The other points will not be so petty. A body has been set up in this country called the Tariff Commission. Its specific purpose is to ascertain facts relative to any application which is submitted to it. Its job is not to impose a tariff or to remit a tariff. Its job is to ascertain the facts in relation to any application made. Its recommendations are of a subsidiary importance—subsidiary entirely to the collection of facts and to submitting them in the form of a report or otherwise. The evidence which goes before that Tariff Commission is available in the Oireachtas Library. That evidence is secured on oath.
All the facts are inquired into by such means as the Tariff Commission can devise, and I submit, in connection with this motion, that there is a vital principle at stake, that vital principle being: Is this House, having been a party to the setting up of a Tariff Commission whose specific function is to inquire into the matters submitted in the application—is this House going to pass a motion giving as its opinion that a tariff should be imposed on imported bacon without attempting to ascertain the facts? I submit, with great respect, that there is a vital principle at stake and that if the Seanad or the Dáil is inclined to disregard that principle, there is only one logical course open, and that is to scrap the Tariff Commission. The question of the personnel of the Tariff Commission does not arise at present. The other principle does arise—if the Seanad is to pass a resolution giving as its opinion that a tariff should be imposed on bacon, without attempting to ascertain the facts, it seems equally logical that the Seanad should pass a resolution giving as its opinion that a tariff should be imposed on imported oats or imported barley without attempting to ascertain the facts. I submit that the logical and reasonable thing to do is to submit this matter to the Tariff Commission and when the Tariff Commission have ascertained and correlated the facts, and when the matter comes before this House, that will be the time for this House to express an opinion.
Senator MacEllin and I do differ fundamentally in our opinions on this matter. Senator MacEllin said that low grade American bacon was selling at a halfpenny or a penny per pound more than Irish bacon, and he deduces from that that it is a hardship to allow the people here to purchase American bacon. Is it a hardship? The poorer people in the West of Ireland have two bacons from which to choose. They can only purchase if they have the money. One is Irish bacon and the other is American bacon. Is it a hardship to allow those who have the money to select the bacon they like the best and for which they are prepared to pay? Of course it is not. There is no reason in any such assertion as that. You are putting a hardship on these people if you eliminate one bacon and leave them only one which they can purchase.
Senator MacEllin said that American bacon was injurious to the health of the people. I have heard very little on that subject. I submit that some proof should be submitted in that connection, and I submit that the real injury to the health of the people is due to the fact that the poor people who buy American bacon have not sufficient money to buy more of it. That is the real injury. The Senator's third point was that the absence of a tariff was tending to create instability in the bacon trade. The fact is that there is greater stability in the bacon trade here at present than there has been for many years. There is greater stability in the bacon trade here than there is in the bacon trade in England. We are not subject to the same fluctuations in price. If the normal conditions are at present making for stability in the bacon industry, it is quite right that we should allow those normal conditions to continue. The Senator suggested that we should replace American bacon by Irish bacon. His contention is that we should put a tariff of 20/- per cwt. on American bacon. He says that if that is done we shall not have to import American bacon and, at the same time, he says that if you put on this 20/- tariff, or import duty, the American bacon exporters will so adjust their prices that the bacon will still come in. I suggest that there is something like inconsistency there. That is a point upon which we can afford to differ. Even if we were to replace the foreign bacon coming into this country to the value of 1¾ millions, is there not a great possibility that we would lessen our exports to the extent of a big proportion of the 1¾ millions and that the bacon we are putting on foreign markets would be placed on our Irish market?
There is only one way to get the Irish farmer to increase production, and that is by offering him, and securing for him, a better price. It is admitted by those favouring the tariff that a tariff will not increase prices to the consumers, who in this case happen to be the poorer people. If the tariff does not increase the price to the consumer, there will be no resultant advantage to the producer. Surely, we know the producer, who is the farmer in this case, well enough to realise that unless we are able to add some little incentive in the way of price-addition he is not going to produce more. That is a simple, logical proposition, which does not admit of any argument to the contrary.
Senator MacEllin said that in England there is only a market for the light-weight pig. That is not altogether correct. There is in England about the finest market in the world for the heavy-weight pig. There is such a market in Birmingham and in Northern England. The strange thing is that when we talk about a market at home and about catering for our own people, we forget that we are producing, unfortunately perhaps, a considerable amount of heavy-weight bacon, and that the price ranging for that bacon in this country is more than we can secure when we place it on the market abroad. To argue for the elimination of foreign bacon, and to say that by putting on a tariff the price is not going to go up, is not logical.
Senator MacEllin also mentioned that the farmers in the west did not supply their own bonhams. He submitted that in support of his contention for a tariff. One of the main reasons that the farmers are not producing their own bonhams in the west, is the risk involved. Accordingly, they bring bonhams from the South of Ireland, which they rear up and fatten. The risks are the same. There are no greater risks in breeding bonhams in the west than in the south. Surely, it is not an economic proposition for farmers in the West of Ireland to buy bonhams from farmers in the south, who have to incur the same risk, and bear the cost of carriage to the west. That is not an economic proposition. Instead of putting forward that as an argument for the imposition of a tariff, I think it would be more logical if someone would teach the farmers in the West of Ireland that it is a sounder economic proposition to rear their own bonhams and to incur equal risks with the farmers in the South of Ireland than to buy bonhams in the south and pay freight charges to the west. Senator McEllin said that even a tariff or import duty of 20s. per cwt. would not prohibit the importation of American bacon, as the Americans would so adjust their prices, keeping their eye on this market, that they would still continue to export bacon to Ireland. The fact is, that the imports of American bacon are falling away. There is not as much American bacon being consumed in this country as there was, and there is a lot more Irish bacon, particularly of the heavy type, consumed here than there ever was. There is concentration in order to secure the Irish market for Irish bacon.
As a matter of fact, there is only one big firm in Ireland exporting in any great quantity to England and that firm recently opened a depot in Dublin for smoking and distributing their bacon. Then there are indications that there is much bigger concentration on the home market now than there ever was before, and the facts and figures prove that American bacon is coming in in less quantities than ever before. So far as the home market is concerned, it is righting itself. How long it will take to right itself is more than I can say.
Senator Robinson stated, in regard to the type of bacon that is coming to this country, that it was covered with green mould and that the medical authorities or somebody should take an interest in it. Perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or whoever is in charge of the Obnoxious Weeds Act, might give some attention to that matter. If there is green mould on the imported bacon, it may require attention. Perhaps somebody other than the medical authorities would intervene. The medical authorities are responsible for public health, and they have not intervened. There has been very little complaint by anybody that imported foreign bacon has injured the health of the people. Until some proof is forthcoming in that respect I do not think that that contention should continue to be made.
My endeavour has been to prove that there are matters of vital importance to this industry on which the two Senators who spoke and myself differ fundamentally. Even with the limited knowledge that I possess, I venture to differ with them. I submit, in support of my contention, that an attempt should be made to ascertain the facts, and that the Tariff Commission, specifically set up for that purpose, is the body to do so.
There are some other data which might be relevant to the issue and which I might submit as well. The fact of the matter is that the English market, which we practically controlled in pre-war days, is being lost by us and lost steadily. We are being pushed out of it by one competitor. That is the Dane. In the English market we have various competitors, but principally the Dane. We also have the Latvian, the Hollander and the Swede. Further down the list, we have the United States and Russia. The bacon imports into England from these countries are more or less normal and regular. But the import of pigs in bacon into England from Denmark is steadily increasing. The pig population in Denmark is steadily increasing, and our pig population is diminishing. In Denmark, in July last, the pig population was 4,936,000. In July, 1929, the pig population of Denmark was only 3,616,000. In practically one year the Danes have increased their pig population by roughly 35 per cent. The killings in Denmark were regarded as wonderful by the pig-producing populations of the world when they numbered 50,000 per week. Four or five months ago the pig killings in Denmark were about 100,000 a week, and more recently they reached the amazing total of 129,000 per week. The Danes accordingly control the market. Because they control the market, they are responsible, in a sense, for the regulation of prices. They absolutely control prices. They are producing the right pig — a cross between the Danish and the Landrace pig. They are putting on the market a rather lean pig, with long sides, tapering from the end, with light shoulders and heavy, plump lines and ham. They have gone in for that type of pig by crossing the native pig with the Landrace pig, and they are holding the market and pushing us out. Why do the Danes do that? They are taking advantage of the reduced prices of feeding stuffs to increase the number of their pigs. They have had the ability and foresight to come right in, take advantage of the drop in prices, seize the market and practically control it. They are controlling it, and eliminating us to a great degree.
What is our position? I have shown the way the Danes have increased the number of their pigs and the number of their killings. President Cosgrave, when making his statement on the economic position of this country, drew attention to the fact that there are 241,000 head of pigs less in the country now than there were in 1923. Our pig killings for the twelve months ended 30th September last were 680,000, as compared with 845,000 for the previous year. The year before the number was 828,000. There has been a considerable decrease in the number of killings. The actual killings were, roughly, 13,300 per week, as compared with the Danish figure of 130,000. We do not count for very much in that market—England—and it is the best market for bacon in the world. There is only one other importing country in Europe at present, and that is Belgium. Our exports are falling away. They are falling away, to a great degree, because there is not sufficient concentration on the part of our farmers on the production of the right type of pig. I agree with Senator MacEllin that we are producing much of the best bacon in the world, but we are not producing enough. It is frightfully hard to get our farmers away from the production of the short, stumpy, thick pig. That pig is not so much in demand by the people in England, though there is a market in the north of England for the heavy-weight pig. In regard to heavy pigs, and the closing of that market to ourselves, there is a higher price obtainable here for them than there is in England—even in the north of England. We are getting more of the home market and we are concentrating more on that market. There is less American meat coming into this country. In arguing against what Senator MacEllin said about the Americans adjusting their prices, I would remind him that there is another market than this country for the Americans, and that the Americans are not going to sell at a price which is uneconomic to them. The world is big. Why should they reduce their prices, which might be below the cost of production, to get over any tariff which we may impose? The imports of American meat to Europe from January 1 to October 25th, 1930, amounted to 105,000,000 lbs. of ham, 84,000,000 lbs. of bacon, and 549,000,000 lbs. of lard. Half of that is imported by Continental countries, and the greater portion of the other half was imported by England. It is not to be assumed, accordingly, that if the American has this market he is going to adjust his prices so as to bring them to the cost of production line, or below the cost of production line, to get over any tariff wall we may construct. That line of argument cannot be substantiated, and the contention should not be made. There are a number of matters in connection with the imposition of a tariff, or with an expression of opinion by the House that a tariff should be imposed, on which we should press for an answer. I take it that amongst the purposes of the Tariff Commission is the ascertainment of the probable effect of the granting of an application, in whole or in part, on other industries of the country.
We have not examined that. Very few of us have any definite information as to what effect the imposition of such a tariff should have. We have very little information, and, as well, we have very little means of ascertaining the efficiency, the relative importance, and the extent of the industry in respect to which this particular tariff has relation. It is the specific job of the Tariff Commission to endeavour to ascertain these things. They should be given an opportunity to ascertain the facts, examine witnesses, make investigations, inspect all relevant documents, visit factories, and adopt such methods as they may think fit. Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word on the general question of tariffs. If the Seanad is going to express an opinion that a tariff should be imposed on bacon, immediately the question will arise: why not impose tariffs wholesale and be done with the whole thing? After all, you must have some regard for the farmer's point of view, and I submit that the farmer has, in my humble opinion, been led astray in this respect. It has been suggested to him that if tariffs are put on certain commodities he will reap a great reward. If advantage is going to be taken of that by tariff reformers, who will press for the application of tariffs generally in respect of industrial commodities in this country, the farmer is going to lose, and the imposition of a tariff will do more harm to him and the agricultural labourer than to any other members of the community.
The farmer, in standing behind any movement which asks for tariffs in respect of certain commodities out of which he gets no real advantage, is, if he allows himself to be led astray like that, standing against his own best interests. Personally, if I could see anything to be gained by the imposition of a tariff, it might be if I could assure myself, or be assured, that a tariff on bacon would mean an increase in the pig population of this country. If it is admitted, however, by the spokesmen for a tariff that the price which the farmer will receive for his produce is not going to go up, it must be admitted that the farmer will not produce many more pigs. Prices have fallen for one reason, not because the farmers are not producing good pigs—some of them produce the best pigs in the world. Prices have dropped because of over-production and on account of the immense production on the part of the Danes. To counted at the same time, in the face of these facts, that while the price of bacon would not go up, even if a tariff were imposed, the pig population would be increased, is rather illogical and not borne out by facts.
There is greater probability, if prices remain as they are and if we get control of the home market, that the export of pigs will be considerably reduced, and that the five and a half million pounds which come to us in respect of exports will be reduced by one million or one and three-quarter million, which represents the amount imported into this country. Senator MacEllin says that if we sell one and three-quarter millions' worth of bacon to ourselves the money will remain at home. That is quite true, but if we sell one and three-quarter millions' worth at home and one and three-quarter millions' worth less to some other country to which we usually sell pigs, how would we be any better off? That is a matter to which the Tariff Commission might address itself, and on which, I submit, the Seanad is not able to give a considered opinion. Personally, I am not able to give a considered opinion, and I submit that the matter should be referred to the Tariff Commission. I stated already that the home market was a good deal steadier than the market abroad. I might argue further and say that we should concentrate on increasing the pig population and on producing a better type of pig to meet the demand for higher-priced bacon in England.
The Department is engaged on that work. There is no reason why we should not endeavour to meet modern requirements in respect of bacon. Years ago the teaching was to concentrate on producing a stout, hardy pig, to keep it indoor practically all the time, to fatten it, and to try to get it on the market at five and a-half or six months old. The modern idea now is, I think to rear the bonhams, let them run around until four months old, and then proceed to fatten them. You then get a lean side and a good, stout, plump loin. We are all learning, and we should apply the results of our investigations in this respect and try to produce the right type of bacon. We should compete with the Danes in England, not slink away from that market by getting into our own fortress and trying to hold it, while we allow the foreign market to go to anyone who cares to come along. My whole object is to emphasise the fact that this problem bristles with difficulties, and that there is a tremendous lot which we all have to learn. Even amongst those of us who are engaged in farming there is a difference of opinion, and, if we differ on matters such as these, I submit that members of this House, who are probably less informed even than I, should be put in possession of more information on the matter before expressing any opinion as to whether a tariff on bacon should be imposed. For that reason I submit that this matter might justly and rightly be submitted to the Tariff Commission for investigation in order to get them to report upon it.