Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Jun 1950

Vol. 121 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Smith.)

When I moved to report progress on this Estimate on last Thursday I was dealing with the general decline in tillage, and I had shown what were, in my opinion, the reasons for that decline. I was pleading with influential members of the Parties supporting the Government to try to bring about what change they could so as to ensure that we would not have a continuance of a situation in which public money is being spent for the purpose of telling our farmers and landowners to grow wheat and to grow beet and other crops of that kind, while the Minister responsible for that Department was engaged in making speeches down the country, which clearly suggested that he had no belief whatever in such a policy, and that, as a matter of fact, much and all as he had denounced these activities on the part of landowners, he had been reduced this year to the sorry state of having to sit in Leinster House with a colleague interviewing some members of the Beet Growers' Association in the hope that some means could be discovered of increasing the beet acreage. I was inviting Deputies to check up that sort of performance with a statement which I have already read to the House, and which I propose to read again in order to ensure that Deputies will understand and that the country will understand that there is no possibility of anything other than a decline in tillage so long as we have on the one hand public statements such as——

On a point of order. Deputy Smith, in opening on Thursday at column 1825, spoke for two hours and 20 minutes. He now avows to you, Sir, that he proposes to read out again material which he took two hours and 20 minutes to read out on Thursday. Is that in order?

I want to see what the Deputy proposes to read first.

He said that he read it before.

I am rounding off the case which I have made on the general decline that has taken place. I have drawn attention to the fact that the Minister, this spring, found it necessary —I suppose as a result of the pressure that was brought to bear on him by some of his colleagues—to sit in a room in this House seeking advice from those who are associated with the beet industry as to how the beet acreage could be increased, and I was inviting the House to just ponder and think of how that effort was likely to be a success when we had this statement made in this House in 1947. The statement is as follows——

The Deputy should not read the statement again.

Only part of it.

On a point of order. Surely, the Deputy is entitled to refresh the minds of members as to the arguments which he used when the debate was adjourned and, briefly, to recapitulate them.

The Deputy said he was going to read out—he did not say recapitulate—again from a document that he read from the last day.

To read an extract.

That is better.

This is an extract from the statement:—

"We could restore the pig population in 18 months at the longest, make a profit on every pig, provide bacon for every table in this country, and have an export for Great Britain wherewith to purchase goods we want, because we should have an export which they particularly want. Of the total of their consumption, our production would form an appreciable percentage. Instead of that, we are to subsidise to the tune of £400,000 the increased acreage under beet, every acre of which will complicate the world situation created by a sugar surplus and every acre of which represents a serious loss to the national income."

Would the Deputy please give the reference?

The statement was made in the discussion in this House on the Estimates for 1947. I am seriously asking those Deputies who are supporting the Government to ask themselves this: How can we have a situation other than that which we have, and why should they allow the Government to continue to spend money in advertising, in conducting a campaign advising our farmers to grow wheat and grow beet, and to provide against this, that and the other, while the Minister responsible for the industry itself feels at liberty, in this House and outside of it, to speak as I have already indicated? On the last evening the Minister saw fit to challenge the accuracy of some of the quotations I had given from speeches he had made. In order that there may be no doubt as to what the Minister actually said, on the 8th February, 1950, round about the time that this public money was being spent in order to induce farmers to grow wheat and beet, the Minister for Agriculture, speaking at Cooley, County Louth, as reported in the Irish Press of Wednesday, 8th February, 1950, said:—

"The plain truth about wheat growing is that, while it is true that you are guaranteed a price of 62/6 per barrel for all the millable wheat that is grown upon the land of Ireland until 1953, every barrel of wheat that is grown represents a heavy burden on the Exchequer which must be met by corresponding taxes payable by our people. I would prefer to see barley and oats grown on our land which we will dispose of at a profit on our export market in the shape of live stock and live-stock products, rather than wheat which can only be disposed of by compelling the domestic milling industry to buy it and paying them a heavy subsidy on every barrel they buy."

I am merely inviting the House now, especially the Deputies on the Government Benches and the members of the Government itself who go out into the open and make speeches, such as that made only a few nights ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce urging farmers to grow wheat, to get in touch with the Minister for Agriculture so that, as a result of whatever consultations they think necessary, there may be induced amongst all the members of the Government some clarification of the position and some clarification of what is meant when these advertisements are issued to the public and paid for out of taxation, while, at the same time, they are talking in several different voices as to what is meant and what it is hoped to achieve by them.

The Minister, when introducing this Estimate, was very scant in the information he saw fit to give with regard to potatoes. I was anxious to hear him talk about potatoes. I was anxious to hear him speak on a matter on which I have been trying for some weeks now to screw some information out of the Minister. Strange as it may appear to people who look upon this House as a place wherein their business is transacted——

Would the Deputy look at page six of the White Paper?

I read the whole of the White Paper, and the black paper, and the green paper, and all the papers that I have before me here. Strange as it may appear to those who look upon this House as a place wherein their business is transacted, I have not yet got from the Minister that information to which I, as a Deputy, am entitled, apart altogether from the fact that the House is entitled to have that information. I talked here the last evening about the contract which was negotiated in my time but signed by my successor. I dealt with the way in which that contract had been implemented from the point of view of the growers here. I come now to the contract that was entered into in 1949. I come now to deal with the scant information that I have so far obtained as to what transpired as a result of that conference.

Look at page six, where it is fully set out. Look at the middle of page six.

I have looked at all these pages and I have not got the information I want. But I shall try to get it even now.

I will give the Deputy any information he wants.

I shall try to get it in one way or another. I have a certain amount of information as to what took place in relation to that 1949 conference. I am not entirely in the dark. I was not entirely in the dark when I first put down a parliamentary question in relation to it. I knew a fair share about it even then.

You knew a lot.

It is not enough that I, as a former Minister for Agriculture, should know. The public should know. We are all the servants of the public. I made a comment here when I moved to refer back this particular Estimate. I assured you, and I know that you did not want the assurance, that I did not crave mercy here from anybody as to whether or not I would get a quiet hearing. I knew that you were not interested in that assurance. It will not facilitate the dispatch of business here if I am subjected to a constant barrage from the Minister or anybody else. I shall not be in the least inconvenienced by that. Deputies on the Government Benches must make up their own minds as to what they will do in regard to my speech. I am in the fortunate position that I can have it both ways.

I was trying to convey to the House that I knew a fair share about the 1949 agreement. But I want to know more about it. I am entitled to use this House as a place wherein I can bring out the facts behind that agreement so that the public outside may know. It is not good enough that these transactions should prove to be satisfactory to the Minister or to his Government, or even to the members of the Opposition. The members of the Opposition are entitled to know what these transactions were, what the background was, the way in which the contracts were entered into and the question as to whether or not the contracts were fulfilled; and, if they were not fulfilled, whether or not any penalty was incurred because of their non-fulfilment. It is in these and some other points that I am interested.

I should like the Minister to tell the House who made this 1949 contract to sell 50,000 tons of potatoes to Great Britain. Who advised the Minister that we would have 50,000 tons of potatoes to sell to anybody? Was there any consultation with his own officials, whom, I may say, I found for the short time I was there, very shrewd and very safe in these matters? Was it a case of calling on these gentlemen to say whether or not we were likely to have any quantity of potatoes for export, having regard to the sort of summer we had, or was the Minister just acting as boss of the show? We supplied, I understand, 26,000 tons of potatoes under that contract.

Where did the Deputy get that information?

I want to know did we complete that contract?

Can the Deputy read?

Did we complete the contract to sell Great Britain 50,000 tons of potatoes, or where did we secure the necessary potatoes to complete it?

Does the Deputy want an answer to that now or does he prefer to wait until I am concluding?

No. My information is that when we found that we could not get the potatoes here in this country, which has always been noted as a potato-producing country, we set off on a chase to procure potatoes anywhere and everywhere. The Minister, when in opposition, was very good at working up some very beautiful stories here, when we, in the years gone by, were struggling hard to make a Republican of him. When we were looking for continental markets, he used to work off on these benches beautiful stories in connection with the search for a continental market but when the contract for the potatoes in 1949 could not be filled in this potato-growing country, it is for the Minister to say whether or not he went out to starving Europe in the hope of securing potatoes from war-worn, war-ridden, war-ravaged Europe. Mind you, strange as it may appear, potatoes were discovered in war-worn, war-ridden, war-ravaged Europe, but they could only be secured on the basis of paying for them in hard currency and we had not the hard currency. Finally, terms were reached under which they would take grain from us but, as a result of the tillage drive in which the Minister had been engaged, we had no grain——

There is not a scintilla of truth in this and it is most mischievous.

I am stating the case on the most reliable information and, as to the Minister's denials, those of us who know what they mean will not say any more than that. Now we could not get the hard currency because it was not there.

I repeat that there is not a word of truth in this and it is mischievous.

We had not the grain with which to make a barter and we finally went to the Argentine in search of the grain, but when we got the grain in the Argentine, we found that the potatoes were gone from Europe, that another customer had been found. Of course, the British were all the time waiting, I suppose, for fulfilment of the contract. I am not blaming the British for pressing the matter and asking that those who made the contract with them should keep it. We pressed them in previous years when they had sufficient potatoes from the home-grown crop to take from us what they had agreed to take. What was fair for them was fair for us, and I have no quarrel to pick with them on that score. When the barter arrangement on the Continent for the Argentine grain had failed, we resorted to other parts—so the story goes.

It is a story and it is calculated to do infinite harm.

It is wonderful how sensitive the Minister has recently become. It is wonderful how sensitive he can be as Minister, as compared with the times when he used to stand up here after coming in with the white attaché case from his business, just listen for a few minutes and make any particular speech on any particular matter, irrespective of what it cost the country. How sensitive he can be when I am dealing with the subject of a contract made by the Minister and how it was kept. Having failed on the Continent, we arrived at a place—I must say I did not know my geography so well until I heard the name of this place, but I know of this place now if I did not know it before—called Prince Edward Island. The fact that it was a prince's island did not seem to make any difference, republicans and all that we were. Finally, we entered into a contract to buy potatoes in Prince Edward Island. Then, of course, they would only take hard currency and that hard currency could only be obtained from the dollar pool. I used to hear members of this House who belong to a certain Party make many curious statements when they were crazy to break links of one kind or another. As well as breaking political links, they used to talk about breaking the link with sterling. They broke these links during the course of the last election at every street corner in the country, although I think they did not know what they were talking about.

What has this to do with the Estimate before the House?

These links, not having been broken, we had to go to London to borrow dollars to be used to buy potatoes from Prince Edward Island so as to complete the contract to sell 50,000 tons of potatoes to Britain.

That is absolutely untrue and it is most mischievous.

As a demonstration of agricultural policy, sound agricultural policy, I think it would be very hard to beat that story.

Very; hear, hear!

When the British Chancellor or the office which deals with financial matters in England found what the dollars were needed for, they naturally got in touch with the British Minister of Food and they said: "Do you really want these potatoes at all?" The British Ministry of Food perhaps really did not want the potatoes but they wanted to get us to toe the line. They said: "These people made a contract with us and they will have to keep it. They made one with us last year and they made us toe the line." So the strangling and the wangling went on between the British Ministry of Food and the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the authorities in Britain who decide questions in regard to the release of dollars to countries that are connected in the dollar pool with ourselves.

Take the history of this Government and the history of the past two and a half years of the Department of Agriculture in regard to all these matters with which I have dealt. Mind you, in introducing the Estimate the Minister did not give us a single solitary assurance as to the attitude taken up by the British in these recent discussions towards him as Minister for Agriculture of the Republic. I had been expecting evidence here from him, when introducing his Estimate, of the progress he was able to make in Britain when talking to British Ministers, because we had now "cleared up", as he used to say himself, and because we had refused to live the lie; because the relationship with the British was now on a different footing altogether from the hypocritical basis on which we had it; because he was going to be, in the new set-up, able to go before the British Ministers and appear to them in an entirely different light from that in which his predecessors were obliged to appear as a result of the confusion, as he alleged, that existed in regard to international status. Did I not hear the Minister, on a number of occasions when in opposition, address this House as to the way in which Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Government were employing civil servants to go over to do their business in London? Did I not hear the whole Fine Gael Party from time to time—from day to day and from month to month—twitting members of the Fianna Fáil Government when the war was in progress because of our failure to go over and meet our opposite numbers on the other side? Did I not hear all the complaints not only here but down the country of the way in which we had entrusted the nation's work to a set of civil servants?

Did I not see the sorry sight in recent times of a Minister for Agriculture of the Republic of Ireland refuse to entrust Irish civil servants, who would do their work conscientiously and well—refuse to entrust it to these splendid well-informed gentlemen— with the doing of that work, but depend upon the Danes to sell our eggs, butter, milk and cream? To the extent that Irish civil servants have ever been called upon to assist their Ministers in negotiations with Great Britain during our time—to whatever extent that was and will always be resorted to in every country—even if the charge were correct that it was resorted to in our case more than in the case of any other Government, which I deny, let me say that I would entrust Irish civil servants with the task of selling our produce rather than bring about a situation in which we would have to stand by—a situation which the Minister permitted—and allow Danes to sell it for us.

I invite, then, members of the Dáil, of the Parties supporting this Government, and the influential Deputies—because, apparently, there are such supporting this Government— to address themselves seriously to this matter. Some of these Deputies claim to have been responsible for the External Relations Act and for the codification of our international status: some claim that they are going to be responsible for forcing this Government to give us a social welfare scheme and others claim that, through their influence, they have succeeded in having a number of things done. I ask some section now supporting that Government to do as some other sections have done in relation to other matters and try to bring about a situation in which, as far as tillage and agriculture in general are concerned, people will know where they are. I would emphasise that farming is not like shop-keeping, because farming and agriculture cannot be treated as a wholesale and retail business, where, if a man finds he is in need of some goods, he just looks up where the goods are to be obtained and then says that he will place an order. Farmers must be told well in advance what the national policy is to be. Farmers must be told what that policy is to be through the mouthpiece of the Minister who is responsible for the Department which is concerned with their business, through the advertisements issued and, in so far as agriculture is concerned, there must be clarity on the part of those who speak for the Government. It is because there has not been that clarity that we have had the disgraceful confusion which, naturally enough, the Minister would like to smother.

I was disappointed that neither I nor the House got any clear statement in respect of the discussions in which the Minister and his Department have been engaged with the British on a number of heads, which I cited. It is all right to tell the farmers and the country in general that we have an agreement with Britain on cattle until 195—. For example, I wanted to know about our products. I do not think the Minister could really have been serious when he admitted so frankly that there seems to be no prospect for milk, butter and milk products. I am not unappreciative of the difficulties that will confront a Minister for Agriculture, or a Government, in certain circumstances in dealing with this problem. However, I want to tell the House and this Government and this Minister this much about milk: when I was a member, for a short time, of the headquarters staff, which planned the policy for this country, it was one of the subjects to which I gave the greatest amount of attention. Without making any boast whatever, I am still proud and will continue to be proud of the fact that I did a substantial and useful bit of work for dairy farmers in this country. I want to give a warning to the Minister and to those who will tamper with or maltreat those who are engaged in that industry. Although I am not now a member of the headquarters staff responsible for policy, I am still a member of this House, and I will be one of the most unrelenting and one of the most difficult Deputies, in so far as those who will attempt to fritter away what the people engaged in that industry have secured, and to which they were entitled, in matters of price and otherwise in leading from this side of the House any fight that may be necessary to ensure that these people will not suffer. Even the scant treatment which they obtained from us will be preserved for them.

Did I, or did this House, hear from the Minister when he was introducing his Estimate any constructive statement of policy in that regard? There was, it is true, a speech made by the Minister to the county committee of agriculture in Waterford, a copy of which I have before me. I have also before me a letter which he addressed to the chairman of all the committees of agriculture in the State enclosing a copy of the Waterford speech.

On this subject I directed questions to the Minister asking him was what was contained in the speech at Waterford really his mind as Minister. I suggested to him, as best one can within the limitations of Question Time, that while consultation with the producers was a grand thing, it was sometimes difficult to get agreement amongst producers and that a time must come when, just as in the case of a tillage policy, there must be clarity in regard to this matter. Where is the clarity to come from? Who is to conduct the discussions? How long are the discussions with the industry to last? When is finality reached? When is the pronouncement to be made as to future policy?

I know that men in public life, men in politics, men with responsibility, are often tempted to sidetrack making what they know would be an unpopular decision. There may be occasions when recourse to such tactics would be justifiable but that should be only when such men are dealing with frivolous matters. When it comes to a question such as milk production and the question of the livelihood of milk producers and their future, the Minister, after all the discussions that he wishes to have with the industry, must ultimately have a mind of his own. If he cannot find agreement as to the course that should be pursued, the responsibility falls directly on him and he should have the character, the strength and the courage, irrespective of the cost in a political sense, to face up to the discharge of that responsibility. That is how I see the responsibility of a Minister. There may be other ways of looking at it. If there are, I could not understand them.

On the Estimates last year, as I said last Thursday, we heard something new from the Minister for Agriculture on this same subject but, since then, we have not had a word or a line as to what has happened to the plan which he announced on that occasion. Naturally, I would like to hear about it now. In order to improve the milking capacity of our cows, the Minister decided that he would start a cow-testing scheme in the Dublin milk-producing area. He also announced, I believe, the way in which that scheme would be financed. He told us that it would be his aim to set up at least one artificial insemination station in that area. I have heard nothing about that since. I would like to know what happened about it but I was not terribly interested in it because I thought it was the greatest nonsense in the world. Having made that statement, I will try to explain my reason for thinking along these lines.

As far as the Dublin area is concerned, as I know it, the cows supplying the farmers and landowners frequently change. In the main, the producers in that area do not rear calves. When they want a cow, they generally go to the Dublin market and buy a cow, the best value they can get. When it has been milked for the season, the milk producer may get rid of her. I am not saying, of course, that that would apply to every case and to every milk supplier in the Dublin milk area but, in the main, that is the practice in that area, as I see it. Whatever chance there might be in creamery districts for a cow-testing organisation and for a scheme of using proven bulls through an artificial insemination station for the purpose of improving herds, there would not be, to my mind, the slightest hope of success being achieved in the Dublin milk area.

Of course, it is the easy place in which to deduct the contribution from the milk supplier, because you have certain control. It is the place where you could deduct ¼d. or ½d. a gallon from the milk supplier, whether he liked it or not, because he is more or less in the grip of your hand. That fact would not justify the inauguration of a scheme of that kind in that area at all. In the Dublin milk area, as I know it, those who breed, breed from Pol-Angus and Hereford bulls for the simple reason that they want calves that will secure, immediately on being dropped, the highest possible price. Although the Minister last year announced that he was starting the scheme, I have not heard whether he started it or not. I do not know what progress he has made; I do not know what money he has got into the fund or what contributions he is making from State funds; I do not know what plans he has in mind or has put into execution for the establishment of one or more than one artificial insemination station. But, in my view, it is no contribution whatever to a solution of our cattle breeding and milk producing problem. If progress could be made along these lines, it could only be made by starting such a policy in the creamery districts.

I may have referred briefly to this matter of breeding on some previous occasion in this House. I have already stated the whole truth when I say that I was deeply interested in farmers who engaged in milk production. There is scarcely a Deputy from a rural area who will not know that, without my giving my reasons why I was so interested. I have claimed that I secured something for them, and I have told the House what my attitude is to be in the future, so far as that section of the farming community are concerned, but, in addition to having this interest in the matter of price, I had an interest in a subject which is very widely discussed in every country where milk is produced: milk yields. When the change of Government took place, following certain minor changes I had made in that cattle breeding policy set out in the Act of 1925, the Minister saw fit, one evening in the Department, having secured just the advice of a junior official as to who was responsible for the change, and having been informed that it was the Minister, and that the official attitude was not in accordance with the lines along which I was thinking, to reverse, without a thought, this decision.

There is not a scintilla of truth in that.

Let no Deputy or person outside think that I am in the least concerned because somebody does not agree with the decision I made, because I admit that it is a complicated matter and I could perhaps find in the ranks of my own Department some men who would not see eye to eye with me in the lines along which I was thinking. Let no Deputy or person outside think that I am talking here because it has hurt me in any way that my decision was reversed, but I ask Deputies and those engaged in this business to ponder over what I have to say now. Politics apparently can be a funny business sometimes and changes made by the electorate, or by some other method with which I will not now deal, can produce the most peculiar results. There is always a tendency, I admit, for men who are lined against one another to try to prove that the other fellow was wrong. I admit, too, that, when this Government came into office, being human like everybody else, that temptation was there. The Minister gave us an assurance that agriculture was one matter in respect of which it was inadvisable to have sudden drastic changes. He said that they created chaos and confusion. We got that assurance undoubtedly and I was impressed by it at the time, but when he came to this question of breeding cattle for milk, all he had to be told was that it was a ministerial decision.

Do Deputies know why it was a ministerial decision? I was dealing with officials, some of whom had been there for 25 years, since the 1925 Act was passed and officials are just the same as the rest of us. They became involved in the operation of that Act; they met cattle breeders all over the country; they went into their premises and advised them to breed this way, that way or the other way; and naturally it is only reasonable to think that, after 25 years of that, they would not like to see any reversal, because any reversal would be in conflict with what they had been advising farmers and breeders to do for 25 years. I tried to see that point of view as surely as I am speaking to the House now and to be as kindly towards it as I could. I did not want to do it suddenly and I had thought it over years before I became Minister. I had thought over the effects of the 1925 Breeding Act and whether we were getting anywhere as a result of it.

I had no political prejudice against those operating it and it surely can be said of me that, in following a member of my own Party with whom I am on the most friendly terms, in my intention to reverse the policy which he and his predecessor had operated, I was not trying to expose him. I was not trying to show up these officials. I was trying to do something which I thought would have to be done as gradually as possible. The same, however, cannot be said of a decision on the part of my successor, who perhaps did not give the matter a moment's thought until he received some letters from the breeders concerned showing that I was interfering with their business. In his case there was a political inclination to show his predecessor as a man who was wrong, but, in my case, I was dealing with a member of my own Party whom I had succeeded. Therefore, no charge of the kind could be levelled against me, but I really did think, as I think now, that, so far as milk and milk production are concerned, those engaged in it for a living, especially in the creamery districts, were and are not getting a fair crack of the whip through the operation of the Live Stock Breeding Act of 1925.

I do not want to make that as a case against anybody—the late Deputy Hogan, who was responsible for it, my predecessor, Deputy Ryan, myself, or even the present occupant of the Ministry. I invite the milk suppliers to creameries, in whose welfare I can claim to have shown a great deal of interest, with success, when I was trying to take that further step, to note one thing. That simple step which I took showed the lines on which I was thinking, the lines I was going to pursue. It was not good policy that that line of thought which occupied my attention for many years should have been interrupted, should have been brought to an end just with a sweep of the pen.

In our time as a Government a good deal used to be written in some of the journals, such as the journal of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, about agricultural Ireland. They dealt with the whole question of cattle breeding and milk production. The Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is an organisation subsidised by the State, so far as I remember, on a pound for pound basis. It is interesting to me now to read some of the articles appearing in that journal. It was all right to twit Fianna Fáil about the capacity of milking cows in New Zealand. It was all right to tell milk producers here what could be done in other lands if a wise cattle breeding policy were pursued. Since the change of Government, agricultural Ireland, as represented through the pages of the journal produced by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, is as political as political can be.

At the only meeting of that body I attended while I was Minister, I invited them to give the public some evidence of the work they were likely to do for the dairying and co-operative movements. I invited them to forget as far as possible the success that had attended any efforts they had made back through the years. I reminded them that that success was no justification for their continued existence, drawing a subsidy, unless they could show they had something to contribute for the future. I did not feel like denying them the right in our time to criticise us as they liked on any matter of policy. They were perfectly free to say what they liked about the policy of the Government of the day, about cattle breeding and other things.

But, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and it is no harm now to draw their attention to the fact that those of us who have watched their activities and pronouncements can notice a substantial and a very unhealthy change. There is here a problem to be met and it will not be met by the establishment of an artificial insemination station in the Dublin milk producing area or by the introduction of a few proven bulls that will not be used, for the reason I have stated. It might not be met by the measures I proposed to take and by the policies I had lurking in the back of my mind, but it is a subject of sufficient importance to warrant far greater care and far more evidence of a serious approach by the Minister than merely to brush aside the decision of his predecessor with no thought whatever other than to establish that things would be different, even if they were going to be worse.

There is no use in a Minister for Agriculture indulging in the sort of special pleading to which the present Minister resorted when discussing this matter of future milk prices, special pleading such as:—

"I do not want to hurt the milk producers; I do not want to injure them; surely you do not think I am responsible."

It was a strange thing to see the present occupant of the Ministry pleading with the organisations concerned in the industry for advice on all those matters. It was strange, because our experience of the Minister, not only as Minister but as an Opposition Deputy, was that he knew everything, all about milk and milk production and cattle breeding, everything from a needle to an anchor. When I saw the special pleading with the milk producers, I thought it was a very noticeable change.

There was one passage in this Waterford speech that I think I should read, and it is this:—

"My advice to the farmers is to adopt the plan which I have outlined here to-day, and I am bound to tell them that I do not believe this opportunity will ever recur. I am bound to tell them that if they take the long view now we shall see the greatest period of prosperity for the farmers of this country that they have ever known."

I think it would be a pity if I were to read further without analysing these words, feeling that they might get sort of lost in your memories:—

"I am bound to tell them that I do not believe that this opportunity will ever recur. Further, I am bound to tell them that if they take the long view now, we shall see the greatest period of prosperity for the farmers of this country that they have ever known."

What is wrong with that?

It is grand. Deputy Rooney is going to get into his stride. He was not here when I extended my invitation to the members of the Government Parties and explained my attitude to interrupters, but I will not say anything more now; I will give him a chance.

This statement was made by the Minister to a county committee of agriculture in one of the milk-producing counties of Munster, and having submitted the proposal to the Waterford Committee, he submitted it to every county committee in the country to get their views—some decided to write and some did not. Suppose he were convinced that "this opportunity will never recur" and that I, as a member of the Opposition, ask the Minister a parliamentary question—as I did— about his attitude to that opportunity, he tells me that consultations are continuing. Then I pressed him, asking: "In the event of your failing to get an agreement regarding the acceptance of the offer, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to let it slip?" So is it any wonder that I would invite the Minister to tell us now? This opportunity might never recur as far as the Minister knew, and the Minister is in possession of knowledge which no other individual in the State would have. He would be entitled to make a forecast—if he were a normal man—which could be regarded as being entirely different from that which might be made by a member of a county committee of agriculture who would not be armed with that knowledge.

It does not matter whether I agree with the proposition contained in that document. I am not the Minister for Agriculture; I am not responsible for the Department of Agriculture; I make no prophecies of what the future of this industry will be over the next five years because I do not know. The Minister has that responsibility; the Minister is the Minister; the Minister knows facts which I may not know. He has made a statement which is not one which might be made wildly at a public meeting, but one which was made as a result of careful thought. He not only made this statement at the meeting but afterwards he issued it to almost 30 committees of agriculture with a covering note. This is the opinion of the Minister and it must also be the opinion of the Government because, in a properly governed country, such an opinion should be submitted to every member of the Government. If it is the opinion of the Minister, speaking to his colleagues in the Government, that the acceptance of this proposition would result to the agricultural community in prosperity that was never known before but if, through lack of knowledge or courage, or through sheer cussedness, the county committees of agriculture and the creameries committees wished to refuse, has the Government no responsibility? Does the Government not lead? Who is ultimately responsible for making a decision? Is anybody responsible? Are we to be governed only on the basis of what is popular or unpopular? Are we to consider the political comfort of those who happen to be members of the Government rather than take our courage in our hands when a member of the Government, speaking with the knowledge and approval of the Government and knowing the circumstances of the world outside, is satisfied that the acceptance of this offer will mean to the farmers of Ireland a prosperity that they have never known before?

The taking of long views is a matter for the Government who are charged with the formulation of national policy. Anybody who knows farmers knows that it is not reasonable to expect that they would take the long view because they are not in possession of the facts which would enable them to take it. Therefore, if there is justification for the forecast, we should be told what it is. The Minister has kept to himself all the information that induced him to think and speak along these lines. It is not a matter for the public or for the farmers to plan long-distance policy; that is the responsibility of the Government. He went on:—

"Whereas, if they take the short view, in my judgment we are starting on what well may be for our industry the beginning of the end."

This thing is dangling for all these months. I tried to get a statement from the Minister some weeks ago as to what his attitude would be, but there has been no statement from the Minister who is responsible for advising the Government as to what course should be taken. Now we are discussing an Estimate for so many millions—millions do not matter; whether it is £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 is neither here nor there, so I do not know what the actual size of the Vote is; it does not matter as it is only £15,000,000 or £16,000,000.

Would the Deputy like me to enlighten him?

No, definitely not.

I thought he would.

Think of the farmers and the milk producers down the country who can have heaven on earth if someone will make a decision for them, but will have hell on earth if that decision is not made. Deputy James M.—I do not know what the M. stands for——

Matthew.

——Dillon, the Minister for Agriculture, had a conversation with the Minister for Finance about the butter subsidy. It was costing a lot of money and with milk turning out to creameries that formerly went into home-made butter as well as the suspension of the provision of the Road Transport Act, he had got a fair success in the supply of milk to creameries. Now, the Minister for Finance will look kindly on any proposition to reduce the weight falling on the Exchequer and, as well as being a Minister for Finance who naturally must save money if he sees the opportunity, he is a Minister who would not know very much about farming. After getting his benediction for this particular scheme, the Minister for Agriculture proceeded to make a speech about it. Apparently, someone intervened and said: "This will not do." Of course, the Minister, having committed himself, having made a statement, whether it is right or wrong—after all, there is a fair share of the old pride there—is not a man who can swallow it. No matter who the devil swallows anything else, he will not swallow it. There is too much of the Dillon in him to swallow the pride. Anyhow, the pressure came on, that this could not be done, that it would be bad political tactics. There were some Deputies opposite who had a special interest in milk producers and who had made promises to make not a reduction but an increase in the price of milk. I do not want to talk about promises, as they do not mean anything anyhow.

That is a very interesting statement for the record.

I never make them myself. I am a performer. I perform, not promise.

So does a monkey.

The Deputy should go home and feed the cat, as it is all he has intelligence enough to do. That should be enough for Deputy Giles.

Having been persuaded to go ahead with this policy, the Minister saw the end of the year and said to himself: "I will have a butter surplus; what am I to do about it? If I have a butter surplus and have to export it and sell on the British market, carrying a subsidy, I can only look back on the days when I used to talk about feeding John Bull at the expense of the Irish taxpayer; when I used to make speeches from these benches and used to denounce Fianna Fáil for the policy of feeding John Bull at the expense of the taxpayer." Then the Minister said to himself: "I am going to save myself irrespective of what happens to the Coalition Government, irrespective of those who are playing for votes, or refusing to put the policy in motion. I am going to leave myself at the end of the year in the position that if I happen to have a surplus that can be sold only on the basis of paying a subsidy from the Irish taxpayer, we will have the mighty James Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, saying to the farmers and milk producers: `Did I not invite you to take the other course and tell you that if you did not, this would be the result? Did I not ask you to make the decision and advise you of the right course, and am I not a wise man?' "—and no one refers to the fact that he is the Minister, that it is he who should lead and decide. It is for the Government to make policy known. I could not see myself a member of any Government responsible for a Department so important as this, if I knew the facts as the present Minister claims he knows them, which induced him to make these statements, and shivering and shaking there in a job that he says is not paying him well enough, sitting there and allowing an industry to continue along lines that, in his own view, can result only, to use his own words:—

"Whereas if they take the short view in my judgement we are starting on what well may be for our industry the beginning of the end."

Are they responsible for policy?

Read the next paragraph and you will see.

I will.

"The initiative in this matter is now with the farmers ——"

so they are all to come in here, all the farmers of Ireland, and become Ministers for Agriculture.

Read on.

"They can express their view through the co-operative dairy societies to which they happen as individuals to belong."

Read on.

"The future of their own industry ——"

I am not trying to misrepresent you at all.

You will not be let.

"—— is in their own hands, and I sincerely hope they will be able to prove to be as wise as their fathers ——"

and then we have all the boloney that follows usually from the Minister. Is there a line or a word in the concluding portion of that speech which indicates that it is the Minister and the Government who have ultimately the responsibility to make a vital decision? I have asked him what were the prospects of selling on the British market butter, cream, cheese and other milk products and "None" was the reply I got. Surely, on an important matter such as this, we should have from him a clear statement. In some recent speeches the Minister has shown that he has suddenly become aware of the fact that without the dairying industry much progress is not likely to be made in an agricultural sense. Whatever decision we make in regard to increasing the income of those who milk the cow and send the milk to the creamery, uppermost in our mind should be a desire to place now in the hands of those engaged in that business every weapon that will enable them most successfully to meet any situation that may present itself at home or abroad.

What would the Deputy do with the surplus?

What would I do? I would do so many things now, if I had my way, that I am sure the Minister would not approve of them all. Can we have an admission that, when concluding the discussion on this Vote, the Minister will decide to make a statement here to the House and deal with cheese, cream, dried milk, chocolate crumb, milk, cattle breeding, artificial insemination and the Livestock Breeding Act?

That is all in the White Paper.

The White Paper be hanged. It is all White Papers.

I know the Deputy can read.

Whether I can read or not, does not matter two hoots. The Minister is not going to disturb me with that sort of talk. I have here before me several extracts from speeches in which we were given the assurance that, when we became a Republic, we were going to be able to do business with our neighbours outside on a basis different from that on which we used to do business. We were going to be put on a different plane so that when our Ministers went over to the other side they were going to be treated in a way in which no Ministers who had left here before were ever treated. I am anxious to get from the present Minister for Agriculture a statement showing the effect of the political changes that have taken place, and the way in which these have strengthened his hand to discuss with the British the price for our surplus butter, the price for our bacon and the price for our cheese, and whether or not they were going to allow in any fresh cream.

I would like to have from the Minister a statement showing whether or not he regarded himself ultimately as the person responsible for advising the Government on matters of policy— even of arguing with members of the Government who would not know the facts as well as he would—of advising his 12 colleagues in the Government and saying to them: "As far as agriculture is concerned, as far as milk production is concerned, as far as cheese and chocolate crumb are concerned, and as far as cattle breeding is concerned, here is the policy that I recommend to you. I have consulted all the interests concerned; I have consulted the creameries and I have consulted the county committees of agriculture. I have got letters of approval from some of them, but I was repudiated by most of them." His colleagues would not be likely to know the facts as well as he would know them. He would say to them: "I know them, and here is the policy which I recommend to you." Having put that over as his policy and having got approval for it from his colleagues, he would then say to the country: "Here is the policy for the next five years." To those engaged in the production of milk and in other forms of production he would say: "Here is the policy of the State." That process of reasoning may be wrong, but if I happened to have the responsibility that is now the Minister's, and if I believed in the statement contained in the Waterford speech and circulated to the creamery committees of the country, I would not remain in office after hearing from them, after having their views and after having consultations with them; but I would determine what the policy was going to be. I would feel that it was my duty to do that whatever the result might be as far as my political future was concerned.

What about the surplus butter?

I do not think this is Question Time. I have found myself unable at Question Time to get the Minister to answer questions which I have put to him. It is because of his failure to inform me, and because of the fact that he has a slick tongue and tries to conceal things, that I have been endeavouring for the last hour to get this information from him.

The Deputy has been at it now for three hours and 40 minutes. What would you do with the surplus butter? Nothing.

Surely a Minister in the Republic of Ireland who has established relations that never before existed with our nearest neighbour, and who made an agreement in 1948 when he came into office, an agreement which he recommended to this House and which he said offered unprecedented advantages to the farmers of Ireland, even though, on the first occasion when we had a surplus after the agreement was made, it could not be sold to our nearest neighbour, would answer the questions which I have put to him. The Minister knows, in regard to the agreement which he made in 1948, that he recommended it to this House in the language which I have quoted here. He said that it offered unprecedented advantages to the farmers of Ireland, but in 1950 he comes into this House and tells us that there is no market for our surplus butter, no market for our cream, no market for cheese, only a very poor market for eggs and no market, in fact, for anything only a few dry cattle.

In view of all that, will the Minister explain to us what has happened to the agreement of 1948 and what has happened to the undertakings which we got in regard to the improvement that was to take place in the relationship that was to exist between ourselves and our nearest neighbours as a result of the policy pursued by this Government? The farmers in the County Monaghan would be delighted to hear the Minister answer these questions, especially having regard to the statements which he made to the electors there on the last occasion and as to the assurances which he gave them as to the policy that he would pursue. Those electors would be glad to hear the Minister for Agriculture address himself to the questions which I am asking himself now. Will he tell them what has become of the agreement which he lauded to the skies a few months ago? These are questions that I would like to hear the Minister answer.

Agricultural exports are higher than they have ever been since Brian Boru was slain at Clontarf. That is one of the results of the 1948 agreement. What would you do with the surplus butter?

The Minister, in July, 1948, in recommending the 1948 agreement to the House, said that it offered unprecedented advantages to the farmers of Ireland and remunerative prices for all agricultural produce. These were the words which the Minister used when asking the House to give its approval to that agreement, but on the first occasion on which we had a few cwt. of bacon to sell to the people at the other side we had to pay a subsidy on it out of the producer's pocket. I am now asking the Minister to tell us what is going to be the milk policy for this country in the next five years? He is asking me whose policy he reversed in five seconds. He is asking me what I would do with the surplus butter.

What would you do?

I want to tell the Minister this, that when I had responsibility I fought the issue for those farmers strenuously. I want to tell Deputy James M. Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, that if I am now in a different capacity, they will find me in the very front line to see that that section of the community for whom the Minister has never shown any real respect, will not be maltreated.

Would you pay the British £4 a cwt. to take it?

No, but I would shout "Up the Republic."

That would be a very constructive gesture.

Let us hear Deputy Smith without interruption.

I should love to hear him on butter.

If the Minister, when replying, would say to the House and to the country whether he intended to deal with the matters to which I have referred and would announce his policy it would be far more constructive than shooting questions across here at me. I am merely telling the Minister, and those who know me best know that what I am stating is a fact, that if the responsibility were mine nothing would induce me—no fear of my political future—to do anything other than what would be in the public interest. The Minister once said to a deputation: "What about my political future, if I do that." As far as I am concerned, whatever policy was agreed to be in the national interest would be the policy that I would operate. I invite the Minister to do that and I invite the Deputies supporting him to induce him to do that so that we may know where we stand.

You still do not know what to do with the butter.

What about selling it to the fly-by-night customers to whom, you used to refer when you were negotiating the agreement with Britain in 1948 and from whom you had to take the potatoes in 1949 when you failed to get them yourself. Why not sell to the fly-by-night customers that you insulted in the past? What about giving them some surplus butter?

To whom does the Deputy refer? He does not suggest that I should sell butter to the Danes.

No, but as a result of the change in our international status, since they started negotiating for us instead of the Irish civil servants, the Danes are not popular. I met the Danes. They are like everybody else. They think of themselves first as a nation. To tell you the truth, although the Minister succeeded in securing their help and assistance to sell our produce, I would rather see someone else selling it. I would not give them any butter. I would try some of the other fly-by-night customers to see if they want any surplus butter.

I wish the Deputy would tell me to whom he refers?

Sell it to the Germans and the Czechoslovakians.

Would you sell it to the Czechoslovakians?

I would, and even to the Russians. I would sell it to anyone.

That is interesting. I would not. That is an interesting cleavage of opinion.

Did you not buy barley from Iraq?

Come off international politics and get on to agriculture.

I want to know where did the sorghums come from?

What the Chair knows is that these exchanges are not likely to lead to harmony.

The Minister has protested because I have stated I would sell surplus butter to the Russians. I would. I would sell it to anybody who would give me the best price for it. If the Minister protests against that, then I want to know why he bought barley from Iraq and sorghums from God-knows-where. It is not "sorghums" they should be called; it is "sour-gums". I have stated my view with regard to milk and there can be no ambiguity left as to where we stand. The Minister did announce what he had achieved with regard to the sale of eggs. Remembering his appeals here at Question Time over a period that he was engaged in delicate discussions with the British, I cannot for the life of me now make up my mind as to how delicate these discussions were. When I see the results, in so far as eggs are concerned, the only delicacy is in the result upon those who are engaged in the poultry industry.

In 1947, I happened to be discussing with the British Ministers subjects such as those we are discussing now. When we were discussing poultry and poultry expansion, I remember saying to the British Minister of Food:—

"There is no use in our spending money now in an effort to expand this industry unless there is some reasonable prospect of continuity in the matter of price, such as would yield to the producer a fair profit having regard to the cost at which feeding stuffs will be available."

I know that agreements are agreements. I know that one cannot make a Government or a Minister responsible for tacit understandings on particular matters. One can only talk about what is in a particular agreement. But it is no harm to examine the background behind the expansion effort and compare it with the announcement of the price that has been secured as a result of recent talks.

About the same time that I was over there in 1947 our friends, the Danes, were there too. They were discussing prices with the British Ministers for the same commodities which we had to sell. We were assured by the present Minister for Agriculture of the Republic of Ireland that he would be on a different plane altogether when meeting his opposite number across the water. Plain and common and unnoticeable as we were in the days when we were discussing prices, almost side by side with the Danes, we somehow managed to get more than the present Minister has got. We got that "more" and we brought it back here. I have here speeches made by the present Minister for Agriculture and by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party then to the effect that we had succeeded in placing the poultry industry on a sort of home assistance as a result of our efforts. We were only common, ordinary men—not Ministers of the Republic of Ireland at all.

Hear, hear!

The new Republicans came along and clarified our international status. They assured us that everything would be all right in future, that we would no longer live a lie and that our hens and chickens would lay twice as many eggs as they laid before. Yet, back in 1947, we were able to secure advantages for that industry that were described then as "placing the poultry industry on home assistance." How, I ask you, could those to whom responsibility was so suddenly and so unexpectedly transferred from the point of view of the public meet those British Ministers? The British were really trying to give us an advantage; they gave us an advantage over and above the Danes. Why did they do that in 1947? They did it at a time when the accusation was made that Fianna Fáil were too proud to meet the British Ministers. That accusation was still made during the war years when some of those who now carry responsibility wanted to force us into the position of begging from the British in circumstances in which they would naturally request that we should do something else in return. They wanted to humiliate us then. We went over there after the war notwithstanding the many statements about the unwisdom of our policy during the war by those who now carry responsibility. The British met us in 1947 and treated with us, plain and all as we were. There were then no splashes in the English papers about drowning the British with eggs or roasting them with something else. There was no nonsensical talk about fly-by-night customers, about how we should treat those who had been frequenting our business house all down the years. Without any of these flashy, big black headlines, we were able to get from the British in 1947 something that the Danes could not get. What happened since? Are we not entitled to be told what happened? Are we not entitled to get from the Minister an account of what happened since? I do not know whether it was the Danes did the business for him, but I think he had resort to a considerable extent to the assistance of his own civil servants, as well as to Danish co-operation. We had discussions, delicate or otherwise, in 1947 and we got more than the Danes. I do not know that any Minister is entitled to keep information from the House as to why we could not get more now than the Danes are getting.

What is the Danish producer getting for his eggs to-day?

Tell me, you.

I shall.

The Minister in opening his speech on the Estimate expressed the opinion that if Deputies would only be careful in the statements they made in this House, it would have a very beneficial effect. There is no doubt that is a true statement, but how the Minister for Agriculture should have seen fit to make it was what surprised me. I was always of that opinion myself, and when I look at the egg and poultry scheme, and think of the background behind this development effort as I saw it, when I see what is happening to-day in spite of the assurances we obtained from the Minister—that he was going to announce a two-year policy, that he was going to keep producers informed two years in advance of the prices they would get, that from the very moment a chick picked its shell, in fact immediately the chick came out, the Minister for Agriculture of this Republic could say: "If you happen to be a laying chick you are going to produce eggs that will be worth so much in two years' time"—I am driven to the conclusion that the Minister's promises offer a strange contrast to his performances. The Minister who gave these glowing assurances and who the other day expressed the view that it would be a grand thing if Deputies would only be careful, in 1947 ranted around the country denouncing us for making such an agreement. Now the same gentleman, who by the grace of God if not by the will of the people occupies the position of Minister for Agriculture, when confronted with these statements, withdraws and explains that he did not know the background. Withdrawals and explanations in that belated fashion are of no use. While I can sympathise with the Minister in inviting Deputies to be careful in their statements, I feel constrained, when looking back on my 27 odd years here, to recall that many a time I listened to Deputy James Dillon making statements that I felt were sure to do us a grave national injury. Many a time I expressed secretly to myself the very same thought that he expressed the other day, and I only wish that these sentiments had been fully accepted in former days by those who came in here to engage seriously in doing the country's work.

I now come to pigs and bacon—pig's cheek for the Irish and subsidised bacon for John Bull, as Deputy James Dillon, when in opposition, used to say. The Minister for Agriculture now tells us that he would be delighted to see the Irish consumer charged 5/- a lb. for back rashers.

The Deputy knows that no bacon at all has been exported for six weeks.

For six weeks; but the Minister has been in office for two and a half years, and what has he done in that time for the bacon industry? I should not like to tell the House what a farmer told me as to what he thought of the Minister's recommendation to use pig's cheek.

I do not know why we should pay the British to eat our bacon.

When I think of all the ranting that went on about pigs and bacon since the present Minister came into office; when I think of the glowing future that we were told lay before us —maize to burn, pigs roaming round all over the place, an export market for our surplus bacon—and a profitable one at that—enough bacon at home for everybody at the right price and no word about a scarcity of back rashers, no recommendation to eat pig's cheeks because they were good enough for John McCormack and James Dillon—I am again amazed at the change in the Minister's attitude. Even the poorest man in Ireland might have tastes far different from the Minister for Agriculture, who has to live on the paltry allowance of £1,500 a year after income tax has been deducted. He might have a taste for a back rasher when the Minister might wish to get pig's cheek.

But what happened to this unprecedented opportunity? What happened to these unprecedented advantages that were secured for us under the 1948 agreement and that have resulted in our sending a few cwts. of bacon for a while without a subsidy? Lo and behold, after a few weeks there was a draw on the funds of that detestable organisation, as the Minister for Agriculture used to term it, the Pigs and Bacon Commission. There was a draw on the funds of that commission about which we used to hear so much. Commissions, controls, Fianna Fáilism, 15 heinous years, 15 years of corruption, 15 years of squandermania! We cannot but remember all that has been said here along these lines and all the glowing promises that were made—lashings and leavings of bacon for everybody, back rashers included; bacon for export; the means with which to acquire the goods we needed here; remunerative prices; maize at £1 a cwt.; everything lovely in the garden! After a couple of years, the Minister for Agriculture, who spoke so loudly and for so long about Fianna Fáil commissions and so forth, had to go back to the Fianna Fáil commission that is still in existence, the Fianna Fáil commission that had accumulated certain funds, and get this Fianna Fáil commission to subsidise the price of bacon which we had for export and which could not be sold without a subsidy. I would point out to the House that that subsidy was not taken from the general taxpayers and it is on that point that I protest most, because if a subsidy of any kind is called for, it should be a subsidy from the national Exchequer and not one drawn from the pockets of those who produce the commodity, the sale of which on a foreign market has to be subsidised.

I do not believe in selling in a foreign market and paying subsidies to external purchasers at all.

You never know; there may be circumstances in which that has to be resorted to. I am not ruling that out. I am not expressing my opinion on the principle and certainly I would not say off-hand that I would not believe in doing so and so and so and so. Apart altogether from the principle of subsidising exports, look at the condition of the pig and bacon business now. There is complete and absolute chaos in that business. There was never the slightest approach on the part of the Minister to remedy that position. I understand that a deputation of bacon curers at one time—and maybe others, too—approached him and they decided they would tell him why they were there. It is not many who came to him who were allowed to tell him why they were there—his attitude was that he knew more than they who came to discuss any particular matter with him knew; that it was only a waste of time to be listening to a man who has come to tell you something which you already know yourself, and the Minister's way of saving time was to say: "Gentlemen, I am very glad to see you. I know why you are here. I will tell the story. Here is the answer. You may go home now." That is excellent. Of course, I should say that he is only an underpaid man who has offered himself as a sort of sacrifice to agriculture, who has dragged himself out of business, come from across the counter and said: "Agriculture is in a depressed condition. Here is the bacon business about which I know everything. I am a bacon producer. I have been a bacon curer. I am a bacon wholesaler, retailer and consumer. I know all about the business and, therefore, boys, you have nothing to tell me and you may go your way." As a result of his enormous knowledge of that bacon business and of the way in which he has treated it, there is not a man on God's earth—certainly not in this little earth of ours—who knows where he stands in relation to this business, from top to bottom.

Just consider the state in which this business is down the country and along the Border and see what is going on there and what, apparently, will continue to go on. It has been a convenience from the Minister's point of view, I agree, in a way. It will not always be a convenience. It will become an inconvenience. When I think of the condition to which this trade has been reduced by a Minister who, if he ever claimed anything, claimed to know all about it! This was really the one business in regard to which at all times he held himself up as a person who could put it on its feet if only he could get to the position where Fianna Fáil meddling with it would be brought to an end! Having now been in that position for two and a half years, he can only export the surplus bacon for sale by going to the very institution which Fianna Fáil had established and drawing on the fund which had been built up by the producers.

What are pigs worth to-day?

What are pigs worth to-day? What are pigs worth tomorrow? It is the uncertainty and the confusion. It is the racing across the Border with stores and suckers. The Minister does not use that expression. It is a Northern expression and it would not be used in the part of the country that he comes from. We call them "suckers". On one occasion when the Minister was speaking about suckers he made an interesting statement. It was election time, I must say.

Quote it.

I have here a quotation of a statement which he made at Skibbereen on 6th June, 1949. He made the same statement at Cavan but I have not the quotation.

"Mr. Dillon said that one of his constituents in Monaghan had remonstrated with him and asked him to prevent what he called `suckers', but what the people of Connaught called `bonhams', from being smuggled over the Border. When he asked why the young pigs were being smuggled, his constituent said: `Twice the price here was being paid.' "

They were going the other way at this particular time apparently, although it would be difficult from the statement to know which way they were going.

"I said to him, so long as they are prepared to pay us two prices for suckers we will let them have all the suckers they want," said Mr. Dillon. "I have no objection to one sucker paying two prices for another sucker."

I was at a party one night and I heard a person mimicking a speech by the Minister for Agriculture. It happened to be that particular speech. The mimic said, imitating Mr. Dillon's accent:—

"I have no objection to one sucker paying two prices for another sucker."

A reasonable enough policy from our point of view.

But it is illegal.

I beg the Deputy's pardon.

That statement was inviting somebody to commit an illegality. After all, I put down a question on this matter here. I wanted to know why it was that the Minister saw fit to employ preventive officers along the 300 miles, roughly, border between ourselves and the Six Counties in order to prevent farmers, traders or others from exporting pigs to a market in the Six Counties in which they could get £12 10s. 0d. to £13 per cwt. for pork, produced from feeding stuffs sold in the Six Counties at 18/- a cwt.

I wanted to know from the Minister why it was that we were obliged to pay men to prevent these people from taking their pigs to that profitable market. I was told by the Minister that there were only two centres, which he mentioned, in which the British Ministry of Food would accept bacon and pigs from us. That is what he told me in this House. If that is true, why did he say, in several public speeches, that one sucker could export another sucker as freely as he liked so long as he would give two prices for it? I saw that speech which was made in Skibbereen and read in the local papers a speech made in my own county dealing with the same matter in the very same words. In view of these statements, could you blame some of those who are attempting to take pigs across in order to sell them in that market? They are being brought before the courts, charged with the offence, although the Minister for Agriculture says that he has no objection to one sucker taking another sucker across, if he gives two prices for the sucker.

Will not the Deputy quote what I said?

I will do it again. "I said to him so long as they are prepared to pay us two prices for suckers, we will let them have all the suckers they want," said Mr. Dillon. "I have no objection to one sucker paying two prices for another sucker." Was the Minister telling the truth? Was he within the law, as Minister, in advising people who were smuggling pigs, even if they were taking two prices?

I asked the Minister the question as to why he was preventing people from selling pigs recently. I would not mind but it is costing us a considerable sum of money to maintain these staffs along this long land frontier. Why should we pay them to prevent our farmers from getting from the market that is at their door 50/- to £3 a cwt. more for pigs than they could get at home? It is not fair to those who regarded the Minister as being a man in authority, as head of the Department. He knew the law. He knew what was the policy of the State. They said: "if we have that advice from him, we are naturally entitled to take it." In recent weeks the Minister's best political friend has been brought before the court. I admit that the charge against him was dismissed because it was found that he was within only 30 yards of the Border, and the district justice very sympathetically and very considerately stated that there was a good deal of room for doubt. Most of the local people, who have a good knowledge of the circumstances there, are aware of the fact that poor neighbours of my own, in the poultry trade, and otherwise, who attempted to take poultry across the Border over the last three or four years, in our time, had their lorries confiscated.

The Minister is not responsible for articles being taken over the Border. Surely that is not his province.

He has tendered advice which, when acted upon, resulted in one of his friends being brought before the court.

The Deputy is developing that beyond what he might—beyond the rules of order.

I have pleaded with the Government that, where an ordinary citizen is induced by a statement of the Minister to do something which is afterwards found to be illegal, and when a charge is dismissed against him, the State should consider—not only in the case I have referred to, but in all cases—paying adequate compensation to the individual concerned for the inconvenience caused. Knowing the sympathy and understanding that there is for the individual concerned in this case on the part of people who know the facts intimately, I felt I was voicing their opinion in urging the Minister for Finance to make adequate compensation to him and to the many other people who have paid stiff fines for attempting to do the same thing, not only in relation to pigs, but in relation to poultry as well.

The Minister would do no harm to anybody if he explained to the House and the country what has become of the large and growing market for pigs and bacon which existed in Great Britain and of which he assured us in his Estimate last year, and why it is that our surplus, in so far as we have any, could only be sold recently by the payment of the subsidy to which I have referred. What are the prospects for the future?

The reason we have no surplus now is that that happened.

Would the Minister tell us what is the tendency in the industry? What are the prospects for the future?

Excellent, I think.

What are the prospects for those who want bacon at home at reasonable prices?

Excellent.

What are the prospects of people being able to get bacon in this country? We were assured that, as a result of the policy which the Minister would operate, after 12 months, we would have lashings and leavings of bacon for everybody at reasonable prices and pucks of it for export. What are the prospects for that particular trade that he so lucidly described and that seems to have vanished?

Excellent.

In so far as the Minister has a policy at all, it has resulted in his making a dour prophecy that one business had already closed down—we are informed since that that was not correct—and that there was a prospect of another doing likewise. These would be interesting matters for the Minister to deal with when he is concluding. My advice may not be worth anything, but I would advise that, in future, there is no use in telling farmers and producers that you will drown them in maize meal at £1 a cwt. if in a few weeks' time the cost is 30/-. There is no use in having them switching from day to day —from advice to grow their own foodstuffs to an assurance that you will lash in imported feeding stuffs at ridiculously low prices and so on. I was never associated, as the Minister claims to have been, with the bacon-curing business. I am not engaged in the wholesale or the retail business but, at the same time, I know that if you want to do something tangible and effective about the bacon business you will not do it by talking about suckers and the sale of one sucker to another sucker at two prices, or by going down to your constituency and promising maize meal at £1 per cwt. You will not increase the pig population by bringing about a situation in which you import barley from Iraq and sorghum from Queensland.

You will not achieve the purposes which you allegedly set out to achieve when speaking on the Estimate last year, desirable and laudable as they are, by any of this flamboyancy or wild talk. I should like to hear from the Minister in this regard, just as in the case of milk production and cattle breeding, an outline of a reasonable policy and not this talk about telling his good friends, the bacon curers: "I will build a State factory right beside every private proprietary concern," when everybody knows that that was only bluff. You will not make progress by throwing out your chest and threatening to build a State bacon factory beside every proprietary concern in the country, because those who own these concerns know that that is bluff and they are sure to call it, with the result that the public will merely laugh at you.

If you want to make progress in this regard, you will have to change and there is evidence that that is happening. The Minister is becoming a nice, mild and placid man compared with what he used to be. He can sit and take it fairly well now and that is a great thing. I can imagine how hard it must be for the Minister to listen to anybody but himself and it is a great pleasure to me to see that I have disciplined him to the point that he has been able to remain here for a fairly long time——

Five weary hours.

——and has listened to me without behaving too badly. It is not decent to boast about what one does, but I have done a few good things in my life and I doubt if there is any accomplishment of which I am so proud as the fact that I have tamed the Minister, and brought him to a position in which he can sit and listen, because, even at question time, he cannot listen even to his own colleagues. He is the only Minister——

We are discussing the administration of the Minister's Department and not his attitude towards his colleagues.

I am sorry that you have so ruled, Sir, because the other discussion, as you will admit, would be very interesting.

The Chair can admit nothing but what is within the rules of order.

I realise that, and I will not offend further, but you never can tell when I may wander away again. However, a hint is quite enough to bring me back to being as nice as Deputy James Dillon ever could be.

You ought to squeeze your head a little more.

Pig's cheek for the Irish. I will say no more about the pig's cheeks, but I may say a little more later about another type of cheek which is even more objectionable than pig's cheek.

With regard to the land rehabilitation project, we do not know a great deal about it, so far as its operation is concerned. The Second Stage discussion of that Bill took seven hours and the Minister, having decided that he had been very polite and courteous to the House in introducing it, apparently came to the conclusion that there should be no discussion at all, that we had no duties as an Opposition. In one interjection during the seven hours' discussion of a Bill which provided for the spending, if words mean anything, of £40,000,000 of borrowed money——

Of borrowed dollars.

Borrowed dollars—he said that he had had to sit for seven hours listening to all that impudence.

That Bill is an Act and discussion on it is over. I want to bring the Deputy back to the fact that we are discussing the Minister's administration of his Department and not what he said during the discussion of that Land Rehabilitation Act.

That is exactly what I was proposing to discuss, but you will admit, Sir, that one has to get into one's stride. What I meant to discuss was the administration of the land project, the discussion of which was described in that fashion by the Minister, and to say now that I am very pleased that, even though it is only recent, the Minister has changed his attitude towards this House. It is a wonderful advance. When we discussed the operation of this measure, the provisions of which we cannot now alter or amend, I was somewhat suspicious that, in the administration of Part II, things would not work out as rosily as we were given to understand they would by the Minister. I must confess that I am still in doubt about some of the things that may be attempted under Part II. As I say, we do not know much about it. I can only see that there is a great deal of money being spent on staff, organisation and machinery, and it seems to take a very long time to get Part II into its stride. If the sums of money the Minister has given are likely to be expended upon the rehabilitation of land under Part II, I am still very doubtful whether or not we could not more usefully apply some of that money. I have the notion that, when rehabilitation work is undertaken by a State organisation, it is going to be very costly. I am not thinking of the contribution which the farmer has to make at all. When you give civil servants the impression that you have enormous sums of money to spend, they can make a great showing by building up a costly staff and organisation which does not justify the effort and the expense.

As far as that part of the land project is concerned, I want to warn the Minister that he should be very careful as to the sort of work undertaken. He should make sure that the cost per acre will bear some reasonable proportion to the value the community will get from land reclamation. There is a tendency for people to leave the land and get away, especially from small holdings in backward places or heavy land where the overhead expenses are high. I fear that under this land project if we deal with any substantial area we will be dealing in an expensive way with land that will be hard and costly to maintain and that we may not get the value we hoped to get from it. That is something the Minister and his Department must keep in mind.

Let us come to Part I of the scheme, which provides an excellent opportunity for landowners who want to do the work themselves. Having made that statement, I want the House to realise that I have some criticism to make of Part I of the scheme in its operations as I see them. When we were discussing the Bill, I expressed the view that this was like the farm improvements scheme. The Minister rejected that view. Of course, that was a Fianna Fáil term and was not swanky enough. We had to have the "land rehabilitation scheme" or something noisy and loud that would smother the feeble and petty approach made by Fianna Fáil to the problems confronting the landowners. I did not mind that, as that is part of the Minister's style. I knew that when Part I came into operation it would prove to be more or less like the farm improvements scheme, except that the contribution to the landowner who did the work was 25 per cent. greater under it. There are parts of it to which I would take exception. I tried to explain that the scheme as operated was top heavy. There may be a reason for this. I feel I am justified in making this charge that it is top heavy, because when officials get in charge that is what they do.

On a point of order, is it not the custom of this House that the Minister is allowed to answer for the activities of his own Department, and that Deputies make their speeches without indulging in criticism or commendation of the members of the Civil Service?

That is so. The Minister is right. Civil servants are not responsible to this House. It is the Minister who has the responsibility.

The remarks I am making are in no way directed against the Civil Service or the Department of Agriculture. Officials, whether local or national, would do what I think has been done in the operation of this scheme and I am about to show the way in which I think it is operated. When I as a landowner apply under Part I, my application is sent on and reaches the district headquarters. It is sent out to the local man, who inspects the work which I have proposed in my application form to undertake. That part of it is all right; but why he does a number of things to which I will refer now is something that we should know, as I see no reason for them.

He apparently goes back to his office and starts to produce a map of my holding—not of the work which I have proposed. He will not prepare the ordinary type of estimate we used to get under the farm improvement scheme, setting out the work, so many perches, and so on, keep a copy himself and send the other to the farmer. He actually prepares a map of the holding—roads, bridges, fields, drains and all the rest—and sends it to his district office, where two, three or four other fellows start to produce more maps, about three, which have to be separately produced. One is sent back to the farmer, one is retained in the office and one is sent to the overseer, the inspector or the supervisor. The result is that for every day spent in the country by an overseer two and a half days have to be spent in the office. Even after that, the office staff in the district office is larger than the staff engaged in the country. What is it all for? What is it hoped to achieve by this preparation of maps and all the rest? If a farmer makes an application to have an acre of whins or rubbish dealt with——

There is not a scintilla of truth in what the Deputy assumes, but I invite him to clatter away. Of course there are maps, but there is no truth in what he says about the distribution of staff. However, let him clatter on.

Then what are the hundreds doing—those the Minister spoke of the other day?

Spending the money.

For each application, three maps are provided in the way I have stated. It is a fact that in some districts the outdoor staff has had to be called in by the district office in order to enable them to complete the work. If the Minister is not aware of that, it is he who is the Rip Van Winkle and not Deputy Aiken. I want some information as to why this has to be done in such an expensive fashion. There may be justification for it. Those who think there is not—and they are very many—should know what the reason is because, when people come to a conclusion that something is mysterious, if they are told why it is done they say: "After all there is something in that; maybe it is all right." Therefore I not only want information on this matter but I want the Minister to keep an eye on it. I know that in saying that most of the effort is being spent on the office instead of on the country I am saying something that is known to be fact by thousands.

That is a ludicrous falsehood.

I suppose that is in order.

It was not at one time but things change.

Is the word "falsehood" irregular?

Not as such. It is a charge of lying which is disorderly.

I was fired out because I used it.

I did not mean that the Deputy deliberately stated what he knew to be untrue——

Neither did I but I was fired out.

—— but that the report from the country was a ludicrous falsehood.

The farm buildings scheme is being operated. I addressed some parliamentary questions to the Minister on both these schemes in the last couple of weeks. I really was anxious to find out because of my knowledge of the deep-seated prejudice of the present Minister against anything that originated in the mind of his opponent. I have not got all the information to which I feel I am entitled and which I would like to get. I have no fault to find with anything I know about the administration of the farm buildings scheme, except that I think that it is treated by the Minister and his Department—to use a country expression—with the cold breath of a step-mother.

The Deputy is quite mistaken.

I want to be assured of that because I genuinely thought so— perhaps unjustifiably as we are not always just to one another in the conclusions at which we arrive. The Minister for Agriculture is one man who, I suspect, has a deep-seated prejudice against anything designed by his opponent. I would not put it past him in certain circumstances to treat it in a manner not in keeping with the treatment meted out to the land project which is an entirely different matter. All those who work on these schemes, who are employed by the State, are all of equal importance and should be treated alike. I have no evidence but only suspicion that this might be the case. If the Minister has any such prejudice he had better mend his hand before he commits himself because when he commits himself he is hard to move.

I do not know what the Deputy is rambling about.

I am not rambling at all.

I think he is rambling.

There will be people in the country who will understand what I am saying. While they may not be a very wide section of the population, I am prepared to leave it to them to make up their minds and assess the value or otherwise of the remarks I am making. I am merely asking you, as Minister——

Deputies, by Standing Orders, are supposed to address the Chair. The word "you", in the mouth of a Deputy, means the Chair.

I said "you, as Minister".

"You" means the Chair.

It is hard for me to be so meticulous but I will try.

The Deputy is long enough in the House to know the simple rule that Deputies must address the Chair.

I thought I was doing so. I am asking the Minister to be careful and to see, regarding these two schemes, their application, the general drive behind them and the way in which those associated with them are handled, that equal opportunity and understanding are given in both cases.

I want to understand the Deputy but I do not understand what he is saying now. There is no reason for him to speak in riddles. If there is anything in this he should say so. I would like to know.

I thought more time would be given by the Minister to the question of land reclamation. I thought he would have applied himself and devoted more time to telling us what progress he has made or is making regarding the conversion of limestone rock into ground limestone and what are the prospects of increasing enormously——

The Lord save us and bless us. I spent all day Sunday going through the White Paper and I hate the term "White Paper" because, when I have to refer to a White Paper issued by a Department on this or on that, whether I am right or not, it gets me going.

Page 9; I beg the Deputy's pardon.

With regard to the application of lime to the land, not much has been done nor is much progress likely to be made as far as I can see. I am afraid that we are not likely, as a result of the efforts which are being made, to reach quickly the stage when 10,000,000 tons would be spread on the land of this country. That is the amount which it is estimated would be required to bring the land into proper condition. I thought the Minister would have told us something more than what I have been able to read in the White Paper, which I foolishly spent all day Sunday reading through.

I now come to another matter of some importance, and it is the attitude of the Minister, since he became Minister for Agriculture, towards a small industry that was developing in Dublin and elsewhere—tomato growing.

What is the price of Irish tomatoes in the shops at present?

Here, surely, is a case where the Minister's deep-seated prejudice has influenced his attitude towards this industry.

What is the price of tomatoes to-day?

It is all very well for the Minister to show concern for the Irish consumers. Every time the subject of tomatoes and tomato-growing is discussed here, the attitude of the Parties supporting the Minister and who approach him privately is a plea on behalf of the consumers of tomatoes in Gloucester Street and similar streets. I will make this point in regard to that attitude. I suppose it is fair to say we all have an interest in the consumers who live in Gloucester Street, in the Gloucester Streets of this and every other city, but if the Minister is terribly concerned about the price at which they will get tomatoes, is it not a strange thing that he does not show the same concern for making 75 per cent. flour available to them as it is being made available to the people who are able to buy it at the existing price?

What is the retail price of Irish tomatoes to-day?

The desire of these people to get white flour is just as great as the desire of those who can afford to pay the retail price.

Tell me the retail price of tomatoes?

Am I not entitled to speak in this House?

You are entitled to speak, without interruption.

I thought I was. The consumers in Gloucester Street might find the ration of butter not adequate for themselves and their families and they might like to buy an extra pound, so long as they know we have a surplus that we cannot sell, even to our friend John, without a subsidy—at least, according to the statement made by the Minister. Would they not think it a desirable thing to get an extra pound of butter above the ration at the ordinary price? Would they not like to get additional sugar? These poor people whom we would all like to see getting everything at a low figure would, no doubt, like some additional sugar. I understand that sugar, from the point of view of the working man and his family, is one of the most essential items.

Does this Minister control the price of sugar?

One would not know who controls anything now. The Minister tells us that he would like to give these people cheap tomatoes. I say that these same people would like to get cheap sugar, butter, flour and oatmeal and other items that they now cannot get an additional supply of unless at an inflated price. The Minister says that he will not afford any protection to an Irish industry that has grown in 15, 16 or 17 years, but I would like to emphasise that it is a very desirable industry to develop here. I admit there is something to be said for the Minister's point of view, and much to be said about the desirability of cultivating a greater taste for tomatoes and making sure they are available at reasonable prices.

As an agriculturist, I cannot accept it as wise policy that the Minister should charge the House and his own Government with imposing on the agricultural community £700,000 in relation to the boot and shoe industry, which the Minister claims is being borne by the agricultural community, while at the same time he silently permits a section of the community to be treated in that fashion. When it comes to a question of affording the necessary protection for an Irish industry in which good employment is given, and when the Minister is challenged with not taking action with regard to the saddling of Irish industry with this £700,000, he retorts: "Would you close down the boot factories and the tanneries?"

You are getting away from the tomatoes now.

I do not agree with the Minister's known attitude towards Irish industry in general. I have never accepted it. If he refuses to take effective steps to rid the Irish farmers and their sons and daughters and workers of a burden like that, and if he asks me will I close the boot factories and the tanneries, by way of reply I put it to him: why should he, as Minister, not afford to this industry the same sort of protection as enabled Irish capital to develop the boot and shoe industry? Why should we not be allowed to develop the tomato-growing industry?

Are they not getting 4/6 a pound?

I have read the comparisons made by technicians, as to our climatic and other conditions, with the conditions that prevail in Holland. It must be admitted that if we can do anything at all we ought to be able to produce all the tomatoes we need. We were making progress in that direction, as in the case of the boot and shoe and other industries. It involved some expenditure and somebody had to pay for it. But if we have to pay for the boot and shoe industry in the way in which the Minister has charged, why should not the tomato growers demand that those who act for them will see to it that the policy that has resulted in the expansion, in an industrial sense, will be applied in relation to their business, and the Minister will not allow any deep-seated prejudices of his own to influence him in deciding national policy?

Is not 4/6 a pound enough for them? At present they are getting that price.

We imported last year almost a quarter of a million pounds' worth of foreign tomatoes—and that is a good sum. I am told by those who have gone into this business and made a lot of money out of it——

Hear, hear!

—— and put a lot of that money back again, that there was a time when, if one tried to do this thing in an undeveloped little country like ours, one found that it would not be possible to proceed without having casualties of some kind that one would like to eliminate. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.
Top
Share