can send them and whatever quantity of bacon we can send them without any restrictions as to quota. But the Minister has his own ideas about it and his advisers have their own ideas. He is probably more concerned with the bacon curers than he is with the farmers who produce the pigs, and for that reason I intend to press this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section put and agreed to.

Sections 3 to 11, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Baxter

Section 4 (3) says that the commission shall consist of three members. Then Section 12 (4) says that the commission may act notwithstanding one vacancy amongst the ordinary members. I want to know is it a commission at all without the three members being present? I am not quite clear on that point. It seems to me that the commission is to consist of three members, namely, the chairman and two ordinary members. But this section says that the commission may act notwithstanding one vacancy amongst the ordinary members. There seems to be something contradictory in it. Probably one section dominates the other, but I think it needs clarification. I want to be clear if it is a commission at all without the three members.

Dr. Ryan

It is. This is put in to remove any doubt that there might be. The intention is to have three members. Some of these orders, however, have to be made rather urgently. If, for any reason, an ordinary member were to retire, and if an order were made a day or two before the vacancy is filled, this provision is put in so that it could be done legally. It is only intended to cover a case like that. Nothing of any importance would be done until the vacant seat was filled. Power is delegated at the present time by the Pigs and Bacon Boards to the chairman to make certain orders which have to be made in a routine way. This provision is really intended to cover a case of that kind where routine orders might have to be made before the vacancy was filled.

Mr. Baxter

If the Minister is satisfied, I am satisfied. It seems to me that one section ought to be related to the other section in some way. You might make an order under Section 12, dealing with curers and you might find yourself in court at the instance of a curer who contended that the body which made the particular order was not a commission at all. Perhaps the Minister would look into that matter.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know that they will ever have to use that power again.

Mr. Goulding

This clause is a safeguard.

Section agreed to.

Sections 13 to 17 agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Baxter

This section gives power to make various regulations. Under the Act, the Minister made the regulations. In this Bill, the commission

"may make regulations in relation to any matter or thing."

I take it that these regulations will be made in conjunction with the Minister because they have to be laid on the Table of each House of the Oireachtas. A regulation would not be laid on the Table if the Minister was not prepared to stand over it. It would seem to me, therefore, that these regulations can only be made in conjunction with the Minister. That is an important point and I should like to hear the Minister upon it.

Dr. Ryan

Under the Act, the board could make certain regulations dealing with their own part of the business while the Minister could make regulations arising out of his part. About half that Act dealt with inspection and matters of that sort. That was the Minister's business. That part of the original Act still stands and the Minister makes the necessary regulations under it. This Bill principally deals with the transfer from the boards to the commission and the making of regulations will mostly fall to the boards rather than to the Minister. What Senator Baxter says is right: they will not expect the Minister to defend any regulation before the Dáil or Seanad which they may make without first getting his approval.

Section agreed to.

Sections 19 to 33 agreed to.

SECTION 34.

Question proposed: "That Section 34 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Baxter

Under sub-section (2) of this section, the Minister may at any time by order declare there shall be no levy. What exactly has the Minister in mind as to the circumstances in which the sub-section would operate?

Dr. Ryan

This particular levy is concerned with administrative expenses. The Pigs and Bacon Boards made these levies under the original Act. I think they amount to about 4d. per pig. The commission will naturally strike some sort of levy when they take over control. Possibly they will leave the levy as it is. What is contemplated, I take it, is that if they accumulate a fair amount of money, they will have power to stop the levy if they think fit. Under this sub-section they would not be bound to strike the levy if they did not need it.

Section agreed to.

Sections 35 to 49 agreed to.

SECTION 50.

Question proposed: "That Section 50 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Crosbie

Would the Minister give us some information on this section? The Minister has retained the production quota under this Bill but has suspended its operation. I am concerned now with the export quota. I should like some information from the Minister as to what his intentions are regarding the percentage of the export quota which he took away from the southern curers and gave to curers in the north to help them in a set of circumstances which then existed but which no longer exists. The southern curers are very anxious to know if the Minister intends to return them the percentage of the export quota which he took away.

Dr. Ryan

The main export quota was, if you like, divided into three parts. It was built up, in the first instance, by the system of application and undertaking. When this export quota business came in first, in 1933, the Department asked the curers what export quota they would like. The applications were, probably, somewhat above what we could export at the time and they were cut down by an equal percentage all round. We also took into account what their exports had been up to that. On this large block of export quotas, I think no curer had a grievance because some of those who held export quotas asked to have them reduced as time went on because the home market was a bit better. Those looking for more got them. For two or three years the curers got what they required by way of export quotas and it was fixed at that.

In the beginning, a certain percentage was reserved to deal with a problem in the North of Ireland. At the time we brought in our Bill dealing with the regulation of exports, the British Government were regulating the bacon-production business and the Government of the North of Ireland were doing likewise. The British Government, I take it at the instance of the Northern Government, said they would stop the import of carcases across the Border. Senators from the North know that most of the pigs in Ulster were killed and brought to the market as carcases. They were mostly collected by factories situated in the Six Counties. We got notice from the British Government that this would have to stop. They said they would give a quota of in or about what had been going over up to then, but it would diminish by one-twelfth each month so that it would disappear completely in 12 months. That quantity of carcases represented about 8 per cent. of our exports. Eight per cent. of our exports was given to factories situated in the North so that they could absorb these pigs as live pigs now instead of carcases and, therefore, ease, so far as possible, any disturbance in the trade up there so far as the farmer was concerned. That appears to me to be a continuing problem. It is not the sort of thing which we could deal with by saying we would distribute the quotas because we must assume that the pigs are still there. The pigs will be there for all time and, therefore, it is the Northern factories that should deal with those, and I do not see that the factories in the South have any claim on that particular 8 per cent. The matter has never been considered as being on a permanent basis, and it has always been referred to as a special quota given to those factories within reach of the Northern counties and, accordingly, I think that we should do something to put the matter on a permanent basis at some time or other.

There is another point which I should like to make. After concluding the agreement with England in 1938, we agreed to import something like 2,000 cwts. of bacon every year. That came mostly over the Border and, in that way, went into competition with the factories again, and they claimed an export quota to get rid of that part of their bacon for which they had now lost the home market. They got that quota, but it has been withdrawn again, so that we are back now to about 92 per cent., which is a permanent and fair basis for all, and about 8 per cent., which is given among the factories that we can reach in the North for the purpose of absorbing these pigs that are used as carcases across the Border, and now, presumably, will be taken up by the factories in that area. I agree with Senator Crosbie that something should be done to put this business on a permanent basis. That has been the intention, but we have been postponing it from time to time, and I suppose one of the reasons for these postponements was that we were waiting for the report of the commission.

Mr. Crosbie

But the Minister will consider that aspect of the trade?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, and I should like to have the Senator's advice on the matter.

Mr. Crosbie

Yes, because there is the question of such cities as Cork, Limerick, and so on, which are seaports, to be considered.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, but the producers in the North, naturally, must be taken into account.

Mr. Crosbie

The Minister will undertake to consider it?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Is fusa dul thar an teorainn ná dul ar an fhairrge.

Professor Johnston

I should like to know from the Minister whether, when he exercises the power of suspending the production quota, that automatically implies that the whole business of production sub-quotas for each bacon factory is also suspended.

Dr. Ryan

Oh, yes.

Professor Johnston

I presume that that is the meaning of the words at the end of the section. I should be glad to see the end of these sub-quotas, representing, as they do, one of the things that have been commented on unfavourably by the Prices Commission as keeping in existence factories that are inefficient and interfering with factories that are efficient and should be encouraged.

Sections 50 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 55.

Question proposed: "That Section 55 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Baxter

On Section 55, realising that the Minister wanted to get his Bill through and that it was a matter of urgency, and knowing also that this whole question of price had been raised and discussed at length in amendments that were moved, discussed, and withdrawn, in the Dáil, I decided not to put down an amendment here, but I do want a discussion on this section from the point of view of the basis on which prices are to be fixed for pigs in future. This, as the Minister knows, is all-important. People produce commodities—or at least the people who are farmers believe that farmers produce—when it pays them to produce. The Minister has made certain statements here and I take it that it is his view that the price which is to be fixed for pigs is to be related to the price at which bacon is being sold. Apparently, his view is that the price of bacon, for some time to come at any rate, is going to be such as will pay the farmer for the production of pigs. In the other House, Deputy Dillon had down an amendment asking that the price should be related to the cost of a balanced ration, and while he withdrew that amendment, and while, apparently, there was general agreement on both sides of that House that something like that would be of value, I think the Minister said that it would not be helpful to have it in the Bill.

I would be quite satisfied if we could have a statement from the Minister that it is going to be the policy of this particular commission to take that matter into consideration and relate the price of pigs to the cost of production. I think that is the most important thing to do. I consider that it is more important to relate the price of pigs to the cost of production than to relate it to the price of bacon, as far as the producer is concerned. None of us can prophesy at the moment what may happen in the days to come with regard to bacon prices. We may be going into a period that, as far as bacon prices are concerned, would be looked upon as an inflationary period. Bacon prices may be raised, through one cause or another, beyond what is a reasonable price. You may have violent fluctuations despite anything that this Government think they may be able to do. We have to wait in order to see whether or not they will be able to control inflation, and many people are very doubtful about the Government's capacity to do that. I do not think that we in this country, if we want to get our pig production on a sound basis, wish to see a condition of things developed here whereby a man will get as much for producing seven pigs as he would get if he produced ten pigs. I do not think that would be good, even for his own people, to-day, and nobody knows what may happen to-morrow or in the near future. It is quite possible that we might be up against the opposite situation, where prices of bacon will have fallen off for some reason or another over which we have no control. What pig producers want in the future is stability in prices, and to have the price of pigs related to the cost of production. The Agricultural Commission have given an indication of that, and I do not think it is disputed.

I am rather disturbed about the line the Minister is taking, however. He has said here—and I do not say that I am in disagreement with him—that it would be quite an impossible situation for this Government to find itself in, if they had to subsidise the export of bacon to England at the present time; in other words, that, if you fix a price for pigs, related to the cost of production, and the price which you can get for bacon will not meet the price, the only way in which you can keep producing is by subsidising the export of bacon to England, and that that would be unpopular for the Government and an unjustifiable policy for them to pursue. I do not think the Government should be put in that position, and I think it would be very difficult for them to justify export subsidies for pigs or bacon to England during war time, but I do not think that that argument is a justifiable argument by which to relieve the Minister or this commission from paying to the farmers a price that will more than cover the cost of production of pigs. If the price of bacon in England is not sufficiently high to enable the producer of pigs here to get a price that will relate the price of pigs to the cost of production, is it fair to expect the producer of pigs in this country to carry the burden of exporting bacon to England at a price that, really, is not above the cost of production? If we are up against a situation in which either the Government will have to subsidise the export of bacon, or the producer of pigs will be expected to send bacon to England at a price under the cost of production, I do not think the producer ought to be expected to do that.

If we have to face that situation, let us face it, but let us all face it together, Government, commission and producers, but let not the Government leave on the farmer the burden and the responsibility of producing pigs, on dear food, and selling them at a price that will not pay. It may very well be that if we have to meet a situation like that, the Government will have to say to the British people: "You are going through a war. Our farmers are paying so much for meals to feed their pigs to-day that they cannot sell bacon to you at that price. We cannot send it to you unless we subsidise it, and we are not going to do that." If you have to face a situation like that, it may very well be that the circumstances in the market at a particular moment might determine that you would have to finance a scheme of putting bacon into cold storage for three or six months, and carrying it here at home, or to subsidise the curers in order to let cheaper bacon and more bacon out to our people at home, or some other method, rather than to try to carry on a policy like that. The one thing I am convinced of is that whatever else we are to do, it is not enough to say to the producers to-day that the price of pigs must be related to the price of bacon and that that is what is going to govern the price of pigs. That is not going to be satisfactory at all.

As I say, the Minister may be so optimistic about the price of pigs that he feels there is no necessity to give any undertaking to the producers, but if there is going to be no danger in giving an undertaking, if the price is going to be so high, the giving of the undertaking is going to cost nothing. The undertaking is going to be a burden on the Government only when the producer is not getting as much for his pigs sold as is covering his cost of production. I suggest that it is much better to be prepared for that situation long before you have to meet it than to come right up against it, and against the chaos, the disorder and the discouragement which the producers are going to encounter. It may very well be that you are going into a period when some such scheme as Mr. J.M. Keynes was suggesting in relation to British saving might be applied to the bacon industry here, for some time to come.

My opinion is that it would be much better for our farmers to be guaranteed something more than the cost of production, to be guaranteed stability and security in the market, than to have a situation in which, in the Dublin market to-day, because there are a certain number of licences available and because certain curing factories in England want pigs, we are going to have inflated prices, which, on this day week, are going to be altogether different. That is one of the worst things we could experience in the production of bacon, and I suggest to the Minister that, whatever may be in the Bill, it should quite definitely be the policy of this commission to relate the price of pigs to the cost. It is up and down now every week, and what it is going to be in two or three months' time, we do not know. It may be less, and it may be much more than it is to-day, depending on whether certain boats come into this country or not. While I am on that point about the cost of production, along the Border at present a certain policy is being carried on. Ill-off as we seem to be in the matter of feeding stuffs, the situation is no better, and, in fact, is much worse, on the other side of the Border. Certain quantities of feeding stuffs are coming into this country, and although it is an offence to bring these foods across the Border into Northern Ireland, they are to-day actually being smuggled into the Six Counties.

Mr. MacDermot

What sort of foodstuffs?

Mr. Baxter

Feeding stuffs for pigs. The Press reported the other day a fine of £5 on a farmer in some town in the North—Aughnacloy in the County Tyrone, I think—and I heard of a farmer with a ton of foodstuffs on his cart, whose horse and cart and foodstuffs were seized. His horse and cart were kept for three or four days and eventually he got them back, minus the foodstuffs. It shows how stupid Governments can be. One would think that these people would be delighted to get in all the foodstuffs they could, and to have them available for their farmers. When foodstuffs come into this country, it ought to be made an offence to take them out of the country in any form other than meat or products of that kind. I think it is something the Minister ought to look after, because, in my own part of the country, I know that it is difficult at present to procure feeding. The millers have not got it, and I know that some of the food being sold to traders in the Twenty-Six Counties is being taken across the Border.

We want it here because it is essential for our production and I would be very insistent that the Minister's policy, and the commission's policy, should not be to relate the price of pigs in future to the price of bacon, because that is a fluctuating figure. So are the costs of feeding stuffs, but particularly now, when we are going into a period when our production will depend to a great extent on our imported foods. If you want to keep us in production, if you want to secure that we are paid for our production, relate our pig prices to the cost of the things we have to buy to feed them. We will be better paid, in my judgement, if you give us a reasonable profit over the costs of production than if you give us to-day a very greatly increased, or inflated, price for pigs which, to-morrow, related to the price of bacon, may drop again. If the Minister will give the House a statement on that point, I think there will be much more security and much more encouragement for the pig producers than in any statement that we are going to get £9, £10, £12 or £15 a cwt. for pigs because bacon is going to go very high. That is very problematical and, in my judgement, it is not a sound basis at all on which to build increased pig production here.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I support what Senator Baxter has said about the relation of the price of pigs to the cost of production. I have always held that, even in peace time, the top and bottom of our agricultural success, and of any profits the farmer makes, depend on the price of feeding stuffs, and I have urged the lowering of the prices of these feeding stuffs again and again in this House and elsewhere. In war time, it is more important still, and if you reach a point at which the cost of feeding stuffs is equal to, or greater than, the actual price obtained for the pig, instead of having a campaign from which you get large numbers of pigs for export, you will finally have no pigs at all, or very few. The tendency in regard to war prices so far as feeding stuffs are concerned, is that they will rise. They have already done so, as we all know, and there would be every possible effort both on this side and on the other side of the House to keep down the price of human foodstuffs such as bacon. It is necessary, therefore, if we are to get the farmer to produce pigs, that the price of pigs should be related to the cost of production.

Liam O Buachalla

Níor cheap mé go mbeadh aon díosbóireacht ar an mBille seo indiu go mór-mór tar éis an méid a dubhradh an lá cheana faoi. Ach ós rud é go bhfuil an díosbóireacht ar bun, ba mhaith liom poinnte no dó a luadh.

I did not think we would have very much discussion on this Bill to-day, and the way the matter proceeded down to this particular section led me to believe that there would be no difficulty about it. Senator Baxter has raised a very important question, and that is the cost of production He appealed to the Minister to see to it that the price made available for pigs is closely related to the cost of production. He also mentioned that it was the recommendation of the Agricultural Commission that the price of pigs should be closely related to the cost of production. I agree with that. I think everybody will agree that the price of the pig should be closely related to the cost of production, but there is a danger in that, and, besides, there is also a very great difficulty. I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House, but I should like to recall to you the observation of the Agricultural Commission on this particular point. In paragraphs 24 and 25 of the interim report they say:

"The big secular factor making for decline in pig production in Eire is the lack of competitive power in our pig products.

"High production costs and low output are keeping profitability down. Lack of technical competence and of close attention to the details of economical production contrast unfavourably with the rapid increase in productive capacity attained by our competitors in the export market. To these fundamental causes must be ascribed the relative decline in the profitability of our pig producing industry. We consider that to ascribe quantitative impor tance to any other factor would indicate lack of a correct sense of proportion."

There lies the difficulty, I think, in this whole question of Irish pig production. The commission has had evidence, time and time again, that most of the difficulty is due to the fact that the producers lack technical competence. How we are going to get over that is another matter. The commission was convinced eventually that most of the difficulty arose on account of the lack of adequate technical education; the producers were not trained as to the proper ration; they were not educated on the whole question of housing, heating, breeding, and so on. How are we going to get over those difficulties? The cost of production may be anything, there can be many different costs of production, but normally it has to be related to something definite. We in Ireland have to relate it to the cost of production of our competitors. Can we produce bacon, above all commodities, as we cheaply as our competitors? If we cannot, we have just got to go out of the industry. I believe in paying subsidies over a certain time, but we cannot go on indefinitely paying subsidies. The whole industry will have to be reorganised, but where we have to start is at the technical training of the producers. We cannot get away from that.

There is only just one other point to which I want to refer, and that has reference, in view of this Bill, to the possibilities of this particular industry in the Gaeltacht.

Tá súil agam go gcuirfe muinntir na Gaedhealtachta spéis fa leith san tionnsgal seo feasta. Feileann sé go maith dóibh agus má theigheann siad 'na bhun go ceart agus le stuaim, bainfe siad airgead maith amach air.

Tá buntáistí faoi leith a' baint le tóigeál múc sa nGaedhealtacht. Ar an gcéad dul sios, bionn riar mór fataí annsiúd—ceann de na h-ádhbhair bídh is tábhachtaighe le haghaidh muc. Dá fheabhas dá bhfuil fataí á saothrú annsin, is féidir tuilleamh feabhais a chur ar an obair. Tugtar tuilleamh aire do sgéal na síolta, leasú, draénáil, agus rl. agus cuirfear go mór le torthamhlacht na talmhana.

Tá na tighthe acu le h-aghaidh na muc freisin—sí an Ghaedhealtacht, b'féidir, is fearr atá réidhtighthe i gcóir an tionnsgail ó thaobh tighthe go h-áithrid.

Tá congnamh maith, fial le faghail i gcomhnuidhe le h-aghaidh na gcró seo agus is ar na daoine iad fhein an milleán mara mbí a lán eile de na tighthe seo a gcur suas. Maidir le saothar, nó oibridhthe tá sé le fagháil go líonmhar sa nGaedhealtacht. Má théigheann na daoine isteach agus muca a thóigeál agus a bheathú, beidh deis mhaith saothair acu, deis a íocfas go binn iad.

Ach ar nós dream ar bith eile sa tír, ní dhéanfa nósanna cuma liom cúis. Tá dhá shlighe le gach rud a dhéanamh agus tá dhá shlighe le muca a bheathú —an tslighe cheart, éargnamhail— agus an obair a dhéanamh ar nós cuma liom.

Brathann a lán ar an sórt oideachais atá ag na daoine i dtaobh an tionnsgail. Chualamar a lán le tamall mar gheall ar na deacrachtaí a bhaineas le ceárdamhlacht san ngnó—tói geál na muc atá i gceist agam. Na daoine ar fad a bhfuil eolas faoi leith acu ar an ngnó, deir siad, morán iad go léir, gur uireasbaidh eolais, nó oideachais, i measg na bhfeilméara agus muinntir na tuaithe i gcoitcheann is mó a chur cúl ariamh le méadú nó forfhás an tionnsgail.

Ba mhaith liom go dtiubhradh na Coisdí Talmhaidheachta agus a gcuid teagasgóirí aire fa leith feasda don ghné seo den sgéal.

Ar chaoi ar bith, tá seans anois ag an nGaedhealtacht tionnsgail atá rífheileamhnach dí, a bhaint amach dí féin. Tá súil agam nach ndéanfa na daoine inti faillighe sa sgéal.

Professor Johnston

The House may be interested to know that I found myself in thorough agreement with the remarks which Senator Buckley has just made, in so far as they were made in a language which I understood. I should like to go further and say that even when he speaks in the other language I like listening to him, even though I do not understand a word he says in that other language. In this matter, I think the enthusiast and the technician and professional economist—I am glad to welcome the new Senator in that capacity as well as in his other capacity in this House—are fundamentally the same. As far as I understand it, the policy which inspires this Bill as a whole is a policy of so relating the production of pigs and bacon in the country to the cost of producing those pigs over a long term that the production of pigs will show a steady upward trend, and return a steadily increasing income to the farmer and to the community. The object is also that that result should be obtained without increasing the price per unit to the consumer, apart from temporary war conditions, but on the contrary that it should be compatible with a reduction in the price of bacon, if only we can get our production up to such a point that the cost of turning the pig into bacon is reduced on account of the greater volume of pigs to be dealt with. With that policy I am in thorough agreement, and in operating that policy the commission will, of course, have to take into account the cost of production. But the whole conception of cost of production is terribly difficult to be precise about, because there are as many costs of producing pigs—as indeed of producing anything else—as there are persons producing them, or even, one might say, as there are pigs being produced. The cost vary with the efficiency of the individual farmer, with the efficiency of the housing of the pigs, with the knowledge possessed by the farmer of the best combination to build up an economic ration, and, of course, with the price of the various things that have to be bought because they cannot be produced on the farm.

There is another aspect of this question of the relation of feeding costs to pig production. There is what is known as the pig cycle. As far as I understand that rather complicated and controversial phenomenon it seems to be this, that at the time when pig prices are high the cost of pig feeding tends to be relatively low, and the farmers proceed to increase their production. By the time they have increased their output the pig prices come down, and feeding prices go up, so that you have a kind of curve of pig prices which is not related to the curve showing variations in the price of pig feeding by way of parallelism, but rather the curves belly out in opposite directions. They are concave to one another at one point and come quite close together at another point. Where the margin of gross profit contracts, owing to pig prices falling and pig feed being high, then you have causes operating to diminish the production of pigs. When you have the opposite situation, when you have a wide margin, owing to the low cost of feed and the high price of pigs, you have a situation in which the farmers try to get back into pigs. But, farmers operating with only their own instinctive foresight, and without regulation and guidance from persons having wider knowledge and authority, are sure to be at least six months late for the fair every time; they are sure to be getting into pigs when they ought to be getting out of them, and getting out of them when they really ought to be getting into them.

As I understand the policy underlying this Bill, the industry is to be so controlled that there will be at one time a fund to subsidise the price to farmers when otherwise they might be under a temptation to get out of pigs, unwisely, and at other times the farmers will get perhaps a smaller return for their pigs than the actual prevailing price would appear to justify; from one year to another the price of pigs should be so related to the price of food and other elements in the cost of production that pig production will be maintained and increased. That is the policy inspiring the Bill. I hope the Bill will be successful in achieving the results aimed at by that policy, but neither the Minister nor the House can be quite confident that that result will be fully achieved, although we hope that it may be.

There are many wheels within wheels in this matter and, in trying to cater for the public interest, there are many private interest, to be considered that are, to some extent, in conflict with one another. It will be no easy matter for the Pig Commission to ensure the prevalence of the national interest in dealing with this complicated question of the pig industry. I hope the other problem, the problem of some more thorough-going reorganisation of the pig industry in order to ensure the prevalence of the public interest in every department of it, will meet with the study it deserves from the Agricultural Commission, and we should be ready to legislate in that broader sense if and when it becomes necessary to take some more comprehensive measures for the proper establishment and carrying on of this very important national industry.

Mr. MacDermot

As rather wide issues have been entered on during the discussion of this section, perhaps I might be permitted to ask a question. Otherwise, I should have hesitated to consider it relevant. The question is, whether the Minister is aware that a very large sum of money, something like £250,000, is outstanding at the present time, owing to Irish bacon exporters by the British Ministry of Food and, if he knows that to be the fact, whether he is taking active steps to correct that situation, as it involves a very great hardship, especially in the case of the smaller exporters?

Dr. Ryan

With regard to the question asked by Senator MacDermot, that matter happens to be under discussion between my Department and the Department of Food in London at the moment—they are discussing it with relation to these outstanding amounts. Undoubtedly, the total amount outstanding represents a very severe strain on a number of the factories. It is a very large amount, but I think we may hope that there will be an improvement from this onwards when the Ministry of Food are better on their way and able to meet those bills more promptly. I do not say that the Minister has not the money. The point is that when the organisation is perfected, he will meet the accounts more promptly.

Mr. MacDermot

Will it be a matter of days, of weeks, or of months?

Dr. Ryan

I have a hope that the whole thing will be cleared away in a matter of days. With regard to the point raised by Senator Baxter, undoubtedly the ideal way to have this thing arranged would be to have the price of pigs related to the price of foodstuffs; that would make for a permanent solution of our difficulties and for the encouragement of pig production. During the summer, before war appeared on the horizon, we were preparing in the Department a very comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole pig and bacon industry, which would have the effect of rescinding all previous Acts, and we intended to bring in a new measure to replace them. We meant to bring in what we considered reforms. That had to be put aside when the war came on, because we had to deal with a situation not contemplated in the Bill. In the Bill I was anxious to make it legally possible to have a scheme under which the price of pigs would be related to the price of foodstuffs.

When you come to examine that rather closely you will find there are certain difficulties that, perhaps, at first sight, are not suspected. First of all, we have no great control over the price of foodstuffs. We do, it is true, produce a good deal of our own foodstuffs, because many pig producers rear pigs on their own potatoes, grain and skimmed milk. At the same time, the price of foodstuffs under a scheme like that would have to be decided on what is called a balanced ration. The balanced ration would be composed of a certain amount of maize, barley, pollard and meat-meal, some mixture such as that, although probably that particular mixture would never be made up, but it is taken as the representative foodstuff. Whatever the price of that balanced ration is for the time being, the price of pigs is going to be related to it, but, as a good deal of what would form the balanced ration is outside the control of the Government, we cannot foresee what the price of foodstuffs would be.

If we commit ourselves to a scheme like that, the price of pigs must necessarily be related to the price of the balanced ration. I am talking now of a time of peace. We were dealing with a peace situation when we were drawing up this scheme. We could proceed, to a certain extent, on the levy and subsidy principle. We could levy a certain amount on home-consumed bacon and pay out on exported bacon and in that way we could keep a level price and enable the factory to pay a fixed price for pigs and the formula. The price of bacon on the home market might, however, go too high under that scheme. If we put bacon too high on the home market, the consumption might go down and we would have more for export and, therefore, more to subsidise.

If you study the scheme carefully, you will have to come to the same conclusion as I did, that you cannot work it unless you have a State guarantee behind it. If you have a State guarantee it is not so difficult. You could work it like this, that the price of pigs is to be related to the price of feeding-stuffs, according to a certain formula. We will take what we can for our exported bacon and raise the price of what is consumed here to a certain level, but beyond that we must not allow the bacon on the home market to go. If we have to meet anything beyond that, it must come out of State funds. I have been studying this problem for a long time and as closely as I could. It is impossible to work it unless there is some sort of a State guarantee, so that the State will not let the scheme go down or go wrong. That is, now, for peace times. I do not say that it should not be done even if the State has to come into it. I would have been prepared if the war had not taken place to press the Minister for Finance to allow me to bring in a scheme of that kind and give the necessary State guarantee but, now, the war is on.

Senator Baxter is right when he says that I said it would put the Government and the country in an impossible position if we were to adopt that scheme now and have to export bacon, say, to Great Britain and pay a subsidy on it. I think it would, whatever we might have differences about such a scheme in peace times. I think that Senator Johnston, for instance, and other Senators on that side hold very strong free trade views. Senator Counihan said here on the last occasion that he was a die-hard free trader. Certainly no Senator who holds strong free trade views could agree to such a scheme. In my opinion, they would have to oppose it and would have to let things take their course, as it were. In the present instance, I think things are more difficult to approach, if you like. We negotiated with Great Britain for prices for bacon. Suppose we say to Great Britain, "We have adopted a formula; we have to pay a certain price for bacon because the price of feeding stuffs is so high and if you do not give us that price for our bacon we will have to give a subsidy on the export." I think that would leave Great Britain in a very nice position because she will say, "That is all right; carry on."

But I think it is only fair that we should say to the British Government, at the present time anyway: "If you do not give us a better price for our bacon, our people will have to go out of production because they cannot afford to go on feeding pigs at that price. They will not go out of production to such an extent that our own people will be left hungry in Ireland. We are sure to have enough bacon for ourselves. But we cannot afford to subsidise the production of bacon for British consumers during a time of war. Therefore, if the price is not improved we will be compelled to say to our people that the price is not, in our opinion, sufficient and if they do not think it is sufficient the only thing is to go out of production." I think we are driven to that. I do not know if Senators agree or not. The only alternative is to bring that scheme in now; we will have to subsidise the export of bacon; we will have to say to the British Government: "It is very unfair that we should subsidise the export of bacon at the present time but, even so, under the scheme we must do it and there is no way out of it. We will have to go on and do it." Personally, I do not think we should do it.

There is another difficulty, too. At the present time we are getting the same for our bacon here as the bacon factories are getting in England. We are getting the same at the port here as they are getting ex-factory in England. That means, of course, that we are getting about as much for our pigs here in the factories. If things go normally, I mean, if we allow the price of home-consumed bacon to take its course and be ruled by the same conditions as the export bacon, our farmers here will get about the same price for our pigs as the English farmer gets for his pigs. But the English farmer has a big advantage because he is getting feeding stuffs very much cheaper than our farmers are getting them. The British Government is buying all the feeding stuffs coming into the country. They are still selling grain to the maize mills in England at the pre-war price. The British Government is, I assume, paying about £2 10s. 0d. a ton or £3 0s. 0d. a ton more for maize and is selling it at the August price to the mills.

Professor Johnston

Has the Minister any evidence for that statement?

Dr. Ryan

Oh, yes, absolute evidence. The British Government is bringing in that maize and other feeding stuffs, and selling it, as I say, at the August price to the mills. The mills can, of course, turn out their feeding stuffs £2 10/- or £3 cheaper than our mills here. In that way again if the Food Controller pays the same to British factories for bacon as he pays to our factories here and the factories then in turn are able to get the same price for pigs, the English feeder is getting much better value for his pigs than the Irish feeder for his. It is put to me, why does the Government here not do the same with regard to feeding stuffs? That would be a subsidy. It would be a hidden subsidy. It would mean that we would be subsidising our bacon going into England.

Professor Johnston

We cannot afford it anyway.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think we could afford it in any case. However, although I gave this matter very full consideration during the summer months, before war was declared, in an effort to work out a permanent scheme for peace time, I do not say that since the war started we have been able to examine every aspect of the case. I am hopeful that when this commission is set up they will be able to give a fair amount of time to the whole pigs and bacon problem. The two officers who will be on the commission, of course, will carry on in the Department as they have been carrying on but they are dealing with pigs and bacon there and their minds will not be diverted to any great extent to any other problem. When they consider this whole question, if they should make any recommendations for a better basis for the fixing of the price of pigs I would be very glad to consider it and to give my approval if I think it is right. But I am afraid that for the present, until I get some better suggestion, we must try to fix the price of pigs here on the price of exported bacon. That is not so at the moment because, on account of the particular position that arose when control was removed in England and on account of the very high jump in the value of live pigs, the Pigs Board here had to put the price of pigs up higher in the factories than could be justified, I should say, on the price of exported bacon. But we regard that just as a temporary measure. At least, I hope it will not be necessary to try to meet this present situation for very long. As I said before, when I spoke on Senator Counihan's amendment, if I thought this present situation was going to last longer than the middle of January we would have to meet it in some other way. We are meeting it, if you like, in a temporary and provisional way because we have been told that it is the intention of the Food Controller in England to bring back control some time about the 8th or 10th January.

A few other matters arose. I think that there is prohibition against the export of most feeding stuffs. I think it is an offence to export feeding stuffs from this country into the Six Counties or anywhere else. However, I mean to look into the matter further to see if that should be tightened up.

I quite agree with Senator O Buachalla that the whole industry will have to be reorganised. As a matter of fact, I said in the Dáil on two or three occasions, and I think I said it here, that my big object in setting up this commission is not merely, as far as the boards are concerned at present, to carry on the functions, but really to try to make suggestions for a reorganisation, a fundamental reorganisation, of the whole thing because I think I can understand from the speeches made here by all Senators that we all agree that when the war is over we are going to be up against the real crux. We are going to be up against the old competitors who are very well organised. There will be a great tussle for the export market—I do not know whether it will be as good or not—and unless we are as well organised as our competitors, as Senator O Buachalla said, we will have to go down in the contest. I am hopeful that with the recommendations already made by the Prices Commission and the Agricultural Commission, this commission, taking all these things into consideration, may be able to make suggestions for a permanent scheme for the reorganisation of our pigs and bacon industry which we will have in operation, if possible, before the war is over so that we will be ready to get what we can out of foreign markets when the war stops.

I quite agree with Senator O Buachalla that the pig industry is a suitable industry for the Gaeltacht and our poorer areas because they do grow a certain amount of food that is suitable for the pig and, under housing schemes and so on, they have suitable housing. It is an industry that if they got some little help they might be able to go into much more rapidly than they could go into the production of milk. If we could help in any way the people in the Gaeltacht and the poorer districts in the country, we would be doing good for the country as well as for these people individually. Senator Johnston raised a point about the cycle of prices. The whole object of the legislation from 1935 was to get as near as possible to a straight line rather than to have a cycle both with regard to the number of pigs and the prices. We had hopes that if we could get fairly level prices all through, that would result in having a fairly level number of pigs at all seasons and there would be no violent fluctuation in the number of pigs as between one season and another. I hope we may be able to improve the position at least for the present and in addition to get a satisfactory permanent scheme within a reasonable time.

Mr. Baxter

I am not complaining that the Minister's statement is not fairly satisfactory but to me it lacks positiveness. He did say something which, if he put it into operation, would transform the whole position. He said, indicating the difficulties, that they might go over to the British and say: "If you do not give us a better price for our pigs our people will go out of production." I think that is the kernel of the whole problem. Those who are in production in the country know that we are up against this kind of situation. The bulk of our home-grown foodstuffs are being used up and we are coming to a thin, lean period. Feeding stuffs cost about £12 10s. per. ton, and the man across the Border will give £14 per ton for what is being sold here for £12 10s. or £13. It seems to me that a great many farmers are going to find it very difficult to pay 13/- per cwt. for feeding stuffs, when we remember the condition of gambling which exists at the moment on the market. I believe if we had a definite statement of policy whereby the producers of pigs were guaranteed that the price in future was going to be based on the cost of the feeding stuffs, there would be an assurance, as far as the producer was concerned, that you would get as many pigs as he could give you. Our aim at the moment is mainly to get increased production. It is awfully difficult, in the insecurity of the present time, to get farmers, quite a number of whom have neither credit nor cash, to go in for increased production. We may come into a period next year when our production will have fallen appallingly low unless we get the attitude of mind amongst our farmers now that they are prepared to take chances. The best way to secure that attitude of mind is to ensure that prices are going to be based on the cost of production. I think that is the fundamental thing.

I am not going to set my opinion against that of trained economists in this House who tell us that there are other factors to be taken into account. I know there are other factors such as the processing of bacon and the price to be paid for processing, but what we are concerned with is to get more pigs. I think the Government should decide its policy now because unless we keep as many people working on the land as possible unemployment will be increased. It would be much better to tell the British Food Controller here and now that unless he can say that the prices paid for our bacon will ensure that our producers are going to get something in addition to the costs incurred in feeding, there is going to be less production. Like ourselves the people in England are not very farseeing, and they have been so accustomed to getting their requirements out of the labours of farmers from the ends of the earth, that they may feel secure in the present crisis, but they are not secure. It would be no harm to bring it home to them that the Irish farmer is not going to do this job unless he knows that he is going to be adequately remunerated. I do not wish now to enter into a discussion of the policy of compulsory tillage, although it is somewhat related to this subject. I believe that we should have a plan for pig production as far as the British Food Controller and the consumers over there are concerned. I think our farmers will have to get guarantees in future in regard to production or you are going to have less, rather than more, production.

I do not want to talk about the industrialist who is guaranteed a price for the commodity which he manufactures before ever he turns a wheel, but next harvest, if we work, if we have machines, manures and seeds and if God is good to us, we shall probably have a larger harvest than we had this year. We shall have more food of our own, and possibly we shall have a larger number of pigs for export. I believe that here and now we should have a guarantee with regard to these exports, and if we are going to be compelled to grow oats, barley or any other crop, the fruits of which have to be marketed in England, we should know now that we are going to be assured of something more than the costs of production.

The Minister has raised a question in regard to this whole policy which is fundamental and which should be tackled now. We ought not in my opinion relate the price of pigs, as far as the producer is concerned, to the price which we are to get for bacon and then have the producer in the position which the Minister referred to in the other House when he said:—

"We may say four months ahead that, if feeding stuffs are £8 a ton, then the dead-weight price would be such a price, but we might find when we reached that period, that the export value of bacon was very much lower. If anything goes wrong the State must take the risk and must come in to make things right."

I say it is very unfair that the producer should be asked to carry the whole burden of the risk involved in feeding pigs. I say that, as between the Minister here and the Ministers of the British Government, it is essential to have a long range policy on this matter. The Minister wants, as we want, to see our farmers secure in their efforts at increased production. The farmers have passed through so many vicissitudes in recent years that you have to give them some unusual encouragement in order to get from them that production which is essential. The only way to do that, judging from what I have heard at the Agricultural Commission and in other places, is to guarantee that if they feed pigs and have to buy or produce food to feed them, the price which they are going to get for their pigs will be so related to the cost of production that they will have some little profit left as the fruits of their labour.

The McGillycuddy

Another difficulty arises out of the Minister's statement and also out of what Senator Baxter has stated. Both the Minister and Senator Johnston said that the country could not afford this subsidy. Surely you will get back a very large amount of the subsidy, if not the whole of it, in the shape of increased production of pigs which are then exported. I see no way of increasing the production of pigs other than that suggested by Senator Baxter.

Dr. Ryan

In the scheme as Senator Baxter sees it, suppose we were to get some formula going, and mind you I think that any formula that might be put up at the present time would show that pigs are paying, it would mean that we would probably be taking a levy off the bacon factories at the present time. Suppose we succeeded in doing so well in the marketing of bacon that we were able to get a levy of 10/- per cwt. or so off the bacon factories, I wonder would the farmers be contented with their lot if they were not getting something out of the profits that were there. The profits would go into the fund, but I wonder would they be content if we explained to them that the profits were going into the fund to be available in a lean time? I would like to know if that is the sort of scheme that Senator Baxter has in mind.

Mr. Baxter

In the interests of the pig producers of the country, and of the stability of agriculture generally, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I believe the Minister's suggestion is far sounder than the proposal in the Bill. I would much prefer it to going into a period of inflation, to be followed by a lean period in which our people would have nothing to fall back upon. A situation in which you had inflated prices would mean that consumers of bacon here would have to pay inflated prices for it, and in turn that would lead to demands being made on every section of the community. It would throw our whole economy out of balance. In my opinion it is only by paying attention to these problems now that we will be able to preserve our stability and economic life which are essential to the maintenance of our whole social structure.

The McGillycuddy

To raise the price of home-cured bacon on a population of 1,000,000 adults would simply mean that three-fourths of our people would be paying exactly the same thing as a subsidy.

Dr. Ryan

That is so.

Sections 55 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.