I should like to explain that, since the discussion on the last day, I consulted the secretary of the National Executive of the Cattle Trade and he has told me that, within the past four or five weeks, between 200 and 300 export licences for milch cows and springers have been returned unused to him. It might be well for the Seanad to know that before proceeding with the further discussion of the motion.
Export of Milch Cows—Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion by Senator Joseph Johnston:—
That, in view of the tendency of limitation of export of milch cows by reference to available shipping space to depress prices in the home market and widen the margin of dealers' profits, the Seanad is of opinion that such limitation as may be necessary, owing to transport conditions or desirable in the public interest, should be effected by an appropriate levy on the export of milch cows, springers, and in-calf heifers.
I moved the adjournment of the debate on this motion on the last occasion. I was the seconder of the motion, not that I accepted what Senator Johnston proposed, but so that the House would get an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject. We have a statement now from Senator Counihan of which I know nothing. He has information form the secretary of some of the live-stock organisations with regard to licences for the export of milch cows. There is a great deal of confusion of thought about this whole problem. Frequently, one hears the urban dweller declare that the export of milch cows should be stopped, that it is a disgrace to see our best cows leaving the country.
The general trend of the remarks is that Government action should be taken to restrict the sale of milch cows by restricting their export. Coming to this period of the year, when there is an apparent shortage of milk, one hears people loudly declaiming against the export of milch cows. I am not at all satisfied that Government policy in this matter is fair to the man who produces the cow. I do not want to see the country left without an adequate supply of milk. I have voiced my opinion frequently on that subject in this House. Some of us were prophesying more than two or three years ago what the fruits of pursuing a certain price-policy as regards milk production would be. Milk is one of our really scarce commodities to-day. The product of milk—butter—is, to our discredit, one of the rarest commodities which the housewife finds in her search for food.
That is not as it ought to be. There are reasons for that situation which the Minister, the House and the country should well understand if we are not going to have a recurrence of it. The main reason is that the price which the producer has been getting for his milk over a period of years has been altogether too low to keep him in production. Over a period of years, the income of our dairy farmers has been scandalously low. Who produces the dairy cow that is going to be exported? The dairy farmer, of course, and not the grain grower or the feeder of the two or three old bullocks. The dairymen, in the dairying counties, are producing the good dairy cows that have been exported. The people who say that there ought to be a restriction on the export of milch cows do not know what they are talking about. Talk of that sort is the right way to go about killing the dairy industry altogether, and to make sure that you will have much less milk and butter in the future. The one thing that over a period of years has helped the dairy farmer to balance his accounts, was the fact that now and again he had a cow for sale and was able to obtain a good price for her. No sensible dairy farmer is going to rid himself of his six or seven-year-old cow unless he can replace her from his own herd. Senator O'Callaghan, Senator O'Dwyer, Senator MacCabe and myself are dairy farmers. We know what the good dairy farmer does. I am talking now of the man who produces a cow that will bring £40 or £50 to-day. People should realise that these cows do not spring up like a mushroom overnight. The cows that to-day are bringing £45 and £50 in our fairs are from three to eight years old. We started to produce them before the war and, for a good while before that, we had to have their mothers and fathers. The truth is that it is the limited number of people with good dairy stock, men who have been producing this stock year in and year out, during periods when the price of milk was bad, who are the exporters of our dairy stock to-day and will be the producers of our dairy stock to-morrow.
Speaking from my own experience of them, I can say that those people only sell their good cows when they can put their progeny into the stalls. Their system is to try to keep the number of cows up to a certain level and their total milk production to a certain figure. But the time comes when the dairy farmer has to decide when either the mother or the daughter must go. As a dairy farmer myself, I think it is sounder economics to put the daughter rather than the mother into the stall. When you have kept a cow up to the age of seven years you have taken the best out of her. From the point of view of appearance she is in full bloom, so that on the market she will probably attract the highest figure that she can ever bring to her owner. In that situation, what are you going to do with her? A certain number of such cows may be retained, but a considerable number of them must be exported if you are to keep the dairy farmer in milk production in the future. That is the situation we are up against on this question of the giving of licences for the export of cattle. There is also the question whether or not you should, as Senator Johnston has suggested, employ another method. The present method is not operating fairly as far as the dairy farmer is concerned. If we want milk for our people here, surely the dairy farmer expects that you will not artificially create a situation whereby he is definitely going to be the loser through the policy of reducing the price of his animal so that the community here may get milk at a price that is actually lower than the real price. In the long run, I do not think you will achieve your end by the policy which is being pursued.
This problem of the maintenance of our dairy stock has, for a very long time, been a matter of concern for everybody interested in the maintenance of our herds. One way to ensure that our herds are going to be maintained is not by restricting the activities of the dairy farmer in getting the best price that is to be obtained in the market for his cows. With regard to licences for the export of cows, I do not know the facts down here to which Senator Counihan has referred. Dealers in another part of the country have, however, told me that they had bought cows on fairs although they had not got licences to get them out. They went and bought licences at prices varying from 30/- to £5. In that situation there is, obviously, a limit put on the price which the dairy farmer can get for his beast. It may be thought that, in the interests of the people who consume milk and milk products, that is the right thing to do, but, in my opinion, it is not fair to the dairy farmer. I think that if you are not prepared to give him such a price for his milk as will enable him not only to maintain his herd but even to extend it and to raise its productive capacity up to the desired level: if in the community interest you are not prepared to give him a price for his milk that is comparable with the price paid outside, it is very unfair indeed. It is unfair to restrict him in the sale of his animal and compel him to take a price from a dealer which is from £15 to £20 less than that paid for her when she is finally disposed of outside the country. We see in the market reports that cows are being sold in Britain at prices up to £70. That is a very good price for a cow. In fact, the one that would fetch it should be a very good cow.
That price is being paid for cows in this country.
Only very rarely.
It is not so prevalent in England now, either.
I was told of a cow that was bought at the Dublin market for £75. She was sent to Belfast, and when she reached there she died. At the last fair in Cavan I saw good springing cows that could not be sold because the dealers had not got licences. In the case of my own herd, I have reached the stage that I have got more female stock than I can accommodate or than my farm can carry, so that I have got to sell either my young heifers that I want to put into the herd or the cows. When the time comes to sell the cows, which have given very good service, I should be able to get the best price possible. The restriction on price by a system of licensing is not fair.
I am in favour of the consumption of more milk, and think we are not consuming half enough. The dairy farmer has been carrying the burden all along and it is not fair that he should have to supply milk to the producer at a price under the market price. We are selling cattle in a market where the same currency circulates and the same price levels are supposed to exist. Just across the Border, however, the dairy farmer is able to get 2/6 a gallon at a creamery in Northern Ireland. Only a fortnight ago I saw hundreds of gallons of milk being prepared for sending away from that district. The farmer in Cavan who gets only 9d. or 10d. a gallon cannot compete with the farmer in Fermanagh who is getting 2/6. We have to meet that situation in some way. The proposition that Senator Johnston makes is not a satisfactory one, though neither is the system of licensing.
I have been informed that licences in the northern area are distributed with the consent and approval of our Department here which, in the first instance, determines the number of licences to be distributed. In fact, however, those licences are going to people outside our jurisdiction—to dealers in the Six Counties, operating in our markets.
They always operated in those markets.
I am not objecting at all, but they are operating there to the disadvantage of the dealers within our jurisdiction. I know that some of the men—probably some of those with whom Senator Counihan is acquainted —are not able to procure the number of licences which would compare with the amount of stock they were accustomed to handle in the past. Those who have the great majority of licences are dealers in the Six Counties. I do not understand why it is not possible to have the licences distributed to our own citizens here, if there is a preference given at all. It would seem to be the more sensible way to do it. There may be some explanation and, perhaps, the facts have not been given fully to me. I have been informed by some traders that they have to purchase cows which have not licences and that, in order to export them, they must buy licences from dealers outside our jurisdiction. That is not satisfactory, and is evidence in support of the contention by Senator Johnston that those licences are of value. I cannot see how that fits in with the statement which Senator Counihan made to the effect that, recently, some of those licences have been returned, and that the British are not taking the cows.
Those are my views on this question generally, rather than on the motion before the House. I would beg members of the Seanad to approach the whole problem of our milk production and consumption in the future from the angle that you cannot expect dairy farmers to grow stock and supply the milk at a price not properly related to the cost of production, and later, when the animal—which has served him well and served you well, too—has given of her best and has to be parted with, let the State impose certain restrictions on the price. The problem of increasing the live stock and of getting our heifers into herds all over the country must be solved in some other way than by penalising the man who bred the heifer when he has her mother for sale.
I am not going to make any proposition here and now as to how we may deal with these problems. Many of our very good heifers are being exported to make the foundations of herds in England. We need many of them in this country, but we are not doing much about it. It is not very attractive to farmers to keep up their stock of dairy herds, from the experience they and their neighbours have had in the past. That aspect of our agricultural policy requires urgent consideration and, perhaps, some revolutionary method of solution, if we are to increase the number of dairy cows. I do not think the policy that is being pursued up to the present is the best one. I do not know to what extent this system of licensing has restricted the export of cows, nor how many more cows would have been exported if it had not been adopted. It operates unfairly against the farmer producer and, therefore, I am not satisfied with it. Of course, I realise that the community has a claim and that its interests must be taken into account, but I do not think it is right that the State, which comes between the farmer producer and the consuming public, should act against the farmer and penalise him to an extent that discourages the production of dairy stock.
I rise to endorse the remarks of the last speaker. I have had experience of dairying for well over 30 years and am sorry to say that I have never seen milk or butter so scarce as at present in rural Ireland. It may be said that that is due to the sale of milch cows and the export of cattle, but I fear that that is not the main cause of the decrease in the milk supply and therefore, of the decrease in the butter supply.
Early last year, a motion was debated in this House, asking the Minister to increase the price of butter in the creameries. Unfortunately, the motion was not passed and the Minister did not agree to increase the price of milk. Some time later, practically at the close of the season, the Minister agreed that our appeal was worthy of consideration and made a small increase in the price of milk to the suppliers to creameries. It was rather too late, as many farmers who had good cows for sale did not consider they would be wise in keeping the stock over, as the return they would get for the milk in the winter months would not compensate them. Therefore, they were willing to sell good herds, as Senator Baxter has stated, or sell the cows when they reached seven or eight years of age.
The whole trouble with the dairying business here is, as everyone will admit, that the farmer is not getting a price which would encourage him to carry on. For a number of years, he did try his best, even though the price was small, but now it has reached the stage when he cannot possibly do so. Unfortunately, the Government appear to have taken very little interest in the dairying industry. I think, in order to encourage the farmers to produce more milk, they should get a price that will compensate them for their trouble, give them some little profit in return for all the labour involved. That is not too much to ask.
So far as Senator Johnston's remarks about the ban on the export of cattle are concerned, I would not agree with what he said. I would rather agree with what Senator Baxter said, that you have to get rid of your cattle at a certain age and, if you prevent a farmer from doing that, you will be doing him a very great injury. I feel that this will give the Minister an opportunity to go into the matter fully. I hope that he will consider the desirability of giving an increase in the coming season to the milk suppliers to the creameries, because in that way there will be a definite encouragement to them to carry on their herds next year.
The motion before the House covers only the fringe of the subject. The number of dairy cows being exported at the present time is very small. The big question is the production of milk to meet our home requirements. Undoubtedly we are facing a period when there will be a scarcity of milk, not only in the large cities like Dublin, but throughout the country generally. There is a scarcity at the moment. From the national point of view, that is a serious position. Senator Baxter mentioned that possibly some revolutionary changes would be required. Revolutionary changes to some degree have already been suggested, and there have been well-thought-out schemes submitted with the object of improving conditions.
One of the things that, nationally, we must tackle is the exclusion of the uneconomic cow. Everybody who speaks of dairy farming claims that certain cows are uneconomic, not worth their keep. If they are not worth their keep we should get rid of them as quickly as possible. That is step No. 1, and step No. 2 is the desirability of producing a high-grade milk. I suggest to the Minister that, from the point of view of post-war planning, we should forward by every means in our power, with, of course, the Minister's assistance, the production of the highest grade milk. The production of milk of the highest quality means the maintenance of an increasingly large number of disease-free cows. I have mentioned here before that at some time it may be necessary for us to guarantee our cattle that are exported as disease-free. We may be compelled to do that at some time or other and, if we do not make arrangements in advance, we will find ourselves in a very awkward position when the time arrives to give the guarantee in regard to disease-free animals. There should be a national endeavour, by increasing cow-testing associations, to eliminate the uneconomic cow.
Having eliminated the uneconomic cow, or coincident with its elimination, we should endeavour to establish the disease-free herds from which the highest-grade milk can be procured, milk that will be pre-eminently safe for human consumption without any need for pasteurisation or for expenditure to ensure purification. If we proceed on those lines, I think we will have a situation where we will not be endeavouring to export our young heifers and our best quality cattle, our best milkers. We will then be in a position to get them into our own herds, milk production will be graded, and our herds will be established as disease-free. I refer to cattle being disease-free because some people do not like to use the word "tuberculosis" Tuberculosis is the big danger to the human being from bovine infection. I do not want to go into detail on the present occasion with regard to the danger to human beings through the consumption of tubercular milk. Having established disease-free herds, herds free from tuberculosis, we obviate the necessity of pasteurisation and we can put a healthier milk on the market for human consumption.
We should make every endeavour, with the full co-operation of the Minister, to increase milk production throughout the country by reducing the numbers of uneconomic cattle and by subsidising the production of highest grade milk. The motion before the House covers only a fringe of the problem. Whether there are cattle being exported, and whether the profit is exorbitant for this or that dealer, does not concern the average man in the country a whole lot. If all the cattle could be put into our own herds, possibly we would eliminate the profits that Senator Johnston speaks of, profits gained through cattle being exported under licence. My opinion of the motion is that it simply covers a very small fringe of a very important subject.
I consider that Senator Johnston has done a great service by bringing this motion forward. A great many people interested in cattle rearing have been wondering when the export of springing cows and heifers is going to be stopped. There has been a considerable amount of comment on this subject at fairs and markets throughout the country during the past six months. Naturally, this sort of thing has a bad effect on the production of these animals. I hope the Minister will be in a position to make a very clear statement on this matter. We should like to know from him if any steps are being contemplated to remedy the situation.
Dairy farming at the moment is not very attractive. The prices which the dairy farmer gets do not tend to make him very happy. I speak with some experience of different aspects of farming. I take a deep interest in dairying; I have always done a good deal of dairy farming, but at the present time I feel that I will get easier money by following other aspects of farming. At the same time, I like to keep my hand in the business, because I feel that in the post-war period dairy farming may be one of the things that the farmer will have to fall back upon.
Senator O'Donovan pleaded for encouraging a higher milk production and an improvement in the grade. I entirely agree with him on that matter. We have made great strides in this country in grading-up the beef producing qualities of our animals. We made wonderful strides in that direction, and that is recognised by everybody, but the same cannot be said with regard to the dairying qualities of our cattle.
I suggest to the Minister that he should seriously contemplate the introduction of good dairy cattle from across the Channel. For the past 25 or 30 years we have been importing Scotch-bred bulls. These are mainly animals of a good beef-producing type and they have done a lot in improving the beef qualities of our animals, unfortunately to the detriment of the dairying side. Across the Channel, there are any number of dairy herds because in England they go in specially for dairy farming. In Scotland, they go in for raising cattle for beef purposes. If some of these dairy bulls were imported from England, I am sure they would do good work here. I know the argument will be put forward that it will be hard to place these bulls with farmers, that they prefer to go in for breeding stores, but, on the other hand, I think there would be a reasonable demand for them and that they would do untold good in improving the dairy qualities of our animals. The cow-testing movement also tends in that direction, and I think it has to a large extent saved the dairy qualities of animals in the south of Ireland at least. The people who are cow-testing in the south are the people who produce the big bulk of the bulls used by the other farmers who are not cow testing, and in that way the non-cow testing farmer is benefiting by the work done by the cow-testing farmer.
Senator Counihan made reference to 200 or 300 licences being returned to the Department. I do not know what the position is in that regard, but I cannot understand that state of affairs. I should like a little more information on it, and perhaps the Minister would give us some explanation. I am wondering if the distribution of the licences is carried out in a proper way or not and whether the right people are getting them, because I feel that, if the right people got them, they would use them. The cattle are in the country. The in-calf heifers and in-calf cows are in the country and available for export, and I am bewildered to hear that such a condition should exist. I understand that the cattle trade executive has something to do with the distribution of the licences. I do not want at all to reflect in any way on the credit of the cattle trade, but there seems to be something wrong there, and I should like to have a further explanation of it, which the Minister may be able to give.
I suppose Senator Johnston will not proceed with his motion. I am sure that after what he has heard from the various speakers, he will be satisfied that his motion is not a commonsense motion. That is not intended as an insult to the Senator.
I merely wanted to ventilate the whole problem and the Senator is doing it very nicely for me.
The urban view is: "Stop the export of cows"; the rural view is: "Pay for butter and milk and you will get plenty of them." The ordinary dairy farmer who produces milk and sends it to the creamery is the man who produces the springing cow and springing heifer. I have already stated that, in my experience, dairy farming is not at all attractive at the moment, and if we were to penalise the dairy farmer further by stopping the export of springing cows and heifers, we would be penalising the dairy industry in a most unwarranted way. Milk production and milk consumption ought to be encouraged in every possible way, and I think that much could be done by the Department by introducing animals of milking strain.
Having heard Senator O'Donovan's speech, I feel that his approach to the subject is far too academic and far too unreal. He assumes that if you increase cow-testing associations, you will get a response in the elimination of unproductive cows. That is not my experience. I know a number of cow-testing associations and the improvement— I do not say there is none—comes very slowly indeed. Year after year, there is a certain number of people in these associations who, in spite of the records, do not respond. There is considerable expense involved, as well as other financial considerations, which make it difficult for people to respond to the theory, and that is what I feel about many of these recommendations —they are remote from the personal circumstances of the man himself. He has not got the means, or very often the education, to respond and to take advantage of all these theories.
I favour far more the slower approach of education which is the only really durable method to the method, which was rather suggested by Senator O'Donovan, of perhaps mild coercion or subsidies. I do not see where we shall ever get if our basic industry is to rely on subsidies. Where are they to come from? Agriculture is the main source of wealth in this land, and if we are to subsidise agriculture from our main financial pool, we are merely feeding the dog on a bit of its own tail.
We must rely far more on two things to revive our basic industry. One is vastly improved technique. I think that nobody will deny that in other countries the whole method of agricultural production, largely based on the standard of education of the people themselves, is far in advance of ours. That development must be and, I hope, will be, pushed forward in every possible way. I understand that a body of people is at present examining the industry and that is the line upon which their deliberations are proceeding. But, there again, there is no good in getting too far from the ground. You must work with the material available and until our people have the education, plus the financial resources, to put it into effect, you will not get very much further. I know people who are working land beside each other. One man works hard and is intelligent and he gets totally different results from the man next door. That is a matter of the personal element, which is most important.
I am also not at all impressed by the theory that merely because you give money you are going to get results. I have heard people say that a farmer cannot afford to buy an incubator, that if you give him the finance to enable him to get an incubator, he will get into production and produce this and that. Until he has the education and the intelligence to use all these modern methods, it is simply a waste of money to put financial resources at his disposal. If he is a hard-working man, technically educated, he very often will not want the money at all, because he can find it with his own resources.
With regard to milk production, I am never satisfied about the practical virtues—I know the theoretical virtues—of this high-grade milk. I agree that we are all living on a counsel of perfection and that if we all had unlimited incomes, we should all like to have high-grade milk; but the world is not on a basis of perfection. It is on a basis of reality, and I should very much like to see tests carried out to ascertain what percentage of danger there is in the ordinary grade milk, which everybody can afford to drink, as compared with the high-grade milk, and whether people who are drinking ordinary milk are contracting disease to any greater extent than those who, owing to their financial position, are able to afford this high-grade milk.
There is a lot of fundamental research to be done. We are assuming too much when we argue that if everybody had high-grade milk there would be no tuberculosis, or that tuberculosis would be reduced to infinitesimal dimensions. I think that has not been proved. There are, of course, degrees of tuberculosis in cattle which are distinctly dangerous and should be dealt with, but there are minor degrees of tuberculosis in cattle which will respond to the test whose milk is not in the least dangerous to human beings. I think scientific tests should be carried out in our research stations to determine to what extent, in the case of a minor degree of tuberculosis in animals which react to the test, is their milk dangerous to human beings as compared with those animals which do not react. That, in my opinion, is the realistic approach to the problem— not subsidies and not counsels of perfection which suggest that everybody should live on this grade A milk, because only a certain number can afford to buy it and only a certain number can afford to produce it.
There is another side to the question. The views expressed by those who have spoken are those of people engaged chiefly in dairying and food production. Let me not be taken as being opposed to farmers getting a good price for milk. I was reared on a farm and in my young days I attended to and milked cows. The position in Dublin is that the citizens have to pay a good price for milk and butter. I do not know if Senator O'Callaghan or Senator MacCabe are aware that poor people are paying 2/4 per gallon for milk, and even at that price cannot get enough of it. If they want to make sure that they will have milk for their tea they have to go to the retailers early in the day, because there is not sufficient milk available in the city. Senators who have spoken would be nearer the mark if they concentrated in an endeavour to bring about an arrangement, whereby the price of milk to the producer and the price that would be charged to the poor would satisfy both parties. I tell Senator Baxter that poor people in the city are paying 2/4 per gallon for milk and 2/- per lb. for butter. The Senator stated that in and around Cavan the price paid producers for milk was from 9d. to 10d. per gallon. Is not the difference between 9d. and 10d. paid producers and what is charged to consumers in Dublin too big? Surely there should be some way of bridging that marked difference in prices. My interest is to endeavour to see that the poor will not be mulcted. If a levy or a subsidy is paid on the export of milch cows the money must be found somewhere, and the poor in this city, who are taxpayers, will have to pay their portion of it.
The Senator is under a misapprehension. The idea was that a tax on cows going out should be paid into the Exchequer. That would be a source of revenue to the State.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator has spoken for five minutes now and I might again remind the Senator that the House usually adjourns at 6 o'clock.
As far as I am concerned, I want to see the poor of Dublin who are looking for milk and butter getting both at prices which they can pay.
Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
I should like to say that I do not believe that the necessity has yet arisen for the stoppage of the export of dairy cattle. But I think that Senator Johnston's suggestion was a very good one, that in case there is a necessity to discourage the export of dairy cattle it would be much better to place a levy on their export rather than actually to stop the export; because we should remember that if we stop the export and lessen the demand, it will have the effect of curtailing prices. It is a suggestion, therefore, which should be borne in mind, because if the export is greater than the supply, then it would be necessary to impose a levy, as Senator Johnston suggested. I do not think, however, that the time has yet arisen for that and, therefore, no action is called for at present.
Senator Sir John Keane raised a very interesting question when he said that he would like to have it found out what was the degree of danger from drinking ordinary milk as compared with T.T. milk. So far as we in country districts can see there is absolutely no danger from drinking ordinary milk, because people in the country, farmers, labourers and everybody else, practically all the time drink milk which is not pasteurised, and we never see cases of tuberculosis occurring which can be traced to infection from milk. These people drink ordinary milk produced in ordinary circumstances from dairy cows and it never causes any infection by giving the germs of tuberculosis to the childern. That is an argument for allowing the milk from outside counties to come into the city, where there is a great shortage. There is undoubtedly far more danger to the childern from a shortage of milk than there would be from drinking milk from those districts.
I often wonder whether it would not be possible to do more in the line of milk powder. During the summer months there is an abundance of milk —in normal times we exported it in the shape of butter—and I often wonder if it would not be possible to have it made into powder, so as to relieve the shortage in our cities in the winter months. I think the possibilities of that should be investigated. In the post-war period, when materials will be available, I think that separated milk coming from the creameries should be pasteurised and also that milk coming to the city should be pasteurised: I think that in the post-war conditions it would be necessary to have the separated milk pasteurised.
I should like to know why Senator O'Dwyer suggests that separated milk should be pasteurised and why pure milk should not be pasteurised. What is the point in that?
It might satisfy the people of the city, but it is used in the country without being pasteurised.
For human consumption?
Yes.
Separated milk?
No, new milk. In other countries separated milk is pasteurised.
Senator O'Dwyer, and I think Senator Sir John Keane, rather contended that impure milk, or what we might call unpasteurised milk, has nothing whatever to do with the enormous increase in tuberculosis in humans. I am not prepared to take the statement of Senator Sir John Keane or Senator O'Dwyer on that matter. I am more inclined to the view of the people who are qualified to deal with that matter. One of the most important matters confronting the country to-day is the increase of tuberculosis, not only in the cities, but in the country districts as well. Many of those who are well qualified in science contend that it is due to the impure milk supply.
Where was that stated or by whom? I do not like to interrupt the Senator, but I should like to suggest to him that the statement made is a rather serious one which might have serious reactions and that we are entitled on behalf of the farming community to have his authority for that statement.
Of course it is rather wide of the subject matter of the motion.
Senator Sir John Keane also contended that high-grade milk should be retained entirely for the people who can afford it and rather contended that the low-grade milk was good enough for the masses of the community, as it would be too expensive to have it pasteurised. That shows a rather extraordinary mentality when speaking on a subject of such great importance as the milk supply of the people. We have high-grade water supplied to all of us. Senator Sir John Keane would not contend that people living in suburbia should have a more superior supply of water than the people in the city. I contend that it is just as important to have a pure supply of milk as it is to have a pure supply of water. I merely intervened to call attention to that aspect of the question. Unfortunately I was not here when Senator Johnston introduced his motion, but I do know that there is a very serious shortage of milk in this city at present, and if Senator Johnston's motion would have the effect of making the supply worse still, I certainly am not going to support it. In view of the shortage of milk, I think the position ought to be reviewed by the Minister in order to ensure that our citizens will have a supply of milk before we think of exporting dairy cattle.
I will try to keep to the motion as well as I can, but I think the discussion has rather gone away from it a good deal. I think there is no point in Senator Johnston's motion with regard to putting a levy on the export of milch cows or heifers. If you put a levy on their export, the Exchequer would get more money certainly; but that would be no good to the ordinary people of the country. It would make cattle cheaper and it would tend further to disorganise or interfere with the ordinary way of living of the farming community. Probably the real effect it would have would be that it would tend to have cows and heifers exported, and even the Exchequer would not benefit any more than would the farming community.
Now, I suppose I shall have to go away a little bit from the motion, as everybody else has done so. I think it was Senator Sir John Keane who said something to the effect that, instead of a levy on the export of cows or heifers, and that sort of thing, the technique should be improved, and I agree with that. However, the Senator seemed to think that that could not be done until the people were more educated. Now, I think that our people are intelligent enough to improve their technique, provided they get a lead, and the only way to improve our technique, in my opinion, is by improving the testing of cows in this country, and in order to do that we have got to have a greater number of our cows on test than we have at the present moment. I spoke about this matter in Cork some time ago, and I suggested that if we had about 200,000 instead of 50,000 on test, we could do something. Of course, people seem always to want a spectacular increase. Senator Sir John Keane mentioned, for instance, that the yield of our cows has not increased over a number of years, but I believe that the reason for that is that we have not the number of animals to get it from. If we had, I believe that we would get it. In County Cork, for instance—I do not like this business of going into figures—where they have over 200,000 cows, only about 10 per cent. of these cows are on test, and in County Limerick also, only about 10 per cent. of the cows are on test. These are the two great dairying counties in this country, and then the figures go down the scale. For instance, in Tipperary, the percentage is only about 5 per cent., and then the percentage goes down from that to nought. That represents the number of cows on test, and, after all, if that is the case, how can you expect to have any big increase in the milk yield per cow in this country? Also, of course, if you have not that, how are you going to select bulls? We have about 500 to 700 bulls placed every year. They are placed, probably, from the best herds in the country, but even with that you can do nothing to improve the milk yield.
I think it was Senator O'Callaghan who suggested to the Minister the importing of dairy bulls from England. I am astonished at Senator O'Callaghan making such a suggestion. I think that what is happening in this country may have something to do with Senator Johnston's motion, the effect of which is to prevent the export of heifers, and so on. The English, at the present time, are buying up our heifers in order to establish dairy herds and to increase milk production in Britain, and here you have Senator O'Callaghan asking us to buy back dairy bulls from England in order to establish our herds. I suggest that what we should do is to build up our own herds, and I think we have as good stuff to build them up here as the English have, if we had the way of doing it and the will to do it—both the will and the way to do it. That, I think, is what we really want. We want what you might call the energy to do it and, as I suggested before, if we had on test a sufficient number of the cows that are supplying creameries in the creamery counties, and if we were to give a good bonus—I am not in favour of subsidies, and I would make the bonus good for every gallon of milk over 700 gallons that is supplied to the creameries—I think that that would be a very good inducement and there would be no necessity for any levy. It would be an inducement to the people to keep up to the best standdards because it would pay them to do so. It would be a bonus on production, and a bonus on production is something that is realisable: something that will be good, whereas, in my opinion, subsidies are wrong. I think that subsidies are always wrong. Possibly, they are something to enable people to tide over a short period, but if you had a bonus on production it would induce the people who are supplying the creameries to produce more milk and to keep to the best standards.
I do not want to enter now into this question of tuberculosis in cows. I think that our cows in this country are more free from tuberculosis than the cows in any other country, and I think it is a very bad thing to exaggerate anything, even for the purpose of making a point. That has been done, unfortunately, and I think it is very wrong. Nobody wants anybody to drink tubercular milk, and if there really was the amount of tubercular milk drunk in this country, that some people talk about, we would all be dead. In the country, we drink what is called raw milk—milk direct from the cow.
On a point of order, Sir. In reading the Order Paper, I find that the motion deals with such limitation of the export of milch cows as may be necessary, owing to transport conditions, or desirable in the public interest, and, as far as I can gather, what we are debating at the present moment is the question of milk production. Is that in order?
Well, Senator, from what I have heard of it the debate has been on somewhat wide lines and having been so widened, Senator Doyle has been given some latitude in dealing with points made, as I understand him to be doing.
Is that permissible in the case of all motions, Sir?
No, but in the circumstances I have mentioned latitude in this case has been permitted Senator Doyle.
I think I said, Sir, at the beginning, that I would probably not be strictly in order in some of the points I intended to make.
Others were out of order also, but they did not say so.
What I want to say is that ordinary milk is healthy milk and that more of it should be drunk. As I was saying, the people in the country drink what is called raw milk. Of course, there should be no unhealthy or tubercular milk drunk, but the way to deal with that is through the usual channel of the sanitary or public health authorities, whose business it is to see that unhealthy milk is not sold. Samples of milk are taken periodically in the cities by these authorities, and I do not believe that in the City of Dublin to-day there is any tubercular milk being sold, and if there is, after all, it is a reflection on the sanitary or public health authorities, and not on the farmers or producers, because these sanitary authorities can always take samples and say whether the milk is healthy or not. As I say, these exaggerations have a very bad effect, and it is the people in the cities to whom they do harm, and not the producers, because the people in the cities, who should drink milk, are afraid to drink it as a result of such exaggerated statements. I do not think I have anything else to say.
I listened with great interest to what Senator Sir John Keane said on this particular subject, and I agree with practically everything he said. I myself have taken the greatest interest in this particular subject for a long time. Let us take, first of all, the question of grade A milk. Wherever grade A milk is produced, it is produced because the price covers the cost of production. Grade A milk is confined, practically always, to the big cities, and it is foolish for Senator O'Donovan to suggest that it should be a universal thing. It never will be in the country districts. On the question of having tubercular disease-free cattle all over the country, of course that cannot be done either. If you wanted to get rid of all cows which reacted to a tubercular test, and cows which had mastitis or contagious abortion, you would have to do away with more than a quarter of the cattle in the country, notwithstanding the fact that our health bill in this country as regards our cattle is a great deal better than it is in any other country.
With regard to cow testing, I have talked to a great many farmers about it, and I find that the great difficulty is the cost of getting a cow-testing association going, and keeping it going. The cost is very considerable, and under present conditions—under most conditions, really—the produce of their farms is so low that the farmers cannot afford those additional costs. Then, what happens when they do have a cow-testing association? They find that certain cows, from the point of view of milk production only, are uneconomic, but those cows still produce manure and are valuable for the breeding of heifers. At the present moment, I myself have three or four entirely uneconomic cows from the milk production point of view, but I am keeping them in the hope that they will produce first-grade heifers. Suppose some farmer wants to get rid of all the cows which do not produce enough milk, he will find when he goes to the fairs that it is extremely hard to replace them with good heifers. I should like to mention an experiment which we carried out in Kerry for some time. All the breeders subscribed, and on 29th June each year we used to have local shows all over the county. I think we conducted five of these shows. The farmers brought in cows and heifers, and we gave about half a dozen prizes each year, at a cost of something like £75, in the hope that those people would keep those cows for breeding. At the end of five years we found that perhaps one of those people had kept one of those heifers, but hardly ever were the animals, which we had marked 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the first year, found to be in the same hands on the 29th June in the following year. In this regard, the desired state of affairs will only come about by degrees, and through very special education, and not in a theoretical way which Senator O'Donovan suggested to the House.
I was asked to give some information with regard to the question of licences being returned. I do not know what the number is, but I know it is true that for some weeks past the number of licences issued to exporters for the export of milch cows has not been used; some of those licences have been returned. I suppose it will be obvious to everybody what the explanation of that is—the exporter could not buy cows here economically.
In other words, the people at home who want cows are paying more than the English importer is paying at the moment. I think that no fault can be found with the distribution of those licences. They are distributed in two ways. Those issued by Great Britain come across here in bulk, and are handed over by my Department to the cattle trade. The cattle trade distributes them amongst the exporters, strictly on the basis of the exports by each person in the year, I think, 1940 —anyway the year before the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I think that is a very fair basis. On some occasions when complaints were made to me that such-and-such an exporter was not getting his fair share of licences, I sent an official down to the cattle trade offices to find out whether everything was being done fairly. I must say we always found that there was a fair distribution.
There is a different system as regards the North of Ireland. In the case of the North of Ireland, they issue a certain number of licences every week, but they issue them to exporters from here into the North of Ireland, and issue them on their own basis, whatever that may be. In connection with that point, I should like Senators to realise that it is the importing country that always has the right to issue licences in all those cases where there are restrictions. If the importing country, as in the case of Great Britain, does not wish to exercise the power of distributing the licences themselves, they may—as they do in this case—give them to the exporting country to distribute. Perhaps I should also mention that it does not seem to be very clear, according to the speeches made by certain Senators, that it was the British Government that first introduced this licensing system. They introduced it when exports were resumed at the end of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, over a year ago now. They issued licences for a certain number of milch cows and in-calf heifers every month. Some few months ago—it would probably be six months ago—we on this side proposed to the British Government that they should reduce the number, which they did, and we have been reducing the number since. Now, the number of licences issued, between Great Britain and the North of Ireland, is less than 1,000 a week, and all those licences are not being used. If we were to keep the numbers of licences as they are at present, even if they were all used, we would be exporting very much less dairy cattle than we did in normal times. It is not easy to make a comparison, because, in the normal times that we refer to, milch cows and springer cows were put into one category. All in-calf heifers were, in most cases, classed with store cattle. In-calf heifers, of course, are subject to this licensing system.
Senator Baxter talked of the scarcity of butter and milk. That is a very big question, but I do not think it would be fair to go into it in great detail on this particular occasion. I would like, however, that Senators should know that there is no abnormal scarcity of butter and milk. We feel it more, it is true, than we did before the war because we are using almost twice as much butter as we did before the war. We exported butter before the war, but our production of butter was very little higher than it is now— it certainly was not 10 per cent. higher than it is now—but at that time we were able to export comparatively a fair quantity of our production. Now we are able to export none and we have not enough for ourselves. The principal reason is that we have no margarine; we have not got very much lard, and other fats are also scarce. People have to fall back on butter as practically the only fat available.
There is also, as was mentioned here, a scarcity of milk in Dublin at the moment. That has occurred three winters in succession at this time of the year. It occurs, roughly, from the middle of January to the middle of February that we have not got enough milk to supply the population of Dublin. Again, it is not that we have less milk than before the war; it is because we are consuming a lot more milk. The consumption of milk has gone up considerably in the last three or four years. It is not so much that we have not increased the production of milk in the country, but that we have not been able to make the necessary arrangements for the transport of milk at this particular time. We do, certainly, call on a number of creameries at this time of the year to send milk to Dublin that only supply at this time of the year, but even so it is not easy to get enough. When the middle of February comes, things get right again.
Senator Baxter, however, was inclined to say that all these things are due to the uneconomic price for milk and butter. Senator Baxter is a most unsatisfactory person with whom to argue a point because he never tells you what an economic price would be. I remember here last year when we were debating wheat, when he was asked what would be a fair price for wheat, he refused to say. He did not tell us now what would be a fair price for butter or milk. In fact, Senator Baxter wound up his speech by saying that, although he seconded Senator Johnston's motion, he did not agree with it and he could not make any suggestion as to what would be the proper thing to do. It is not so easy to argue against a Senator like that. He makes no positive or constructive suggestion but he does say that things are wrong.
Did we not make positive and constructive suggestions last year when we introduced our motion for an increased price, and we gave figures?
What figure did we get?
9d.—which was actually decided on afterwards.
Which we gave.
But it was given at the end of the year.
I was going to say that it is rather discouraging for anybody in my position that, whatever you may do, you are faced with Senator Baxter, who will say you have not done enough. Would Senator Baxter quote anybody in authority in the I.A.O.S. or the creamery industry that asked for more than 9d. last year?
I do not think so.
But when we gave the 9d. we were told it was not enough.
We asked for 9d. in the beginning of the year.
It was given later on.
At the end of the year, when the butter season was over.
It was given later on. If we had decided, for instance, that Senator Baxter had not asked for enough at the time and if we had given more than the 9d., and had given it quickly, I am very much inclined to think Senator Baxter would be back at the next meeting of the Seanad saying we had not given enough. At least, I have never heard Senator Baxter saying that the farmer got enough for anything, whether it is wheat, butter, milk, pigs or anything else.
Senator Baxter says a thing with which I find it difficult to agree. He finds fault with this restriction on the export of cows and he finds fault with that from the point of view of the dairy farmer. The dairy farmers are the people that have been agitating with me to stop it, and when the dairy farmers come to me about the price of milk in the City of Dublin or at the creamery, one of the big items always in their costings is the price of cows.
On a point of explanation. I think Senator Baxter is thinking of dairy farmers who produce milch cows and the Minister is thinking of dairy farmers who buy milch cows.
I suggest Senator Baxter should speak for himself.
He is well able to do so.
I suggest that the Minister should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
I think Senator Baxter made the point that while the dairy farmer was not getting enough for his milk or for his butter he should at least be allowed to get something for his milch cow—that that might make up to him somewhat for his loss on milk and butter. I must say that my general impression of dairy farmers all over the country, that is, farmers who supply milk to creameries and to cities, is that they are very much against this high price for cows because if they pay £55, £60 and £65 for a cow and, if the cow is rejected after a year or two, they will only get £14 to £16 for the cow. But we have got a new angle on this now, that is, if he gets a good price for his cow, it is something that the dairy farmer should be thankful for. Looking at it even from the point of view of the practical farmer who wants to buy a cow, I wonder would he go to a dairy farmer to buy her. Did anybody ever hear of a dairy farmer selling a good cow?
Of course, he did.
I certainly would not go to a dairy farmer because I never knew of a dairy farmer who got rid of a good cow unless she had reached old age—if she has reached old age she is not much good to him or anybody else —or unless she had some other fault. In that case, she would not be a good cow, but you would not know that until you had bought her. At any rate, I do not think I would go to a dairy farmer to buy a cow.
Where would you get her if you did not get her from a dairy farmer?
There is another class of farmer in this country. There are farmers—fairly big farmers as a rule— who have a good deal of rough grazing and who go in for the breeding of heifers. These are the men we had to keep in mind when we were considering the question about allowing the export of cows. We could have stopped the export of cows and given what I thought up to this would be an advantage to the dairy farmer, that is, cheaper cows than he was getting. We did not like to do that because I felt that those people who went in for the breeding of heifers on a large scale would be discouraged and would be afraid that there would be a very poor market for their springer heifers or heifers after calving if the export market was completely stopped. Therefore, we did not stop the export of cows completely.
Looking at this question from a very detached point of view, trying to forget the interests of the farmer and everybody else, would it not be natural to stop the export of cows if we had not got enough milk and butter in the country? For instance, if we are short of horseshoes, we are told to stop the export of scrap iron. If we are short of other commodities, we are told to keep the raw material in the country, which is only natural. If we are short of butter and milk the natural thing is to keep the raw material, which is the cow, in the country and not let her out but, against that, there was the other argument that if we stopped them completely we might discourage breeding and have less cows as a consequence of our action.
Senator O'Donovan spoke of the desirability of having a much higher standard of milk in this country and he spoke of a revolutionary change. However desirable that may be, I am afraid, if there is any change, it will be more evolutionary than revolutionary in a case like this. I am very much inclined to sympathise, at any rate, with the views expressed by Senator Sir John Keane. I think that some people, by giving a name to a thing, expect that everybody is going to fall for it—names such as "high-grade milk", "humane killer", etc. Because a humane killer is so called, it is supposed to be humane. I am afraid that you will find doctors differing even on this question of high-grade milk. Some will tell you that if you treat growing people too well and absolutely exclude every possibility of disease, these people will not be able to face life at all when they grow up. There may be something in that. On the other hand, you will hear other people say that if you pasteurise milk you will destroy the vitamins in it. I saw in some American magazine an account where a doctor, who did not believe in that, fed a number of rats on fresh milk, condensed milk, boiled milk, pasteurised milk, powdered milk and, I think, some other kind of milk.
He fed six different sections of rats on six different varieties of milk. After three months, he weighed all the rats and found that they were all exactly of the same weight. That goes to show that it is very hard to prove anything in this world. I sympathise, however, with the view of Senator Sir John Keane, that it would be a good thing if we could have some scientific proof that this high-grade milk is all that people say about it.
I want to assure Senator O'Callaghan that I have no intention of stopping completely the export of cows. I think Senator O'Callaghan had in mind the point that I have already mentioned, that if we were to stop it completely it might discourage the breeding of heifers. A point was raised by Senator O'Callaghan, and was also referred to by Senator Dr. Doyle, with regard to the import of some good dairy bulls. I know that the Senator is right in stating that the Department has not been encouraging that particular form of import for many years back. Whether he is right in his other contention, I am not sure. He says that we import only from Scotland and that the tendency has been to encourage conformation and, therefore, beef qualities rather than milk qualities. I do not admit that altogether, but the point is worthy of investigation. I am informed that it is one of the questions that is being examined by the committee set up to examine into the post-war conditions of agriculture and planning for the future. Senator Dr. Doyle also made a suggestion with regard to the encouragement of cow-testing societies by giving a bonus to creameries receiving milk from milkers of over 700 gallons. The details of such a scheme would, it appears to me, be extraordinarily difficult. I am afraid it would be extremely difficult to apply it unless the whole herd was over 700 gallons.
I suggested that also— that a bonus might be given to producers having such herds.
The bonus would be passed on to the producers. If it applied to the whole herd, it might be all right, but if applied to only part of the herd it would be very difficult to operate. Senators will agree that there would be some farmers who would not be beyond putting down some of their cows as yielding 700 gallons when in fact that was not so.
The whole herd would have to show that yield.
In that case it would be fairly easy. On the general question, the suggestion was made that we should make production bonuses or production allowances to creameries dependent on having their members in a cow-testing society. I am afraid that would not be advisable or successful because the cow-testing scheme is a voluntary one, and to drive a person compulsorily into it would vitiate the whole scheme. Unless a farmer takes a personal interest in it, it cannot be done successfully. As far as the motion is concerned, I would not be in favour of stopping exports because it would discourage breeders generally. As regards the export levy suggested by Senator Johnston, I think it would be most unpopular in this House, and I do not think on the whole that it would be worth the trouble involved in it.
The motion in my name was drafted so as to deal with a very small aspect of a very big question, but the debate itself ranged over a much wider field—rather to my satisfaction, as I was anxious to have on record the views of Senators and the Minister in the wider field as well as in the narrower one. The facts given by the Minister seem to alter the case, and I might have drafted the motion differently if I had known that the number of licences, which we are actually receiving here, depends on the will of our Government and that, in fact, our Government are refusing to accept as many licences as the British Government would be willing to give. That certainly has the effect of limiting, to some extent, the outflow of good cows, but the point specifically referred to in my motion is not affected by that consideration.
So long as there is any restriction whatever on the export of cows, then the price which the producers of cows can command in the export market is less than it otherwise would be, and the situation tends to produce the result that dealers who buy cows here for export will command a greater margin of profit on some of those cows than they would if export were absolutely free. I take it if there is elasticity in the supply of cows for sale, farmers generally will offer for sale a greater number of cows at a high price than they will at a lower price, that in fact there is a direct relationship between the average price per head and the number of cows that would be put forward for sale at that price. That being so, in a free market with no restriction on export, dealers would buy whatever number of cows they reckoned they could sell over again in the export market at their normal margin of profit, which, for the sake of argument, we shall say is a matter of £10 per head. But when there is restriction, whatever form that restriction may take—in this case they were restricted by the necessity of having to obtain licences before they could export cows—and if the number of licences is less than the number of cows that otherwise would be put forward for sale, dealers need only buy the number of cows that corresponds to the number of licences and they are pretty certain to get that limited number of cows at a lower price per head than they would have to pay if there had been no restriction whatever on the export of cows. Consequently, any restriction whatever on the export of cows is bound to lower the price of cows to the farmers selling these cows, and is likely to add to the margin of gross profits on which dealers operate. My suggestion, if that situation indeed exists, is that the Government should intervene and collect for itself that margin of surplus profit by way of a tax, rather than let it go into the pockets of the dealers.
That, of course, would make no difference whatever to the price which dealers would still give farmers. Farmers would suffer in the price of their cows so long as there was any restriction on the number of those cows which might be exported. The situation in that respect is, apparently, no longer urgent in view of what the Minister has said regarding the recent return of surplus licences. Apparently, the number of licences now issued is greater than the number of cows offered for sale in the export market. Consequently, no differential value attaches to licences. No effect whatever is had on the price of cows because of the licensing system when the number of licences exceeds the number of cows offered. But if the number of licences was less than the number of cows offered, then these licences would tend to have a certain commercial value. The whole point of my motion was to suggest that that commercial value of licences should be captured, in some form or other, by the State rather than that it should be allowed to go into the pockets of private interests.
In the course of the debate, certain points were raised about which I might, perhaps, say a word or two. The whole question of increasing the number of first-class female cattle breeding stock in this country is one which is frightfully important and, at the same time, frightfully difficult. The body of which I have the honour to be a member is only too glad to get suggestions from every possible quarter as to how best we can grade up the standard of our milch cows in the country, generally. This motion does not directly relate to that problem but is closely associated with it and I was glad to have on record the views of Senators regarding it.
One aspect of the matter is that the State must take care to do nothing which would penalise a farmer for producing a high-grade cow or high-grade heifer or whose business it was to produce first-class cows and heifers. Undoubtedly, any mere restriction on export which went no further than that would hit the producer of the higher grade of cows and heifers harder than it would hit the producer of any other kind of cow and discourage his production. In the long run, it would leave us with fewer good cows than if we had interfered not at all in the export of those cows. However much we may regret seeing the best cows and heifers leave the country, we must console ourselves, for the present at all events, with the reflection that, in the long run, we are, perhaps, better off in that condition than if we simply stopped that export and destroyed every effort to produce a higher type of cow by reason of reducing the standard of all cows to a lower average level.
The danger of excessive export of our best cows has been greatly intensified in recent months by reason of the policy of the British Government in subsidising, at a very high level, the price of milk to milk producers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The price this month—I forget the exact figure—varies between 2/- and 2/6 per gallon for practically any kind of decent milk. That price is obtainable by every farmer in Northern Ireland and every farmer in Great Britain who produces milk. The price of cows in that area has been enormously increased by reason of the subsidy given in the form of a high price for milk. I feared that that enormous increase in the price of cows was going to tempt our people down here to sell too large a proportion of their cows, instead of keeping them to produce butter and milk at the much lower prices prevailing down here. As I said on the last occasion, what self-respecting cow would stay here to produce milk at 9d. a gallon when, in Northern Ireland, she could be doing so at 2/6 a gallon? There is one way in which we could neutralise the tendency of that relatively high price of milk to entice away too many of our cows.
That would be by following the example of our neighbours in subsidising the price of milk and butter, though not necessarily to the same high level. Whatever may be said about the principle of subsidising, in general—and I agree with much of the academic talk about the objectionable nature of subsidies, in general—we are not dealing with this problem in the abstract. We are dealing with it in a very real world of which we are only a small part. In deciding what to do or what not to do, we have to take into consideration the things happening all around us in the world.
One of the most important of these things is the high price paid for milk in Northern Ireland, which may be a temptation to us to sell too many of our best cows. There may be a situation in which people may run short of milk and butter, because the price of milk is inadequate, and in which a higher price for milk or butter would press unduly on the poorer classes in the cities, raise the cost of living and give rise to clamorous demands for increases in wage levels, bringing all sorts of complications. When you have that situation, it is dealt with in other countries by the principle of subsidy. The producer is paid at the expense of the State enough to induce him to produce the article in question which is considered necessary, and the consumer pays no more than before. The difference is made up by a draft on the national exchequer. That kind of thing is happening all around us. It is happening in Britain. It is happening, if I remember rightly, in Sweden —a neutral country—and it is happening even in the U.S.A. and Canada. May I read from the October, 1942, number of the Illinois Farm Economics, which says:—
"Subsidies on milk are now granted in one large milkshed in order to reimburse the farmer for added labour and other costs of production. The practice, probably, will be adopted on a wide scale in the case of milk in order to maintain a high level of milk production."
That was in the U.S.A. In Canada, which is a smaller country, a similar policy has been forced on the people. This publication says:—
"To help to curb inflation and to be fair to all groups, the Canadian Government fixed retail price-ceilings on all types of commodities. In some cases, it has been necessary to give subsidies in order to get produced the volume of a particular commodity needed. For example, it was found that the ceiling-prices on dairy products were too low to get the volume of milk production necessary for domestic consumption and for lend-lease shipments.
"Hence, in July 1942, the Government announced that a subsidy of 6 cents a lb. would be paid on all butter fat manufactured in the country."
Then it goes on to point out that the economists considered that it would cost less to the State in the long run to pay the subsidy than allow an increase in the cost of living, with the consequent increase in wages all round that would result from that additional amount being paid by consumers direct. So that in war time, or in a time of emergency, the question of a subsidy, or otherwise, is one which should be considered on its merits. In the consideration of it we should take into account the fact that the action of people all round us makes it extremely difficult for us to avoid doing the same thing ourselves, however objectionable we might regard it.
I appreciate very much indeed the contributions made by many Senators to the debate. I should like to pay tribute to my friend Senator Baxter for his speech which, on the whole, I think was a useful contribution. If I may say so, I think the Minister was rather less kind than he usually is in his treatment of Senator Baxter, but that is a matter of opinion.
Is the Senator pressing the motion?
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.