That only proves what I said, that he was a disciple the Minister should be proud of. One reason why I think we should at least maintain the amount of tillage we have in this country even if we cannot agree to increase it—because I believe this motion is only going a small way towards solving the problem of tillage and it will not do more than maintain the present amount of tillage—is that we are importing into this country every year up to £11,000,000 worth of cereals which could be produced or substituted by crops grown in this country. If that figure is to increase, as it probably will increase under present conditions, because at present there is no option for the farmer except to go out of tillage, we cannot maintain even the present conditions with regard to our adverse trade balance of imports against exports.
There is another question to be considered. We all know that we have land in this country which is eminently suitable for the growing of oats, say, and we know that that particular land may not be suitable for the production of milk. We know that we have land that is eminently suitable for barley and that that same land may not be suitable for the fattening of cattle. I may be told by some speakers in the usual cynical way that "if that is so why not allow these farmers to grow oats and why not allow them to grow barley?" It may be a very good thing economically for the country as a whole to have oats produced on land that is best suited for oats and have barley produced on land that is best suited for barley and yet it may not be economically possible for the farmer to grow that oats or barley. I think that the House should consider the effect of making it possible for these landholders to do what is best for the country even though, for the time being, it may not be best for themselves.
Again we know that there is more wealth produced in tillage than in grass. Figures have been produced here before showing the food value of tillage as compared with grass. It was pointed out here that, taking the average tillage farms where you have so much oats, barley, potatoes, swedes and mangolds, the production of human food from that acreage was a good deal higher than the production of human food from grass. The practical farmers in this country know that in order to keep their land in good condition it is necessary, in practically all cases, to do tillage. In some land, what is known as the light tillage land, it is necessary to till oftener than it is in the case of land in the heavy grazing districts. In fact, in the case of this light tillage land when it is laid down into grass it does not remain in good pasture more than five to six years, after which it becomes necessary to till again. Again, if you compare Denmark with this country—it is the old comparison—we know that in Denmark they have 63 per cent. of their land in tillage, while in this country we have only 12½ per cent. tilled. Along with that, however, we find that in Denmark the output per agricultural worker is £196, while in the Free State it is only £96. That calculation is made after allowing for subtraction from the output of the amount of imported feeding stuffs that came into both countries.
I think that we should continue to till our land, because there is no use for the grass that will replace that tillage, considering the fact that the number of cattle that we have in this country has been steadily declining. We do not want any more land under grass at present to feed the cattle we have, but we do want more land under tillage in order to produce human food and animal foodstuffs that are required for this country. The farmer who is growing oats for sale is a very unpopular man in some quarters at present, but, at any rate, there are some farmers doing it. We have been told on other occasions that we should let the farmers do what they have been in the habit of doing and not ask them to change their farming economy. That farmer who is growing oats for sale is at a serious disadvantage. He is growing oats without any subsidy and he is trying to compete with oats coming to this country, oats that have been subsidised by the Russian Government or by the German Government. It is not fair to expect that that man should continue in the business he is engaged in. He should be helped out of his difficulties.
Another matter that is closely related to this is the question of imports and exports. The President, in speaking here yesterday, drew attention to the very good position of this country in having our adverse trade balance reduced. That would be a very welcome thing if it had been reduced by our importing less of the materials that we could produce here for ourselves, and by exporting more of the goods that we have been advised by the present Government to concentrate on for the foreign markets. But it is not so. As a matter of fact, our exports for the nine months up to the end of September last, the last returns we have, have increased by the very small sum of £193,000. But against that £193,000 we find that the exports of tractors and tractor parts have increased by 1½ million pounds. I suppose the Government will claim that it was their policy that brought Messrs. Ford to Cork. Probably they will. But if they had not succeeded in that policy, and if Messrs. Ford were not in Cork our exports would be down by 1½ millions. That shows that it is not through our agricultural policy that our exports have increased.
As a matter of fact, there is only one item in which our agricultural exports have increased. That increase has been in the matter of cattle. That has been increased by over £1,000,000. But the number of cattle that we have exported for the first nine months of this year, as compared with the exports for the corresponding nine months of 1929, has been increased by 72,000. I do not know if it is a good sign, or a sign that we have turned the corner, when we come to examine where these cattle came from. If any of us were watching the farmer who had, say, ten cows, and who was selling yearly ten yearlings at the fairs, and if in one particular year we found that that farmer had brought ten yearlings and two cows to the fair as well, we would say that that farmer had turned the corner, but it would be the corner into bankruptcy. That is what has been happening in the matter of this export of cattle.
We have increased our cattle exports by 72,000. After the first six months that export was increased by 36,000 as compared with last year's, and we found last June that we had 104,000 less cattle than in the previous June. That shows that we have increased our exports of cattle at the expense of the stock of cattle in the country. Included in that return of 104,000 cattle was 6,000 cows. If our farmers are compelled by economic circumstances to reduce the adverse trade balance by exporting their cows and leaving themselves with less stock to produce butter and young cattle in the coming year, it is hardly a matter for congratulation. We can hardly be congratulated upon the fact that we have reduced the adverse trade balance in that way.
We find that in the matter of finished product that our exports have decreased. If we take butter, bacon and eggs, we find that the three finished products produced by the small farmer who is going to get so much sympathy from the other side have decreased. If we look over the exports in the matter of these three products we find that the amount has gone down by 1½ million pounds. Now in the same period—that is, in the 12 months from June, 1929, to June, 1930 —the number of acres under tillage in this country has been reduced by 64,000. From that one can see that the free trade agricultural policy of this Government has led us to the position of throwing more land into grass and having less cattle to eat that grass. We see that our imports for that period have been reduced. In order to get this big reduction in the adverse trade balance, not only was there an increase in exports which was very small, but a decrease in imports which was large, amounting to £2,846,000. The biggest decrease in that item came under the head of cereals. The biggest decrease under that head of cereals was in the matter of wheat. We imported a good deal less wheat not only in value but also in quantity. But against that we imported more flour. Again, we decreased our imports of barley but we increased our imports of malt. Even taking wheat, flour and bread together, we find that for nine months we have made considerable savings in these imports. That considerable saving was made in quantity, apart from the price altogether. We did not grow any more wheat at home. We imported less for the nine months, and whereas our people were able to consume fourteen loaves in 1929 they got only thirteen loaves in 1930.
We have been told here by the Minister for Industry and Commerce—and we believe it—that the people who consume most bread are the very poor. If a man has any money to buy food the first thing he will do is to buy enough bread. If, therefore, people have bought less bread than in 1929, it must be the very poor people who have bought less bread and the only explanation is that they could not pay for what they wanted. We have reduced our adverse balance in two ways, first by getting rid of our dairy stock and cattle and, secondly, by leaving the people in the position that they cannot purchase their food requirements.
Of course there will be objections to this motion and I am quite certain that the Minister's old objection will be again brought forward—that it pays a man to produce grain for himself, but it can never pay a man to produce oats and barley as a cash crop. The Minister said that last year when maize was coming in at 8s. 8d. per cwt.; he will say the same now when maize is 5s. 2d., a difference of 3s. 6d. If that is the position, it must cost more than 3s. 6d. a cwt. to market oats in this country. Surely there is something wrong and something the Minister should have investigated before now in order to give the producers of oats and barley, who grow those commodities as a cash crop, some assistance. He should have made some effort surely to ease the position for them.
We will be told that we should advise the farmers to feed their grain to their own stock. There is not a farmer in the country who needs that advice if he could afford to do it. The advice, when it comes from the Minister or any member of Cumann na nGaedheal, is entirely gratuitous. Any farmer who can do it has been doing it for the last seven or eight years and he knows he is doing well on it; but we have to deal with the farmer who cannot do that. We know there are farmers who, when they produce oats and barley, have to sell the grain in order to pay their debts. They may owe money to the Land Commission, rates to the County Council, sometimes bank debts and sometimes shop debts. They have to pay those debts out of any money they may get for the grain. There may be farmers who can get over that difficulty, but them they may not have sufficient storage for their corn. Not every farmer has a large loft capable of keeping oats and barley so as to tide him over the winter. Even if a farmer had his debts paid and had sufficient storage, he might not be able to afford £150 or £200 to buy cattle to consume the grain. Even if a farmer could bring home the cattle he might not have a house to bring them into. Various difficulties of that sort confront men who grow oats and barley and these difficulties have not been met by members of the Government who talk glibly about a man feeding oats and barley to his own stock. Let us not waste time with such advice. Just consider the position of the man who is anxious to grow oats and barley but cannot do so.
It may be said that the quantities of oats that came into the country last year could not have made any difference in the price as the total amount came to only £30,000. Whatever the quantity was, it does not make the slightest difference; it is the question of the price that really matters. Would any Deputy in the habit of buying oats be prepared to buy Irish oats at 13s. or 14s. a barrel, knowing that at any moment within a week or a month, several cargoes of Russian or German oats would come in at a much lower price? It is the possibility of foreign oats coming in at a lower price that keeps the price of Irish oats down. I do not believe the quantity has the slightest influence on the matter.
Oats is a raw material, and we are advised that we should not tax raw materials. I hold that oats is the basis of a very important industry. Any Deputy who examines the agricultural output of the Saorstát in 1926 will find that the production of oats amounted in value to £4,950,000, almost £5,000,000. This industry is a most important one, as will be realised when that figure is taken into consideration. It should not be brushed aside by merely saying that oats form a raw material and must not be taxed.
We are told that it is right for the farmer who grows oats to feed them to his stock. Is it not just as reasonable to say that it is right for the farmer who wants to feed his stock to grow his oats? If he does that, a prohibition on oats coming in will make no difference to him. We will be told that the small farmer, especially in the West of Ireland, will be hit badly by this proposal. I do not know how, and I am hoping to find out. According to returns of the amount of oats grown in each county in 1926, the three counties mentioned in particular as likely to suffer under this scheme—Cavan, Galway and Mayo—are within the first eleven counties described as oat producers. Seeing that the amount of oats produced in the Free State is barely sufficient for our needs, I think that if we get three counties included in the first eleven as large growers, we can assume that they are at least producing sufficient for their own needs. These small farmers are the very people who sell a certain amount of oats after the harvest in order to pay their debts. They are the people who have to sell oats in order to pay their annuities, rates and shop debts; they have not bank debts as a rule.
If the prohibition of foreign oats has the effect of raising the level of the price of Irish oats here, it is going to benefit the very small farmers about whom we hear so much. The only oats these men buy as a rule is seed in the spring. Generally the man who sells oats sells more in quantity than he buys back in the spring for seed, and if we raise the level of prices he will benefit by the scheme. In any case this motion only refers to barley and oats. The price of barley and oats as feeding stuffs cannot go higher than the general level of other feeding stuffs. As long as we have not tackled the problem of maize, pollard and bran, the price of oats or barley to the consumer cannot go up very much. The only people who may suffer are those who have to buy oats, who cannot buy any other substitute, but they are not found amongst the small farmers. I would remind Deputies that there are other clauses in the motion which will have the effect of compensating small farmers who produce bacon, butter and eggs.
The motion next deals with barley. The value of our imports of barley and malt in 1929 amounted to £350,000. The value of the total production of barley in this country is £1,145,000. It is by no means an industry that should be neglected. But I want to speak particularly about malt. For the nine months of 1930, as compared with the same period in 1929, the imports of malt increased in value from £118,000 to £244,000. So far, I know of only one objection put up to the prohibition of the imports of barley, and that is that the brewers here require a certain proportion of foreign barley in order to make stout for export, it being necessary for the keeping quality of such stout. It is on that account we put in the proviso "except under licence." If these brewers have a good case to make they can make it before a competent tribunal, and if they can convince that tribunal, no doubt they will be allowed to import a certain amount of barley. But the import of barley should stop at that. I do not know any reason why malt should be allowed in. Surely we have people here who are able to make malt. We have the stores and the men, and we also have the barley grown here, so that there is no reason at all why we should allow malt to be imported.
Under the heading of both barley and oats a question may arise about seed. I think any Deputy who has been taking an interest in the Agricultural College in Glasnevin, and who has been following the experiments carried on there, will agree that those in the College are capable of producing and breeding good seed oats and seed barley, and that there is no reason why we should be paying so much money, especially for seed oats which are in no way superior but, in fact, are probably very much inferior to the oats we produce ourselves.
Coming to the next heading, the imposition of an import duty of 20s. per cwt. on all bacon and other pig products, it is hard to see why foreign bacon should be allowed in here in free competition with our own bacon, considering that we have a surplus for export. If we were to take over the home market for bacon we would still have about £4,000,000 worth of bacon for export. At present bacon valued for over £1,500,000 is coming in. There is no reason why the bacon producers here should not have their market enlarged, by giving them the market represented by that £1,500,000, as well as the market they have already in Great Britain. No reason can be advanced against the prohibition of foreign bacon. This foreign bacon is dearer, but it is not as good an article as the home product. By exporting our own bacon and importing a certain amount of foreign bacon, we are paying all the expenses of transport, handling, as well as those of the wholesaler, the retailer and others between China, America, Great Britain, Poland and Ireland. However, we recognise that the people of this country have developed a taste for a certain kind of bacon, and therefore we say immediate prohibition would not be fair, or perhaps feasible, but by giving notice both to the producers and the curers, that after 18 months the prohibition of foreign bacon would take effect, that would enable them to produce the pig and to have the bacon cured in the way the people desire.
We go further, and say that all meats coming into the Free State should be marked legibly with the name of the country of origin when exposed for sale. Meat is a most important food, and a certain amount is imported. So far we have taken no trouble to see that that meat is marked with the name of the country of origin. Only yesterday the Second Reading of a Bill was passed here, ensuring that people who drink port wine will get the genuine article. We think that people who eat bacon are in every way as important as people who drink port wine. If we go to the expense of inspecting meat that leaves the country, so as to ensure that it is in good condition for the foreign consumer, we should, at least, have as much consideration for home consumers, and see that no meat will enter the country unless it is inspected and found to be in good condition.
Under this motion the price of Irish bacon to the consumer cannot increase to any extent. Even when we confine our market to our own produce, we will still have a surplus for export, valued for about £4,000,000. The price of that bacon that we export to the foreign market will be regulated by the general world price of bacon in the foreign market to which it is sent, whether Great Britain or elsewhere. The people who export bacon from this country will get a certain price for their product in Liverpool or in London, and the price here will be fixed relative to that, allowing for expenses of transport, and so on. The price of Irish bacon here will not be increased to the consumer. To the producer this scheme will probably bring a small advantage, because he will have a bigger market than he has at present. If he has a market at the present time for five and a half million pounds worth of bacon in Great Britain, and if, in addition to that, we throw open to him the market here, worth one and a half million pounds, he will have a bigger market for his products, and he will either increase production or he will pick the very select part of that market for his own products. The price of foreign bacon will probably increase under this scheme, although there does not appear to be any reason why it should, considering that it is a good deal higher than Irish bacon at the present time.
Paragraph 4 deals with prohibition of imports of butter. There seems to be a growing belief that it would be a good thing for this country if all imports of butter were prohibited. A number of speakers, including the Minister, have expressed themselves more or less in favour of that. I do not know if it is necessary to go into the matter very deeply, if it is not going to meet with any opposition. As regards condensed milk, we have good equipment and the raw material to turn out any amount of condensed milk. We had condensed milk factories, and some of those who worked in those factories are now idle. We do not see why we should import condensed milk when we can produce it for ourselves and employ our own people.
With regard to eggs, the amount that comes into this country is small, but there is no reason why we should import any at all. We do not know what is in this liquid egg that is coming in. We do not know the country of origin or what is mixed with the egg or anything else. These liquid eggs are put into confectionery, which is consumed by the innocent people of this country.
The objection raised to these proposals is this: if we confine the market, say, for butter, to our own produce, what are we going to do with the rest of the supply? In his statement on Government policy yesterday, the President said we were exporting from this country £4,000,000 worth of butter and that we must continue to export that amount—that we must continue to export half our production in butter. The book I quoted before—the Agricultural Output of Saorstát Eireann— traces the output of butter, where it was consumed and so on. It shows that a certain amount of butter and milk was consumed by the rural population of this country, a certain amount by the town population, and a certain amount exported. A curious feature of those figures is that if the towns-people in this country had consumed per head as much milk and butter as the people in the rural districts did there would be none for export. So that if we must continue to export half our butter production, as the President stated, that is due to the fact that our town population is not eating as much butter or drinking as much milk as the people in the country are; and nobody claims that the people in the country are using too much butter or milk. The same thing applies to poultry and to eggs and the converse applies to mutton, sheep and lambs. If the people of the country could afford to eat as much mutton as the people of the towns did in 1926, we would have no sheep, lambs or mutton for export, and I do not know that anyone will claim that the people in the towns have gorged themselves with mutton. The Minister stated on one occasion that the home market for these commodities was negligible. The fact is that the home market is negligible because our people cannot afford to eat enough. We are advised to produce those articles for the foreign market and that we will eventually defeat our competitors in that market. We are up against the whole world in the British market for butter—not only the European countries but Canada, New Zealand, Australia and now, perhaps, a more serious rival still, Siberia.
We are advised that we shall beat all those competitors in the foreign market and, on the other hand, we are told that we cannot compete against the grain growing countries in our own market. If that is so—if we cannot protect ourselves in our own market— where does our fiscal autonomy come in or what is the use of it? It is admitted, I think, that for the last twelve months, at any rate, we have been producing butter at a loss to the producer and yet we are advised to continue to produce that butter for competition in the foreign market while we have land here suitable for grain growing which we are advised to leave derelict and not attempt to compete against the foreigner in our own grain market. We were told yesterday that we had a benevolent Government which saved this country from going into a wheat scheme. In saying us from going into a wheat scheme, they led us into a butter scheme which ruined this country and from which there is no going back. There is nobody on the opposite side who will claim that there is going to be a recovery from this butter position. They cannot foresee any future for the butter industry and no one will claim that there is any future for it. All that they can do is to throw it back at us that they saved us from a wheat, barley or oats scheme, but at least if we had gone into these commodities we would be growing them for our own market, a market that we could regulate and pay the producer for his cost of production. Four years ago butter was selling at 180s. per cwt. It is now selling at 122s.—that is Irish creamery salted butter—on the London market, I give that quotation from the "Irish Trade Journal." It is the price on the London market. What does the farmer get out of that? He gets 95s.