Deputy Cogan gave the impression to the House that the only Deputies who are the watchdogs and custodians of agricultural interests are those in Clann na Talmhan. I believe there are many Deputies who know at least as much about agriculture, and who are as concerned about its interests, on all sides of the House, however we may differ as to policy and method. I would not be inclined to question the sincerity of their motives. I believe that we, the Deputies who are drawn from the agricultural classes and who are sent in here to represent agriculture, should have before us at all times the aim of trying individually to set a high standard, so far as we ourselves are concerned.
We should try to emulate the best methods in agriculture and adopt the best technique to secure as far as it is humanly possible that we are getting results and applying our technical knowledge in the right direction. In that way, we might be an example to the people in our immediate locality. If that idea were applied generally, we might come in here and talk more effectively and be listened to with greater care. I do not want to go too far with it, but I would say that sometimes I have to listen to Deputies who very often do not know what they are talking about.
We are asked to vote a sum of £16,000,000, which represents an instalment of a very big sum of £47,000,000 for the public services of this country. It is an unprecedented and staggering figure, so far as this country is concerned. But for the fact that prices have appreciated to their present level, and that there is a big amount of money in circulation, a sum of that magnitude could not be sustained for a moment. Very severe restrictions are imposed on the people during the emergency, but no attempt has been made to curb expenditure. On a few occasions in the past, the Minister has expressed the desirability of trying to set a limit to expenditure, and has expressed some concern about that, but the spiral still continues. The sum is substantially bigger than the amount mentioned. If we add the appropriations of over £2,000,000 and the Supplementary Estimates that probably will come in the usual way during the coming year, and local government expenditure, which is about £8,000,000, we have an aggregate figure, including the Central Fund, of over £60,000,000.
I do not know what the national income here is, and we have no estimate of it at the present time. We know that, for some years before the war, it was estimated at something like £150,000,000. If we take it as being £180,000,000 or £190,000,000 at the present time, the taxation we are imposing is approximately one-third of the national income. That is a very severe burden. I know the Minister appreciates that those increases are throwing back considerable hardships, that they may intensify unemployment, and will undoubtedly increase the cost of production.
They will destroy the incentive to development and efficiency and have a retarding effect on production. I want to stress that aspect of it, which is a very essential consideration. No matter how desirable all the services we have may be, we must consider the cost. Many of those social services are very desirable, and I do not want to oppose the provision of such services which improve the general standard of our people, but I say we cannot run away socially without ensuring that our economic position affords it. That is the real problem before us.
A lot has been said and written about freedom from want and social security. That is all very desirable, but it can only be effected by ensuring that the national income is sufficient to provide that security. We must examine the position and satisfy ourselves that the country can afford the amount being asked at present. Can the country be run efficiently on less? Above all, we must ensure that we get value for the money the people are called upon to pay. The most alarming aspect of our present position is that the curve of expenditure has an upward trend all the time, while our production curve has a downward trend. We cannot be complacent about that. I do not believe that the Minister is complacent about it. I know he will reply that every Party is asking for increased services, for more and more social services. I do not say we should not have those social services. They are essential and desirable, but side by side with the provision of them we must ensure that the national income can afford them.
We can only have that income by more work and more production. At this juncture, with the world struggle in all likelihood running towards its termination within the next few months, the mind of every Deputy in the House, and every thinking person in the country turns towards the future. What does the future hold? Are we sufficiently prepared for the future? What can be done to ensure the best possible conditions for our people in the post-war period? What plans can be laid down to ensure that proper development will take place, that whatever stagnation is there will be eliminated, and that we will be in a position to make the best possible use of our resources and opportunities?
The contraction and derangement of trade were inevitable during this emergency. Our trade has very seriously and alarmingly contracted; the contraction, not merely in agricultural production, but in agricultural exports, during this emergency, during the most favourable period for the primary producer, is extraordinary in our circumstances here. The fact that our position has remained stagnant over that period will make it all the more difficult in the post-war period. I submit that, taking all our circumstances into account, and with the appreciation in sterling assets that Deputy Mulcahy has referred to, the greatest problem we have to face concerns our purchasing power in the post-war period—how are we to secure the necessary imports? If we had that solved, then I think our position would be a very happy one, indeed, compared to countries generally throughout the world. If we were satisfied that we had the free use of our sterling assets, that we could purchase to an unlimited extent our essential requirements, our machinery replacements both for industry and agriculture and the raw material for both industries—if we felt certain we were in a position to secure these out of our credits, then our position would be a very happy one and planning for the post-war period would be a comparatively simple matter.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to that a couple of months ago when he said that:
"...Disordered post-war international trade conditions will make it impracticable for us to use our external financial resources to acquire freely abroad the equipment and materials we will need and only ability to export produce that the other countries need and are prepared to accept in barter for their own goods will enable us to trade at all."
I think that is the kernel of our whole problem, not merely trade with our next-door neighbour, Great Britain, but to find the foreign exchange in order to trade with other countries and get the goods that originate in these countries. Take the year 1938, when our imports totalled £41,000,000 odd, and £20,000,000 of those imports originated in Great Britain and slightly more than 50 per cent. originated in countries other than Great Britain. From America, all the American countries, our imports aggregated something over £8,000,000. From the United States the amount was over £4,000,000. If we have any difficulty about the conversion of sterling into dollars and other currencies, we will be facing a very acute problem. We all appreciate that if we do not get the essential raw material there is little use in talking about planning, and we will be up against a terrible position that will detrimentally affect industry and employment and our whole standard of living.
In order to get a true picture of this problem, it might be well to understand our position in pre-war years. If we take the five years 1935 to 1939, we had an adverse trade balance on the average of £19,000,000. The lowest in the five years was £17,000,000 odd, and the highest £21,000,000 odd. Our exports paid for only 55 per cent of our imports and the balance of our imports, 45 per cent., was paid for out of our sterling credits. We will appreciate that our position in the post-war period, if we had free use of those assets, would enable us to have a higher trade balance than in pre-war years. Our exports have declined and our requirements will be greater than in pre-war years. We will want more artificial manures to correct any damage done to the fertility of the soil. That has to be repaired as early as possible. Worn out industrial and agricultural machinery must be replaced. All the transport we have— lorries, buses; cars, and even for railway reorganisation it may be essential to import locomotives—will have to be either replaced or reconditioned and all that will require a substantially higher capital expenditure than in pre-war years.
If we are to secure these essential requirements we must plan for a greater post-war expenditure. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has raised this difficulty about purchasing goods in the post-war period. What sort of limitation will be put on the use of those credits? It is difficult for me to say, and I do not know whether the Minister has information on the matter; neither do I think we should say publicly and definitely that they will be frozen. But we should be alive to the danger there. If there is a limitation put to their use we must make the difference good in exports. I suggest that it is vital to our whole future that we must expand production and step-up our exports. Exports are a vital national asset, not merely in providing our requirements in imported goods, but in providing employment in the production of those exports as well. In order to do all that we must have a survey of our production position, develop plans, have the necessary technical knowledge disseminated among our people, and also have not merely equipment in the form of machinery, but financial equipment as well.
Some plans have already been produced. A housing plan has recently been published which contemplates an expenditure of £100,000,000. It is really only a plan to show that there is an immediate need for the expenditure of £100,000,000 by private individuals, by local authorities and by the Government in a limited way. There is no financial provision in the plan and no indication as to what amounts will be provided by the State or what direct responsibility for the implementation of the plan will rest on the Government. There is definitely no mention in the plan of agriculture, no mention of what is to be done in the way of providing not merely dwelling houses for the agricultural community, and many of them are in a rather poor condition, as the Minister knows, but, possibly worse still, essential out-offices. In our climate, these are vital to the live-stock industry, and possibly in another programme provision may be made for them, but it is something which must not be overlooked.
There is a committee sitting at present, a committee planning for post-war agriculture, and I feel that it is hampered in its investigations because it has not got the necessary information in regard to trade. A complete plan means not merely a plan in regard to production but a plan in regard to sale, and sale at an economic price and to the best advantage. No attempt has been made to plumb external markets, to ascertain British requirements, and, as a matter of fact, I charge the Government with absolute failure to discover what are our opportunities in the post-war British markets, what type of goods they expect us to produce, what shape our trading in the post-war period will take, what processing will be necessary here and what opportunities will exist here for processing goods in the post-war period. Surely no committee can plan wisely or well if it has not got that vital information.
Planning in a back room in Merrion Street, without the necessary contacts as between our Government and the British Government on trade matters having been made beforehand, is worthless, and, so far as the House knows, no direct contact has been made. The Minister may say that contacts have been made through Civil Service channels, but I do not think that is the best way to secure favourable trade deals. We should be alive to our interests in that respect. The Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Finance, must appreciate, more now than ever before, how vital to our whole future welfare is the development of a good export trade in the post-war period. The opportunity is still there. According to the programme announced in the last few days, the British Government are switching over to live-stock production, to the production of the protected foods, and, in view of our circumstances, our climatic conditions, our proximity to that market, our opportunities and our knowledge in relation to the production of these goods, we should not allow a development to take place in Great Britain which ignores this country as an important source of supply.
Mr. Hudson, the British Minister of Agriculture, is all out for improving and perfecting the live-stock industry, and for providing a better standard of live stock all round. That is already reflected in the statistics published this year, which show that calves and heifers in milk increased by 90,000, cows in calf and not in milk by 171,000, heifers in calf by 210,000, and cattle under one year old by 113,000, while the numbers of other cattle remain approximately the same, because this programme has started only in the last couple of years, the result being younger stock, but there will be a progressive improvement all round as the years go on.
We might possibly consider that every calf reared, every animal produced in Great Britain might eventually eliminate an Irish beast from shipment, but I do not think we need go so far as that, because Britain is definitely planning a more intensified agricultural industry. Britain realises that her world resources have undergone a profound change, that her external assets are completely liquidated, that she will be thrown back much more on her own resources, that her ability to sell manufactured goods in practically every country in the world in exchange for cheap food has gone, and that the day when she was the workshop of the world is past history; and she is alive not merely to the desirability but the necessity of ensuring that her agricultural industry will be preserved in its present vigorous state.
Our live-stock industry in the past has been to a large extent interlocked with the British live-stock industry, and that interlocking has worked very well. Let us hope that it will continue, but I want to say that if Mr. Hudson is planning a live-stock industry for Great Britain which ignores this country as a source of supply, we may be very sorry for not intervening to ensure that our live-stock supplies, our animals exported on foot, will be part and parcel of their economy.
Figures were published recently about which we might be a little alarmed in that connection. For the first time since immediately before the war our trade figures were published, showing that in 1939 we exported 783,872, and in 1944 445,407 live cattle. It is true that our dead meat trade increased in those years, and that only 39,000 cattle were slaughtered for the dead meat trade in 1939, while 129,000 were slaughtered in 1944; but the aggregate figure of live animals and dead meat in 1939 was 822,945 as against 674,788 in 1944, a reduction of something like 140,000 in the number of animals exported in that year as against 1939.
Statistics show that our cattle population has been maintained fairly well round the 4,000,000 figure, but nevertheless the trade figures show a reduction in exports, taking the dead meat trade into account, of 140,000 cattle. I think that figure can be corrected to some extent because of the smuggling across the Border, but you could not put the number down at more than 40,000 or 50,000. That leaves a figure of approximately 100,000. That is a very big figure. It is a very serious matter for the live-stock industry of the country. It is important, not only from the point of view of exchange but from the point of view of production as well, because God ordained that animal life and plant life should be combined. One is complementary to the other. You cannot produce plant life without maintaining the necessary live stock to keep up fertility.
I am merely stressing for the Minister the importance of a trade deal at the present time. The Government ought to face up to their responsibilities in that respect. I know they have a very able trade representative in London, and that he is fully alive to our interests. I do not want to reflect on the work that he has done, but I do say that a trade deal is essentially a Minister's job. I call the Minister's attention to this, that they are proceeding with their plans in Great Britain. Their plans have already borne fruit as reflected in the statistics. Above all, I want to impress on the Minister that all over Britain to-day there is an appreciation of the Irish store. Some months ago I was talking to an Irishman, a medical officer of health, who is living on the east coast of England where, in addition to his professional practice he is farming in a large way. He told me that even in that part of England the farmers appreciate the value of Irish store cattle. I am not pessimistic about the future of our trade, provided the Government accepts responsibility and ensures that, in whatever plans are being evolved for British agriculture our interests and our supplies will not be lost sight of.
The Agricultural Planning Committee that has been sitting here has already published an interim report dealing with poultry and dairying. I do not want to be critical about the work of that committee. It may be that what I am going to refer to will be dealt with by the committee in a later report. But it does seem extraordinary that our dairying industry, cow population and breeding stock generally appear to have been lost sight of by the committee. In my opinion, the most valuable part of the trade is the export trade in dairy stock—in maiden heifers suitable for dairy purposes. The public health authorities in Britain seem to be alive to the necessity for stepping up milk production. They have been gradually doing that even during the war. There has been a substantial increase in milk production in Britain. In pre-war years, the average consumption of milk there was in or about half a pint per individual daily. That was considered to be well below the safety mark, so that the effort now is to double consumption— to get it up to a pint per day per individual. In the effort to do that they must double the number of their dairy stock. This is the only country in the world where they can get basic stock for that purpose. Because of our peculiar conditions, of the qualities of our soil, we are the only country in the world than can grow good animals. We can produce animals at all times which are superior to theirs. This is their only source of supply. If the British Government were to plan that the British farmers should produce their own supplies of dairy stock, then it might very well happen that we would be left out of their plan altogether. That would be a disastrous thing for this country. As I have said, the value of our Irish heifers is now appreciated all over England. We are able to produce finer animals than British farmers.
We should plan not only to supply Britain but as well to help in the re-stocking of Europe. If the Minister were to cast his eye over the map of the world and ask himself, what countries can afford to release basic stock for the re-stocking of Europe, he would appreciate that there are very few countries with a surplus of that type of stock. We are one of the few countries in the world in that happy position. There is this difference between that type of stock and ordinary beef cattle, that in the sale of beef we have to compete against the greatest beef-producing country in the world—the Argentine. As regards the production of dairy stock, we have a monopoly of that trade, and, personally, I should prefer to go after the monopoly. In my opinion the foundation should be laid now for the development of that type of trade. We may plan as much as we like socially, but our whole future economic position rests upon the one net problem that we have to face in this country, namely, our capacity to import.
If we can solve that, then I think a solution of all our economic problems will be comparatively simple and that we will be one of the happiest countries in the world. If we are able to have the free use of our external assets to buy essential imports, then I think any body can produce the plan for the remainder of our problems. The solution of that question, however, is going to be an immense problem if we have an exchange problem in the post-war period. As regards the £300,000,000 that we have in sterling assets in Great Britain, if we cannot touch them for some years, then our problem is going to be an immense one. I do not suggest that the British have any desire to dishonour their obligations in that respect. I firmly believe that they will honour them at some date. It may be that, because of their financial position, they cannot at the moment permit us free access to those assets, but if we can use a substantial portion of them in the post-war period to procure capital and essential goods to meet our requirements—and not bother too much about our exports—I am just wondering will our position be as happy or as lucky as that. I do not think that we should take it for granted.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has issued a warning already and suggested that we may have to try other countries in which to market our manufactured goods. He was very careful not to mention the names of the manufactures that we might sell outside the sterling group. It is true that we may be able to work up a substantial trade in the sale of whiskey in America, and some stout, possibly. It may be that we will be able to sell racehorses and stallions and develop a trade in the sale of pure-bred bulls and, possibly, a trade in greyhounds. In recent years our trade in greyhounds has substantially increased. Above all, we must be vigilant about our trade. I think that one of the characteristics of our trade in the past has been that, so far as our primary industry is concerned, we have devoted all our attention to production, and then handed our goods over to somebody else to market them for us. Our marketing of our goods has never been satisfactory. We have never made any attempt to provide super-salesmen to look after our interests on the markets across the Channel. We should have followed the example of the Scandinavian countries in the pre-war period. They had their representatives there to ensure that their goods were marketed to the best advantage. They spent large sums entertaining big business with that object in view. If there was a glut on the market they took care to see that their goods got a preference. Their men were on the spot to see to that. We sent our goods across, and left it to luck to dispose of them when opportunity offered.
We must learn now that we have to be on our toes about our interests. This war has produced a greater standard of efficiency, and will produce an even greater standard of efficiency, not merely in production, in new methods, new technique, greater application of science, but also in keener marketing, transport and everything else. We must be alert if we are to hold our own against competition in the post-war period. That is the kernel of our problem.
There has been a conflict of interests in the past between industry and agriculture. Deputy Cogan suggested that there was not. I say that definitely there has been conflict of interests in certain respects. For example, there was a subsidy of £10 a ton on artificial manure, immediately, before the war. There were 1,000 men employed in the manure industry. That subsidy was costing us £100,000, and represented a burden on the primary industry of this country to provide work for 1,000 men. There ought to be some guiding principle, a unifying principle, so far as agriculture and industry are concerned. Let the aim be security for all, or, I would suggest, in our circumstances, maximum production from the land. If that is the guiding principle, all other considerations should be subordinated to it. That should be applied to any problem that arises, and decisions should be governed by that principle.
Deputy Cogan said that we were consuming 75 per cent. of our total production at the present time. That is true, but does anyone question that our production could be expanded enormously, and that we could provide the very things that the world will be most in need of during the post-war period? The Hot Springs conference called the attention of the world to the fact that more than 50 per cent. of the people of the world are undernourished. Many of them fill their bellies, but they do not get nutritious food, and they do not get a balanced diet. There is an abundance of the calories and of carbohydrate foods in the world. In fact some countries have tried to devise plans to destroy its surplus of carbohydrates in order to ensure an economic price. But the world never had sufficient of the protective foods, the proteins and vitamins that come from animal production. If there was any sincerity in the suggestion that was made at the Hot Springs conference that an attempt should be made to provide a proper standard of living for all the people of the world— some people may suggest that there was no sincerity in it; I think there was, although it may not be possible of achievement—it means a vast increase in the production of protective foods, and in our circumstances we are ideally equipped for the production of protective foods. We ought not to let the opportunity slip now. We ought to ensure that trade agreements are entered into.
Clann na Talmhan Deputies have been stressing the necessity of guaranteed prices. Guaranteed prices are most desirable and very useful and would be a definite incentive to production, but in our circumstances it would be a difficult matter, unless we enter into agreements and secure an understanding as to the requirements of the market and, having got that, plan production on costings to meet whatever demand there may be. I think it is well that we should have a full and frank discussion of our economic problems in the post-war period. I hope the Minister will try to convince his colleagues of the necessity of facing the realities of the position and realising that we cannot live in isolation. Providence ordained that there should be trade and exchange of goods. Many countries have succeeded already in making plans for post-war trade covering four, five, six and seven years. The Canadians have already entered into a trade agreement with Great Britain for the supply of bacon, We are keenly interested in the production of that commodity, and I would ask the Minister to tell the House frankly why the Government has not done something about it. We must appreciate how essential our trade is and we must restore our export position at the earliest possible moment if we are to preserve decent standards in this country, if we are to hope, not for better conditions, but for the standard that obtained pre-war. If we are to march forward, if we are to get the wheels of industry going, if we are to attempt to provide employment for our people and a decent standard of living and security for all, that must be done immediately. I would ask the Minister to be frank with the House and to tell us what has been done and what the Government propose to do.
