Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 May 1943

Vol. 27 No. 23

Increase of Agricultural Production—Motion (Resumed).

When the House adjourned yesterday, I was about to say that the motion which was before us inferred that special steps were required in order to enable us to play our part in world agricultural economy. Senator Baxter has set the Government a very difficult task, but it is one which must be successfully dealt with if, firstly, we are to play our part in the coming years as one of the sovereign nations of the world and, secondly, if we are to provide for our people here at home and ensure that not only will the standard of living of our people not deteriorate, but that it will go up. Our policy as a nation during the past few years has definitely been to stand aside from the world conflict. We had a perfect right to do that and the people wanted it done, but the result has been that, in respect of certain commodities which we imported, we have had difficulty in maintaining our requirements. These commodities we shall require in large measure if we are to do what we ought to do and that to which the motion refers. We surmounted these difficulties to a certain extent—certainly, to the extent of providing food for our people on what I might call a peace-time basis. Certain things are short but, on the whole, I do not think that anybody in this country has suffered from hunger.

If Senators look at the official figures in the Statistical Abstract for the year 1940-41—the latest figures we have—they will find that the total value of our agricultural products amounts to £67,000,000, and they will find that our exports in agricultural commodities consist almost entirely of cattle and horses. That means that a very large amount of that production, value for £67,000,000, is consumed by our own people here. That is a thing which, somehow or other, has to be corrected if we are to take our part in post-war reconstruction overseas. It is obvious that, unless we are able to make a change and to get some accommodation from our neighbours to help us to make that change, there is very little chance in present circumstances of our taking any part in, or deriving any profit from, the post-war position elsewhere. It is essential that effective steps be taken to ameliorate this situation.

Now, post-war economics of every kind, industrial and agricultural, will be based on international arrangements made by Great Britain with the combatant members of the Commonwealth of Nations, with the United States of America, and with the other nations who have played an active part in this controversy. We do not seem to be taking any active part in the preliminary discussions, and this fact implies, I think, a danger that plans will be made and cut and dried without our having any voice whatsoever in the preparation of them. And, what is more, if you go back for a few years, it is questionable whether the Sydney resolutions will operate exactly as they were originally laid down, under the pressure which, I feel, will be exercised by people who are more interested in the present conflict than we are; that must be borne in mind. The Sydney resolutions laid down that the home producer must get the first call, the members of the Commonwealth the second call, and the foreigners the third call, on the available markets.

We are now doing a certain amount of internal planning; there has been a committee of inquiry appointed by the Government and there is an individual committee, a meeting of which is taking place to-night, but internal planning is not going to help us with these outside problems on which the whole of our future wellbeing depends, because all this planning must depend on the interchange of the essential commodities required in our planning and which, as we cannot get them at home, we must procure from overseas. That is the position as I see it. It seems to me, therefore, that it lies with the Government to urge our claims to being consulted and to participate in any planning which may be initiated abroad. It is their duty to do so and if this has already been done, to tell the House to what extent such efforts have been successful. I am extremely pleased that An Taoiseach himself has come to this House to handle the matter because, so far as the future well-being of this country is concerned, I think it is the most important that has come before this House for a very long time.

I am afraid there will be very little for the farmers of the country to export to improve the position of Europe after the war if the Government persists in its present attitude towards agriculture, but there is one particular item which, even at present, though late as it is, if the Government would encourage it, would be able to make a great contribution towards the restoration of Europe and Great Britain, and that is the export of live stock for breeding purposes. We all know, without consulting any foreign organisation, that what will be most needed in the European countries after the war will be live stock for breeding purposes, because the Continent is practically denuded of live stock, but if the farmers are to carry on as they have had to for a number of years, I am afraid the dairying industry is going to go down, and to go down very seriously. Nobody can hope that dairy farmers will carry on if they have to continue producing under the cost of production, and everybody must admit that the present prices which the dairy farmers are getting are not economic prices and do not compensate the farmers for all the trouble and hardships which they have to undergo. An Taoiseach knows something about the dairying industry. He comes from a dairying county and he has many friends and relations who are dairy farmers. He knows perfectly well that dairy farming is a 365-day a year job.

Discussion at length on the dairying industry would not be in order on this motion.

I am trying to develop the point that if we do not have a sound dairying industry we will not have live stock to export after the war.

A general reference to dairying is permissible.

That is the point I am trying to develop. I do not intend to open a discussion on agriculture but I would like to appeal to An Taoiseach to do something for dairy farmers. If we have not dairy farming, we will not have anything to export. We will not have live stock and we will not have pigs or bacon or fowl, and the agricultural economy will collapse unless we do something at once to encourage the dairy farmers. If I am out of order, I do not wish to go on.

You have made the point and I would like if you would now pass on to discuss the motion.

Do réir mo thuairim-se níl mórán brí ná tábhachta ins an rún so. Isé an dualgas is mó atá ar an Rialtas muintir na tíre seo do neartú agus do láidriú i gcaoi go mbeidh slí bheatha aca. Maidir leis an méid adubhradh cuireann sé i gcuimhne dhom sgéal a chuala mé tamall ó shoin. Bhí fear bocht ag iarraidh déirce agus tháinig sé go dtí áit ina raibh fear saibhir a bhí deisiúil go maith. D'iarr sé déirc ar an bhfear saibhir in ainm Dé agus Muire agus dubhairt leis "Is teachtaire ó Dhia mé.""Más eadh," arsan fear saibhir "is gioblach do leig Sé amach thú"; agus an fhaid is atá airgead le fáil ba cheart go mbeadh sé le fáil ag muintir na hEireann in ionad bheith ag dul amach as an tír.

I cannot for the life of me see the usefulness of a motion worded such as this, dealing with vague possibilities that may arise in time to come. As far as I see it, the duty of the Government is to safeguard the people in the grave emergency which is facing us at the moment. I have always been an optimist. I had a habit of looking at the bright side of the picture, even when events did not warrant my doing so. I never liked to raise the danger flag, but to my mind the present situation is fraught with grave consequences to the people of Ireland. For the past 30 years or so, we have watched world events, and they have made very many of us doubtful of the glowing promises that have been set forth at different times during periods of stress. Our duty and the duty of the Government is to see that food and work are first provided for the Irish people. After all, they are our main concern. If the Irish nation goes down, there is no use in talking about what may happen in other parts of the world. To my mind, we would be utilising our time to better advantage if we set before the Government some definite proposal that would help to ensure during the next few years a sufficiency of home-grown food for the Irish people, or if we put before them schemes that might be instituted to create necessary employment. After we had done that, we might take steps to ensure that we had a sufficiency of exports to pay for goods imported which cannot be produced in this country.

I am afraid that we are all inclined to become selfish when facing a dangerous situation, but our first duty, as I see it, should be to our own people. The Irish people were always willing to help people outside, but if we are in a strong position here, if we are able to speak with a unanimous voice, though we may have a small population, we are likely to get more co-operation and be in a better position to help in our own little way. I do not claim like Senator Baxter that we would be able to help in a major way, but we would be glad to help, as far as the circumstances of the country would permit, in relieving the stricken Europe that we are bound to see when this terrible conflict comes to an end.

This motion seems to me to be a request to the House and to the Government that we should not only preach, but practise, Christian virtues in our economic relations with neighbouring nations and especially with the people of stricken Europe as soon as the problems of post-war reconstruction become possible of solution. I think the Taoiseach himself stated before at Geneva that it would be an admirable thing, even in times of peace, if the Christian virtues were practised by the various nations of the world in their relations with one another. In fact, if the conduct of nations, in their dealings with one another in the inter-war period, approached even the ordinary standard of decency that is characteristic of the behaviour of individuals to one another, I think it is quite possible that the war would never have occurred at all. Certainly, the Christian virtues and policies of what I might call national altruism were not particularly evident between the various nations of the world in the inter-war period.

In the post-war period, if we are to have permanent peace, it is entirely desirable that we should change all that and set a new and better example of decent behaviour in all international relations. Small nations perhaps do not cut very much ice in international affairs but from their own special point of view, they have certainly a very special interest in promoting in every possible way, by precept and also by example, ideals of international decency for, after all, in a world dominated by brute force, the survival value of any small nation is very small. It can only hope to survive by the forbearance of more powerful nations or in some satellite relationship to a more powerful nation or else in consequence of some equipoise between powerful nations or, perhaps, of a happy geographical situation.

I do not know whether Bolivia still remains neutral or not. If she does I imagine she owes her immunity from attack to the happy accident of her geographical situation. In peace-time, if we ever have peace again, it would be well for the lessons of the inter-war period to be learned. One of the first of these lessons is that so far as the world-economy is concerned all the nations, great and small, are in the same boat. Now those who are in any way familiar with what I may call watermanship know that there is a certain thing which I may call boat etiquette between passengers in boats, big and small. The passengers practise it and they fail to practise it at their peril. If you are in a small racing boat you have to trim the boat, and if you are a very big body in a very small dinghy it is very anti-social and very foolish from your own point of view as well as from the point of view of other people to throw your weight about in the literal sense of the term. Our record of national altruism in the inter-war period is not anything that I look back upon with pride. I am afraid we fell into the prevailing habit of pursuing a policy of economic selfishness.

The best thing that can be said in our defence is that we sinned in very respectable company, and that we were doing the same kind of thing as was being done by the other nations of the world. This further can be said in our defence: that we were ourselves the chief sufferers from any follies we may have committed. It was, so to speak, our own funeral. We were, so to speak, a relatively small body in a very big boat, and it did not matter to the stability of that boat whether we leaned over to the starboard side or the port side. There were other passengers travelling in that same international boat, big nations like the United Kingdom, the United States, and the various powerful States of Europe. Some of the nations were, so to speak, relatively big bodies travelling in a relatively small international boat. When they threw their weight about, it rocked the boat very considerably, and in fact it contributed to the capsizing of the boat which we have now reason to deplore and which is one primary cause of the disaster of Europe. In my view, when Britain adopted the Ottawa policy in 1932, she deliberately turned her back on Europe, and helped to contribute to the series of developments which in due course resulted in the present European disaster. Britain was not alone in that respect.

The United States, in 1930, when she adopted the Hawley Smoot tariff, did more than any country in the world to promote the state of affairs which launched Europe and the world on the way to disaster. I would like to quote a Canadian writer, J.P. Day, in World Economic History, page 87. Quoting an American writer apropos the Hawley Smoot tariff of 1930 he says:

"The Hawley Smoot Bill was passed at the behest of a narrow-minded and ignorant Lobby. By that Act whatever chance existed to stem the operations of the forces of disintegration which had already been set in motion was destroyed."

He quotes another American writer as saying:

"The Act was a blow struck by one nation at the economic stability of 60 nations. It was the blind, desperate effort of a great country to hang on to the top of the ladder by hitting at every other country."

There is a special obligation on the big nations to practise the Christian virtues because their actions are so serious in their effects on other members of the international body. I would say without fear of contradiction that if in the course of the next few years the American policy associated with the name of Hawley Smoot should be repeated, and if the forces favouring that kind of thing succeed in determining American commercial policy another big world war (number 3) is inevitable. But that is merely a personal opinion and merely by the way. Even if we are a relatively small body in a relatively big boat we have a moral obligation to behave decently and helpfully to our fellow-passengers.

I think it would be the mood of everybody in this country, and certainly of everybody in this House, that we should do what little we can to bind up the wounds of bleeding Europe if it is all possible. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the sufferings now taking place on the Continent of Europe. May I quote from the Central European Observer, April 30th, 1943:—

"What do the people of Europe eat? The French people have already eaten all their supplies of turnips, they have finished the crows and sparrows. In the south people eat grass ‘Salade Laval'. In the north they eat acorns and tree bark. In Greece, mad with hunger they chew at bushes. Shadows roam the streets of Athens. They used to be scientists and workers, artists and students. They are not conscripted for work because they have not enough strength to lift a spade. The dogs have disappeared—they have all been devoured."

We come now to what is practicable or possible for us to do in this matter.

I profoundly regret that owing to various causes which it might be controversial to go into now our agricultural surpluses in many categories have disappeared. There is little or nothing that we can contribute over and above what we need for our own people. At the same time I would like to put it on record that if our agriculture were developed, as it should be developed and as it could have been developed, with half the soil of Eire we could supply a diet adequate for the health of our people and we would have the produce of the other half of the national soil for export. I hope that in the course of the next decade or so some such intensive development of agriculture will take place and that not only our export will increase but that the national population which is the foundation of the home market will also increase. One definite thing that we might arrange to contribute to the needs of Europe is breeding stock, especially breeding stock in the matter of cattle but also breeding stock in the matter of pigs.

I do not suppose that poultry-breeding stock need interest us particularly in that connection. We are a very small country and Europe is a very big continent, and even after millions of people have died through war and starvation the chances are that the population of Europe will be many times greater than our population, so it may seem strange to suggest that we can make any worth while contribution at all to the needs of Europe even in the matter of breeding stock. But it happens that cows and cattle are one of the things in which, for reasons which I need not go into, we are relatively strong in numbers and not bad in quality.

The numbers are going down.

I know they are, but the numbers are still relatively strong. In relation to population, we might be described, in a certain sense, as one of the most "cowed" populations in Europe. I hope nobody will misinterpret that phrase; I mean we are one of the populations in Europe which has the greatest number of cows in proportion to the total number of people. We have something over 1,000,000 cows. If I remember rightly, the number of cows in Great Britain is about 3,000,000. That number, in relation to a population of 46,000,000 people, is a very much smaller proportion of cows to people than 1,000,000 or more cows in relation to 3,000,000 people.

Relatively to population, therefore, we are pretty well provided with cows. Those cows we use, of course, to supply our own people with whole milk and butter when we can get adequate feeding supplies for the cows, and, of course, the dry stock— the surplus male progeny and the surplus store heifers which result from those cows—are normally exported to the extent that they are not consumed at home. If we want to build up a reserve of breeding stock for our own benefit; but primarily I think for the benefit of our neighbours in Europe when the war is over, what we will have to do now is to limit the export, as dry stock, of anything that can be turned into any sort of a decent heifer or cow. At present I am told that heifers are being sold out of the country as dry stock, and will possibly be turned into beef on the other side, although in many cases those animals are quite suitable for breeding purposes. It should be made the interest of the people owning those cattle in our country to turn them into cows, even though it means temporarily increasing the number of cows and in-calf heifers over and above what we would regard as comfortable and convenient in a normal period, because the time will come, in the course of a year or two, when we will be able to make a Christian use of those breeding heifers and cows by exporting them for the use of our neighbours, and we are not going to lose anything by it, either. It is one of those cases where practice of the Christian virtue will also be a source of commercial profit.

Now, how are we to give our farmers an interest in increasing the number of their cows and heifers? At present, the whole economic tendency points to the desirability of selling the surplus for the best price they can get, and as a rule many of the best of those cows and heifers are exported. This problem is inextricably mixed up with the whole situation of our dairying industry. The dairying industry is passing through a difficult time. As consumers, we are quite aware that the price of butter is more than it was a few years ago. The consumers regard 2/- a lb. as a high price for butter, but, in comparison with the way in which other food prices have risen, 2/- a lb. for butter is a relatively cheap price. In fact, it is extremely doubtful whether selling milk on a basis of a price of 2/- a lb. for butter is a profitable proposition for the great majority of dairy farmers. Anyhow, what any farmer or any businessman will do is to try and use his resources in such a way as to produce the maximum profit for himself. Those owners of cows and heifers in Limerick and elsewhere are not fools. They are quite aware of the fact that store cattle, dry stock, bullocks and dry heifers have risen in price relatively much more than the prices of milk and butter have risen. Consequently, under present economic conditions they have a direct economic interest in increasing the number of their dry stock, and in giving up cows and in-calf heifers in favour of dry heifers and store bullocks. They are getting into the store bullock business, so to speak, and getting out of the dairy business. That may be all very well as a solution of their problem for the time being, but that process, pursued too far, would completely undermine the foundation of our whole live-stock industry throughout the country, and incidentally destroy one of the principal foundations of our whole agricultural economy.

One of the reasons why it is more profitable now for dairy farmers to sell their surplus cows and heifers, rather than build up their stocks of those animals and intensify the production of milk and butter, is that Britain recently inaugurated a price policy for whole milk which has the effect of guaranteeing to any person in Britain or Northern Ireland who produces any kind of tolerable milk at all a minimum price, which is over 2/- in the winter time and well up to 2/- in the summer time. Consequently, it has become worth the while of those people to pay fancy prices for any cows we choose to sell them, in order that they may develop this very profitable business for themselves. In that way, a tendency exists for all our best cows and heifers to be lured out of the country, leaving us with nothing but the refuse. That is a very good example of the way in which, when a big country adopts a certain economic policy, thinking primarily of its own interests, that policy has certain reactions on the situation in other countries, especially in a small country with which she has close commercial ties. Britain, no doubt, had very good reasons for adopting that policy, but this kind of thing should not be done by any country, either big or small, without consultation and co-operation with the other countries immediately concerned. In a really Christian world, where international relations were dominated by the Christian virtues, I think that, in a matter of this kind, there would be that co-operation and consultation.

I am not saying that there was anything sinister or positively intended to injure us in this business of raising the price of milk in Britain and Northern Ireland. There were very good reasons why they should do it, because the people there are very short of protein, and they must maintain and increase milk production at nearly all costs.

I think, however, that when such a situation exists it creates a set of facts which we have to take into account in endeavouring to frame a policy of our own which, incidentally, will safeguard our national interests for the time being and, at the same time, render us better able to play a useful part in furthering the welfare of the world when the war is over. Accordingly, I think that this tendency towards an excessive price for whole milk in Northern Ireland is calculated to lure away all of our best surplus cows and heifers, that the result will be bad for our own national economy, but that it will also mean that we will be less able to contribute to the welfare of Europe when the war is over, and I think we ought to be able to contribute something on our own part towards the general welfare of Europe when the war is over, as well as seeing after our own economy.

Now, a long-term solution of our dairy problem will, of course, include an effort at better feeding all the year round, so as to bring up the average milk production of our cows from about 400 gallons, as it is at present, to about 600 gallons, and also an effort as a result of more scientific breeding, to extend the average milk yield from 600 gallons to 800 gallons. On that basis, the production of butter could be greatly cheapened, and even prices that, perhaps, might not be very much different from the present prices, would be sufficient to keep our present dairying industry going indefinitely. A long-term policy of that kind, however, will take years and, perhaps, decades of years, to work out, and we have to face the fact that the average yield from our cows at the moment is only about 400 gallons, which means that butter production on that basis is relatively expensive. Consequently, if we want to encourage the dairying industry, and if, incidentally, we want to encourage the owners of dairy cows to maintain or even to increase their breeding stocks, we will have to do something drastic so as to maintain or stimulate the production of dairy products. There, of course, we are up against the difficulty that, if you simply allow the price of butter to rise to the price to which it would rise in a free market, you increase the burden that is placed on the consumer. The consumer finds it hard enough at the moment to pay 2/- a lb. for butter, and if we had to pay 2/6 or 3/- a lb., it would be practically impossible although, actually, in the black market, some people are paying 3/-, 4/- and even 5/- a lb., for butter.

When you have that kind of a situation, where one set of considerations requires that you give the producer a higher price for his product in order to stimulate its production, and another set of considerations requires that that higher price should not be passed on to the consumer, the only solution is to subsidise the production of that commodity at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer. That policy of subsidy in regard to butter is being practised by other countries under present circumstances, and for precisely the same reasons, and I think that in a time of war or national emergency there is no reason why such a policy, however objectionable it might be under normal conditions, should not be consciously and deliberately pursued. I think, moreover, that the policy of subsidising milk and butter production, even at the expense of the consumer or the taxpayer, is the only way of stopping this tendency towards the excessive exportation of our cows and heifers. Apart from the need for retaining such stock for our own national economy, I think it would be a very good thing to keep up those stocks so that they can be exported to a needy Europe at the end of the war, and if that is the only way in which that result can be achieved, then I think that no expenditure payable out of the public revenue would be too high a price to pay for such a desirable result.

Actually, to put a figure on this, according to my calculations, if we were to subsidise the price of creamery butter to the extent of 1/- a lb., giving a return of 3/- a lb. to the producer, while leaving the consumer to pay 2/- a lb., it would cost the public revenue about £3,000,000, unless my calculations are wrong. Equally so, if the price of butter were only raised to 2/6 a lb., instead of 3/-, the cost to the public revenue would be about £1,500,000. I think that for general reasons we might go further in the direction of subsidising articles of primary necessity for the masses of the population, and certainly further than we have already gone in that direction. In that way, we might be able to keep control of the cost of living, which is one of the most serious phenomena in our present circumstances.

My principal interest in raising this matter is that this is one way whereby the number of cows and heifers can be maintained in this country, and even increased, and if we can succeed in maintaining or increasing the stocks of cows and heifers in the country, then, not only will we be able to preserve our own national economy, but we may have something valuable to offer to meet the needs of a post-war starving Europe. That is the only possible contribution, that I can think of, that we could make to Europe in the post-war era. In that connection, I might say that pigs and breeding sows would come under the same category, and that our public policy should be aimed at maintaining and increasing such stocks. Even though the total pig population at the moment may be somewhat small, still I think it would be well to maintain our breeding sows, and I believe that if we have a sufficiency of breeding sows in this country, as well as cows and heifers, when the war is over, we will have very little difficulty in finding a market for them. I feel sure that not only would such a policy be a source of profit for ourselves, but it would enable us to set an example of neighbourly behaviour in the new world that is to be.

I am not sure that I understand what is the exact meaning of this motion. It seems to me as if it were directed very largely towards arranging for the time when the present conditions of chaos, resulting from the war, will come to an end. With the first part of the motion, which says that, in the opinion of Seanad Eireann, the Government should keep in close touch with Governments and organisations abroad engaged on schemes of post-war economic recovery, I am in agreement. I am not, however, in a position—any more than anybody else is—to foresee what the future is going to be, but I think that in the approximate future we shall have three stages to face: one, the period during which the emergency lasts; secondly, the chaotic period, which has been referred to by other speakers, which will immediately succeed the cessation of war; and, thirdly, the period when we come back to what one might describe as normality.

Those three periods or phases must be taken into consideration, and if a country that is engaged in the war were to divert its mind only to the production of munitions and to the keeping of their people alive during that period of chaos, then there would be no means of feeding their people at the end of that period, and people who were in imminent danger of starvation would still be faced with the difficulty of moving back to normal life. When I use the word "normal" in that connection, I have in mind the case of the ordinary man who, while he is in health, puts something aside to provide, not alone for his immediate necessities, but for the exceptional time when sickness may come upon him.

Unfortunately, I think that when this war came on we were rather in the position of a man who had been spending his savings instead of keeping them, but at the present moment we can see, according to articles, and so on, in the public Press, that the British people whose energies are so enormously directed towards the war effort, are still able to direct their minds towards planning for the post-war period. As I said, those three periods flow, one from the other. At present there is the period of the war, and if there is one thing we have learned from it so far, it is that you cannot be entirely self-supporting.

As you move towards the condition of being self-supporting, so you move towards a lower standard of living. During the war, we should all be prepared to accept that lower standard. I do not know that it will be so easy to get the people to accept it afterwards. In this non-self-sufficiency, we do require, even to maintain our present low standard, constant imports. Unless we have people outside the country as desirous and as urgently in need of what we produce as we are of what they produce, we may be occasionally short of those necessities, as we have been. If we look ahead and say it would be desirable that, at least, some countries should, for a period immediately after the war, be in a position to produce what is necessary to other people in excess of what their own population requires, that seems to be a possible reason why the things required to increase production should be made available to us.

Before you reach the third period, there is the possibility—a great deal has been said and written about this publicly—of an attempt to lay the foundations or sketch the outline or produce the framework of a system under which the economic life of Europe will be directed after the war. There has been reference to cartels, and arrangements by which certain countries will be recognised as producers of certain products, limited to those products, and required to import other things from other countries more naturally preposed to the production of those other things, such as machinery. The first part of this motion, which proposes that we should keep in close touch with other Governments, is eminently necessary. We require that in order to get what is necessary for production for our maintenance during war-time. We require it in order to be in a position to give rather more than the widow's mite in helping reconstruction immediately after the war. And we require it so that, in the making of those outlines and the forming of those cartels, our peculiar circumstances will be adverted to. Therefore, I think the resolution asks the Government to do something which we have no reason to believe the Government is not doing to the maximum of its power. We are merely jogging their elbow and urging them on.

But I do want the House to remember that the public mind in this country is rather unhealthy. At present, people are thinking only of to-day and to-morrow, whether they will get enough petrol, or flour or some other commodity. We need those things but, above all, we must keep our eye ahead on the continued economic life of this country. As the world moves away from the conditions of war and the conditions subsequent to war, we want the soil and the labour available in this country to produce and give to its people as good a standard of life as possible. There, I agree with Senator Johnston.

I do not want to enter into contentious matters. We all agree that, during this abnormal period, when we must accept lower standards, the dedication of a larger part of our soil to the growing of wheat is necessary. But it does not follow that that will be the right course, in exactly the way it is done at the moment, in times of peace. We must look to producing to the maximum. At the same time, we must see that, when we have produced to the maximum, having a large export surplus, there will be available to us a market in which that surplus may be disposed of at equitable prices in relation to the labour and capital which have gone to its production. I am a bit worried lest we be left outside things. After the war, we must have that export market. We must produce what that export market will receive from us. On the other hand, we must see that there will be a market which will be receptive of the things we can suitably produce. In our considerations at the moment we must have these two things in mind—(1) to get the greatest value we can out of the soil and labour of the country; and (2) to have a market available for the things which the country is best adapted to produce. I am sure the Government is as well aware of these requirements as I am, but we should not turn our minds inwards and, in morose introspection, think only of what the price of turf in Dublin is at the moment or whether the greengrocer has sufficient potatoes. We must have a production which will be for the benefit of our own people and the excess of which can be exported. We had an enormous British market at our door which was peculiarly voracious of the type of food we produced. After the revolutionary period through which we are going, we do not know whether or not things will be as they were before. We ought to be in on the ground floor. Our voice should be heard. The influence of our Government should be used in the comity of nations to see that there is a market and that the totality of European production and disposition will advert to what we produce and to its disposition.

I am sorry to have come away from the high Christian tone in which some Senators have spoken. A semi-Government organisation has, without looking to any material gain for this country, made available certain moneys for no other purpose than the relief of distress amongst certain people in Spain. There we can approve of the Government's act, and I trust that we shall, in the immediate post-war period, also approve of the action of the Government in giving the maximum gratuitous aid to unfortunate people who, at present, are in so much misery in so many parts of Europe. In doing that, I hope we shall not be looking forward to reaping a harvest from our generous acts. In laying down their policy directed to being in a position to engage in helpful humane work in Europe after the war, and to continuing the economic life of our country, I think that the Government should be aiming at maximum production in this country and at the type of production for which an external market will be available.

I must say that I found it difficult to understand why this motion was put down. It seems to me to press for something which it was obvious that the Government would do. During a part of the discussion, I was sorry it was not the Minister for Agriculture who was here instead of me, because some of the matters raised concerned a certain amount of detail which he could handle more satisfactorily than I could handle it. The motion asks that the Government should keep in close touch with Governments and organisations abroad engaged on schemes of post-war economic recovery. Naturally, we will do that to the extent to which it is possible. Even though one should not be a member of those conferences most of them publish their intentions, just as they public their agenda. The agenda of one of those conferences was read out by one of the Senators, and it is possible to know what they are thinking about and what is the extent of their problems. These are not kept secret as a rule. Therefore, without being a member of those conferences, when discussions have got to a certain distance and when plans are being made and certain projects examined, you can get sufficient information to enable you to know what steps you can take to help.

The motion asks that plans may be made for such an increase in our agricultural production as would enable us to make the largest possible contribution to the re-establishment of normal conditions in Europe. It is right that we should endeavour to make the largest possible contribution, but let us not deceive ourselves as to the extent of that contribution. Look at the map and consider the size of our territory compared with the territory of Europe. Look at the statistics of population and see the size of our population compared with theirs. Generally, you can get from these details a fair idea of our relative resources in the contribution which we can make. It seems to me that the most immediate thing, when the war ends, will be foodstuffs of various kinds required there and then immediately. There is the question of our cattle, and what could be done with our cattle to restore the cattle population of the Continent. Ours is a very small proportion.

Leaving out Russia, the cattle population of Europe is in the neighbourhood of 150,000,000, and you can see what fraction our cattle population is of that. As a matter of fact, what we can raise is about 600,000 cattle per year. In the last war, there was probably not the same destruction as has taken place, or is likely to take place in the present war but, after it, I have been informed, the amount contributed by Britain in 1919 was 2,600 cattle, a total to which we made a certain contribution—I think it was about 60 Kerry cattle. It was found that our cattle were not the type of cattle used on the Continent and, as a matter of fact, our breeds do not thrive on the Continent. That is a technical matter on which the Minister for Agriculture knows a great deal more than I do, but at least the numbers that were sent after the last war show what is likely to be our contribution in that particular regard.

I am altogether in agreement with those who said that we ought to make the largest contribution possible, but, in view of the magnitude of the disaster that will have occurred in Europe, while every little will be of value and will count, we cannot expect that we are going to make a very big difference. I say that in appreciation of our relative position and whilst we should endeavour to do everything in our power, even though we have done everything in our power, it will be relatively small. Those who are conversant with conditions in Europe, and who are likely to have closer information than we have to enable them to calculate, are quite well aware of what neutral countries as well as belligerent countries can produce, and if there were a need which we could satisfy, naturally it would be to our interests to look for that ahead.

It is also our interest to say we are quite prepared to help in that respect, and that has been made known. We are quite ready to do everything we can to assist in that way and I would like to stress the remark made by Deputy Fitzgerald in this—our people sincerely sympathise with the suffering people of Europe, all those who are suffering as a result of this war, and I do not think that there is anyone who would wish that we should try to make profit out of that situation. It is a situation in which we should endeavour to play our part to help the people who are suffering. No doubt Senator Johnson had in mind the ordinary way of trade by exchanging goods. But, the mere exchange of goods cannot take place in the ordinary way for a long time, because they will not have anything to give for a considerable period until they have built up their own economic life. If you are thinking of it from a commercial point of view, we would be giving these goods—our cattle and food products—and making credits, so to speak, to be paid later. That is the position, if you are looking at it from the commercial angle—our exports would be paid for by other goods either directly or triangularly or through multiple trade channels. I do not think, if you are considering this from the narrow commercial point of view, that this matter would deserve attention at the present time. I am talking very definitely of the immediate post-war period because what would be required at that time would be food immediately available for consumption, cereals particularly, and things like dehydrated foods of various kinds. The whole shipping question would be a serious matter at that particular time and foods in concentrated form would be most valuable because they would take up the least shipping space.

In this discussion, therefore, we have to remember very definitely that the contribution which we must make, and the extent to which we can make it, should and ought to be outside the normal channels of trade. It ought to be a free contribution, a contribution which we will make because it is needed at a particular time. We should naturally look ahead so that we can make a long-term plan. Are we going to have on the Continent changes which would mean the opening up of new markets for the produce of our soil? That is a question the answer to which I cannot foresee at this time, but it is the business of the Department of Agriculture to keep in touch with it. Our Department of External Affairs will be able to provide whatever information is available, and it will be our business to get as much information of the food position as possible. It will be the duty of the Department of Agriculture to see what changes will take place in the agricultural economy to meet the changed conditions.

I think the Minister for Agriculture has dealt with the question of the export of heifers a number of times. He has pointed out that there has been nothing very abnormal about the present export of heifers, and that, as a matter of fact, if you prevented it absolutely you would have the opposite result to that desired. One of the ways to increase the production of any particular commodity is to see that there is a sale for it because it gives an inducement to produce in that particular direction. I think the Minister for Agriculture has dealt with that matter in the Dáil or in the Seanad more than once.

I do not think I advocated a restriction in exports in that sense. I only wanted to increase the numbers here with a view to maintaining the normal export or an increased export in the post-war era.

I thought the Senator said that the proposition was that you would substitute them for other stock. I cannot quite see what the Senator is driving at. I assume you will have them by way of increasing our existing stock and holding them or that you simply increase your existing cattle population and substitute them for the others. The inducement of a ready market is about the best inducement to increase numbers. If there is an increase in the country at the moment the axe falls, you will have something there to go on.

I am afraid the number of young cows in the dairy areas is going down at present and that is a symptom I do not like.

I have confidence in the Minister for Agriculture to keep a close eye on that situation. I know from what he has said, time after time, that the attitude of the Department is that the dairying industry is fundamental to the country—that on it depends practically the whole of our cattle industry. Consequently, the Department has got to keep a close eye on it. Nothing I have seen would suggest for a moment that it is not being kept under very close observation. As I say the discussion here has ranged very widely—at times it seemed to me quite unnecessarily. What is urged here in the motion is quite sufficient and can be expressed in two words, that the Government agrees —and we are agreed—to keep in close touch with the situation outside. I do not think it is suggested that we are not keeping in close touch. Therefore, it seems to me that the Seanad could pass this motion. We would not raise any objection to it except in so far as there might be an implication that what it urges is not being done.

I hope the Seanad will agree to accept the motion. I cannot say that I am satisfied that the Taoiseach has given the House or the country as full a statement as I would have desired.

Why did the Senator not put down a motion asking for a full statement? I had seen only the motion and until he spoke last night I said: "This is only pushing an open door." If the Senator wanted further information why did he not move a proper motion saying that the House thinks it desirable that the Government should give some indication of this, that or the other thing?

Does the Taoiseach want notice from Senator Baxter in order to give us an indication of something which surely the Government must have considered and of which he could surely tell us after consideration?

I think everybody in the House ought to know that it is only recently there has been anything like a co-ordinated attempt to get information. In the United States they are engaged in the huge task of collating the material in regard to these problems. I do not know, and those who have the best information cannot know themselves, everything about these matters. It is through people in America and in Britain this information has come. What do Senators expect us to do? It is all nonsense to suggest that I should be questioned and asked to explain what we have done when Senators know perfectly well that the thing is only in its initial stages.

I do not think that the Taoiseach can complain that he has not been given an opportunity to make a statement if he so desires. After all this motion has been on the Order Paper sufficiently long to enable him to give consideration to anything and everything he could conceivably raise on the motion.

My goodness, that would be a task!

The Taoiseach's imagination is at least equal to mine in any event.

And his irrelevancy is greater.

I did hope that he would have been glad of the opportunity to tell us very fully of his view and of the view of the Government on the issue raised by me and what active, positive step was taken by him, or the Government at least, to demonstrate that our view was that we were anxious and willing to help and that outside nations, no matter who they were or where they were, could understand fully that that was our desire, that we would work unitedly towards that end, that we only wanted to be told or have it suggested to us what there was we could do and we were ready to plan and try to carry it out. I think probably the Taoiseach can congratulate himself on having dealt with the motion in the fewest possible words and by giving the least possible information, leaving us in just as complete darkness about Government plans and policy in regard to this as it was possible to do. It is true that he said it is our desire to help and, in answering a question as to what touch there was, that although we may not be part of any international gathering set up to plan or to make blue prints for the future, there are ways by which we can know what is being done. He instanced information—I presume the information made available in London, the agenda for the Food Conference which is being held, —as a demonstration of how we can know what is going on. That is not at all satisfactory from my point of view. The common people everywhere can read that surely for themselves, but what we are concerned about is that we should have some intimate touch and some more intimate information than is contained in the slip of paper I read.

I said that if we had that it would enable us to see what was required.

Even that is a slight elaboration. Are we to presume that this is the only information——

Does the Senator not know that we have representatives in Washington? What are they there for? We have representatives in Britain. What are they there for? We have representatives on the Continent to find out as early as they can what the situation there is.

That is a further addition to what the Taoiseach said.

Surely the Senator does not ask me to come to the House and waste time in telling Senators what everybody in the country knows? If I am to be asked anything I should be asked to spend time in giving information that is not available to everybody.

Senators

Hear, hear!

It is very easy to say "Hear, hear", but if Senators in this House wanted to make a contribution to this discussion, they could have made that contribution by doing something more than merely saying "Hear, hear". As a member of the House, I suggest I am within my rights in putting down a motion and in expecting the head of the Government to give us the fullest information. The Taoiseach, in his third speech, says that in addition we have representatives in all these countries, in Britain, the United States and the Continent. I am conscious of the fact that we have, but have we any machinery whereby these representatives keep in touch with these nations and are we kept informed? Are we seeking information in an official way and on that information which is recorded here are we doing anything to plan so that we can do what people elsewhere are suggesting nations ought to do if the world situation after the war is to be improved? I do not know whether the Taoiseach will be disposed further to elaborate that and say whether our representatives are getting this information, whether it is being noted, and whether we are attempting to plan in accordance with it. I wanted to know that. I would not mind where these conferences are held because, as far as I can see, if we escape the havoc of war, the same problems will face us as face Americans, Europeans and Asiatics. I do not mind where men meet to decide about the future of Europe, but I do not want to feel that this country is not anxious to make its contribution. I wanted to know whether we are getting this information and then I was coming to the point of asking what use are we making of the information. That question has been left in abeyance and I can only draw inferences from that fact. I am not prepared to accept the Taoiseach's point of view that, because we are a very small nation, the contribution we can make to European agricultural reconstruction is necessarily very small. I think that that is not so.

The cattle stocks here, as Senator Johnston pointed out, relative to the total population, are the highest of any European country. The feeding of peoples at the end of the war is going to be a colossal undertaking. It is not of much interest to some people here and to some people outside, but the people who have to shape the future of this country cannot but be interested in it, because we cannot be a part of the world and not display interest in it. Unfortunately, to make a contribution demands planning years ahead, and so I have put the question whether we are getting this information, whether it is being recorded here and what plans are we making to implement a policy based on the suggestions that would be made to us as to the part we would play.

What idea have we of the position after the war? We must have some idea of the actual problems that have to be met to make plans. This motion and the way it has been treated is most ridiculous under the circumstances.

It is very unfortunate that if one happens to have a point of view different from that of the Taoiseach it is ridiculous.

That is not the reason.

I think that as a citizen and as a member of this House I have rights. With all respect to the Taoiseach's opinion my point of view is not as strange and abnormal to the minds of the people as the Taoiseach would seem to think. I am not expressing my own view, but the point of view of men who work and produce and even of those who have their eyes beyond the confines of our shores. The thoughts of men in various other countries are moving in certain directions. The Taoiseach says we do not know what is going to happen. Of course we do not, but we know even to-day that hundreds of millions of people are hungry, and that that hunger is going to increase alarmingly. We know that there are certain types of food stored away in colossal quantities and that the quantity of certain other more vital foods available is falling alarmingly. I pointed that out, not on evidence that was personal to me but on evidence that I have obtained from others. I assert here that exactly the same process is operating within our own country. The Canadian and American live-stock population has fallen, and the same thing has happened in Great Britain and the Six Counties, and we have no need to draw on our imagination to know what is happening on the Continent. Exactly the same thing is happening in our own country, and I question if even the figures of the cattle populations indicate the real situation. This process is going on, and I am not impressed when the Taoiseach says that he is fully conscious of its effect on our internal economy, or indeed upon our international position.

Our position would be strong if we had built our resources to the point where we could make a considerable contribution, either to the food supply of Europe or to the re-establishment of the live stock population. I have no doubt we could do it if we planned and were led as we should. It is not alone a Christian duty but a patriotic and national duty to face the future with that in mind, not minimising our capacity to do a job of work nor belittling the type of live stock that we have. We should be convinced that we can do much more with our land when the chance is open to us than we have done in the past.

Apart altogether from any material considerations we should desire to give an indication that we are animated by Christian virtue. The Taoiseach thinks we ought to say that our country is a little country, that there is not much that we can do, that our live stock does not suit the land and climate of Europe, and that the main thing that will be wanted is food and not the restocking or rehabilitation of herds. I think that attitude of mind is retarding any hope of the kind of agricultural development that this nation wants. It is a definite hindrance to the doing of the kind of international job that I believe we are well equipped to do. I challenge anyone to say that it is not a fact that everywhere throughout the country our fairs are much smaller than we expected. At every fair in the country there is clear evidence of the fall in our cattle stocks.

The Taoiseach took Senator Johnston to task as to what he meant us to do—whether we were to operate a policy of increasing our herds of dairy stock. I saw a statement made the other day by Father Coyne as President of the I.A.O.S., in which he indicated that since 1936 the production of butter in our creameries has fallen from 800,000 cwts. to 600,000 cwts. That is evidence of the trend of events. It shows that faltering and weakening in our own policy which is breaking down the possibilities of our having the reserve of live stock which it is essential that we should have if we are to make that contribution to the restoration of normal conditions in European agriculture which I believe we should attempt to make. The Taoiseach said that the matter might have been dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture in certain respects. In a matter like this it is difficult to know whom we should hold responsible. There is no doubt that our ability to buy in the future will depend to a considerable extent on our capacity to produce and to sell. I believe, and I have stated in this House already, that we could promulgate an agricultural policy here whereby we could increase our live stock population by 100 per cent. I am convinced that it could be done. I am convinced that, for internal reasons, we ought to formulate and shape such an agricultural policy.

The Senator would be quite relevant in making those points on a specific motion, but extended references to agricultural policy are not in consonance with the terms of this motion.

I do not want to be out of order. The motion asks that "the Government should keep in close touch with Governments and organisations abroad engaged on schemes of post-war economic recovery to ensure that plans may be made for such an increase in our agricultural production as will enable Éire to make the largest possible contribution to the re-establishment of normal conditions in Europe after the war." I believe that there is a way by which we could so shape our internal agricultural policy as to increase our production. You cannot feed live stock unless you have more food. I believe that, with a particular kind of handling of our own land, we could get more food. If we could get more food from our own land we could feed more live stock here. I should like to see our live stock policy handled and managed in a certain way. I feel that, with the present way we are handling things, we will have at the end of the war very few pigs, a considerably depleted live stock, and such a reduction in our female live stock as to render very difficult our efforts either to feed Europe or to give them stock from which they can breed. I really felt that, by putting down this motion, I was giving the Taoiseach an opportunity to tell the House and the people of the country something which they would be glad to hear. I feel that the country would be glad to have it from the Taoiseach that we are facing up to the European situation, and that, having escaped the scourge of war, we are making a united effort to better the conditions of suffering humanity.

You were told that we are doing everything possible.

And that we are, in addition, keeping our ears to the ground——

You were told that that is true also.

Perhaps, by a peculiar process of evolution in the Taoiseach's mind, he is enlightening us in regard to those matters, but that enlightenment is not coming in the way in which I expected it would come.

When you push an open door it is liable to give you an awful bang.

It is very hard to know whether the door is open or shut.

There is a very bad view through it if it is open.

I did not address myself to this motion in any contentious manner. I addressed myself to it with the purpose of ensuring that we might, as Europeans, raise our reputation. It takes courage and leadership to raise the reputation of a nation in this world to-day. We could do with a better name; you can never have too good a name, and it is not easy living up to a good name when you have it. The Taoiseach is cleverer than I am, and he manages to deal with questions like this with a sort of technique which I would not employ. I may be difficult to please as to the way in which information should be forthcoming, but I did hope that the Taoiseach would give us a broad general demonstration of the fact that our representatives were everywhere seeking information from the peoples abroad, and transmitting it here; that they were being instructed by the head of the Government here to assure those peoples that whatever we could do we would do; to say in addition that we would not like to see things which concern us intimately decided behind our backs, and that we were giving evidence of such a rearrangement of our internal effort and of our agricultural policy as to render it possible for us to make the contribution which the Taoiseach says he would like to make, but which we believe cannot be made unless we change many things, but particularly the trend of policy in regard to our live stock. Perhaps the Taoiseach feels that he is serving the nation best by saying the least. That may be his way, but I think the farmers of the country ought to be given a lead. A clear statement from the Taoiseach would have done a great deal towards that end, but he has not given it.

Is the motion being withdrawn?

I took it that the House was accepting it.

There seems to be general agreement on it.

Yes, there seems to be general agreement. However, I have some figures here which, with the permission of the House, Sir, I should like to give. Excluding Turkey, Russia, Spain and Portugal, the cattle population in 1938 was 86,800,000 while our cattle population was 3,600,000. That would be about 4 per cent. The sheep population was 78,000,000, while our sheep population was 1,900,000, or something in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent. The pig population was 68,000,000, while ours was 434,000—I take it that that is in the Twenty-Six Counties. It can be seen, therefore, what the percentage of our cattle population is in relation to these other countries.

It would be interesting if one had the figures for the end of the last war.

I have already given the total amount of our cattle population exported in 1919 and 1920.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share