Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 1950

Vol. 121 No. 15

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

Mr. Cogan

Last night I indicated briefly that my reason for referring this motion back is because I disagree entirely not with the Minister on matters of detail but with his whole concept of agricultural policy. I believe the Minister's policy is fundamentally wrong. He regards agriculture not from the point of view of the farmer but from the point of view of a shopkeeper. He has sought to maintain a precarious agricultural industry dependent almost entirely on imported raw materials, on the one hand, and dependent upon external markets for our surplus produce, on the other hand. I conceive an agricultural policy that is in the main based upon Ireland and that is self-supporting to the largest possible extent, depending in the main upon the industry and energy of our own people and their ability to utilise the land to the fullest possible extent to provide food for our people and feeding stuffs for our live stock.

I indicated that the Minister's two main failures over the past two years have been, first, his failure to provide fair prices and secure markets, and, secondly, his failure to provide a reasonable amount of capital for the development of the agricultural industry. Under those two headings the Minister has failed ignominiously, and that failure has resulted in a low total income from agriculture, in a low level of employment, and in a low average income for each person engaged in the industry.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to a statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday in Geneva. Addressing the International Labour Conference there, he said:—

"It is just as important to protect the farmer as those who work for him."

I wonder does the Minister for Agriculture accept that view, or will he repudiate it as he repudiated the policy of the Minister for Defence when he sought to protect the Irish oats grower from exploitation and ruin?

Last night I indicated a number of branches of the agricultural industry which have been unfairly and unjustly treated. I showed how the simple and gentle women of Ireland who are engaged in the poultry industry have had their incomes cut by one-third.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy debated that at length yesterday.

Mr. Cogan

I am not going to debate it again. I would also point out that the farmers' wives and daughters have had their incomes cut by 50 per cent. so far as the production of farmers' butter is concerned. I assume the Minister will not deny that the income of the farming community is low. The Minister has said that his own salary is utterly inadequate. If the Minister finds a salary of £2,125 is inadequate, how can he assert that the average income of the farmer, which is £3 5s. 0d. a week, constitutes a substantial income?

I do not know whether the Minister is serious when he suggests that his salary is inadequate. I will believe that, perhaps, when I see him parading up and down outside the Department of Agriculture carrying a placard with the words "Strike on Here". I think he will agree that the income he has prescribed for the ordinary farmer is altogether too low.

I have dealt with a considerable number of products connected with the agricultural industry and I do not intend to dwell on them further. I will deal with one other commodity produced by the farmer, in regard to which the Minister has taken up a very strong line. As we know, there is not a very large section of our people, though it is a very industrious section, engaged in the production of tomatoes. Many of those people are in my constituency of Wicklow. Those people have put into that industry a very large amount of capital.

An Ceann Comhairle

Did the Deputy not discuss that yesterday?

Mr. Cogan

No. Those people who grow tomatoes have put into the construction of glasshouses and the provision of other equipment over £1,500,000. They produce a very substantial amount of tomatoes every year and these are sold to Irish consumers. Each year in the glut period, in July, August, September and October, they are forced to compete in this market with dumped continental tomatoes. Each year, over the past three years, the imports of tomatoes have steadily increased during those four months, and I think it was a modest request on the part of the people engaged in the industry to ask the Minister to consider the desirability of introducing some restriction upon these imports.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is aware there is a tariff of 2d. per lb.

Mr. Cogan

I am aware there is a tariff, but it has been so ineffective that it has not restricted these imports; in fact, they have tended to increase over the past three years. I am equally aware that our Irish tomatoes are superior to those imported from the Continent. I think the Minister's attitude to tomato producers is similar to his attitude towards potato and oats producers. It is an attitude of intolerance. That was very noticeable when a deputation that waited on the Minister was simply sent about its business. Subsequently a report was published in the morning papers, apparently supplied from official sources, misrepresenting the position of these people and suggesting that they had a profit of 1/- to 1/0½d. when, as a matter of fact, that was the price they were actually receiving, not a profit.

I think the Minister should take note of what has been done in Great Britain. Over there they have placed certain restrictions on the importation of tomatoes. They have decided for one month to exclude imports completely. If the British can do that, where they have a much larger consuming population, there is no reason why some protection should not be given here to this particular branch of the agricultural industry. We know that imports into Great Britain are completely prohibited for a period of six weeks. That gives the home producer the opportunity of securing a market for his produce.

The Minister, I think, when speaking on this matter in the Dáil made the point that he was fighting to secure cheap tomatoes for the poor. If he adopts that argument it can be used in regard to almost every Irish product. If we were to adopt that argument, we must remove all manner of protection from every industry and every branch of industry. I think the Minister ought to see the justice of the claim that is being put up by this important industry. If he does he will see that, perhaps, in the long run he is serving not only the industry itself but serving the consuming public as well. If the Irish tomato industry is wiped out, we have no guarantee that foreigners will cater for our home consumers either adequately or reasonably.

I have stated that there are two main headings under which the Minister has failed. I have dealt with the Minister's failure with regard to prices generally. I have dealt, too, with his failure in regard to a variety of farm and garden products. I have stated that, in addition to his failure to secure decent markets and prices for the farmers, he has also failed to provide the capital that is so urgently needed for the expansion of the agricultural industry. I did not deal with this matter yesterday, because I was waiting to have the Minister present to hear the case which I had to make in regard to this very urgent need. No industry can be developed or expanded without capital. I think the Minister will agree that, even if you want to establish only a small workshop or a small undertaking of any kind, you have got to invest capital in it. If the agricultural industry is to be expanded so as to increase production in the way in which the Minister has sometimes suggested—that is by 50 per cent.—well, you have got to put more capital into it. Would the Minister suggest for a moment that any established manufacturing industry could increase its output by 50 per cent. without the investment of more capital in it?

Dr. Henry Kennedy went into this matter in detail some years ago. I should think that his figures are now a little out of date, and that the requirements which he suggested might now be a little bit more expensive. But, at that time, he indicated in the report of the Commission on Post-War Agricultural Policy that, for the improvement of the land generally by the use of fertilisers, lime and so on, a sum of £58,000,000 would be required. He suggested that, for the improvement of housing and farms, a sum of £98,000,000 would be required, for equipment generally on the farm that a sum of £23,000,000 would be necessary, and that for the general improvement of stock a sum of £22,000,000 would be necessary. Of course, when he mentioned the improvement of stock I take it that he was not referring to increasing the number of stock on the land, but rather to the elimination of inferior, unhealthy or unprofitable stock and their replacement by animals that would be fully productive.

These are the headings for which capital is required. They are all essential, and at the present time there is no source from which the capital necessary can be obtained. We know that during the past couple of years the banks have restricted still further all credit for agriculture and for other development. The Agricultural Credit Corporation, according to the figures published in reply to a question asked here, received 1,762 applications for loans in 1949 and out of that number they granted 694. In other words, they rejected two-thirds of the applications which they received.

Mr. Dillon

I explained to the Deputy that part of those loans were not within the discretion of the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

Mr. Cogan

These figures go to prove that the Agricultural Credit Corporation is inadequate to serve the purpose for which it was constituted. It was set up to provide credit for agriculture. Those applications for loans came exclusively from farmers. If the provision of credit is outside the function of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and if the banks, as we know, are not prepared to finance agricultural expansion, then there is no source to which the farmer can turn to-day if he wants to correct the acidity of the soil or the infertility of the soil, or if he wants to improve his live stock or his buildings, or if he wants in any other way to develop his farm and make it productive.

As against all this restriction of credit for the ordinary purposes of agriculture, we have the position in which the Minister himself has undertaken to provide credit on a very substantial scale for the drainage of waterlogged lands and for the reclamation of land that requires to be cleared of scrub, rocks or boulders. The farmer who has 20 acres of wet land can secure a loan of £12 per acre. That is to say, he can secure a loan of £240 to drain that land and so improve his farm, but as regards the remainder of his land which urgently requires capital for its development, he cannot secure any loan whatever. That is an extraordinary position. The expenditure of £12 by the farmer on his bog, plus three times that amount by the Department of Agriculture, would probably make it somewhat more productive than it is at present. But the expenditure of one-fourth or one-fifth of that amount on the farmer's better land would make it ten times more productive. The Minister said that 80 per cent. of the land is unproductive at present because of lack of lime and fertiliser. Yet, he is not prepared to do anything to relieve that situation. In reply to a question which I raised on this matter, the Minister said that there is a very vital difference between providing loans for improving the better land and loans for the improvement of bog. He suggested that the loan for the improvement of the bog brings about a permanent improvement whereas the other may not. I emphatically contest that assertion. The rehabilitation of bog land under the scheme cannot be said to be absolutely permanent. Even if the field drainage is perfect and the watercourses are properly cleared, maintenance will be required every four or five years and, perhaps, even oftener. In addition to that fertilisers provided under the scheme are not of a permanent nature, and will need to be replaced from year to year. The possibility is that, if a farmer avails of the grants and loans for the improvement of his bog, and subsequently neglects that improved bog land, the position will be little better than it was; it may even become worse if the land is afterwards completely neglected.

I think if the Minister would approach the matter in a realistic way he would see that the improvement of our impoverished land by the provision of adequate supplies of phosphate and lime would be just as permanent as, if not more permanent, the improvement of the bog lands. I could show the Minister hundreds of acres of land carrying very little stock which, if ploughed, would produce a very light yield per acre. I think I could convince him that if that land was improved by the addition of phosphates and lime that improvement would be very long lasting, even if no more manures were added, because once the land is brought into a condition where it will carry heavy stock, that stock will manure the land and fertility will be thereby preserved to a considerable extent.

I do not think any case can be made for providing long-term loans for bogs on the security of the reclaimed land while refusing to provide the same type of loan on the same type of security where the better land is concerned. I think the case I have made is unanswerable. Indeed, up to the present the Minister has made no attempt to answer it.

We know what can be done if sufficient capital is put into agriculture. The Minister has denounced the low-yielding cow, the cow that produces less than 400 gallons per year. When introducing his Estimate, he stressed the necessity for eliminating diseased stock. Diseased stock will have to be replaced. On a number of occasions the Minister has stressed the need for using more modern equipment on the farm. He has even gone so far in that direction as to exclude the horse completely from agricultural work. We know what it costs to mechanise an ordinary farm of 30, 40, or 50 acres. It would be difficult to mechanise any farm over 30 acres for much less than £1,000.

Mr. Dillon

What does the Deputy envisage?

Mr. Cogan

I envisage the ordinary type of tractor with the ordinary equipment, a reaper and binder, a plough——

Mr. Dillon

A reaper and binder, a tandem disk harrow, a trailer for a 30-acre farm.

Mr. Cogan

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Would there be room on such a farm for all the stuff you have in mind?

Mr. Cogan

If there would not be room, then it would be better not to mechanise at all. It would be better to stick to the horse. Mechanisation is no use unless it can be done on efficient lines. A low-powered tractor which could not follow a reaper would be no earthly use on a farm.

Mr. Dillon

What becomes of the millions of ten horse-power tractors made annually?

Mr. Cogan

That is a problem for the Minister. He has suggested the horse should be eliminated.

Mr. Davin

Has he?

Mr. Cogan

He said he would make it illegal for any farmer to be found using a horse.

Mr. Dillon

What becomes of the millions of ten horse-power tractors manufactured every year?

Mr. Cogan

I do not know.

Mr. Dillon

It would pay the Deputy well to find out.

Mr. Cogan

I would not use one of them in a heavy field of corn during a wet harvest. I know that the small type tractors are not very efficient. Really these tractors are glorified toys. If one got all the equipment required, I doubt if one could mechanise such a farm for less than £500 or £600.

Mr. Dillon

A plough, harrow and mowing machine?

Mr. Cogan

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Would not the farmer be as well equipped as he is now if he had a plough, harrow and mowing machine?

Mr. Davin

He wants the old horse, too.

Mr. Dillon

The whole lot for £300— the whole shootin' match.

Mr. Cogan

Nonsense. Even accepting a figure of £300, does the Minister think that the average farmer has that much money available to spend on such equipment?

Mr. Dillon

I do not know. But does the Deputy know if a ten-acre farmer keeps a pair of horses?

Mr. Cogan

Of course not. The point I am making is that the credit available for the purchase of such machinery is not adequate. Even if the farmer were to buy on the hire-purchase system, he can only get a short-term loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation on which he must pay 4½ per cent. interest. I do not think that the ordinary farmer should be compelled to repay a loan of that kind at 4½ per cent. I think that is altogether excessive and the period of repayment should be not less than 10 years.

Mr. Dillon

For a tractor?

Mr. Cogan

Yes, because I think the average small farmer, or medium-sized farmer, purchasing a tractor would care it sufficiently well to keep it in good condition for ten years. I know of tractors which have been working on hire for 15 years and I think ten years is not an excessive period to allow for the repayment of a loan for the purchase of a tractor. In the same way I would suggest that loans for the replacement of the fertility of the soil could be extended over a period of ten, 15 or 20 years. Where the fertility of the soil is very low, once it is replaced the task of maintaining it is not one of excessive difficulty. The profit from year to year from the farm would probably repay for the replacement of the manurial content extracted from the farm. The Minister has a habit of interrupting——

Mr. Dillon

I did not say a word.

Mr. Cogan

Once you replace the soil deficiency, and put the soil into healthy condition, then you can expect reasonable crops from year to year that will repay on an annuity basis the original cost of putting that soil into healthy condition. That is why I suggest long-term loans for the improvement of soil that is becoming infertile. The Minister recommends long-term loans for the fertilising and draining of boglands. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. The same applies, even to a great extent, in regard to housing. There again long-term loans are desirable. The two great difficulties and obstacles in regard to credit are, firstly, that neither the banks nor the Agricultural Credit Corporation, to a great extent, will accept land as security for a loan, but the Minister is quite prepared to accept land as security for a loan for the rehabilitation of water-logged land. Why should not the Agricultural Credit Corporation also be prepared to accept land as a security? If land that has been reclaimed is good security for a loan, why should not good sound land be even a better security for a loan? If the Minister only thought over this problem, he would have no difficulty in seeing that there is no answer to that question; credit must be provided if there is to be any expansion in agricultural production.

Over the past two years the Minister has found that all his efforts have only resulted in an increase in the volume of production of 2 per cent. over 1938.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy compare it with 1947?

Mr. Cogan

I shall not, in any circumstances, compare 1947 with any other year, because it is not comparable.

Mr. Dillon

1946?

Mr. Cogan

I shall compare it with 1945. In 1945 the figure for the net volume of agricultural output was 112. In 1949, after all the post-war expansion, the figure was 102. That is a reduction of over 10 per cent. in the net volume.

Mr. Dillon

Where did you get that figure?

Mr. Cogan

If the Minister challenges that figure, I shall produce the official document.

Mr. Dillon

Will you quote the source?

Mr. S. Collins

I think you are travelling in reverse.

Mr. Cogan

This is the Irish Statistical Survey for 1948-49—volume of agricultural output, quantities valued at fixed 1938-39 agricultural prices: 1938-39, 100; 1939-40, 102.5; 1940-41, 98; 1941-42, 112.5; 1942-43, 108; 1943-44, 105; 1944-45, 106; 1945, 112; 1946, 106; 1947, 98; 1948, 97, and the figure for 1949, extracted by way of parliamentary question, was 102. That is the net volume of agricultural output.

Mr. Dillon

Are you talking about net or gross?

Mr. Cogan

Net. The most important figure is the net output. We see, therefore, that our net output is just slightly above 1938 and very much below some of the emergency years. As a matter of fact, it is below the average of the years of the emergency. If the Minister considers that seriously, he will realise how essential it is to do something fairly drastic in regard to getting agricultural output expanded.

Mr. Dillon

Including turf?

Mr. Cogan

Yes, including every aspect.

Mr. Dillon

What manurial operation will increase the quantity of turf?

Mr. Cogan

Is the Minister suggesting that turf is a very serious item in the net volume of the agricultural output I do not think it is. One of the most effective methods by which you can increase output is by putting more fertilisers into the land.

Mr. Dillon

But not on the bogs.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister did include the bogs because fertilisers are included where there is a rehabilitation scheme for bogs. Does the Minister realise that in 1949 we imported and produced in this country for use on the land 312,000 tons of fertilisers which, divided over the agricultural land of this country, would give a distribution of less than four stones per acre? I do not know how you would apply four stones of fertilisers to an acre of land except you had a pepper canister. Having regard to the low distribution of fertilisers, it is essential that something very drastic should be done to ensure that greater quantities of fertilisers will be used throughout the country, not only on tillage land, but also on our pastures. The trouble, of course, with the majority of farmers is that it is difficult to find the necessary capital to purchase these additional manures. I think that viewed from every aspect the Minister will see how essential it is to provide better credit facilities.

He will see also the urgent need for reducing the cost of credit for agriculture. Agriculture is not in the same category as industry or as commerce. Most of the charges on loans are based upon what people in commerce and in industry can pay. The agricultural income, as I have pointed out, is exceedingly low. Being low, it does not provide the income to repay loans at the high rate of interest that is at present demanded. I am indebted to Sir John Esmonde for a statement which he made recently emphasising this particular point. He stressed the fact that the interest charges on loans are an unbearable impost on various spheres of agriculture. He took a typical example of a credit transaction. A man who had a 50-acre farm borrowed £700, his farm and industry being the security. The bank interest was 5 per cent. Before he provided for any other outgoing, the farmer's annual contribution was 14/- per acre or £7 in respect of a 10-acre field. That is a typical example of how the high rate of interest cripples agricultural development. The Minister ought to do something about it. He has been asked by the Fine Gael Party; by the Clann na Poblachta Party, I think; by the Clann na Talmhan Party, and most emphatically by the Labour Party, to do something about this problem. So far, he has resisted all the demands. I do not know what particular financial interest he is serving by that refusal. Certainly he is not serving the interests of agriculture or those of increased employment and production on the land. I do not think I need emphasise this matter any further beyond saying again that it is one of urgent importance. What we can achieve with increased capital in the agricultural industry is almost unlimited. Certainly, we can easily reach the figure of a 50 per cent. increase, which was mentioned by the Minister, but it will require sustained effort and the application of this additional capital properly invested in the agricultural industry and accompanied by the most modern technical advice and assistance which can be given to those engaged in agriculture.

These are the two main points on which I think the Minister has fallen down completely. He has failed to provide a secure market at fair prices for the farming community; he has failed to provide the capital to develop the industry. In the face of that failure he expects miracles to be worked by the farming community. The farming community is composed of honest, industrious, hard-working people but they cannot work miracles. If the Minister does his part he will find that the farmers and the farm workers will do theirs.

I come now to the land rehabilitation project. I have had under observation work that is being carried out under this particular scheme. I should like to give the Minister one word of advice—to concentrate as far as possible on securing the services of the best contractors that are available for the carrying out of this work. I have seen work which was carried out directly by the Minister's Department and work which was carried out by a contractor. While the work in both cases appears to me to have been efficient—I do not think I dare suggest anything to the contrary, because I am not sufficiently informed to be able to judge otherwise—the amount of time for the carrying out of the work by the Department exceeds enormously the amount of time required by the contractor. I have seen work carried out in County Wicklow: two small fields in which, I suppose, there is nearly £15,000 worth of machinery concentrated over the past four months. If that machinery were not there at all, the men who are there to assist with the machinery should be able to do the work with spades and shovels. On the other hand, I have seen a contractor going on a farm and almost completing as much work in a few days. I could not but notice the difference between the speed with which the work was carried out under the different systems. In a matter of this kind the small contractor with his unit of machinery, and supervising the work himself, can do the work much more efficiently than a Government Department. I think I should mention that the Minister observed, in introducing his Estimate, that he was favouring the contractors in regard to supplies. It may be that where the work was carried out directly by his Department there was a hold-up for supplies from time to time. Apart from that, however, I think the energy and anxiety to get to work shown by the contractor far exceeds that of the Department.

I was deeply interested in the Minister's statement, in introducing this Estimate, that he proposes to establish cheese factories in areas which are finding it difficult to dispose of the farmers' butter which is available. He mentioned County Wexford in connection with this particular matter. Apart from County Wexford, there are other districts scattered all over Leinster— Carlow, Laoighis, portions of Wicklow and other areas in the province—where people have to depend to a certain extent for their income during the summer months on the sale of surplus farmers' butter. That butter is now retailing at 1/9 a lb. which is equivalent to 7d. a gallon and that certainly is an inadequate income. I think the suggestion of cheese factories will be welcomed. Would the Minister give us a little more information? We should like to know who is going to erect these factories.

Mr. Dillon

The Dairy Disposal Board.

Mr. Cogan

Will the suppliers be requested to embark upon any financial commitments?

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Cogan

Even to the purchase of cans to supply the milk?

Mr. Dillon

Oh well, I suppose they would want to get a can to carry the milk in.

Mr. Cogan

I should like to get the details of this particular scheme. In addition to that, the Minister mentioned that the price would be 1/- per gallon.

Mr. Dillon

Plus any surplus that materialises.

Mr. Cogan

Is there any guarantee, in regard to that price, as to the length of time it is likely to last—one year, two years?

Mr. Dillon

As long as I can get it.

Mr. Cogan

That might not be for very long.

Mr. Dillon

True for you.

Mr. Cogan

We have had experience of other projects in which ministerial guarantees of this kind were of very short duration.

Mr. Dillon

So that, in respect of whatever answer I give you, that is the same reply you would make. If I guarantee it you say that the guarantee is no good and if I do not guarantee it you will say that it is no good.

Mr. Cogan

I should prefer to get the guarantee.

Mr. Dillon

Would you? Even after you say that it is no good?

Mr. Cogan

There is one other aspect of that question—the disposal of the cream—which I should like to discuss. Will it be retained by the factory or returned or in what way will it be utilised? Those are matters in regard to which the farmers would be deeply concerned. They were discussed by the committee of agriculture of which I am a member and it was decided to seek information on the subject and also to seek information from the farmers concerned as to the supply which might be available.

I think the Minister has not been as successful as one would have expected in his negotiations to secure better prices for our produce. As we see it, it is only in regard to cattle that we are obtaining anything like what could be regarded as a satisfactory price.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy from Wicklow says "cattle".

Mr. Cogan

And sheep.

Mr. Dillon

You put in the sheep now?

Mr. Cogan

Yes.

Mr. Corry

He left out the pigs' heads.

Mr. Cogan

As regards butter and eggs——

Mr. Dillon

What is wrong with the price of eggs?

Mr. Cogan

It is an unsatisfactory price. The Minister suggests there is nothing wrong with the price, but if he does not realise that it represents a reduction of 33? per cent. on the price available within recent years, then he must be very dense indeed. Surely the Minister does not contend that the cost of production has gone down to any extent?

Mr. Dillon

What is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Cogan

Eggs—the price is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Dillon

What were they when I came into office?

Mr. Cogan

Three shillings.

Mr. Dillon

What are they now?

Mr. Cogan

There is a minimum price of 2/-. When eggs are in plentiful supply the price is 2/-.

Mr. Dillon

What will it be for the other five months?

Mr. Cogan

The price the ordinary farmer received in the last three or four months of last year was between 4/- and 5/-.

Mr. Dillon

What is the guaranteed price for 1951?

Mr. Cogan

I am not going to be cross-examined by the Minister; I am going to give him the information he asks for in my own way. The price last year was 4/6 and it will be 3/6 this year.

Mr. Dillon

That is more than 3/-.

Mr. Cogan

But 3/6 is less than 4/6. There is a reason why the farmers received 4/6 and 5/- in the latter part of last year.

Mr. Dillon

What is to stop him getting 5/- again?

Mr. Cogan

There was then a shortage of supply. There is a lot to stop him if the supplies are increased, as the Minister hopes they will be. There is very little likelihood——

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy mentioned 3/6. Did it not take a lot to get that out of you?

Mr. Cogan

In addition to the minimum price there will be a maximum price next year.

Mr. Dillon

It took the Deputy a long time to say 3/6.

Mr. Aiken

And it took the Minister a long time to say 2/6.

Mr. Cogan

I stated it was 4/6 last year, which is 1/- more than 3/6.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is worried about the consumers in Bray.

Mr. Cogan

"One more sow, one more cow and one more acre under the plough." This nursery rhyme was introduced about 21 years ago. Almost immediately after it was introduced the produce of the cow, milk, dropped to 2½d a gallon; the progeny of the sow became unsaleable and the produce of the land also became unsaleable. Now, after 21 years, the Minister has revived this nursery rhyme. Does he realise that it was the frequent reiteration of this rhyme that drove the farmers of Ireland en masse into the open arms of Fianna Fáil?

I do not know why the Minister should be so stupid as to think that that type of slogan has any appeal for the farmers. They realise how dishonest and how futile it is. One more acre under the plough is a good slogan if you are prepared to ensure that the farmers who put one acre under the plough will get a fair price for their produce. If you are prepared to permit the unlimited importation of cheap feeding stuffs and swamp the produce of the plough, then you are simply trying to deceive the farmer, to delude him, and you are not being honest or fair with him.

I think the Minister should change that slogan. He should realise that you cannot reconcile the free importation of feeding stuffs with the promotion of increased tillage. I am sure the Minister realises that.

Mr. Dillon

Why can you not?

Mr. Cogan

For the simple reason that if you permit unlimited imports of feeding stuffs at a lower price than the farmer can produce them, he will be driven out of producing them, and will be made dependent upon the imported article. Surely, the Minister realises that if a farmer requires 20 tons of cereals for his poultry or pigs or cows, and if he can purchase it in a local shop for less than he can produce it on his farm, then he will so purchase it and nothing will stop him. The farmer is a business man as well as everybody else.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear! It would not occur to him to increase his production of live stock?

Mr. Cogan

He could increase the production of his live stock by grazing more land and growing more cereals. I see the Minister nodding his head so that is his view of what our agricultural policy should be. The Minister's view of agricultural policy apparently is that we should graze our own land and import feeding stuffs and re-export the finished product to Great Britain or elsewhere.

Mr. Dillon

Would you restrict the farmer here to what was grown here?

Mr. Cogan

That is the policy which the Minister now suggests. In reply to the Minister's question, I would say, "No." I would base our agricultural policy mainly on home produced feeding supplies. I would not permit, in any circumstances, imported feeding stuffs to oust the home produced product. I would not permit imported grain to grind the farmer out of tillage and out of producing cereals on his own land.

Mr. Dillon

But you would let in a little.

Mr. Cogan

Under control.

Mr. Dillon

At what level would you control it?

Mr. Cogan

Surely, the Minister will concede this point, that the farmer who ploughs his land and sows a crop of barley is entitled to a fair price for it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy said all that last night.

Mr. Cogan

No, because the Minister was not here last night.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that the reason why the Deputy is repeating it now, because the Deputy did say the greater part of that last night?

Mr. Cogan

I am answering the Mini ster's question, and I am saying that the level should be sufficient to allow the farmer to get a decent price for his barley or oats or whatever other crop he sows. I was taunted by people some time ago, particularly those in the poultry industry, for fighting for a decent price for oats. But now the poultry keepers are demanding that a price of 28/- should be fixed for oats. There is nothing to be gained by a policy of depressing tillage production. That policy resulted in leaving the poultry keepers without any supplies of feeding stuffs. They have now come around to my view that it is desirable to give the farmer a reasonable guarantee so as to enable him to maintain maximum cereal production.

Perhaps there is nothing that will afford the Minister better advice than his own humiliating experience over the past year when he had to go around to the garbage dumps in five continents looking for supplies. Sugar had to be got from Formosa, barley and oats from Iraq and potatoes from Amsterdam, onions from Egypt and wheat from some part of the Pacific coast. Surely the tragic experience the Minister had should convince him of how desirable it is to maintain a reasonable system of crop rotation in the country which will provide the basis of our needs for agricultural production, with food for the human population in the form of sugar and flour, and feeding stuffs for our live stock. Let us have maximum production of cereals on our own land. We can allow in a quantity of feeding stuffs to supplement it, but these imports must not be allowed to disrupt our crop programme and drive our farmers out of production. The Minister ought to learn something from his experience over the past two years.

I now come to the question of the parish plan. The Minister did not give very much information about it when introducing the Estimate. While the Minister may claim that his salary is inadequate, his protestations in that respect have been taken up by the newly appointed parish agents who think that they are entitled to something more than they are getting. I think that the Minister was absolutely wrong, whatever may be the merits of this dispute, to state publicly that those people were wrecking the parish plan. I think it was very injudicious of him to say that. In a matter of this kind, it would be better to try and be reasonable, to meet people in a reasonable way. There is nothing to be gained by insulting people.

As regards the plan itself, I have a severe criticism to make of the Minister as to the manner in which it was introduced. The Minister announced he was introducing it in four counties because it had received unqualified support from the county committees of agriculture in those counties. I think that, in distributing benefits of this kind, if they are benefits, it will be agreed that there should be no favouritism and that the political views of the various county committees of agriculture should not be taken into consideration. The views expressed by those committees in regard to Government policy should not be allowed to cloud the Minister's mind or prejudice him against other counties. The county committee of which I am a member agreed to accept the plan. We made certain constructive suggestions. We did not, for instance, like the word parish agent. We thought that these men should be known as instructors. The word "agent" in a country town connotes someone who is trying to sell something that is not of sufficient merit to be sold in the ordinary business establishments. Years ago we had the "tea men" going through the country. Now we have insurance agents and other types of agents trying to sell different classes of goods. I think that the word "agent" would be less acceptable to the farming community than the word "instructor." This was one of the matters on which the committee expressed its disagreement with the Minister.

We made certain submissions to the Minister in the hope that they would be accepted. The answer was a refusal to put the scheme into operation in our county. That was a childish attitude for the Minister to take up and was altogether wrong in principle. I think the Minister ought to reconsider the matter. If it is not possible to appoint all these agents at the one time, then I think the Minister should allocate a certain number to each county and in that way distribute the benefits of the scheme far and wide over the tax-paying community instead of showing favouritism to particular counties. If that principle of favouritism were to gain acceptance, we might in time have it applied to county councils in regard to the distribution of grants. If such a thing as that should occur, it would be very detrimental to the Government of this country.

There is only one other small matter to which I wish to refer. In the reorganisation of our county agricultural services what will be the position of the present county agricultural instructors? We know that the present system has not been an improvement on the old system. These qualified and trained instructors are appointed for the purpose of visiting the farmers, giving them advice and carrying out experiments. But to a great extent a large percentage of the time of these instructors is occupied in carrying out office work or supervising such work. Where they have to do such work they cannot carry out the primary duties for which they were appointed. Either one aspect or other of their work has to be neglected. I think it would be better to revert to the old system of having secretaries to the county committees purely for the purpose of carrying out the ordinary office work and leave those who are qualified to do the practical work in a position to do it. I might point out, too, that the clerical officers working for these committees are under-remunerated. That may be a small matter but it is an important one since it is directly concerned with the efficient carrying out of the work of the Minister's own Department. It is through these county units that the Department proves effective in discharging its functions.

I regret I cannot approve of the way in which the Minister has discharged the duties of his office during the past two years. I know that the House took a chance in appointing him, but there was some justification for taking that chance since it was assumed that the Minister, who had spent so much of his time talking folly in regard to agricultural policy, would, on his appointment as Minister, turn his back upon all the irresponsible pronouncements in which he had indulged prior to shouldering the responsibility of office. In the past he denounced certain crops and certain methods of husbandry which time has proved now to be desirable. If the Minister is now prepared to meet the House in a reasonable way, I think the House will be prepared to allow his Estimate to go through. If, however, he proves as unreasonable in reply this year as he was last year and the year before, I do not think the House will be prepared to give him yet another chance.

Deputy Corry and Deputy McQuillan rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry.

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of order. I am not questioning your ruling, but both Deputy Smith and Deputy Cogan have a motion referring back this Estimate. I presume that Deputy Corry is in the same boat as Deputy Smith in this matter. I understood that speakers would be called alternately from each side of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is at liberty to take speakers from alternate sides, but the Chair has no knowledge of what any Deputy will say until the Deputy rises and makes his speech.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Cogan is suspended like Mahomet's coffin.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We have already had 11 hours of criticism of this Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What alternative has the Chair except to call on Deputies to speak?

Mr. Cogan

Does the Deputy wish to silence the farmer Deputies?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no knowledge that Deputy O'Higgins is not going to oppose this motion. The Chair cannot proceed on assumption. I call on Deputy Corry.

Mr. Corry

I am sorry that some Deputy on the Government Benches did not feel constrained to rise and say a few words on this important matter. If any Deputy had done so, I would have given way very willingly. In fact, I nodded over a couple of times at Deputy McQuillan in an endeavour to discover if he was going to speak.

Mr. McQuillan

As a matter of fact I had risen before you did.

Mr. Corry

I will give way to Deputy McQuillan now, if he wishes.

Mr. McQuillan

I shall get in tomorrow when you will have finished.

Mr. Corry

You may get in next week. I wish this important subject of agriculture, which is our principal industry and which will remain our principal industry, could be carried on to some higher plane than just purely political discussion.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Corry

It is much too important to be debated from a purely political point of view. It is a sad commentary that, having had our own native Government from 1920 until to-day, this industry and the workers in this industry are still the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for the rest of the community. It is sad that a skilled agricultural worker to-day is paid £2 per week less than an unskilled labourer digging the foundations of a cottage. If I could see any hope of all Parties uniting to bring agriculture out of the rut in which it is and to put the farmers in a position where they could at least pay the same wages that are paid to unskilled labourers elsewhere, I would think then that we might arrive at the stage where our principal industry could go ahead. What hope is there for it? What hope is there for an industry where a farmer can only afford to pay a wage lesser by something over 50 per cent. than what a man may earn anywhere else? That is the position of the industry. What future is there for it? It cannot produce more under such circumstances. Can any Deputy deny that in the past two years 47,000 farm labourers, be they farmers' sons or ordinary labourers, have left this land of ours?

Mr. Davin

Where did they go?

Mr. Corry

Anywhere, to get out of the slavery they were in.

Mr. Davin

They went to industry.

Mr. Corry

They left the slavery of being unpaid labourers, kept as unpaid labourers by a vicious manoeuvre of the present Minister for Agriculture. If Deputy Davin will conduct himself, we shall get on more rapidly.

Mr. Davin

I am trying to educate you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Corry

Any Deputy who interrupts me will pay for it. I do not wish to be interrupted. I want to make my speech. I regret Deputy Davin was not appointed as chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Davin

I am far more comfortable here listening to you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Corry

You are not. If the Deputy was comfortable here he would not be looking for a Minister for Agriculture who was 15 years waiting for the job. My first task here to-day is a pleasant one. I want to thank the Minister for Agriculture for having brought the water scheme into the farm dwellings. It is a good scheme and one of which any Minister should be very proud. I want to thank him also for having extended that scheme to labourers who have purchased their cottages. I think it was a most generous gesture on his part and I want to take this opportunity of thanking him for it. I may state quite frankly that I consider that the major portion of our agricultural industry to-day, except for a very small acreage, is used in the growing of beet, and I think it is a pity that the past record of the present Minister for Agriculture, in this House and outside of it, is one that cannot have the confidence of beet growers in this country. I refer to an issue of The Beet Grower of June, 1950, in which the following appears:—

"Why should we pay the natives of Cuba £5,000,000 which should ordinarily be spent at home? How many acres of grass would be needed to provide as much wealth as an acre of beet? Why should farmers be urged to prefer crops without a guaranteed market and without a guaranteed price to those which give security? Why begrudge the farmer, who has worked hard with his hands and brain to produce beet, his reward and damage the industry which guarantees his price and market?"

I quote that for the benefit of the present Minister for Agriculture. I do not intend going back to the wilder days of the Minister in this House in which he said the best thing to do would be to blow up the beet factories. I do not intend going back as far as that at the moment, but I am going to quote what he said in the Parliamentary Debates, Volume 101, columns 1512 and 1513, June 6th, 1946. The present Minister for Agriculture was then an ordinary Deputy in this House. On the debate on agriculture he then said:—

"Do Deputies realise what the beet sugar is costing this country? The present price of beet sugar consumed by the consumer in Ireland without any customs and excise duty of any kind is 5d. per lb. and that price is based on the present rate paid for beet. Does any Deputy anticipate that the price for beet is going to be materially reduced in future or does he not agree with me that if the cultivation of the beet crop is to be maintained in this country the price must be raised, if not at least maintained at the present figure? Do I exaggerate when I say, that prior to the war, the price of cane sugar refined delivered on the quay free Dublin was about 1½d. per lb. and that post-war we may anticipate when things have settled down it will fluctuate around 2d. per lb?"

That was in 1946 and the Minister expected that in this year of 1950 we would be getting sugar at 2d. per lb. The Minister went on to say:—

"The cost of the beet scheme in this country is 3d. per lb. of sugar; call it £30 per ton; £30 per ton on 100,000 tons is £3,000,000 of money per annum. Give me that money and to-morrow morning we can increase the family allowance going into every house from 2/6 to 7/- per child. Is there any Deputy who would argue with me that our community is getting better value in the maintenance of that daft scheme at a cost of £3,000,000 per annum than it would get if we were in a position to raise the family allowance in every poor house from 2/6 to 7/-? Every farmer in this country who had four children in his house would receive for the benefit of these children 14/- per week in lieu of the 5/- he is now getting; 14/- per week every week in every year until the children had passed the age of 16 with the money we propose to squander on maintaining the sugar beet crop."

That is the present Minister for Agriculture but he was interrupted by the late Deputy Hughes, God rest his soul, for whom the Minister proposes to be speaking to-day and whose position he is now in. Deputy Hughes said:—

"But the poor old British are maintaining about 40 beet factories of their own.

Mr. Dillon: There are lunatics in Great Britain and the United States of America."

I am not going to go further with this because if I did so it would take me at least an hour to read all the Minister said about beet on that occasion. However, in 1947, the last year in which the Minister was a private Deputy in this House, the Minister had something more to say about beet. Speaking on the debate on agriculture on June 18th, 1947, the Minister said in Parliamentary Debates, Volume 106, column 2041:—

"Some day, and in the not far distant time, our people will have to ask themselves whether it is in the best interests of the community as a whole to continue in the production of sugar for beet in this country at an annual cost to the community of £3,000,000 sterling. That is what it costs in normal times to keep the beet industry going in this country. If, instead of growing beet and converting it into sugar, we import refined sugar into this country there will be £3,000,000 sterling more for the national Exchequer and that £3,000,000 sterling can be used to increase children's allowances in every home in Ireland from 2/6 per child to 5/- per child and the land vacated by that crop can be used for the production of profitable agricultural produce which will help to finance essential imports and to enrich the farmers who live upon the land."

That was the viewpoint of the Deputy whom the Coalition or inter-Party Government have selected to put in charge of that agricultural industry in this country. That was his outlook on the four sugar factories and on the beet industry in this country. Is it any wonder that despite all the efforts—and they were intense efforts, hard working efforts—of both the beet growers' association and the sugar company combined, in the first year this Minister took over, the acreage of beet fell by over 6,000 acres?

Mr. Davin

In Tuam area.

Mr. Corry

All round, in every area. I shall deal with Tuam in a moment. I have a special brief here on Tuam if you would like to hear it. We did our best. I can say here, speaking as one who was chairman of the beet growers' association at that time, that nothing that we could do was left undone. We set a precedent in this country, a precedent of which I am specially proud, namely, we succeeded in collecting there around the table representatives of the sugar company on the one hand, and representatives of the beet growers on the other, with a neutral chairman, Professor Murphy of University College, Cork, and we went into the question of the cost of production of beet. We handed over to Professor Murphy the costings of some 300 farms in every portion of the Twenty-Six Counties. There was 12 months' hard work involved and the committee brought in a report in 1948. A recommendation was made to this Government that the prices for the following year's crop should be increased by something like 4/6 a ton. That was turned down; it would not be listened to. Then came the drop of some 6,000 odd acres in beet. As I stated, everything that could be done was done.

The present general manager of the sugar company went abroad looking for the manures that could not be got in this country or imported into this country for a number of years. He went to Spain. He found there he could not buy manures for money. He could not buy potash, but he was able to buy it for something else. He bought it for potatoes. He brought out the potatoes in bags and brought back manures in them, and that resulted in the farmers of this country getting heavier yields and better crops.

During the past month, we had another meeting of that costings committee. I have here Professor Murphy's report, dated 30/5/50, and it shows that the increased cost of production per ton of beet since the end of the costings period in 1948 was over 4/6 per ton. It also shows that if our Social Security Bill becomes law you can add 2/5 per ton more to that.

You may wonder, Sir, why I am taking up so much time on this issue. I shall first take the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture, that—

"post-war we may anticipate that, when things settle down, the price of sugar will fluctuate about 2d per lb."

In a report published in the Cork Examiner on the 3rd February, 1950, the following statement appears:—

"A sugar shortage in this country, unless Irish farmers grow more sugar beet, was forecast by Major General M.J. Costello, general manager of the Irish Sugar Company, at a Press conference in Dublin yesterday. The company, he said, was able to sell sugar well below the world price. The average selling value of Irish sugar was about £50 a ton; the cheapest world delivered price was £62."

That is £12 a ton more than the price of the home-produced article. He told us that he would want 36,000 tons of sugar.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Who made that statement?

Mr. Corry

I have given it already. It was a statement made by Major General M.J. Costello, general manager of the Irish Sugar Company. The Minister for Agriculture started off to find sugar abroad. He found sugar and he brought it in. I want Deputies to see for themselves the difference between the sugar that is produced by the Irish farmer and Irish labour and what you pay £12 a ton more for. I have the two samples here.

Mr. Davin

Taste it in a cup of tea.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Davin can have a look at it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair deprecates this exhibition very strongly. This House is for debate, not for the elaborate type of public exhibition in which the Deputy is indulging at the moment. The Chair very strongly deprecates this action on the part of the Deputy.

Mr. Corry

I am sorry, Sir, but my duty is to show the House the two types of sugar. There is the Irish sugar——

A Deputy

The bogman making his tea.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair repeats that the Deputy is not indulging in debate, in introducing articles of that kind, and is not adding dignity to this assembly. It deprecates his action very strongly.

Captain Giles

Become a chemist.

Mr. Corry

This dark sugar costs £12 per ton more and it was paid out in Formosa to the foreigner for what the Irish people should be producing here at home. I think that the fact that that condition of affairs exists in this country justifies any action of mine in calling attention to it. Twelve pounds a ton more for this dark sugar! It is more than the Irish farmer and the Irish labourer get for the production of the white sugar in this container. There are the samples and that is the position which, as far as I can see, was deliberately brought about here. Blow up the beet factories! In that respect I will quote again from a statement made in this House by the present Minister for Agriculture— Deputy Dillon, as he was then—on the 6th June, 1946, Volume 101 of the Official Report, column 1514:—

"We are to bestow on those who grow the beet an agricultural wage approximately 50 per cent. of what the labourer is getting for growing cane sugar in Hawaii. Do not argue with me about that. I have seen them growing it; I have watched them at work; I have asked them their pay."

To-day, when the Minister goes over to Formosa he finds that he has to pay £12 a ton more to the Negro for that dark sugar than what he paid the Irish farmer and the Irish labourer for this white sugar.

Mr. Davin

He pays it for transport.

Mr. Corry

For this dark sugar! It Deputy Davin has any doubt about it, Major-General Costello sold one cargo of that dark sugar on the way home and made £18,000 profit on it. That will show you what the world price is and it will show you the value of this fine white sugar which Deputy Davin finds on his table every morning. Is Deputy Davin aware of this? Is he aware that on the price paid for that article this Government could pay £6 per ton for beet and still have sugar as cheap as they got it from Formosa —and that same Government refused an increase of 4/6 a ton, which left them at present having to go to Formosa for 36,000 tons of it? What would be the result of blowing up the beet factories? What would be the result of this daft scheme of producing sugar in this country, according to the present Minister for Agriculture? I will tell you. I am again going to quote from The Beet Grower of January, 1950:—

"Some things you may not know about it. The four sugar factories are prepared to contract for a total of 80,000 acres of beet. At this year's estimated average yield, the produce would be 840,000 tons of beet. At an average sugar content of 17 per cent., this would be worth £4,063,500 at the factory."

That was the old price, before we fixed the new costings. It will be 7/- a ton more now.

"There would also be produced 75,600 tons of dried pulp, equal to 63,000 tons of imported maize costing about £1,575,000.

The total sugar produced would be about 120,000 tons, which would cost in Cuba 15,650,000 dollars and would cost when expenses of importation and distribution were added £7,200,000."

That would be the difference if we blew up the beet factories. We would pay £3,000,000 more for our sugar this year.

Mr. Aiken

And borrow the dollars, if we could get them.

Mr. Corry

—

"The production and processing of such a beet crop would give 600,000 weeks' work on the land, and the transport of 1,300,000 tons of beet, coal, coke, limestone, sugar, beet pulp, sacks and other material would be required. The total tonnage of goods carried by Córas Iompair Éireann in 1948 was 2,204,000 tons. £500,000 would be paid in factory wages and salaries, 100,000 tons of Irish coal and 25,000 tons of limestone."

Therefore, if Deputy Davin were chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann and the Minister for Agriculture succeeded in blowing up the beet factories Deputy Davin would be short 1,300,000 tons of freightage. It would leave him with only 1,004,000 tons of freightage altogether to carry.

Mr. Davin

The Deputy is a bit of a genius to be able to work all that out.

Mr. Corry

A great man. These are facts—and facts that were put before the chairman and general manager of Córas Iompair Éireann in the last fortnight when we were extracting a few more things from them.

Apart from the work on the land, 2,500,000 Irish bags would be bought by the factory and 800 tons of beet seed would be required from Irish farmers, and they pay £300,000 in taxation, on top of that.

Mr. Davin

How much in dividends?

Mr. Corry

That is the value of the industry that was to be blown up.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister for Finance will give Deputy Davin that information.

Mr. Corry

The general manager, last year, in the face of that condition of affairs, appealed to the beet growers' association for assistance so as to endeavour by one means or another to get increased acreage.

The Minister for Agriculture said, "I will take charge of Tuam," and he published a few articles appealing to the farmers to carry on what he described as lunacy in 1947. I would like publicly to thank the members of the beet growers' association who went through the highways and the byways and succeeded, despite everything, in stopping the reduction in the acreage and in getting an increased acreage everywhere only where the Minister went—Tuam. There was a reduction there. Everybody went out on the war-path to endeavour to get the acreage increased, facing that condition of affairs and facing the fact that £1,250,000 of our money, in dollars, would be sent out.

"Failure to grow beet is bad national economy, says the Archbishop of Tuam, the Most Rev. Dr. Walsh, when he presided at a meeting in the Christian Brothers' Schools, Tuam, on Sunday evening last, called to consider the problem of the decrease in the sugar beet acreage in the West and the danger of the province losing its major industry." I am quoting from the Tuam Herald of Saturday, April 8th, 1950. I am not going to inflict all this on the House, but there are a few titbits in it. Wait till I come to them.

The Minister for Agriculture—and this will show the House the manner in which the Government is conducting its business and the unity that exists amongst the little family—on the one hand, went out, appealing to the farmers to grow beet, and Mr. M. Donnellan, T.D., Parliamentary Secretary——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have already said that the Minister for Agriculture is responsible for the administration of his Department and for what he himself says and does in that respect; he is not responsible for what other members of the Government or other Deputies may say.

Mr. Donnellan

On a point of order. I appeal to the Chair to allow the Deputy to go on with this. This is not the first time the Deputy has made that false statement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am ruling in accordance with precedent that the Minister is responsible for his own statements and administration. What another Deputy says is not relevant and cannot be pinned upon the Minister.

Mr. Corry

I do not wish to pin it upon the Minister; I have no intention of pinning it upon him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

At any rate, it is not relevant to this discussion.

Mr. Aiken

Is it in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to describe as a false statement a statement which Deputy Corry was not allowed to make?

Mr. Donnellan

He has made that statement already and I would love to get an opportunity to deal with it. He said I am not a beet grower. I am a beet grower.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry cannot discuss that relevantly on this Estimate.

Mr. Corry

The unfortunate position in regard to this is that, apparently, in Tuam beet has become a political crop. That is the reason why you have, in connection with other factories, an increased acreage and in Tuam a reduced acreage. I was anxious to deal with that.

Mr. Donnellan

And so was I.

Mr. Corry

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to read the statement in the Tuam Herald of Saturday, 8th April, 1950?

Mr. Donnellan

I read it.

Mr. Corry

Can the Parliamentary Secretary contradict it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It cannot be discussed now. I have already ruled on that matter.

Mr. Corry

The Parliamentary Secretary——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not concerned with what the Parliamentary Secretary says.

Mr. Donnellan

I am sorry for the Chair's decision.

Mr. Corry

My anxiety is not to wrong anybody; I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary on that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The anxiety of the Chair is to direct the debate along proper and relevant lines.

Mr. Corry

The position we find ourselves in is this, that we are sending out to Formosa for sugar at £12 per ton more than we are paying for it here. I do not wish to labour this case unduly, but I would make an appeal to Deputies of all Parties. Mark you, Deputies of all Parties have cooperated in the beet growers' association and worked hard in it. I can say one thing with a certain amount of pride. I saw no Deputy who worked harder and did more for the beet growers' association than the late Deputy Hughes. I would like to pay that tribute to him. No Deputy worked harder or did more practical work. He has gone from us, but I think that tribute is due to him.

I want the existing condition of affairs to end. There is no use in talking about exporting butter to people who do not want it, to people who are not prepared to pay for it, to people who never were prepared to pay for anything they ever got. The Minister speaks here of clearing the land and getting rid of the wasteful production of beet. What would he produce instead of it? I hope to come back to this item again.

The next thing I would like to discuss is barley. When the late Government came into office in 1932, the price of barley at the malt-houses and the breweries was 13/- a barrel, or 6/6 per cwt. I well remember bringing Deputy de Valera over to the malt-house at Ballinacurra to see over 200 farmers, with their carts loaded with barley, being turned away from the door and told "go and feed it to the pigs; we do not want it". That was the condition of affairs as regards malting barley in 1932-33 when the late Government took over.

The beet growers' association when they started their operations took over, amongst other things, negotiations in regard to barley, and year by year they succeeded in driving up the price step by step until in 1938-39 we had this position, that the price of barley was tied to the price of wheat, and you got the same amount of money for a ton of barley as you got for a ton of wheat. I know that the Government of the day did not like that, but it was our job and we succeeded in doing that. Then we had the condition of affairs that prevailed during the war years when bread had to be found for the people of this country. We went to work and we found it. The land that previously grew barley had to go over to the growing of wheat, and the price of barley had to be artificially lowered. Why? Because 40 per cent. of the wheat in this country from 1938 to 1947 was grown by farmers outside the quota and, but for that, the people here would have starved during those years. That was the position.

We, in our small way, bridged that difficulty. I even made suggestions to the then Minister for Agriculture that, for every acre of wheat which the farmer grew outside of the quota, he should be allowed to grow three acres of barley at the uncontrolled price. The Minister would not consent to that. I can quite understand the position taken up by a Minister for Agriculture who was responsible for finding bread for the people of this country in endeavouring to safeguard the bread life-line. I can quite realise, too, the attitude of Deputies who were endeavouring during that period to put us in the position in which we would have to go for that bread to others, and pay for it with the life blood of our people. I can quite understand that position.

The year 1947 came and the war was then over. One guarantee that we had got from Deputy Smith, who was then Minister for Agriculture, was that, as soon as the war position rendered the control of barley unnecessary, control would come off. When Deputy James Dillon became Minister for Agriculture we had a crop growing. He came into this House and he attacked the members of this Party, saying that they had taken £2,000,000 out of the farmers' pockets and put it into the pockets of Messrs. Arthur Guinness and Son. At that time the controlled price of barley was 45/- per barrel. As I have said, the war was over, and so there was nothing to prevent a Minister who held that conviction saying: "Well, you were robbed long enough; I will give you a chance of getting some of it back now"—by taking the control off and allowing the harvest of 1948 to find its own level.

Did the Minister do that? When I heard the Minister make that statement I put down a question asking if he was going to remove control from the barley. I waited a fortnight for the answer. The Minister waited too; he waited until the day before the beet growers' association were to meet Messrs. Guinness, and on that Wednesday morning he made a statement here fixing the price at 50/- per barrel. He did not remove the control, but fixed that price as a headline. We, as the representatives of the farmers of this country, had to meet Messrs. Guinness the following morning with that rope around our necks—50/- per barrel for barley fixed by the Minister on the Wednesday. The beet growers' association met Messrs. Guinness on Thursday to fix a price. We were told that we could not touch that crop, that the Minister still maintained control and a fixed price—this Minister who had said that the Fianna Fáil Party had robbed the farmers of £2,000,000. We met Messrs. Guinness on the following day and hammered out an agreement with them, an agreement for a sum of 57/6 a barrel for the barley for which the Minister had fixed a sum of 50/- the day before. The Minister for Agriculture is supposed to look after the interests of the agricultural community. He is paid £2,500 to do that. What is the result? I met the Minister the following morning, after a debate on the adjournment the evening before, and the Minister said that if he removed the control everybody would grow barley the following year, there would be a glut, and barley would be unsaleable. We succeeded in doing two other things besides fixing the price. We fixed the price under contract and we fixed the price on a sliding scale, a sliding scale that I recommend to any Minister for Agriculture. That sliding scale was that the price shall not be less than 2/6 a barrel more than the price fixed for English malting barley by Messrs. Guinness. Take the 2/- for eggs in England and the 4/10 across the Border and compare them with that. I went to the Minister the following morning. I appealed to him. I told him: "Sir, the danger that you say——"

Mr. Briscoe

On a point of order. Is it in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to be engaging his attention on the magazine Time instead of listening to the debate?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think that it is a point of order, but Deputies are not supposed to read journals or papers in the House unless they are relevant to the matter under discussion.

Mr. Donnellan

This is on agriculture.

Mr. Killilea

Take it out from under the bench.

Mr. Donnellan

It is more on that line than the Deputy's speech.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Corry

As I stated, I appealed to the Minister the following morning. I pointed out to him that under the contract system the farmers would know exactly where they were. I asked him to remove the control on that year's barley and to give the farmers an opportunity of getting 7/6 a barrel more. "Oh," he said, "I have done quite well for the farmers; they have got 50/- where they were only getting 45/-; I have done quite well for them and I will do no more." But he did something else. If he had stopped at that we would have been satisfied. He also stated that he was opposed to the contract system. Of course, that news got out. When I went down to Cork and went to the brewers and distillers there to get them to agree to the same terms as Messrs. Guinness had agreed to I was told: "We will pay the price all right, but there will be no contract". Then the Minister immediately started to do something else. According to a reply that I received here, in the months following up to last June there were brought into this country by that Minister for Agriculture 360,000 barrels of foreign malting barley, piled into the stores of the brewers, lying by waiting there for the farmers to bring in their crop; and, when the farmers brought in their crop, Messrs. Beamish stayed open for 11 days and then closed down because they had not room for any more; the Cork Distillers Company opened for 11 or 12 days; then they had a brain-wave and they closed down for three days, saying they had not room for any more. They reopened at 50/- and it took an action in the Circuit Court and in the High Court to extract from them the £3,000 of which they tried to rob the farmers. That was the condition of affairs.

This year we met Messrs. Guinness to fix the price again. We fixed a price of 53/6 a barrel. I felt rather proud of our work to-day when I got the Farmers' Gazette of Saturday, June 17th, 1950. Here is what I found in it:—

"Following an agreement between the Scottish National Farmers' Union and the Scottish brewers, distillers and maltsters, the Scottish farmers should have a ready market for their best barley at top prices. The distillers declare that their intention is to encourage the production of first-class barley. Their intention is to buy as much as possible of the 1950 crop at attractive prices to growers and they will pay 96/- per quarter of 4 cwts."

Is there any reason why we of the beet growers' association should now feel proud—53/6 a barrel for Irish barley and 48/- to the Englishman and Scotchman? Let the Minister for Agriculture go over and do that with the bacon and the eggs and we will regard him as the best Minister for Agriculture that has ever lived.

We turned the wheel the way it should be turned. But I am not finished with the position as regards barley. We had a further condition of affairs with regard to it. I gave a description here of the farmers who did succeed in getting the 57/6. In that respect I would like to pay tribute to Messrs. Guinness; every barrel of barley they contracted for, they took. There were others that did not do that. As a result of final negotiations I found myself in the position of having Major Hallinan of the Cork Milling Company telling me that if he could pay 40/- a barrel here he would try and export barley. That was last November. What happened the barley in the country since? The Minister for Agriculture this year advised the farmers to grow Ymer barley. He waited until the barley was set as he waited until the agreement was made in connection with the malting barley. Then, lo and behold, we had a letter from the merchants telling us that they had already got a few cargoes of Iraqian barley. Again, the stores were to be filled in readiness for the poor old farmer when he harvests his crop and brings it in. He will be told then, as he was told before: "Come in here and I will show you the condition of my store; look at it; it is three-quarters full; you will have to deliver this week at whatever price I tell you and, if you do not deliver this week, I will not take your barley." And the farmers, with a vivid remembrance of the ricks of oats and the bags of oats for which there was no market in 1948 and which were eaten by the rats, would rush in and sell them for what they are able to get. Some time ago I showed the House this barley. I wonder whether the Deputies would like to see the comparison between Irish barley and the muck for which £320,000 was paid. I have no objection to showing it to them.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not pour it out here. There is no juggling allowed.

Mr. Corry

I have it here for anyone to see it and I invite farmer Deputies to come and look at it. It is a mixture of bad black oats, bad white oats and a few grains of rotten barley. If that sample was offered to any merchant in this country by an Irish farmer he would throw him out and the sample after him. The Minister for Agriculture went to Mesopotamia and paid £320,000 of the Irish people's money for that stuff and when he was challenged in this House on that matter on May 10th, 1950, by Deputy Lahiffe and myself he told us that Grain Importers (Eire) Limited had bought from Iraq a total of 16,000 tons at an average price of £18 per ton c.i.f. This was to be sold at £23 per ton carriage paid to the nearest railhead. Twenty-three pounds a ton for this stuff and Irish barley at 40/- a barrel or £20 a ton. The Minister stated that this mixture was not going to be used in that condition at all. It was going to be put into the hammer mill and he gave a description of how it would be treated and said in his reply at column 2218, Dáil Debates, May 10th, 1950:—

"When I listened to Deputy Corry I could not but think of my friend the cannibal queen in a South Sea island who determined to ape the manners and customs of sophisticated ladies. She was told, amongst other things, that sophisticated ladies took afternoon tea so she ordered a pound of Lipton's best tea. One day her entourage were surprised to observe that she appeared in some embarrassment. They inquired from the queen why she was so embarrassed and they discovered she was eating tea. The lady was not accustomed to it."

This stuff, we have been told by the Minister, is going to be put through a hammer mill and mixed with Argentine oats. I showed some of this stuff to my colleague, Deputy Hickey, and it frightened the life out of him. He said that it was the stuff that comes out in the blast. That is the stuff that is not strong enough to go into the bags and that the wind blows away. This is the Dillon admixture scheme and he mixes these two things with decent, respectable Irish pollard and refuses to give that pollard to Irish farmers. This is the Minister for Agriculture who delighted so much in the fact that he stood by the side at the birth of the admixture scheme and wept, and who boasted that he polished his silk hat and took part in the funeral after its death as happily as if he were attending a wedding. After all that, this same Minister for Agriculture makes up a mixture scheme of his own; and it was not decent Irish oats or respectable Irish barley that was put into it but a mixture of Argentinian chaff and Mesopotamian muck, and now he informs us, in his opening speech, that he is changing all that and is going to give pollard to the farmers because he has got some dirty wheat from the Pacific. I did my best to get some of that mixture in Dublin but I failed to get it. They told me it had not arrived from the Pacific.

I want to deal now solely with the barley side of the question. That is the condition of affairs in regard to barley, that this muck is being brought in for the sole purpose of depressing the Irish farmers' market. If the exposure that I have made here results in stopping any more of it from coming in, I shall be a happy man for I shall have done what I am here to do, namely, to endeavour to protect the Irish farmer from this kind of blackguardism—and I cannot describe it as anything else but blackguardism—on the part of the Minister who, after all, has a duty, if ever a man had a duty— a duty that he is well paid for—to look after the farmer and to protect the agricultural industry in this country.

Here is a sample of another thing called sorghums. I am not going to bother the House with them as I gave Deputies an opportunity of seeing them before. They are brothers to the stuff called "praiseach bhuidhe".

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might put away some of these samples.

Mr. Davin

He has not produced the Tuam beet yet.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might put them away.

Mr. Corry

Considering that over £1,000,000 has left this country——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am considering the decorum of the House. The Deputy should put these away.

Mr. Corry

The best proof of anything is to let people see it but if there is an objection, I might have to use some of these again in demonstrating other things that have happened. I should like to bring Deputies' minds back to the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture in this House on the new policy of the new Government, when he was starting operations here:—

"The more oats the farmer grows, the greater will be his service to the nation. If any farmer finds himself with a surplus, and communicates with the Department of Agriculture, arrangements will be made to put him in contact at once with a purchaser who will take his surplus at a satisfactory price."

Deputies have heard some of that before. That was a statement made by the Minister when he took over and when he invited farmers to grow oats. They grew oats and I was one of a deputation, together with Deputy P. D. Lehane and other Deputies, who waited on the Minister the harvest following to endeavour to get that Minister to find some trace of this guaranteed market which the Department was going to find for the farmers. What did the Minister tell us? He said he had no market, that he had no intention of finding a market and, when he was pressed in the finish, he cracked his two fingers over his head and said: "I do not give a fiddle-de-dee if they never got a £1 for it." That was the Minister's attitude to the farmers who had grown this crop at his request. About 40 per cent. of that crop either rotted in the haggard or was eaten by the rats. Every yard you went, you saw rats rambling around the country. They were like young dogs, every fellow the length of your shoe, rambling over every highway and byway, fattened off the oats that the Irish farmer was asked to produce. Luckily enough, somebody succeeded in inducing the Minister to go to America and he went. Whilst he was away saner members of the Cabinet put their heads together and succeeded——

A Deputy

In killing the rats.

Mr. Corry

——in finding a market for the oats that were left. They succeeded in getting a market even though it was only at 22/- a barrel. Deputy Davin was very mournful at that time. I have great sympathy for Deputy Davin.

Mr. Davin

Is the Tuam beet there?

Mr. Corry

Deputy Davin made a fierce complaint at that time as to the condition of affairs in his constituency. He told us the unfortunate farmer was selling his "spuds" at £5 a ton.

Mr. Davin

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Corry

Nothing at all, except for the poor fellow who grew them. You got cheap spuds then. You are paying for them now though. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.