As I stated on a previous occasion, the Taoiseach has a lot to answer for because he was responsible for putting into the position he now occupies the present Minister. Occupying as he does the all-important position of Minister for Agriculture, agriculture being our chief industry, and making, as he is, a continuation of the mess, discouraging tillage and discouraging dairying, surely it is not surprising when we say that the Taoiseach has a lot to answer for. Indeed, it would take a lot to pardon the people of Monaghan, to start with, because they know full well that the Minister's policy is to reverse the Sinn Féin policy of 1918; and when he has succeeded in doing that, when he has succeeded in making this country again a ranch to feed John Bull, regardless of whether our own people are fed or not, then the present Minister will have achieved his life's ambition. The Minister's reputation for veracity is not too high. I think I stated on a few occasions that sometimes he handles the truth rather carelessly.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture (Resumed).
Personal abuse is not argument.
On yesterday, the Minister stated that there was no Iraq barley in this country. At the same time he knew perfectly well, or should know, that 8,000 tons, the largest consignment ever, were being discharged at the Port of Cork. This, Sir, is from the Cork Examiner of June 28th, 1950:
"Cargo of Barley—Large Shipment discharged at Cork.
One of the biggest cargoes ever to be shipped to Cork is at present being discharged. The s.s. Albistan berthed at the south jetties yesterday afternoon with 8,000 tons of barley from Basrah, Iraq.”
The Minister should apologise to the House and to the country for the misleading information that he attempted to give the House last night. The Minister has charged me with sabotage. That is a very serious charge. If the Minister thought for a moment that he was justified in doing that, his duty was to see that any person guilty of sabotaging, or attempting to sabotage, the agricultural policy of this nation should be locked up. Personally, I have often regretted that I had not charge of the keys when the Minister made many statements sabotaging, or attempting to sabotage, this nation. If I had, he would be in Mountjoy. He would be there still, and there for many a year to come. I can assure you that on many occasions he tried to sabotage this country. I should like to remind the House and the country of how much regard they should have for the Minister's statements. I have gone through them in the past. He said this country should go into the war on the side of Britain.
That has no relation to this Vote.
It has, Sir.
It has no relation to this Vote.
The production of wheat is connected with this Vote. Again I think, with respect, that it is imperative that I should warn the country against the Minister's continued attempt to put this country into a position where we would have no effective arguments in case of war. The Minister knows perfectly well that the danger of war is there but, just as he forecast in 1937, 1938 and 1939 that we were going to have no war, he would nearly tell you now that we had not a war in 1940. He would nearly believe it himself, he has made so many queer statements in his time. As I said, he charged me with sabotaging his agricultural policy. You cannot take the trousers off a highlander because he has none, and you cannot sabotage the Minister's agricultural policy for the very same reason. The Minister did not tell the House or the country the real reason why he took exception to the statement I made some time ago. He had promised the farmers of this country a remunerative price for oats. He had promised them a fixed sum of £10 13s. 6d. a ton for potatoes but of course when the time came when the farmer wanted to dispose of his oats— it is a cash crop with most of our farmers—and his potatoes he found that the Minister was not prepared to carry out his promise.
£10 13s. 6d. where?
F.o.b.
Dig it out.
I shall dig a lot out of you before I am finished.
Address the Chair, please.
I advised the farmers in Tipperary to dispose of their oats and potatoes because it was obvious to me that the people who held on, and who would continue to hold on, would be doing nothing more than continuing to give a balanced diet to the rats of this country. That is where most of the oats and most of the potatoes went. They went where the Minister was going to put the beet and the wheat— up the spout. I did advise the farmers and the Minister took exception to it. The Minister is a very proud man. He took exception not alone to that but also to my statement when I referred to him then, as I refer to him now, as "Jimmy the Jinks, Minister for Agriculture." That is what is annoying him, that is what is upsetting him and that is what has brought him on my house ever since. He is very welcome. There is a céad míle fáilte awaiting him always.
I advised the farmers to sell if they could but many failed to sell at all even at very low prices. The highest price they could get was £1 8s. a barrel for their oats although in the previous year they got as high as 49/6 a barrel and in some exceptional cases as high as 53/- and 54/- a barrel. I do not mind the Minister's berserk attack on me. I told the farmers to band themselves together and to demand better prices for milk; to carry on the tillage policy and to strive for the Republic that will keep our young people at home. I wonder then does the Minister consider that that was sabotage but I suppose it is according to his standards. That is the Republic that we want and that is the Republic for which we fought. I wonder does the Minister take exception to all these things. If he does he should have the moral courage to retrace his steps in many of these matters. If we are going to have a successful tillage policy in the future the Minister must retrace his steps and admit that he was wrong in the past when he advised the farmers not to grow wheat. There is no use in the Minister trying to extricate himself from the present position for which he himself is responsible and in which we find a reduced acreage of wheat. The Minister said at column 2040, Volume 106 of the Official Reports, June 18th, 1947:—
"I would not be seen dead in a field of wheat on my land in this country because I know that the whole rotten fraud in fact was invoked to permit the Rank interest and the other milling interests in this country to charge our people 30/- a cwt. for flour when they were selling it in Liverpool for 19/-."
Statements of that kind have been damaging and they are going to continue to be damaging unless the Minister has the moral courage to come out and contradict these unfortunate statements of his. That was the sabotage of the nation at that time. The Minister said again, at column 2042, Volume 106 of the Official Reports, June 18th, 1947, in reply to Major de Valera:—
"The Deputy very courageously invites me to be more expeditious than the circumstances of my observations will permit. But, if he will be patient, he will be very much wiser when I have finished talking than he was when I began. Some day I am convinced that beet will go up the spout after peat and wheat."
Well thank God that the Minister's statement did not come to pass and God forbid that it ever should or that we should ever again be left at the mercy of any foreign power to provide our wheat for us. I have several statements here made by the Minister in regard to wheat. He said, for instance:
"Before you ate it you had to hold it up in your hand, squeeze the water out of it, then tease it and make up your mind whether you had boot polish or bread. If you had boot polish you put it on your boots and shoes but if you had bread you tried to masticate it if you thought fit."
That was a nice recommendation for the Minister for Irish wheat. I am only sorry that one person did not have enough of it so that he could choke himself. That would have saved the nation a lot of trouble and have been for its benefit.
The Minister in the past few months attempted to reduce the price of milk. I believe he went to Tipperary where he met some of his friends and suggested that they should feel the pulse of the farmers in this matter. Mind you, when the farmers heard what the scheme was all about the pulse went up very rapidly and I say it was a lucky thing for the Minister that day that they did not meet him. But the Minister, not for the first time, tried to have the milk prices reduced. He had not, however, the courage to go ahead with his plan apparently and I hope that he will be sensible enough not to try to reduce the price of milk. If he tries it again I can assure him he will get a very bad reception from the farmers. He is not very popular with them at the moment but when he is finished I can assure him that any popularity he has with the farming community will have waned very much.
Speaking at Volume 106, column 2048 of the Official Report, 18th June, 1947, the present Minister who was then Deputy James Dillon said:
"At the moment? That is quite another problem. The burden of my question is, is this policy of granting £2,000,000 per annum as a subsidy to the price of butter a permanent feature, because that permits the payment of only ½ per gallon for milk. Deputy Heskin says that anything less than 1/5 is uneconomic. Well, £2,000,000 a year permits the payment of ½ with a retail selling price of 2/6 per lb. for butter. If the Minister says this is merely to provide butter during the emergency when butter is not available from other sources of supply, that is another story."
He goes on to say:—
"We are subsidising butter production to the tune of £2,000,000 per annum. How long will that go on?"
He said that in 1947. Then he continued:—
"Do we expect butter to get dearer in the markets of the world? Do we expect a time in the early future when the price of milk will become so adjusted that it will be possible to suspend this subsidy or do we intend to continue producing milk for conversion into butter in creameries at an annual cost to the taxpayer of £2,000,000 per annum? I want it to go on record most emphatically that I think such a policy is sheer insanity and is purely pursued for the purpose of maintaining the prestige of incompetents in the offices of the Minister for Agriculture since Fianna Fáil came into power. If butter cannot be produced for manufacture in creameries and sale to the public at a price which will not involve the community in a cost of 2/6 per lb. and the Exchequer in an annual grant of £2,000,000 the sooner we get out of producing butter through the medium of creameries for sale to the consumer the better it will be for the consumer and the men on whose lands the milk to make that butter is produced."
Therefore, I take it that the policy of the Minister then—and let us have an assurance of what it is now—was to do away with all the creameries in this country. I do not know what exactly he was trying to aim at. If the Minister does away with the creameries a reduction in dairying is bound to result. The Minister surely knows that unless you have a cow you cannot have a calf. Therefore, his own policy of "live stock," as he calls it, would meet with a very ready fate were he to continue to think along the same lines in regard to the dairying industry now and in the future as he thought on the 18th June, 1947. The country deserves an assurance from the Minister even now as to what he intends to do with regard to the dairying industry while he remains Minister for Agriculture. Is he going to carry out the threat he made in 1947? Does he seriously think that the farmers of this country can produce milk at a lower price that ? per gallon? If it were only the cost of the ass's hames or the jennet's shoes it has increased.
Everything has increased since the time Fianna Fáil fixed ½ a gallon for milk. The Minister surely will admit that. Therefore, it would be insanity on his part—and it would result in great dangers to this State—if he were to dare to reduce the cost still further. As a matter of fact, the Minister did promise that he would increase by 2d. a gallon the price of milk to the creamery. He did not carry out that promise. Take the position of people who have been getting into cows in the past few years. It is not easy to create a herd of cows. You cannot do it overnight. No farmer will dare to try to do that. It can be done only as a result of hard thinking and sound judgment—and perhaps even then, in the matter of selecting a dairy cow, it does not always go so well.
I have heard some people insinuate that the farmers are more or less too well off. That is not so. They have to contend with very grave difficulties. I will mention two of them with which everybody is familiar—mortality in cattle and depreciation in dairy herds. Mortality as a rule is high. Certainly it is very high in the areas where the farmers are almost entirely dependent on the dairy cow for a livelihood—the mountainous areas. In those areas the land is unsuitable even for the growing of a large potato crop. There is scarcely even a small crop of oats to be seen. Wheat is out of the question and, to a great extent, beet is out of the question. Therefore, a mountain farmer who deserves so much from this State—we can never repay the mountain farmer for what he has done in the past for this State—has a very difficult struggle. He is fighting against the hills, so to speak, from early morning till dark at night. That man has had many an anxious hour and day and week and month since this talk of reducing the price of milk first began. As a rule, such farmers have large families to keep.
We all know that the cost of living has gone up. I did not know that it had gone up so much that the cost of a hat is now as much as 40 guineas until Deputy Hickey enlightened me to-day. I can assure the House that no farmer living in a mountainous area or in any other area that I know of can afford to pay 40 guineas for a hat for his wife. I hope that statement by Deputy Hickey was an exaggeration and if it was not it certainly cannot be applied to any farmer whom I know. When the Minister is replying he should give an assurance to the dairy farmers that not alone is he not going to reduce the price of milk but, on the contrary, that he will increase the price of milk by at least the 2d. a gallon he promised them and raised their hopes about some time ago.
The Minister is very machine-minded. He told us a few weeks ago that there will not be a plough in this country except as a stopgap in a few years' time. We are all going to have tractors. I should like if the Minister would come down out of the clouds and fancy himself in the home of an eight acre or a ten acre or a 20-acre farmer in this country and ask himself how that farmer is going to get the money to purchase a tractor, even if he found it desirable. If that farmer had such an ambition he would say that many of the tractors purchased for tillage purposes during the war are now lying idle and many of them rusting—again owing, as I said a while ago, to the Minister's lack of policy in regard to tillage and to his many disparaging and discouraging statements in regard to the growing of wheat. Can anybody imagine a small farmer with a few acres of tillage—perhaps he is able to keep only one horse and has to pool a second horse with a neighbour—purchasing a tractor? What a foolish thought. The Minister should come down out of the clouds and imagine for a moment that he is standing in a 30-acre or a 40-acre farm. Remember, the small farmers of this country are the backbone of the nation. Deputies here may sneer at them but there is a difference and a great difference between farmers and foreigners. We find that whenever the nation needed immediate action the small farmers were always there. I assure you that the fellows who farmed from the long distance did not worry very much with regard to what happened in this country. The Minister will, as he is bound to do, defend the policy of the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
The Minister has not any control over the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
I think he appointed a gentleman to that corporation so far as I am aware.
The Minister for Agriculture did not, and he has no function in respect of the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
I suggest that there are still in this country many farmers who are honest and straightforward and anxious to restock their farms but, through no fault of their own, they are unable to do so. I know people whose reputation for honesty can go back many a year and still they are not able to procure from the Agricultural Credit Corporation as much money as would enable them to purchase a couple of cows.
What John Brown took from them?
Up the Republic!
If the Minister at that time did not give such bad advice to the farmers, there would not be any John Browns and we would have to fight with John Bull for only three or four months and not six years. That was the time the Minister stood up here and said: "Thanks be to God that Cosgrave and de Valera are at each others' throats. I have longed to see that day and I thank God for it." The Minister has been responsible for a lot and he gloats in his opposition to republicans in this country.
It would be better if the Deputy got back to the Estimate.
The Minister introduced John Brown, and I can tell you he came out second best. If the Minister looks for trouble, he will get it; I would be sorry to deprive him of it. We have one consolation, and that is, that many of the statements made by the Minister are now being accepted as the outpourings of an unbalanced mind. There are farmers and there will be farmers deserving of credit in this country and no proper provision has been made for them as yet. If the Minister desires to do something practical to help those who have not, perhaps, met with the best of luck for some years past, now is the time to issue to them small loans at a reasonable rate of interest. That would meet a situation that has long been calling for a remedy.
The Minister is a vain man and perhaps he will find it difficult to retrace his steps. He will find it difficult to go back on many of the statements he made in the past. But a man must have moral courage; that is all he requires, the moral courage to tell the people that when he did say certain disparaging things he was not quite serious. The people know he was not serious, anyhow.
Wheat is one of the things that this country must have. War is imminent. There is hardly a doubt that this year, or within a few years, the world will again be invoved in a holocaust. If the Minister or anybody else considers that other nations will come to our aid with food, they might do so, but it will be at a price. That price might be too great to ask this nation to pay. We have had enough blood baths in this country, extending over 700 years, and no right-thinking man considers that we should be in another. If we are to have effective arguments with any nation that desires or tries to compel us to go into war, we must have food because, without food, we will be weak and subjective and without an effective argument. The old policy of Sinn Féin must be adhered to. A self-supporting policy will ensure for our people a remunerative price for what they produce. It will assure them that for everything they produce a market will be found here. That was Sinn Féin and it was the policy of the men who stood up in other days and whose motto was: "Justice, though the heavens fall."
I know the Minister does not like that, but he will have to swallow it hook, line and sinker some day because, through one circumstance or another, eventually we will be driven to adopt that policy. If you remain in power long enough you will be driven back to the policy of Sinn Féin, to allow to be produced here and to encourage the production here of the necessaries of life for our people. I hope that instead of boasting of how many cattle we are able to put into the tummies of another nation, some day we can truthfully say that we have filled the stomachs of our own people. Remember, there are many thousands in this country under the system we are operating who do not, unfortunately, know what the taste of meat is from one Christmas Day to the following Christmas Day.
Tell us where they are. I would like to meet some of those people.
I am quite certain that if the Deputy searches any town in Laoighis he will find such people.
I would like to meet them. If the Deputy can point out even one to me, I will go straight down to meet him.
There are too many of them.
I have never met one in the Deputy's constituency.
You would be surprised. I am not here to argue with the Deputy but it is true. Every Deputy knows it is perfectly true. When I see the type of Republic that we have, I want to say that the Republic that I fought for was a Republic that would see to it that our own people would be able to live here in frugal comfort rather than be sending out bullocks to feed other nations.
The Minister might like to know what the feelings of the farmers are with regard to his rehabilitation scheme. I want to tell him that he has to an extent put the car before the horse, and that one of the first things he should have done was to carry out arterial drainage. He had the power and the machinery to do so. Surely, we have the man power too, because they are still leaving the country. If the Minister had gone on with greater speed with an arterial drainage scheme, a scheme that in our life time would enable us to see the larger rivers of the country drained, then his rehabilitation of certain lands would be desirable. There is very little use in people spending money on streams which leave their lands and enter the larger tributaries thereby causing flooding. As a result of the backwash, that land will be just as bad in a year or two as it was before it was reclaimed. An arterial drainage scheme on a large and speedier scale should be the Minister's model if he desires to see certain land of the country made into better pasture.
I want to contradict again the statement of the Minister a few days ago that it was he who fixed the price of wheat. That is not so. It was fixed at 62/6 a barrel in October, 1947. The Minister contradicted Deputy Walsh when he stated that it was Fianna Fáil who had fixed the price. He said the Deputy was talking nonsense when the Deputy had stated that Fianna Fáil wisely fixed the price of wheat. I think the Minister ought to have the decency to apologise to the Deputy concerned because he knows perfectly well now that he was wrong, if he did not know it then.
Why was it a secret until March?
Now, whatever Deputy Rooney knows about dual purpose hens, he knows very little about agriculture. I do not know whether he would know a dual purpose hen from a cockatoo. If he tries to ascertain the difference he will be wiser afterwards. I again want to ask the Minister for an assurance with regard to the closing down of certain mills in the country, an assurance that any rumours of that kind are not true.
If you started it, is not that a guarantee?
I definitely deny that I started it. The Minister is much more in the habit of starting hares of that kind than I am, whether deliberately or not I do not know. I certainly say that he knows more about that sort of thing than he does about agriculture. If he would learn a little about agriculture and less about slandering people he would be doing a good day's work for himself. I must pay a tribute to Deputy P.D. Lehane, that public-spirited Deputy, who flatly contradicted the Minister a couple of days ago as to whose shoulders should bear the responsibility for any shortage in oats and potatoes that there has been. The Minister had no doubt in the world about it that the responsibility was either Deputy Blaney's or mine. It is a good omen, I think, for the country that we still have public spirited men like him who are not going to stand for statements of that kind from a Minister, who knew perfectly well, of course, that the statements were not true. I do not need to defend my character against the Minister's in that matter because the farmers know perfectly that it was the Minister and not I who had been sabotaging the agricultural policy of this country for a number of years. Poor Parnell said on many an occasion that the Dillons were a very proud people.
The Deputy is now going very far back.
That they were as proud as peacocks but with less brains. It was perfectly true. However, I would say that the Minister should be very grateful to the Fianna Fáil Government.
You are making the Minister prouder still.
That would be a hard job, because Lucifer himself is not half as proud as he is. The Minister has a lot to be thankful for to Fianna Fáil. I can assure him that were it not for the protection that he received from that great Government the people would have torn him to atoms because of the many statements he made trying to sabotage the nation's policy and its neutrality. I can assure him that we thank God that that Government did afford him such protection in the past.
What did the Deputy say?
We thank God that the Government did afford you such protection. Everybody is very pleased, of course.
What is the Deputy saying?
I have said it. If the Minister were listening instead of sneering he would at least have intelligence enough to comprehend what I have said. I will say it again. Whatever abuse you may hurl on the Fianna Fáil Government, every morning when you get up you should thank God——
The Deputy should not address the Minister directly. The second person is not in order when addressing the House. The third person should be used, and the Deputy should refer to him as "the Minister".
I presume the Minister says his prayers every morning when he gets up. He should include the Fianna Fáil Government in those prayers because they were good to him in the past and, in spite of all his slanders, they afforded him more protection than he would have had anywhere else.
What has that to do with the Estimate that is before us?
I hope the Minister will not occupy that position for long. The Clann na Poblachta Party are clamouring for his removal as quickly as possible. I am sure that there is not a single section of the community that is not longing for the day when this country will be rid of one of its greatest afflictions since Cromwell. The Taoiseach has a lot to answer for. If there had to be a Minister for Agriculture from the Independent group, there were men like Deputy Cogan, who is a practical farmer——
The Minister's appointment was a decision of the House. His administration is open to debate, question and criticism. He was appointed by the House. It was a decision of the House and it is no good going back on that now.
I merely say that it is a pity he was appointed when there were others who would have made a success of agriculture. Agriculture was on its feet when he took office.
It was running away.
Backwards now, like the little boy going to school, who, for every step forward took two steps back. That is what the Minister is doing. The farmers have no confidence in the Minister. He makes one statement to-day and contradicts it tomorrow. The farmers want planning to ensure the prices they will get next year, the year after and even five years hence if possible. They do not want to be promised a price when they are sowing and ultimately fail to get that price when they are harvesting. That is what has happened and that is responsible for the shortage of oats and potatoes. If the Minister had kept his word the farmers would have continued to grow oats and potatoes. The farmers have sufficient intelligence to know on which side their bread is buttered.
That is the third time that Deputy Davern, in my hearing, has started wrestling with his own conscience about his pronouncements on oats and potatoes. Surely repetition of that kind is disorderly.
The Chair is not conscious of any wrestling match.
On a point of order. That is the fourth time since I entered the House that the Minister has interrupted the Deputy.
The Chair is not counting the number of interruptions. Deputy Davern on the Estimate.
If the Minister had fulfilled his promise in regard to oats and potatoes we would have plenty of both commodities now. We might even have a surplus. But he failed to keep his promise and, when he saw the mess he had made, he scuttled off to America to settle world affairs. We know the Minister in all his moods and tenses:—
"The sadness of his sadness when he is sad,
The gladness of his gladness when he is glad,
The madness of his madness when he's mad
Will drive the farmers from Eire to Bagdad."
I have been in this House for 17 years. I am a farmer. Never in my 17 years have I heard anything like the speech made by Deputy Davern just now. Does he represent a farming constituency? The speeches to which I have listened in the last six or seven days from farmer Deputies are a disgrace and a shame. If Fianna Fáil had been in opposition from 1934 to 1938 they would have kept us here for months. The farmers are not that badly off. Everybody here is shouting about the oats and the barley. One would think the farmers' lives depended on oats and barley. They are only a sideline, as any common-sense farmer knows. County Dublin Deputy Burke complained that the farmers in Dublin could not sell their barley. Why could they not sell it? They have the best market in the country at their doors for everything else. Why should they bother with barley. If we in Westmeath had a market like Dublin on our doorstep we would not grow barley. We would be glad to get barley in Westmeath for our fowl and our stock if we could get it. We had a surplus of oats and potatoes two years ago, thanks be to Providence in the first instance, and our thanks to the Fianna Fáil policy, too, that had left the country without any storage for our surplus agricultural crops. Would it not be sound agricultural policy to have granaries all over the country? There are granaries in Dublin which were packed full of stuff, the smell of which I defy anybody to stand. That stuff had to be sold eventually at an knockdown price. The farmers are not badly off. Every Wednesday in my life I am in the Dublin Cattle Market. I attend the local fairs. I have never seen a Deputy at either. The Deputies do not know what is happening. Let them come up to the Dublin market and see the thousands and thousands of pounds that are flowing into the pockets of the farmers to-day. It is sound agricultural policy to grow oats and barley where there is a market for them.
There has been much debate on wheat. Is not the Minister's wheat policy a good one? If there is an emergency give a good price to the farmers and they will grow wheat on good land. Had we not more wheat per acre last year under the policy of the present Minister than we ever had under Fianna Fáil? It is a waste of money to throw away good seed and good food by compulsory tillage. No one wants compulsory tillage except the man who wants some other farmer's land for nothing. I heard Deputy Killilea talking about compulsory tillage on some farm outside Tuam; so many acres were tilled during the emergency and yet that farmer had to go into Tuam and buy potatoes in competition with all the other buyers.
There was compulsory tillage at the time that farmer was going into Tuam to buy potatoes. He set his land. That type of farmer is no good on the land. The man who wants compulsory tillage is no good. Nothing ever thrives under compulsion. Any good hardworking farmer will till if it is to his advantage to till. We, in Westmeath, till a certain amount and we do not worry if we cannot get a market here. If we can get a market, well and good, but two years ago when we had a surplus of oats we had a crisis. We hear talk from the opposite benches that last year we had not enough potatoes while the year before we had too much. No wonder you had not enough potatoes last year, because a curse came down on you for saying the previous year that there was too much. Every farmer of common-sense knows very well that one year you will have a surplus of a particular crop and the next year you may have a shortage and if you have a sound agricultural policy you will make some provision to retain portion of the surplus to make up the deficiency when there is a shortage.
Fianna Fáil policy, as revealed in this debate, was centred in a personal attack on the Minister. The previous Minister for Agriculture took six hours to make a personal attack on the Minister because he is jealous of him. I can say that we, the farmers, are proud of the Minister for Agriculture. He has provided us with plenty of stock on our farms. He has given us medicine to treat our cattle and told us how to abolish some of the diseases in a way that Fianna Fáil never thought of. The cattle of the country were rotten with mastitis but this Minister of common-sense has asked the farmers, not compelled them, to treat their heifers and to prevent mastitis and that policy is having very good results. Yet we are listening to this constant moaning from the opposite benches. The last speaker had to go up to the hills to see if he could find a poor farmer. The farmers, I say, are reasonably well off and they recognise that they have to thank the Minister for quite a lot.
Deputy Allen made a reference to the question of root seeds. I am very glad that the root seed scheme in operation during the time of the last Government was done away with. We had a scheme to grow our own seeds, but what kind of seeds did we get? In the case of turnips you had a bunch of leaves but no turnips, yet we had to pay 4/- to 5/-a lb. and there was no proper competition amongst the merchants. The Minister tells you that you can grow seeds without compulsion. Why condemn that and give a monopoly to two or three firms at the expense of the farmers of the country? We hear Opposition Deputies bewailing the Minister's policy in regard to eggs but they forget that the English Government, when our poultry industry had fallen to a very low level, had to arrange with the Fianna Fáil Government to subsidise our poultry industry. They gave them a couple of million in subsidies. Because that couple of million is now exhausted and we are trying to live on our own resources we hear a lot about the price of eggs. So far as barley is concerned, I do not know where barley can be got at the price Deputies opposite mentioned.
I should like to make a brief reference to the question of water supplies for farms. The scheme is a very good one, so far as it goes, but I understand that you will not get a grant to enable you to bring water for stock to your farm from an adjoining farm. I think the grant should be extended so that a farmer could bring water from a neighbouring farm on to his own land for his stock. That, I think, is even more necessary than bringing water into the farmer's kitchen. I understand that you will not get a grant unless the water is actually brought into the farmer's house, and I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter so that a grant might be made available to farmers to bring water on to their land from a neighbouring river or a neighbouring farmer's land.
To Fianna Fáil Deputies who are continually complaining, I would say that they should come up to the Dublin Cattle Market to see what is happening at 4.30 a.m. Of course, they are too snug in their beds at that time and they do not see what is happening in the markets. Let them come up there and they will see the amount of money that is changing hands. I sold six head of cattle recently for a small farmer who has only nine acres at £59 each. Does that not represent the fruits of a proper policy—to grow barley and other crops and walk them off the land in the form of live stock at these high prices? You could not have a sounder agricultural policy than that.
Much as I dislike speaking in this House, I feel that there is a passage in the Minister's opening statement on this Estimate which I, as a Deputy representing the same constituency which the Minister represents, could not allow to pass unchallenged. The passage to which I refer appears in Volume 121, No. 13, page 1797. The Minister speaking about oats said:—
" In this I am beholden to Deputy Blaney and my distinguished colleague, Deputy Davern. The acreage of oats was reduced from 880,000 in 1948 to 686,000 in 1949. The yield fell from 792,000 in 1948 to 559,000 in 1949."
The reason I refer to that is the Minister went on to say:—
"That, I think, provided the text of my distinguished colleague from County Monaghan who delivered a moving speech on the distressing cost of oatmeal."
By the way, I never mentioned oatmeal. The Minister went on:—
"I hope Deputy Blaney and Deputy Davern listened closely to my distinguished colleague from Monaghan when she spoke so convincingly on the subject of the price of oatmeal. They wrought well but to the great cost of our people. I trust that when they next go to the palisades——"
I suppose that is to the Amsterdam ditches——
"they will deal with something which is not so costly to the people of our country as the oat crop."
I should like to ask the Minister in all sincerity does he really believe that statement? Does he not know perfectly well as a Christian gentleman that that is not true? Surely to goodness, he flatters us when he says that our powers of persuasion are so great that they can convince the farmers of County Monaghan, which I have the honour to represent with the Minister, that they should grow less oats to the extent that they had not sufficient oats the following year? Surely as Deputy Coburn, who is a very ardent admirer of the Minister says, the farmers of this country know their own business best themselves and they are masters in their own households. Nobody can tell them what crop they should or should not grow. They all know to a nicety what is the most profitable crop and that argument falls to the ground.
Surely Deputy Mrs. Rice did not understand me to associate her with the strictures I passed on Deputy Davern and Deputy Blaney?
I can draw no other meaning from this. You said that it provided the text for my contribution to the debate.
The Deputy is quite mistaken.
You said that it provided the text for me when I spoke so convincingly. I do not know what that means if it does not mean what I suggest and I am not illiterate.
Oh, no.
You said:—
"I trust that when they next go to the palisades they will deal with something which is not so costly to the people of our country as the oat crop."
I can assure the Deputy that she has misinterpreted my words.
The official records are there. Does the Minister still persist in the statement that propaganda spoken from Fianna Fáil platforms and in this House mitigated against the oat crop in this country?
I did not attribute it to Deputy Mrs. Rice.
Or to any member of the Fianna Fáil Party.
Oh yes, Ma'am.
The farmer knows his business best and knows what crops suit his system and his lands and he knows what pays for itself and pays him and his family. I would point out to the Minister that we have now a surplus of butter and yet we cannot get any over and above the ration unless we pay 10d. per lb. extra for it. I always thought that if we had a surplus of anything that it became cheaper but that does not apply in the case of butter. I certainly refute the Minister's statement, on my own behalf and on behalf of the members of this Party, when he says that these schemes were upset by Fianna Fáil propaganda.
Another thing I would like the Minister to say something on is the question of poultry. Some Deputies in the House have criticised others for speaking on this matter of agriculture because they said that they knew nothing about agriculture. I can assure the Minister that if it is necessary we will go to the country and discuss with the farmers every Department of State, criticising it when necessary and pointing out the advantages or disadvantages of each of the parties. I have no fears on matters of that kind. Deputies have stated that people with no working knowledge of the farms should not have the audacity to speak on these matters. I am one who has never followed a plough but I have the audacity to speak here. I can assure the Minister that the people of Monaghan, even amongst his own supporters, do not believe his statement that the Fianna Fáil propaganda had upset the oat crop and the sooner the Minister realises that the better.
Because of the excellent programme which the Minister put forward many women went in for poultry production and spent a lot of money in providing the proper houses in the belief that with feeding stuffs available at the cheap prices, which the Minister said they would be available, they could go into poultry production profitably selling eggs at 2/6 a dozen. Now that they have spent all that money they find that eggs at 2/6 per dozen do not pay because of the high price of feeding stuffs. The Minister had promised that imported maize would not cost more than £1 per cwt. I make no apology for speaking on this Estimate because though I have never followed a plough or tilled the land I know the conditions under which these people live and work and particularly the way the small farmers of County Monaghan live and work.
The land reclamation scheme is a good scheme and the Minister's allegations that Fianna Fáil propaganda had endeavoured to destroy it was just as untrue as his statement about the oats. It is an excellent scheme and should have every support. The Minister, however, has carried out a scheme in Carrickmacross and some people who were not Fianna Fáil supporters had pointed out that the good work done was being undone because weeds had been allowed to grow in the drainage scheme. I would like to ask the Minister, who is responsible for maintaining these drainage schemes after the work has been done? Is it the duty of the Government to see that they are kept free of weeds and brush or is it the duty of the farmers? All these things should be looked into at the time the work is being undertaken. Perhaps when the scheme is continued in County Louth the difficulties in the Carrickmacross view would be removed but the Minister should see to all these things before the weeds are allowed to grow and undo the work that has been done. The land reclamation scheme is an excellent one and I hope the farmers will avail of it.
Has any arrangement been made as to what time the Minister will get in?
I have heard of none.
This debate has lasted three weeks and surely there should be some definite arrangement.
I would like to be put on record as saying that I have no reason to complain.
I am glad to hear the Minister saying that he has no reason to complain. This is one of the most important Departments of State and the Estimate is one that should be very carefully and seriously debated from all aspects and from every angle. I, like Deputy Mrs. Rice and the Deputy who spoke before her, am not a farmer nor have I any knowledge of farming but I am a fairly good judge of whether people are satisfied or dissatisfied and I have no apology to make for rising to express my opinions on these matters. Speaking as a completely independent member of this House I am concerned with the anxiety that has been caused by Fianna Fáil talk of discontent which they say exists among the farming community to-day. I can assure the House that 75 per cent. of the Irish farmers are behind the Minister to the last and that 20 per cent. are Fianna Fáil and because of the fact that they are Fianna Fáil they are grumbling and groaning simply because they are opposed to the Minister's political views but they are reaping the same benefits from the Minister's good policy as the other 75 per cent. The remaining 5 per cent. are useless farmers who will grumble no matter who is in power. The farmers were never better off than they are to-day. I ask any Deputy whether it be Deputies Friel, Corry, Commons, or Harris that if they stand outside the church will they see farmers arriving in horses and carts, ponies and traps or on bicycles? They will not. They will see them in Vauxhalls and Morris Minors and Oxfords. You will no longer see the farmers going along in horses and carts for they all have their motor cars. Again if you look at the university registers you will find that 90 per cent. of the students are farmers' sons. Farmers are paying for them.
And daughters, too.
Sons and daughters. They are sending them to the city and seeing that they get a sound university education. Is it not also true to say that a large bulk of the clergy of various denominations to-day are the sons of farmers and that doctors, barristers and solicitors are coming from rural Ireland to-day? Does that not show quite clearly that there is not the poverty and the bewailing in the humble homes of the farmers about which Deputy Davern was telling us to-day?
Does the Deputy suggest that these are entirely due to the present Minister's administration?
Whatever about the past, the farmers were never as well off as they are to-day. I have yet to meet the unfortunate citizen of whom Deputy Davern was talking who did not get meat from Christmas to Christmas. If Deputy Davern can show us such a citizen I assure that citizen that I will buy him a good beast so that he will have sufficient meat to keep him going for some time. Furthermore, I am sure that if it is put to the Minister he also will throw in a beast for him, if there is such a man who had not meat for 12 months.
This disgraceful performance which we have had from the Fianna Fáil Party is certainly damning that Party completely. Probably it is a good thing for the Government and for the country that they are showing their hand to the extent to which they have shown it to-day. Every member of that Party who has spoken on this Estimate has made more or less a personal attack on the Minister for Agriculture. I have found fault with the Minister for Agriculture but I say that never in the reign of Fianna Fáil had we a man to equal him and that the only Minister he could be compared with was the late Deputy Patrick Hogan. I am glad and proud to say that, good and all as the late Deputy Hogan was, Deputy Dillon is equally good to-day, if not better. We have heard quite a good deal of criticism from Deputy Smith. The reason Deputy Smith has criticised the Minister for Agriculture is the reason which Deputy Fagan gave a few moments ago —jealousy. He sees a man doing the job better than he could do it. That is the very reason why he stands up in this House and indulges in abusive language towards the Minister and the Government for hours and hours. Certainly those sorts of tactics will not improve the position of the Fianna Fáil Party but they will, I am very glad to say, strengthen and improve the position of the Government.
I desire to take this opportunity of expressing my views as briefly as I possibly can on the circumstances as they exist to-day. We have at the present moment under consideration— and, indeed, it has been before the House—a Bill which provides holidays for every agricultural worker. That proves that the Minister for Agriculture is concerned not alone with the welfare of the farmer but that he is equally concerned to ensure that the man who stands behind the farmer's plough and ploughs from sunrise to nightfall with skill and industry—the farm worker—will receive consideration. Is that not a very fine thing? It is something for us to be proud of that we are making an attempt to raise the farm worker and make him, in our opinion, as important a man as the farmer himself. That is what we want to do: that is what we should do and that is exactly what we are doing. Where are Fianna Fáil now, after all the long years they were in office, that they could not give one moment's favourable consideration to the relieving of the farm worker—or the farm labourer, as he is called—and to giving him his week's or his fortnight's holidays or his day's holiday?
The Deputy may not discuss legislation. I allowed a reference to it but the Bill may not be discussed.
I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I ask the Minister to ensure that the measure of relief, which the farm workers will very much appreciate, be given effect to with the least possible delay.
The Deputy did not bow too low, evidently.
A good deal has been said about machinery and a lot of unnecessary criticism has been hurled at the Government and the Department of Agriculture because the farmers have been advised to purchase and use machinery on the land. It would be an extraordinary state of affairs if in some of our big worsted mills throughout the country we had not the machinery which we now have but, instead, men and women sitting working at spinningwheels. Where would we find ourselves then? Why does Deputy Davern and those others who criticise the use of machinery on the land not stand up and say: "Get rid of the machinery in the factories and in our other large industries and let us go back to the spinning-wheel and its equivalent?" Is it not mad to think that at this hour of our lives the farmers should be expected to be the most backward of any section of the community—that they must have their ploughs and be denied the use of tractors and that we should have criticism because they are advised to buy them? Why should we want that to be the position while every other section of the community has advanced and while all other branches of industry have been completely modernised by up-to-date machinery?
On every farm there should be the most up-to-date machinery so as to ease the slavery and drudgery that have been connected with work on the land for so long past. It would be grand if every farmer, big and small, had his own machinery and if each farm were an independent unit. It would be grand if he could have his own tractor, reaper and binder, mowing-machine and whatever other machinery is required on the farm. I will go further. When the rural electrification scheme is completed I shall be very glad to see that Government assistance will be provided so that every farmer will be able to have milking machines and the other facilities which electricity can bring, in order to make the farm attractive to the young people to remain on the land. These things are very important and they should not be laughed at by the members of the Opposition. Instead of being criticised by the Opposition the Minister and the Government should be the recipients of promises of support and co-operation in order to endeavour to help the farmer to modernise agriculture.
I am very sorry that the late Deputy William O'Donnell from Tipperary is not alive to-day and with us. If he were, I believe there would be no man more proud than he to compliment the Government and the Minister on the water supply scheme. In 1943 and 1944, when he was a member of this House, Deputy O'Donnell always urged for and longed to see the day when a scheme would be introduced whereby clean water would be made available in the farm homesteads throughout the country. We now have such a scheme in operation. I have never heard one word of thanks coming from the Fianna Fáil Party. I have never heard them say: "This is a good scheme. We will ask the people to avail of it. We will say that if the Minister has done nothing else he has at least done that."
To do Deputy Corry justice, he did.
Well then there must be something wrong with the scheme.
I felt that myself.
A Deputy from the Opposition side of the House has just spoken. He said that it is quite a ridiculous procedure for a Minister not to plan ahead. I cannot see for the life of me how the Deputy who has just spoken and made that statement could say that the present Minister for Agriculture has not planned ahead. The farmers were told last year that they would get 62/6 per barrel; that is, 20 stones of the best quality wheat. They are told that this year they will get the same and they will also get the same in 1951 and 1952. If that is not planning ahead, what is? There is no use in having wild statements of that character made. Plans have been made and the farmer who will grow wheat in 1952 knows at this moment that when he grows it, if God spares him, he will get 62/6 per barrel—if it is up to the required quality. I think guarantees of that nature go a long way in making farmers secure and sound; in other words, farmers are not buying pigs in pokes. Before they sow a crop they know what they will get for it.
We have heard very serious criticisms because we have not compulsory wheat growing. Fianna Fáil were always the Party very closely connected with compulsion from every angle. It is with a great sigh of relief that a farmer can say: "Thanks be to God I have my land and I can grow on it what I like and when I like and there is no compulsion." It was a disgraceful state of affairs to have the type of compulsion we experienced. It would be disgraceful if we were to go back to the days of compulsion, when we had hordes of inspectors going around farmers' homesteads saying: "You must sow this, and you must sow that." The farmer has common sense and he is an intelligent man. He will sow what will pay him, what he will get the best price for. Every farmer should strongly curse the day that compulsion would return, and that from an office in Dublin dictation would be sent down to his homestead as to what he should sow or what he should not sow.
I am one Deputy who represents a farming constituency and I hope I never shall see the day when we will have a return to the compulsory growing of wheat or any other crop. Leave it to the farmer, help, advise assist him and pay him, and he will not make many mistakes.
As well as the guaranteed price for wheat, we had 57/6 paid for malting barley. There is no control on the 1950 crop. I disagree with this, that whilst we had good quality malting barley at 57/6 a barrel, there were people in the districts of Vicarstown, Clonaslee and Kinnity, in my constituency, who were glad to sell their barley at 18/-and 19/- a barrel. The details of such transactions were forwarded to the Minister. Various concerns purchased the barley, which was deliberately left on the farmers' hands until such time as they had to get rid of it. There are certain types of farmers who cannot afford to keep the barley and very serious consideration should be given to avoid a recurrence of this kind during the coming season. It was a disgraceful state of affairs that in many parts of my constituency barley which I considered good and about which certain maltsters gave private advice to the farmers—that their barley was up to a high quality and was suitable for malting—was not taken at 57/6 and the farmers had to get it off their hands ultimately at 18/- and 19/-. There should be some machinery in the Department to save the farmers from such dishonest transactions.
The Minister will sack you if you are not careful.
He is not in the least afraid to represent his constituents, whether I am here or Deputy Moran.
I will direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that under his Department there exists a Local authorities allotment scheme whereby unemployed persons are provided by the local authority with an allotment, seed and manure, so that they can provide themselves with vegetables. I want the Minister to see that the inspectors will make calls on various local authorities and even on the applicants who are tilling the allotments to see that the seed is of the standard quality, certified seed.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister and to the Department and to the director in charge of the land rehabilitation project. I am afraid Deputies and farmers are inclined to expect too much from this scheme in too short a time. For that reason I would like to express an honest opinion, that this time 12 months, when we are here considering the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture——
Will we be finished with this Estimate by that time?
——we will probably hear various complaints as to the administration of the scheme. I should think that it will be anything from ten to 15 years in any part of the country before we can properly realise the value of this scheme. For that reason I believe Deputies should not expect too much from the scheme but should give it every help and support and not, as has been done in the past, have the scheme sabotaged by the Opposition. The Fianna Fáil Party seem very sore when they hear this. They have deliberately spread the doctrine among the farmers that if they avail of the scheme rent, rates and taxes will soar. At a Fianna Fáil meeting in my constituency the farmers asked advice whether they should avail of the scheme and they were told that if they did avail of it their rates and taxes would go sky high.
So far as the returns furnished by the Department are concerned, we can see there has been a wonderful response to the scheme, a response which the Department can barely cope with. The response has been magnificent, but I maintain that it would have been far greater if there had been even a small measure of support and co-operation coming from the Opposition. Probably one of the reasons why Deputy Smith is so jealous of the activities of the Minister for Agriculture is because almost 3,000 of his constituents made application and are endeavouring to avail of the scheme. We can see that Deputy Smith's constituents have expressed approval of the Minister's scheme and desire to avail of it. Out of the whole Twenty-Six Counties, Cavan comes third.
I only hope and trust that this scheme, the purpose of which is to drain and make arable 4,500,000 acres, will be successful. Does the Opposition realise what it will mean in this country if 4,500,000 acres of useless land are made useful? We can fatten beef on it, using it for grazing purposes, or we can produce food from it. The Government will considerably increase the wealth of the country, because the real wealth of any country lies in its soil When we have the 4,500,000 acres reclaimed it will result in increased production and increased exports.
We are all very proud to see that the majority of the farmers have expressed approval of the scheme and desire to partake of its benefits. I hope every effort will be made by the director and the Minister to see that, as far as possible, through every avenue, the machinery necessary for this scheme will be made available. As Deputies realise a very large amount of machinery is required for this scheme. I hope that every effort will be made by the Department to see that that machinery is obtained so that this work may go on as speedily as possible. It is the greatest scheme, in my opinion, that ever was introduced by any government, and the people throughout the country are 100 per cent. behind it.
The statement has been made that if Fianna Fáil were in power to-day the agricultural industry would be on a better and a sounder footing. I have yet to hear a Donegal or a Mayo Deputy say that, while during the administration of Fianna Fáil and even up to a few years ago when the price of good quality black-faced wool was 4d. and 6d. a lb., to-day it is 3/6 a lb. I cannot see where things are not looking up for those people and where their conditions have not been improved. How can people grumble to-day? They are getting 3/6 a lb. for their wool, while they could only get 4d. or 6d. a lb. when Fianna Fáil were in power. If people in those conditions are grumbling, my opinion about them is that they are not worth considering. We should not waste time talking about them in this House.
I think the Minister would be well advised to review completely the butter situation. In May, 1949, the butter ration was fixed at eight ounces. There has been no increase since. Quite an amount of butter has been exported. I believe that the butter ration could and should be increased. I want to say, further, that I am disappointed the Department of Agriculture has not gone to greater rounds in having a "drink more milk" campaign started. I believe that for an agricultural country our consumption of milk is very low indeed. This matter should be more seriously fostered by the Department, because I believe a "drink more milk" campaign would bring about very good results. Everyone knows that milk is a source of great nourishment, especially to young people. I do hope that steps will be taken to see that the drinking of milk will replace the drinking of beer or stout—difficult as that may be. I think, however, that steps should be taken to make the drinking of milk more popular not because it is some thing that we can easily produce ourselves but because it must result in building up a sound and a healthy nation. That is my main reason for advocating the drinking of more milk.
We are also told that unrationed creamery butter is 3/6 a lb. I think that is a daft price, and butter at 3/6 a lb. is far too dear. The rationed butter is 2/8 a lb. I realise the difficulties, but would it not be possible for the Minister and the Department to arrange that, instead of having unrationed creamery butter at 3/6 a lb. and rationed butter at 2/8, to have all butter sold at 3/- a lb.? I should like to know if the Department have ever gone into that question. A difference of 6d. may seem very little, but if a person is buying four pounds of butter in the week, it means a saving of 2/-for the purchase of something else for the home. The agricultural labourer, the cottage tenant, and the labouring man find that butter at 3/6 a lb. is far too dear. I hope steps will be taken to see that a reduction is brought about in the price of unrationed creamery butter, and that, from the price point of view, the rationed and unrationed butter will be put on the same level, if possible.
The people who rear turkeys are very much alarmed every year because of the fact that the Minister does not make a statement until 12 or 14 days before Christmas indicating whether the export of turkeys will be permitted or not. I think that the people who rear turkeys should be given six or eight months' notice on that matter. We all remember that a few years ago great difficulties arose when the export of turkeys was not permitted.
Does the Deputy mean as a present?
Yes.
Well, you can tell them now.
I am glad to hear that in advance from the Minister. The granting of permits, or the refusal to grant permits for the export of turkeys at Christmas time, would certainly make a very great difference as regards the price which the producer would get. I am glad to hear from the Minister that turkeys can be exported at Christmas time this year.
I mean the sending of turkeys as a present to a friend.
Yes, and there will be thousands of friends to send the turkeys to.
I feel very disappointed at the position with regard to beet. I believe that we could produce more sugar and so would grow more beet if the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry and Commerce would say that we were going to import less sugar, and if they would see that our home requirements in sugar were provided here. Recently, in the Dáil Restaurant I have noticed some sort of a dark, brown, sandy commodity placed in the sugar bowls, masquerading as sugar. I consider it most disgusting. In my opinion it is not sugar. For that reason, I think that, as far as possible, steps should be taken to increase our acreage under beet. I might add, in passing, that one of the greatest disasters, as far as the sugar industry is concerned, was the decision of the Fianna Fáil Government to put a factory in an area where beet is not grown.
Hear, hear.
Why was that factory put in an area where there was no beet grown? Why was it not put in one of the good beet growing areas in my constituency? My constituency is one of the best beet growing areas in the whole country, and the beet grown there has either to go to the Thurles or to the Tuam factory. The farmers around Tuam will grow anything but beet. I think steps should be taken to close down the Tuam beet factory.
Transfer it.
If the farmers do not think enough about it to support it, it should be closed down.
It is not the farmers around Tuam who are to blame.
If we had a sugar factory in my constituency I have no hesitation in saying that the farmers there would be public-spirited enough to grow nothing else but beet. Evidently the farmers in Tuam will not grow beet unless they are compelled to grow it. If that is the type of constituency Deputy Killilea represents I may say that I am glad I do not represent it. That is the type of constituency evidently of which he is so proud and about which he boasts. I hope the farmers in Tuam will realise that they have a duty to provide our people with sugar and to provide the unemployed with work. They will have to face up to that serious responsibility. They will have to take their coats off and do now what they should have done, but did not do, under Fianna Fáil.
Get up early in the morning.
Exactly, and sow their beet and keep their factory going with sufficient supplies. I do not know whether the Government intends to establish another sugar factory. I do not know whether they should close down the factory in Tuam. It seems to be just one more white elephant as a result of the deplorable policy of Fianna Fáil. If it is proposed to open another sugar factory the Department of Agriculture and the Industrial Development Authority will have to put their heads together and establish that industry in a beet-growing area.
Criticism has been hurled at the Minister because of the bacon situation. During the administration of Fianna Fáil and for some short time afterwards our people had almost forgotten what bacon was like. To-day there is plenty of bacon. There are plenty of pigs going into the factories and plenty of farmers are getting good prices for their pigs. There is not an Irish family to-day where they cannot have bacon and cabbage any day of the week they want it. That was not possible in the past because of the mess the last Government made of the pig industry. We have bacon now for our people.
At any price.
It does not matter so much what the price is so long as the bacon is there. It was not there during the Fianna Fáil administration and for some short time after that. We have bacon now. Deputy Killilea may fancy some nice back rashers of which the aristocrats are so fond but he must not forget the day when he had not even a pig's crúb. Any man should be thankful now who has the pig's crúb which was not there during the Fianna Fáil régime.
At any sort of price.
The price did not worry Deputy Killilea when he was tackling the pig's crúb. I know that. There can be no question that we have not the best bacon. If Deputy Killilea is so anxious to go into the price, may I tell him that he can have the best back rashers from 3/- a pound?
I saw the Minister handing you back a note.
Does Deputy Killilea think that is too much to pay for good back rashers? He can have streaky rashers from 2/11 a pound: he can have choice boiling cuts from 2/-, and any other cuts he likes for 1/- a pound. Does Deputy Killilea want to see the farmers getting nothing for their pigs? If the bacon has to be sold cheaper than that there would be no use in anyone keeping pigs.
It is good to hear that coming from a pig producer.
I am telling Deputy Killilea that if he wants to get bacon cheaper than that anybody who reared pigs would be daft and the quicker the people got out of pigs the better it would be. That is the Cork Evening Echo of the 22nd of last month.
I would like to make a suggestion in connection with the veterinary section of the Department of Agriculture. I understand that is to be shortly reorganised. I suggest that there should be a veterinary service available to the small farmers for their live stock—something on the same lines as the present dispensary service. I suggest, too, that the Minister should get in touch with the Department of Social Welfare in order to provide some measure of relief for the farmer who will have to pay the contributions under the social services scheme for his workers and get nothing in return for them. I think it would be appreciated by the farming community if the small farmers of £12 or £14 valuation were given free hospital treatment for themselves and their families under that scheme. I do not think there would be any opposition to that scheme because no one would object to this section of our farming community getting some relief.
That scheme is legislation.
I was merely making a suggestion. It is not legislation yet. When it is legislation, I hope the farming community will benefit under it. I am in agreement with Deputy Davern's complaint that the Agricultural Credit Corporation is not as generous as one would like it to be in granting loans to the agricultural community. I know the Minister has no power over that particular body but I think there should be some machinery under which the farmer who needs a certain amount of capital to carry him on from the spring to the harvest could get that capital. The Minister may tell me that the farmer can get it in the bank if he is any sort of farmer at all; he may suggest that the Deputy might put his name to a bill or go security for a farmer. I have actually done that. It may be a foolish thing to do, but it has certainly been appreciated by those for whom I did it.
Many small farmers find themselves in an awkward position because of lack of capital for a short time. I think some steps should be taken to accommodate such small farmers. A man who wants £100 or £150 has his own reasons for not approaching the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Indeed, he will not get the accommodation there because the very first question on the form is: "How much money have you in the bank?" That seems a very ridiculous question to ask of a man who is actually looking for a loan.
I am very glad that so many people are availing themselves of the facilities that have been placed at their disposal for soil testing, and I am glad to know that there has been an increase in the number of inquiries and in the number of samples sent in. I am glad that our people are taking advantage of the soil testing facilities and I hope that the spirit of co-operation that prevails between organisations like the Young Farmers' Clubs and the Department of Agriculture will continue. The lectures that have been organised in various parts of rural Ireland have been very helpful and have given very great information to the farming community that they would not have obtained otherwise. I am also very glad to know that there have been film shows and broadcasts on agricultural subjects. The manner in which farmers avail of the radio talks on agricultural subjects which are given every Wednesday evening for half an hour or quarter of an hour is amazing. I believe that these talks should be given more frequently, perhaps on two or three evenings a week, and I would respectfully suggest that the Minister should make inquiries with a view to having additional time made available by Radio Eireann for these talks and lectures.
I am sorry that the Minister is not here as I wanted to make an inquiry as to whether it is the usual procedure when a farmer brings milk to a creamery that the scales on which the milk is weighed are not made available to the farmer for inspection. I have been told—I have not checked up on it to ascertain whether it is true or not —that in a number of creameries the milk is weighed and measured and that the farmer will get a docket but he will not be allowed to witness the transaction between the creamery manager and the creamery staff in regard to the measuring and weighing of the milk. I consider that a very serious state of affairs. I have every reason to believe that the representations which have been made to me are true because I have been given an assurance by a number of farmers who bring milk to a particular creamery that information as to the amount of milk and the weight of the milk is not made available to them in person at the creamery but that they are notified afterwards. When a protest was made they were told that they could bring their milk elsewhere if they were not satisfied with the manner in which it was received. I hope that inquiries will be made into that and, since the Minister is not in the House at present, that the officials of the Department will take note of it and see to it that the farmers will be informed with the least possible delay of the amount and weight of the milk so that they can see if it is correct. In conclusion, may I say that we are very pleased to find that the farming community are so contented to-day. We hope that the Minister will live long to see the results of the policy which he is now operating and that he will be able to surmount the difficulties placed before him by the narrow-minded jealousy that exists in the ranks of the Opposition.
I have listened to many of the speeches in this debate from both sides of the House. I was not here all the time when the Minister made his opening statement but I read it in the Official Report. The speakers from the Government side took great pride in the prosperity that exists in agriculture to-day and the Minister credits himself with it. We are told that agriculture has enjoyed that prosperity only since the change of Government in 1948 and that it is due to the policy of the present Minister. The Minister in his statement referred to the late Paddy Hogan and repeated a phrase that we heard in the old days. He said that his policy could be epitomised in the phrase. "One more cow, one more sow and another acre under the plough." I understood from the Minister that his idea is to stick closely to the agricultural policy pursued during the late Mr. Hogan's period of office from 1922 until 1932.
I do not give this Minister credit for such prosperity as agriculture enjoys, and I would say that it is not as much as agriculture should have or might have. I would further say that the Minister is not taking advantage of this prosperous period to put agriculture on a sound, permanent basis, to put it into a position in which we should be able to meet any depression which may come. Deputy Commons, speaking here to-day, whilst prepared to give the Minister all credit for the price of agricultural produce to-day, fears that this is only just a temporary phase and that it will not last. He said the crash will come some day. The Minister stands for the same policy that was operated here from 1922 to 1932. He happens to be in office at a period when there is a scarcity of agricultural produce and prices are very high. I do not give him the credit nor is he entitled to the credit that the supporters of the Government claim for him because the prices of agricultural products are so high. If we go back and examine the effects of this policy during the period from 1922 to 1932 we will find that agricultural prices were declining the world over and the British farmer was in as bad a position as we are here to-day. Agricultural produce, butter, bacon, eggs, frozen meat and lamb from New Zealand and the world over were being dumped into the British market. The late Mr. Hogan's policy at that time was the policy which the present Minister pursues now. I do not blame Mr. Hogan because he was carrying out a policy that could not at the time bring prosperity to our people here.
He gave the same advice as the present Minister for Agriculture has given now when he advised the farmers who were then only getting 10/- a barrel for their oats to walk them off the lands on the hoof. We know what the position was of the milk-producing industry at that time; that the price of milk went down from 9d. or 10d. a gallon to 3d. a gallon. The policy was the same at that time as that which our present Minister for Agriculture is now pursuing. Mr. Hogan was unlucky in his period of office.
We did not have a Minister for Agriculture previous to 1922 but in the years prior to 1922, as a result of the 1914-18 war, even though our relations with England were not good, the farmers at that time were enjoying an era of prosperity. You found then, as Deputy Flanagan says is the case to-day, that they also had their motor cars, but when the collapse in prices came along the motor cars disappeared very quickly and in that period I remember we had in my own and in every other county agricultural workers organised. During the prosperity era prior to 1922 the workers, through their organisation, got improved conditions and bettered their position. We had trade union branches in every town and village, and I am not opposed to organisation of the workers. The trade union leaders came down from the City of Dublin and told those workers that they would get them their demands and they found no difficulty in getting their demands met because of the fact that the farmers were enjoying a period of agricultural prosperity. But, as I said, the collapse came and the motor cars disappeared, the trade union organisations melted away because the workers were unemployed and the wages of agricultural workers collapsed completely.
When Fianna Fáil came into power in 1932 the first thing that that Government did was to stabilise the price of butter and to keep the milk producers in the dairying areas in business. Wheat growing was advocated then, as was the development of the home market, and its importance was stressed on all occasions by Fianna Fáil. This was followed by a campaign against the growing of wheat based on the allegation that the land of the country was not suited to wheat growing. That campaign was carried on all over the country to such an extent that many farmers thought that wheat growing was injurious to their soil and would impoverish their land. They were encouraged in every possible way in that belief. That was in the early years of the wheat scheme which, we were told, was a very foolish scheme.
I am not going to repeat here the statements made in this House and outside of it by the present Minister for Agriculture on the growing of wheat. When the world war came along there were many farmers who were prejudiced against the growing of wheat and I think there is not any member on the present Government Benches who could take a greater responsibility for that attitude on the part of the farmers than the present Minister for Agriculture. If it had not been for that campaign I believe that compulsory wheat growing and even perhaps compulsory tillage, might never have been necessary. There is not, I believe, anyone on this side of the House or indeed any part of the House who would be anxious to interfere with anybody in the manner in which they conduct their business. We in Fianna Fáil had no wish to interfere with the farmer believing that the farmer knew best what to do with his own land. Unfortunately, however, there was a considerable section of landowners in this country who did not consider the interests of the nation in the way they ran their land. At that particular time it became necessary to introduce compulsory wheat growing and indicate the lands on which it was to be grown. That step was rendered necessary by the campaign of the present Minister for Agriculture. In fact at that time advertisements were put in the papers by people letting land on the conacre system and they made the stipulation that wheat was not to be grown on it by the person who purchased it at the action. The Government of Fianna Fáil at the time had then to counteract that position. They had to make an Order and to give authority to the Department to go in and select land suitable for wheat growing. In the circumstances, in the interests of the country and the community, they could do nothing else.
I admit that the prices for agricultural produce have increased recently. Store and fat cattle were never bringing better prices than at the present time, but I think that the Minister is not taking advantage of the present situation to do what could be done for agriculture. In going through the country I notice that a lot of our pasture land is poor and not producing to the maximum. In many cases our tillage crops could give a better yield. I am, however, referring particularly to pasture and meadow lands. I, like all others, got a little map from the Minister dealing with the rehabilitation scheme and I notice the force with which he stresses that where there are weeds he will take them away and put the land in good condition. On a farm of 50 or 60 acres, according to the Minister, that 50 or 60 acres of land which is arable land is not producing anything like its maximum. I know what sensible farmers would like to do —and most farmers are intelligent and sensible—if they could get the money from the Minister in that case. He will provide them with, maybe, £100 or £150, or whatever it may be, towards the reclamation of those ten or 12 acres and it may be added on to the annuity. Deputy Flanagan stated that he has not too much confidence in that scheme either. He heard the farmers talk about it down the country. He heard them say that it would be a number of years before they would get anything out of it, if at all, in many cases. Deputy Flanagan is in close touch with the farmers and he has heard something.
I suggest that if the Minister wants to get results he should reduce the price of artificial manures so that all the land that is not producing up to its maximum could be given a good dressing of manure. We do not need all this analysis and soil testing to know that the land of this country is deficient in phosphates, potash and nitrogen. The farmer considers that the price of artificial manures is too high. He buys them and applies them to his land, as he is advised to do by the Department of Agriculture, but he gets very little extra profit on the cost of these manures and he is not inclined to use as much of them as would be good for the land. If the Minister would reduce the price of artificial manures the farmers would be encouraged to apply them to the arable land that is not up to its maximum production capacity and we would in that way get better results quicker. We would have a big improvement in our live stock and they would mature earlier. There would not be such a demand for lettings under the 11-month system, to which Deputy Commons referred. Less land would be required to carry the farmers' stock and in that way more land would be available for tillage.
There has been a lot of talk about and comparisons made between the years 1946 and 1947 and the years 1948 and 1949. We all know that in 1946 we had a desperately bad harvest and that it was very difficult to save it. The people from the towns and cities had to go out to the farmers' assistance. They realised then how much their country depended on agriculture. In 1947, after the bad year of 1946, the yields were low. The yields of hay and oats and fodder of all descriptions for cattle were very low. A very severe winter came and a large number of the young stock in the country died. I saw through the country wheaten straw that was left over in the ricks become as valuable as first-class ryegrass would be in an ordinary year, to keep the life in the cattle. Last year many farmers in this country were perturbed because they were not in a position to face a severe winter. The stocks of hay in the haggards were very low and we had no oats, and the potato crop was a failure. If it had not been for the mild winter large numbers of our live stock would have died. They survived because it was a mild winter and not because of anything the Minister for Agriculture did. If you go to the fairs in the country this year you can still see the results in the cattle. They are poor, thin and not as advanced as well-wintered cattle would be. It will probably take them a year or more to reach maturity and that is not good for our farmers.
We have also heard complaints in this House to the effect that our meadows are very light and that there will be a scarcity of hay this year. That scarcity can be attributed to the fact that the farmers were not able to keep their meadows—that they had to let the cattle out on them so that they could exist. I say that in order to try to convince the Minister of the importance of this matter. I am not asking him to drop his land project but I would say that the one thing which he could do for agriculture, and which would be a far better project at the moment, would be to enable the farmers to secure artificial manures at a cheap rate. It would give him something to start off with and we would see the results in a year or two. It would pay the nation well to provide that type of manure at a cheap rate. We would see the results in earlier maturity in our cattle. People would then realise that they have land available for tillage— that they would not need all the land for the bullocks to roam over, as is the case at present. Many people who have been dependent on foreign supplies would then realise that we can carry more cattle on less land and that we have more land available for tillage.
I also suggest that it would be well for the Minister, if he has American money available, to give cheaper grass seeds to the farmers. Some of the old pastures require to be renewed. If the Minister were to follow a policy of that kind the time would come when all our land would be producing to its maximum capacity. It would then be all right to drain that bit of bad land that the Minister is going after now and it would then be an advantage. The Minister should do something to make amends for the statements he made in the past in regard to beet and wheat. Slowly but surely the farmers are beginning to realise that he was wrong and that he set them astray in regard to these matters. Immediately after the change of Government took place, the farmers in my constituency dropped the growing of wheat and turned to oats. They had a big surplus of oats the following year and they were not able to get a market. Last year people who stuck on to oats found that oats failed where wheat succeeded.
I am glad to say that, despite the Minister's views about wheat, the farmers in Kildare have come round to the growing of it. We have heard a lot about four or five barrels from land that is not suitable for wheat. Every good farmer can grow wheat. The man who keeps good cattle and looks after them well is the type of man who will grow wheat properly. We hear about the good yield of wheat from a smaller acreage. When a man is asked to do anything against his will, he will not do it well. I have known cases in my constituency where, under the compulsory tillage Order, landowners who had very good land sowed wheat anyway they could and did not pay attention to it. Instead of converting the straw into manure, when they had it threshed, they put a match to it and burned it. That is not good farming.
We still have the same policy; we are back to the policy that was here before the British were put out of the country ; we are back to the policy that was in operation from 1922 till 1932, as far as the Minister can take the country back to it. I believe the people are coming to realise that the policy of Fianna Fáil to provide for our own people and to rely on themselves is the best policy. Of course, we are not opposed to taking advantage of the British market. Sell as much as you can to the British. Store cattle and fat cattle are now the most saleable things we have on the British market. The Minister did not go much out of his way to help the farmers to produce butter, store or fat cattle He tells the farmers to keep one more sow and one more cow and till one more acre. I see some farmers with a lot of calves. Almost every farmer is now gone mad on rearing calves and that applies particularly to the butter-making areas. There is no market for the butter. The Minister took away the subsidy from the home-produced butter and the industry collapsed. I am told that in parts of the country it is selling at 1/6 per lb. Many farmers ask: "Why should we bother about making butter if that is the price?" It would be better to give the milk to calves. They will go to the fairs and give £9 or £10 for calves.
That is a good price.
It might be an uneconomic price to the man who has to pay it and rear them over the winter. It might pay him better if he could get a just price for his butter. It is uneconomic at the moment, but they have to do it; there is no other way out of it. The Minister could do a lot for agriculture. It is not enough for him to sit there and beam and smile and put out his chest when he hears the praise he gets for the present prosperity of the farmers.
I am just beginning to wonder if people, and particularly Deputies on the Fianna Fáil side of the House, are not underestimating the farmer's intelligence. Do Deputies on the far side of the House not realise that the farmer is at least as intelligent an individual as any other section of the community? Do they not realise at this hour of the day that there is very little necessity, absolutely no need, I might say, to prod and push and advise and coerce and compel the farmer to do things he does not want to do? That type of thing was carried on by Fianna Fáil during the emergency years. I seriously objected, and still object, to anything in the nature of compulsion. It was never helpful, especially as regards tillage, as it was carried on during the emergency. I believe the Irishman has certain characteristics and these are more apparent day after day. It is an old saying and a true one, that you can lead an Irishman but you cannot drive him. If you attempt to drive him, to tell him what to do, you make little of his intelligence.
I think our present Minister has adopted the right approach to agricultural economy. I think by persuasion and inducement and sound advice he will get the farmers to engage in their pursuits with more enthusiasm. If facts mean anything to us, if figures can prove anything, then there can be no doubt that the agricultural industry has been revived. The Minister has produced to us a list of figures showing the comparative prices of agricultural produce over a number of years.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and, 20 Deputies being present,
I was dealing with the tactics adopted by our present Minister. By inducement, encouragement and advice he has led the farmers in the proper direction. Farming is a difficult occupation. The agricultural industry is open to various adverse considerations, such as climatic conditions and market fluctuations. So far as our rates are concerned, we cannot be masters of our own affairs. We are out to export as much surplus produce as we can afford at the best prices we can get. We are not in the happy and enviable position of being the only country that can supply agricultural produce to other countries. We have to meet world competition and unless we have good surplus produce we need not look for markets.
Some people may criticise the Minister and ask why he did not get this or that for our surplus produce. The Minister has done very well. He has to compete against rivals in the British market and to get an equitable price for our produce. He had not the ball at his feet, when he could demand what he liked and say: "I will not sell if I do get so and so." He had to screw from Great Britain the best price he could. A great amount of credit is due to him for securing the good prices that he did secure.
Agricultural industry has many phases. You have the dairying industry and the industries which are complementary to it, such as poultry and pig rearing. As regards the Minister's statement, if you examine it you will find in those spheres of agriculture such as dairying and poultry and pig feeding, that production has shown a great increase. Egg exports for the first three months of 1947 were worth £750,000. In the first three months of 1950 our exports amounted to £2,500,000. Somebody must have been responsible for that big increase. I suggest it was due to the encouragement given by the Minister for Agriculture to our poultry rearers that that colossal figure of £2,500,000 was reached. In the first three months of 1947 our cattle exports were in the neighbourhood of £3,000,000, while in the first three months of this year their value was £5,725,000. I say that the Minister for Agriculture has been wholly responsible for that welcome change. Butter production has gone up in a very marked degree. In the first three months of 1947, the figure was 36,000 cwts., while in the first three months of this year it was 90,000 cwts. If facts and figures mean anything, then surely those figure must convince any intelligent member of the House that the agricultural industry is improving day by day.
There seems to be a prejudice on the opposite side of the House against the sending of cattle to Britain. If we are able to meet our own requirements, I do not see what else we can do with our surplus stock except to send it to Britain. It is the most convenient and best market that we have. I think it is a wise thing to do. During the economic war, an attempt was made here to carry on a trade with other countries. I remember we sent a consignment of meat to Spain and in return for it we got oranges, about 50 per cent. of which could not be used. They were rotten. That was a bad commercial proposition.
It has been said here that the Minister is hostile to the growing of wheat and to tillage. As far as I know, he has never compelled anyone to till and has never objected to anyone who wants to go in for tillage. In fact, he has encouraged people to do so. I remember during the 1948 election seeing a poster—I rather admired it— which stated "less tillage and more food". I quite agree with that. When we were compelled to till three-eighths of our arable land during the emergency, we were not able to cope with it. As a matter of fact, the tillage was done in a rough-shod and happygo-lucky way. If, instead, we had been compelled to till only one-eighth I believe much more food would have been produced. As regards imported versus home produced foods, I stand for the home produced food, as far as we can possibly do that, but I would say that if we are to make a success of our agricultural industry a little of the imported stuff is necessary. There is no feeding stuff that we can raise or that will give better results than maize. At the moment, we have no control over its import. Due to devalution and to the closing down of exports from the Argentine there is only the one market in which we can get it, and that is the United States. We are confined to the one market for it and have to pay the price, and there is no more about it.
Some Deputy referred to home-made butter. He said there was a market for it and that it should be subsidised. Now, I want to say that I am convinced that the day for the sale of it is at an end, and has been for a considerable time. I am sorry to have to say that. Personally, I would prefer it to creamery butter, but I think if inquiries were made it would be found that I am one in a thousand. The people have gone away from home-made butter and will not buy it at any price. I come from a rural area and I know what is happening. I handled it in my time in business, and I know that home-made butter will not be purchased in the shops at any price.
Even in Wexford?
Even in Wexford. The people have gone away from home-made butter and will purchase the creamery butter in preference to it. In these circumstances I do not think it would be right to compel people to buy it and use it. With regard to suggestions for credit facilities for farmers, made in the course of this debate, I am of opinion that they should receive favourable consideration from the Minister. There are farmers who through no fault of their own meet with losses in stock and in their crops, due to weather conditions or other causes, and who, as a result, find themselves in straitened circumstances at certain times. I know the difficulties that are often raised by the Agricultural Credit Corporation in regard to granting loans to such farmers. The banks have closed down in the granting of loans to farmers. In that situation, there should be some co-operation between the Minister's Department and the Agricultural Credit Corporation under which loans would be granted in genuine cases where an investigation showed that the farmer's position was brought about through no fault of his own, but through a loss of stock or crops.
The use of machinery versus the horse has been talked of a good deal here. The Minister favours the use of machinery, but he has not advised anyone to shoot his horse. The farmers of the country are free men, and they can do just as they like in their farming operations, and use machinery or a horse. There is no compulsion. The Minister's slant for the use of machinery means that it would be more adaptable on large farms, but as regards the small uneconomic holdings in the West of Ireland the horse will, I think, always be used for farming operations. I do not think the Minister has ever suggested that tractors should be used on a ten-acre holding. The horse is bound to survive, and the Minister is not hostile to any farmer keeping a horse for his tillage operations or other purposes.
With regard to the rehabilitation scheme, I think it is a very desirable and a very good scheme. If it is the Minister's intention to reclaim and put into production 4,500,000 acres of land, then I wish him all the success in the world. The scheme is a tremendous one and its effects will be very far-reaching. In my county we only came within the scope of the scheme last January. Naturally, we have had no results yet. I think some steps should be taken to expedite it. There are people who made application for inspection last January but so far no inspection has been carried out. The delay is causing a certain amount of uneasiness. At the present time some drainage could be done very easily because the people are between seasons, the turf season and the hay season. I admire the method in which the Minister is implementing the scheme. Rotation in application means that there is no overlapping of officials. Had the Minister applied the scheme in all counties simultaneously, an enormous increase in staff would have been necessary and money would have been eaten up in administration.
I suggest there should be some co-operation between the Department of Agriculture, the Board of Works section of the Department of Finance, the Department of Local Government and the Department of Education. Collaboration is necessary to make a success of our agricultural policy. The Minister should keep in close touch with the Board of Works section of the Department of Finance. More attention should be paid to the repair of roads leading to isolated farm-houses. At the present time it is impossible to bring machinery into these farmhouses. Small drainage works carried out now would help to make the land reclamation project a success.
A very important piece of legislation was passed here last year. I refer to the Local Authority (Works) Act. There are certain provisions of that which could be utilised to the advantage of the agricultural industry. Indeed, this Act might be said to be complementary to agriculture as a whole. The Minister should get in touch with the Department of Local Government in the implementation of this Act in order to carry out its prosions to the best advantage as regards the drainage of land.
As far as education is concerned, I think the text books in the primary schools in rural areas should have a distinct agricultural bias in order to give the children some kind of agricultural foundation in the career the majority of them will subsequently follow. They could be given some preliminary education on agricultural matters such as seeds, fertilisers and so on.
Deputy Flanagan referred to the price of wool. In my constituency I sold wool recently for 4/2 per lb. Deputy Flanagan mentioned a figure of 3/6. Never before in the history of this country did wool reach anything like 4/2 per lb. The same is true of poultry, pigs, cattle and agricultural produce generally. Sucking calves, a month old, are fetching £15 and £16 apiece. Live stock at the present time has increased by 50 per cent. in valuation. over and above what it was in 1947. Surely that is concrete evidence that the agricultural industry is a profitable one at the present time.
I pay tribute to the Minister and his Department. The Minister, to satisfy Deputy Lahiffe, sent an inspector down to Galway to find out what the position was with regard to barley. The Minister is quite prepared to do that for any Deputy. The Minister is accessible at all times. He invites criticism; he invites correspondence; he invites people to his office and he invites Deputies to give him the facts. He is most accommodating. The same is true of his staff. Unless we are people who are perpetually grousing, there is no reason why we should have a word to say against the Minister at the present time.
I wonder was anybody listening to Deputy Flanagan fooled for one moment by the line he took. This House is used to irresponsible statements by Deputy Flanagan. Listening to his praise of the Minister and his vilification of Deputy Smith this afternoon, one would almost be inclined to forget that Deputy Flanagan is the "kept" Deputy of the Minister for Agriculture.
Deputy Flanagan accused Deputy Smith of being a disappointed man and of attacking the Minister because of his disappointment, but he carefully refrained from telling the House that he had a card to play in this debate. He carefully refrained from telling the House that, if anyone supported the Minister, he and he alone should uphold him because during the last three weeks the Minister for Agriculture has tried to uphold Deputy Flanagan by having him appointed as a Parliamentary Secretary; and, only for the intervention of the Minister for External Affairs. the Minister for Agriculture would have got away with it. Why should not Deputy Flanagan extol the virtues of the Minister for Agriculture from the housetops? Deputy Flanagan wil reap his reward in due course. I think his statement in this matter, particularly in regard to agricultural policy, should be judged by some of the fantastic similes he gave to the House this afternoon. I wonder how many farmer Deputies, including the Deputy who spoke last, will agree with Deputy Flanagan's statement that farmers are rolling up to the churches in their Vauxhalls, their Cadillacs and their Rolls Royce cars? I wonder is that a true picture of farmers' conditions, particularly in the West of Ireland? I think if the rest of Deputy Flanagan's argument as regards the position of the farmers is of equal value, the House and the country will be able to judge whether Deputy Flanagan's approach to this matter is real or whether he is more intent on currying favour with his political patron, the Minister for Agriculture.
Is it not desirable, seeing that we have not a House, that Deputy Flanagan and some of the Deputy's colleagues would come back to hear this sensational announcement?
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and, 20 Deputies being present,
I was saying that this picture of the agricultural community driving around in expensive cars is a typical indication of the value we should place on Deputy Flanagan's estimate of the rural community and their economic position at the present time. Everybody knows, particularly every member of the farming community, that the official policy, since the present Minister became Minister, has turned this country into a large grazing ranch for the purpose of producing cheaper food for our neighbours across in England. Everybody knows that the Minister deliberately set himself out to foist that policy on the country.
A Deputy
You are talking through your hat.
Everybody knows that as a result of that policy, the small farmers have suffered very grievously since the present Minister got control. There is no comparison between the position some years ago of the small farmer in the west, who was relying on cash crops and on the other sidelines in which he was traditionally interested, and his position now. The Minister starting with his trade agreement in 1948 deliberately set out to cater for the rancher of this country. The Minister has continued, without abating his zeal in any way, in that particular line. Every official indication that the country has got from the Minister is that he intends to proceed further along that line. I think the disastrous results of that policy will be forcibly brought home to the farmers throughout the length and breadth of the country, particularly if this country is faced with a war, in the near future. We all know what the Minister thinks of tillage and what he thinks of prices as an indication of what the farmer produces. The Minister does not believe in increasing prices for farmers. He never believed in raising prices of agricultural produce as an inducement for the farmer to produce more. The Minister has so often referred in this House and throughout the country to that matter that by this time nobody should have any illusions as to his views. He does not believe in giving more for beet in order that we might produce more sugar. He prefers to go to Formosa for it. He does not believe in giving more for wheat to encourage the farmer to produce more wheat. He prefers to get it elsewhere. He does not believe in increasing prices for any of the essential commodities that comprise the vital necessities of this community. It was not to-day or yesterday that he adopted that policy because he went on the records of this House away back in June, 1947, as reported in column 2052 of the Official Debates of that date, as saying:—
"However, I want to say particularly to Deputies on the Farmers' benches: Do not become obsessed with price; price does not matter a row of pins."
Even the present Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Donnellan, could not swallow that because in those days, before he swam into the Coalition, he had something to say about the farming community. Deputy Donnellan stated at that time:—
"Oh, bedad, it does. Of all the mistatements you ever made that is the biggest."
The report goes on:—
"Mr. Dillon: Is it not funny that you cannot get that into the farmers' heads——
Mr. Donnellan: That is the limit. We will give them the stuff for nothing.
Mr. Dillon: Is it not humiliating to have a group who profess to represent the farmers of this country——
Mr. Donnellan: I wish they were listening to you.
Mr. Dillon:—— who cannot see that and who have led them from one folly to another?"
So that everywhere the present Minister has presumed to lay down his policy in this country; even in the teeth of the opposition of Clann na Talmhan in this House, he has insisted that prices of any particular commodity do not matter one row of pins. He is following the very same lines to-day. The Minister much prefers to buy oats at three times the price from the Argentinian or anybody else, than to give an inducement by way of an increase in price to the farmers here at home to produce oats. I suggest to the Minister that he should throw his personal prejudices against tillage overboard and interest himself in the Irish nation so that we shall get back at least some of the tillage that we had before the Minister's disastrous advent to the control of Irish agriculture.
There are a few matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Department which I think are deserving of some attention from him. I shall refer very briefly to a few matters which are agitating the minds of the small rural communities that I represent here. Recently in the West of Ireland the valuations of lime kilns belonging to farmers have been increased. A valuation of £25 was put on some of these lime kilns. I have personal knowledge of the case of one man whose holding is valued for exactly 50s. He erected a lime kiln for the purpose of producing lime and he now finds that the Commissioners of Valuation have imposed a valuation of £25 on that lime kiln. Of course, the only thing left for that man to do is to pull down the lime kiln.
Is that a matter for the Department of Agriculture?
I respectfully submit that it is inasmuch as the Minister for the Department of Agriculture has announced that lime is one of the most important fertilisers——
The Minister is not responsible for increases in valuations.
I agree that the Minister is not responsible for increases in valuations.
We can only discuss what the Minister is responsible for on this Estimate.
I do not want to infringe the rules of debate in any way but we shall put it in this way, that if the Minister is sincere in his efforts to get farmers to produce lime some special scheme will have to be devised rather than asking the small tenant farmer to produce lime under present conditions. It would be disastrous at the present time for the small farmers to attempt produce lime on their own lands. I say that, for whatever reason there may be, the Minister should take a hand in this case and should do something to stop the absurd position we have at the present time so far as lime is concerned.
The Minister in his opening statement was very chary about giving information to the House as to how far he had gone with the agreement with Britain. The Minister has informed the House that he was very hopeful about the future of the bacon industry and pig production and that the factories in this country and the ships operating between this country and Great Britain would not be able to take all the bacon that is to be produced. I assume the Minister has some basis for that statement and that it has been based on whatever negotiations have been going on between his Department and its opposite number in Great Britain. I think, however, the Minister might go a little bit further and inform the House how far he has got with the agreement and what are his reasons for making these, I do not want to say flamboyant statements, but certainly statements which the people of the country will be very chary in accepting.
There may be reasons why we are not prepared to accept the Minister's word on these matters. We had the Minister's announcements on the price of maize; that it would not pass £1 per cwt., and the people who fell for that yarn are now finding that they have to pay as much as 29/- a cwt. Therefore, when I read these pronouncements of the Minister in connection with the bacon industry and the allegations that Irish ships will be so overloaded with bacon and bacon products that they will not be able to carry them all, I am inclined to be very chary and the country is inclined to be doubtful. I would like the Minister to give the House and the country some indication as to what he bases his prophecies on in this matter because we do not want to be in the same position in accepting these statements on bacon as we were in the case of maize.
Another matter of great interest to the people concerned throughout the country and indeed to the poultry producers and egg producers is what is going to be the future of Eggsports, Ltd. We know that points rationing came to an end in Great Britain and presumably the people in this country and Britain will be free to trade as between trader and trader. People are asking then what is going to be the function of Eggsports, Ltd., and if it is going to be wiped out. During the period of rationing Eggsports dealt with its counterpart in Britain, the Ministry of Food, in the handling of bulk exports of eggs. That period now seems to have passed and we expect some official announcement to be made about the position of Eggsports. It would appear that the Minister, so far as this organisation is concerned, is not prepared to give much information to the House and the country in this matter. At all events the people, and particularly the traders of the country, feel that when points rationing is abolished there is no further use for an organisation of this type and that the quicker it is removed the better so that the people can resume again the traditional trade that went on between the two countries.
The Minister no doubt will be able, or at least will attempt, to justify the recent position in the matter of eggs. He made a good attempt at convincing the Irish countrywoman that 2/6 a dozen was a better price for eggs than 3/- a dozen no doubt he will make just as successful an attempt to convince her that 2/- a dozen is a better price than 2/6 a dozen. I have no doubt whatever that the Minister will try to put that over on the people notwithstanding the fact that the price of feeding stuffs has increased by 50 per cent. in the meantime. I believe that the Minister will, by fixing these prices, cripple egg production in this country so far, particularly, as the smaller farmers throughout the West of Ireland are concerned.
If there is any one thing more than another that will put any farmer out of a particular line of business or production it is the fact that he has been "had". When a farmer feels that he has been tricked and has left a particular line of production for that reason it will always be very difficult to get him back on to that line of production again. We had the farmers and the producers of eggs guaranteed a market and prices for eggs. It was published, and promised, that the more eggs they produced the greater the price would be. We had the rush from 3/- to 2/6, and now it is from 2/6 to 2/-. How does the Minister expect that the farmers will fall for that? Does he not realise that, after all this guarantees, the farmers will be disgusted with the official policy? Does the Minister not know that if he wants to increase egg production, particularly in view of the increase in the price of feeding stuffs, which are essential to successful egg and poultry production, he must obtain an economic price and that the producers will not be prepared to produce at an uneconomic price? I am afraid that the Minister is now committed—as a matter of fact, I am sure of it—to this price and is tied solely to the one market in respect of eggs; there is, therefore, no way out for the small egg producer, especially in the West of Ireland.
I should like to know if it is true—it certainly is common gossip in the trade and it was remoured within the past fortnight—that there was an inquiry within the past 12 days from the Contient in regard to export of eggs at approximately 6d. a dozen more than the Minister's bargain and that the price would be paid in hard currency. That story has been circulated throughout the trade in Dublin—many of them the Minister's friends. I wonder if it is true. If it is, it shows the foolishness of the Minister's policy of putting every Irish egg into the one British basket. There is no way out now under the Minister's agreement, irrespective of what price we might get for them and irrespective of the currency in which we might be paid. The Minister should be long enough in the tooth by now to know that his old friends and good neighbour, the people he is always praising—the British—will always buy in the cheapest market. They do not take Irish produce because they like Ireland or because they have a particular regard for Irish produce. If they could get the same produce for a farthing in the £ less in any other country in the world they would jump at it.
If the Minister's policy has been directed—as I suggest it has—towards selling all our eggs in the British market, there by putting us in the position that we could not get any other market for them and that we are tied to their economy, he can rest assured that he will reap the whirlwind. The moment the British are in a position to get a better offer than ours elsewhere the Minister will be left sitting flat—or any Minister who may succeed.
I do not know on what the Minister has based his very optimistic estimate of the bacon position for the coming year. I do not know what negotiations have been in progress or how far the Minister may have got in them. All I have to say is that the position of exporting bacon to Britain, subsidised out of this fund, is, to use a favourite expression with the Minister, codology. That fund comes from the Irish pig producer and the Minister knows it. However much the Minister may try to cloak that fact, that is where that fund is coming from. If that fund were used as it could well be used by the Minister to endeavour to provide, through county committees of agriculture, cheaper sows or to encourage pig production or pig breeding in some other way, I could quite understand it. However, I do not believe in exporting cheaper bacon to Britain when thousands of people in this country could not and cannot get bacon. I suggest that when the Minister makes these statements about there being tons available at, I think the Minister said, 1/2 a lb. —Deputy Flanagan went one better and said it was available at 1/- a lb.— these statements are only so much eyewash. Any housewife or any shopkeeper who goes through the City of Dublin in search of bacon at the price quoted by the Minister or by Deputy Flanagan will come home again without having got it, and the same applies virtually to every town throughout this State. There may be something in what the Minister said that he did not mind if back rashers or the better cuts of bacon went to 5/- or 6/- a lb. so long as the pig's head was left. We all know that there were never more sows being slaughtered in the factories of this country than have been slaughtered in the past six months.
The Minister's figures for sow services, issued by his Department, are not, I understand, correct. I understand that some mistake has been made in connection with them. However, so far as they go, they do not indicate that there is going to be any production. The fact that tillage has been virtually wiped out in this country and that the price of maize has increased by 50 per cent. in this country will ensure that pigs will not be reared in this country because the prices would not be economic. I should like to see a new price being paid for pigs.
However, if we have one policy to-day and another policy to-morrow it will be completely impossible to keep the industry in any way static as far as prices are concerned. It is obvious that if, for instance, you control the price of bacon and bring it down, the bacon curers will have to bring down the price of the raw commodity. The price of the pig to the farmer will be reduced and if it is brought below a certain level, taking into consideration the present cost of feeding stuffs, the farmer would automatically go out of production and nobody could blame him. The position is most serious. It is time we had some official fixed policy on this matter—a policy which can be accepted and believed in without having complete and absolute changes day in and day out so that no farmer nor anybody in the industry knows what is going to be the policy in 24 hours' time. That is not the way to deal with this industry or, in fact, with any industry. Unless the Minister sets about getting some planned policy and some type of stability in the industry we might as well throw our hats at the poultry industry, the egg industry and the bacon industry.
I want now to deal very briefly with a particular problem that arises in my own country—it may not affect other counties. It is in connection with the cattle breeding scheme. We have been appealing to the Minister and his Department for a number of years because the percentage of Shorthorns shoved over in County Mayo under the cattle breeding scheme is too great and because, due to the type of land there —the mountains and the kind of reclaimed bog on which our farmers produce their cattle—a different type of breed, particularly the Aberdeen Angus, is more suitable. Speaking from memory, I think we have to accept one-third double dairy Shorthorns. As a matter of fact, I think the figure for Shorthorns is greater. We find every year that the number of applications for Aberdeen Angus premium bulls in our county is far and away greater than what the county committee of agriculture can deal with and no matter how we subsidise the double dairy stock there, we cannot get the farmers of Mayo to take them.
I suggest to the Minister that he could relax that rule in my county. There has been a tradition in the west that they have always bought calves from Limerick and the South of Ireland. There is a ready market in Mayo for these calves. Many people from the dairying counties in the south come with lorry loads to Mayo and they find a ready market for them there.
This question of keeping a foundation of Shorthorn stock in the West, particularly so far as Mayo is concerned, is met by the importation of these calves and the Minister could, without any qualms of conscience, relax that particular rule and allow the people to get the type of premium bull that they want, and that is, an Aberdeen Angus or a Hereford, but mainly an Aberdeen Angus. They are particularly suitable for that part of the country.
Deputy Fagan told us that agriculture was never better and farmers were never more prosperous. It is significant to note that Deputy Fagan is not what one would call a small or mixed farmer, that he is typical of that class. Deputy Fagan, of course, is more concerned with cattle salesmanship in the Dublin market than with the ordinary ups and downs of a small farmer's life. It is all right for him and any of those other rancher Deputies representing rancher interests to eulogise the Minister when he talks about cattle for England and about turning the country into a ranch for England. There are people, particularly in the West of Ireland, with whom that does not go down, people who realise that the Minister's policy is deliberately ruining dairying economy and has been ruining it since the Minister took up office.
Reference has been made to the increase in milk supplies in the dairying districts and around Dublin. Do any Deputies from the West, even those behind the Minister, concur with that view, irrespective of the statistics the Minister may quote? We all know from practical experience that there is not a town in the West where milk is not rationed by the suppliers. I say that milk production in the country has gone down very seriously. I assert that and I am sure the Minister's colleagues who are sitting behind him and who come, as I do, from the West, know that just as well as I do.
In any western town at the present time it is conferring a favour on you if the milkman will give you three pints instead of the two quarts you require. That position has come about during the past three or four years. The dairy farmers in the West—I am not talking about creamery areas but of the ordinary country areas where there is no creamery—have gone out of production for one reason, and that is, because they did not find it economic. The Minister does not give a row of pins about the prices of agricultural produce, but the ordinary farmer whose livelihood depends on it does give a row of pins about the price of agricultural produce. If he finds that running a dairy farm does not pay, he will get out of it, or if he finds any other commodity does not pay him, he will get out of it. He produces commodities for the money he will get out of them and nobody can blame him, irrespective of what the Minister's policy may be in the matter of prices.
I appeal to the Minister to forget the bias he has against tillage of all kinds, particularly in view of the very serious situation that is facing the world. If we have another emergency and if we have this Minister in office, how can we face the serious situation that will confront us and how are we to prepare? The Minister has a definite responsibility to the Irish people; he must ensure that our people will have a normal food supply. He has killed that prospect by reason of his bias. I appeal to him to change his mind from the rancher outlook in which he has been steeped and adopt a policy more suited to the needs of our people.
And adopt the battering ram policy?
The few remarks I propose to make are largely prompted by the speech we have just heard. I do not think it has been the misfortune of Deputies for some time now to listen to a speech more prompted by malice and spite than was the speech delivered just now by Deputy Moran. He has had the temerity to come here and state things that, he must know, vary from the truth. As I understood him, he tried to raise the old Fianna Fáil story that this Government and this Minister for Agriculture were influenced by the rancher outlook and that they were in some way opposed to the small farmers, and particularly to the mixed farmers. That is very reminiscent of the Fianna Fáil propaganda when they were trying to convince the farmer who had a few head of cattle to sell that he had something he should not bother about and, if he got ten shillings for his calf, he should be very pleased. It is very reminiscent of the Fianna Fáil propaganda of some 12 or 14 years ago.
The time of the Blueshirts.
I notice now, as indicative of the interest taken by Fianna Fáil in the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, that their front bench is occupied by Deputy Briscoe of Dublin City.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and, 20 Deputies being present,
Despite the call for assistance uttered by Deputy Ó Briain, we still observe Deputy Briscoe solely in charge of Fianna Fáil interests in the Vote for the Department of Agriculture.
I am not in charge of anything; I am just trying to listen and to see if there is any wisdom over there at all.
We will give you plenty of it.
I have not heard much of it yet.
It is hard to be patient when we hear a Deputy like Deputy Moran stating, as evidence of this Government's policy directed against tillage, that this Minister was keen on disregarding the prices to be paid to farmers for tillage produce. I would like to remind Deputy Moran and Deputy Briscoe, who apparently represent Fianna Fáil interests in agriculture, that since 1948, since this Minister took up office, the price of wheat has increased and the price of barley has risen.
That was proved to be wrong on three or four occasions.
On the contrary. What Deputy Briscoe says is absolutely untrue.
It is not absolutely untrue; it is quite true.
I assert here, and I am quite willing to have what I say checked up in any records Deputy Briscoe may have available—I am stating quite clearly what the position is in my recollection, and I will put it against Deputy Briscoe's—that within one month of the change of Government—the period was shorter, in fact— the Minister for Agriculture, at a meeting of County Committees of Agriculture held in this city, announced a five years' price for wheat at a higher level than any price obtained under Fianna Fáil.
That is not so. What was done on 14th October, 1947?
With regard to barely, I to say that at a show held in my constituency in the town of Rathdowney, in July, 1948, the Minister was able to announce the removal of obstacles restricting the price of barley and, as a result, the price of barley in the following year rose to 57/6.
These are two important tillage products. In both cases an increased price was given by a Minister who has been described here as a Minister opposed to tillage and anxious to have reduced prices. I think it is fair comment to make on the Minister's policy compared with the Fianna Fáil policy, that Fianna Fáil believed in, and even still advocate—I do not know whether Deputy Briscoe is in a position to deal with it now or not—a policy of compelling the farmers of the country, particularly the small farmers, to till their land and produce wheat crops at a lower price than this Minister gives, to produce barley at a lower price than this Minister gives, and to engage in tillage generally at the prices obtaining under the Fianna Fáil Administration which were lower than the prices now obtaining.
It is a matter for the farmers of the country to decide themselves what their view is with regard to those two policies. This Government's policy as put into operation by the Minister for Agriculture, is to remove in normal times any compulsion with regard to tillage and to enable the farmer to judge—we hold that he himself is the best judge—the way in which he wants to work his land, and to encourage him, by more attractive prices, to till and to produce from suitable land the crops which Fianna Fáil did not get by compulsion. I think it was the Minister himself who said, in introducing the Estimate, that the best proof of a policy are facts and the record of that policy in operation. I think it is noteworthy that the yield from barley in the last 12 months was a record yield. It was higher than ever we had under compulsion and under the nonsense that Fianna Fáil called a policy in agriculture. The yield from a smaller acreage of wheat was a record yield, clearly showing that the best and most suitable land was put into producing wheat, and that the farmers who sowed the wheat were not intimidated into doing so by the fear of a writ, but rather had been attracted to do so by the price given for the crop by the present Minister and the present Government. These are the facts and they can be checked by Deputy Briscoe in his new found love for agriculture.
That is not correct, anyway.
Deputy Briscoe is behaving very like a parrot. I suggest that when he says a thing is not correct he should be careful with regard to his facts.
The Deputy is trying to save himself from carrying a wrong brief.
I never held a wrong brief in my life.
You have one now.
I do not want to prevent the House of the opportunity of listening to Deputy Ó Briain who, I see, is scribbling furiously on the opposite benches.
Is that a crime?
I think that matters of this kind should be referred to here, because it is true to say with regard to agriculture and other aspects of Government activity, that there is a concentration of Opposition propaganda directed to proving that black is white and that white is black, and directed to disproving, as far as they can, the facts of the present situation. They are past masters at repeating the inaccurate story and things which they know to be untrue.
We had an example of that in this debate. Deputy Corry came in like a dove of peace. He started a long oration by appealing to Deputies not to allow the odour of politics to enter into their consideration of the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. The Deputy, having done that, proceeded to delve into the bogmire of politics to a greater extent than he had ever done before, and, obviously, did his utmost to outlive in oratory Deputy Smith who spoke for a little short of six hours. Having listened to speeches such as we heard from Deputy Corry and others representing the Fianna Fáil Opposition here, I think it was driven home to those who attend debates in this House that, with regard to agriculture, the Opposition have no policy good, bad or indifferent. Their contributions to this debate consisted in nothing more than a personal attack on the present occupant of the ministerial post of agriculture. That became more and more manifest as each Deputy on the Opposition Benches spoke. Deputy Smith led the attack. He apparently bears a personal grudge against the present Minister for succeeding him. Deputy Corry, in every one of his contributions here on agriculture since the change of Government took place, has evidenced a complete personal antipathy to the present Minister for Agriculture. I think it is true to say the same with regard to many of the other speakers we heard on the Opposition Benches.
I know it has been difficult, but I have listened to this debate for close on a fortnight. I was anxious, as I think any person interested in the affairs of the country would be anxious, to ascertain what is the Fianna Fáil policy with regard to agriculture, if they have a policy. I was anxious to find out what it was. So far as I could gather from their leader in agriculture, Deputy Smith, and others, the only thing they have to say is that "everything is wrong but we are not going to tell you what we would do if we were in your place." We must assume, therefore, that, in so far as they have a policy, it is the policy they operated when in office of compelling the small farmer, the man with bad land, to till his land at the point of a bayonet and to pay him prices which were less than profitable and which were less than the prices at present obtaining. That is a glorious policy, according to Fianna Fáil theorists. If that policy were tested by the facts, we would find that, from the very moment they put it into operation in 1939, agricultural production consistently declined year by year, to such an extent that it is only now that we are getting back to pre-war production. People can test those two policies and examine the facts. If they do, they will find that the balance is very much in favour of the policy of the present Government.
There is one other matter that I would like to refer to. It was mentioned by Deputy Corry and I think by Deputy T. Walsh. It concerns the question of beet and of sugar production. I think there is no Deputy who does not appreciate the importance, particularly in a mixed farming constituency such as my own and in other parts of Leinster, of the sugar production industry. That is an industry which should have the support not merely of the Government but of the Opposition and of the people generally. Deputy Corry, in referring to sugar production, suggested that the present Minister was apparently determined to kill both the beet growing and the sugar industry here. I find it very hard to be patient when I hear Deputy Corry make statements of that kind because he is a member of a Party which, when the idea of beet growing and sugar production was first mooted, did its very utmost to scoff at the suggestion.
Not at all.
They did their utmost to kill the industry when it started and to put the Carlow beet factory out of operation by describing it, as Deputy Seán MacEntee did when he was a Minister of State, as a white elephant and something which they would eliminate.
So they did.
Deputy Briscoe said "so they did" and I thoroughly agree with him. They did their utmost to kill beet production while they were in office.
They eliminated the then existing white elephants.
Only for the sugar production scheme put into operation before Fianna Fáil came into office, the people would have had no sugar during the emergency just as they would have had no light had not the Shannon scheme been developed. Deputy Corry has, apparently, the belated approval now of Deputy Briscoe in his utterances on sugar production. Deputy Corry would be far better employed if he went back to the farmers in his constituency and elsewhere and got them to give their wholehearted support to beet production. He would be far better employed in that way rather than in making it a political plaything here and in using it as another stick to beat a Minister, who will never be beaten.
It is difficult to be patient with Deputies like Deputy Moran and his colleagues who state time and time again things which are not in accordance with fact; who state time and time again that the prices now available for tillage produce are lower than those which obtained under Fianna Fáil. I think the farmers, big and small, have now got a sympathetic and capable Minister in charge of their affairs, a Minister who has announced that it is his aim to make the country a nation of working farmers so far as agriculture is concerned. I think that aim is appreciated up and down the country. The farm workers realise that they are sharing in the expansion of agriculture as partners in that industry. Everybody feels that progress is being made and everybody wants that progress to continue.
Before dealing with the Estimate which we have been discussing now for a considerable time, I think it would be better——
Nach bhfuil an Ghaeilig ag an Teachta?
——to clear up one matter which was the subject of cross-talk earlier between the Minister and some Deputies on this side. It is a matter in relation to which Deputy O'Higgins has just repeated an incorrect statement. The present price of wheat 62/6 per barrel, was announced over the radio on 14th October, 1947. I actually heard the announcement myself. It was announced that that was the price that would be paid for all wheat delivered to the mills in 1948. What this Government has done is merely to extend the guarantee for a period of five years. Not alone was that announcement made upon the radio on the 14th October, 1947, but it also appeared in the newspapers at the same time. That can be verified. That may be news to Deputy O'Higgins. It is nevertheless correct.
Does the Deputy doubt it now?
I know that that is not so.
That is tantamount to telling me I am telling lies. I distinctly heard it announced over the radio. I have already said that.
It was not guaranteed, though.
I do not, like other people, see visions or dream dreams.
No, but you hear things that other people do not hear.
Does the Minister deny that fact?
The disgusting spectacle of Deputy Briscoe occupying the Front Bench on this Estimate leaves me speechless. I shall comment on the matter later.
That is the answer.
Deputy Ó Briain is in possession.
I would like to refer first of all to the Minister's handling of the dairying problem. The dairy industry is an important one in the constituency I represent. Some months ago, the Minister made a gallant attempt to try to get the dairy farmers to accept a reduction for the milk they supplied to the creameries. He went to Waterford and made a statement to the county committee of agriculture there. As an advocate of this reduction, he behaved like a cooing dove. He told them what the advantages would be and how much better 1/- per gallon would be in the summer months and 1/2 in the winter months than the 1/2 and the 1/4 which have been in operation since 1st April, 1947. The Minister's little effort was not successful. Some few creamery societies fell for the Minister's cooing, but the vast majority of them rejected his suggestion with scorn. Anyone who knows the situation in the dairying areas realises how outrageous the suggestion was. Instead of suggesting a reduction, the possibility of an increase should have been under consideration. We have not heard much about this from the Deputies sitting behind the Minister who purport to represent the farmers. I wonder what would have happened had that proposal emanated from a Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture. I can imagine the outcry there would be. I can imagine how the welkin would ring with the cries of the representatives and some of the selfappointed spokesmen of the dairy farmers against any such suggestion from a Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture. The next blow the Minister delivered to the creamery suppliers was when he decided to provide the off-theration butter. He says that he is faced with a big surplus of butter and that he does not know what to do with it. I shall deal with the surplus later. At the moment, I want to lodge a protest on behalf of the creamery suppliers at the treatment meted out to them in regard to this matter.
Mind you, he was in a very reasonable frame of mind when it was a question of trying to get the dairy farmers to accept a low price for the milk supplied to the creameries. He consulted them and took them into his confidence, but when it was a question of depriving them of a privilege they had during all the years of the emergency in regard to the 12-oz. ration of butter, there was no such consultation. He just imposed his will on the creamery suppliers of this country. I want to protest against that. I did not hear any protest coming from the so-called protagonists of the farmers in regard to that matter when they spoke during this Vote. Perhaps some of them did protest but I did not hear any of them nor did I see any protest in the reports of the debates that I read. I can imagine what would have been the outcry and how the welkin would have rung if a Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture was responsible for that ukase. Evidently, those farmer Deputies who sit on the Government Benches were, as the Minister described the Labour Party some time ago, as mute as mice.
He did no such thing. Do not misrepresent that statement, please.
It was published in all the papers. I shall get you the reference.
We asked him to bring in the Holidays Bill and he said we were as mute as mice when he did.
It was long before the Holidays Bill was introduced.
You should not misrepresent that statement.
I am sorry if I hurt Deputy Hickey but I am stating the facts. If they do not suit I cannot help that. I want to protest against the deprivation of this privilage that creamery suppliers had down all the years. It was wrong and an injustice. If the consumers of this country had to pay an economic price for butter at the moment they would be paying at least 3/5 a lb. They are getting the rationed portion of 2/8 and the creamery suppliers are getting their ration at the same price. The position now is that the money is being provided in this Vote for dairy produce subsidies and, as a result of what the Minister has done, the dairy farmers are paying an additional portion of that subsidy to the amount of 10d. a lb. on the unrationed portion of the butter more than they would have been paying if the right which they had all along had not been taken away from them.
The next matter with which I want to deal is the question of poultry production. The Minister gave us some figures in regard to egg exports for the first quarter for each of the last four years. In regard to these figures I notice a rather unusual thing in view of the Minister's boast. I notice that egg exports up to the 30th April this year were 165,000 great hundreds less than last year. I wonder is that reduction accidental or, is it an indication of a downward trend in the production of eggs? Perhaps some of the Deputies sitting behind the Minister who have contacts with poultry producers in this country have told him how much the poultry producers of this country are attached to him and how much they think of him, particularly when he is trying to persuade them that 2/6 a dozen is much better than 3/- a dozen or when he is going to try to persuade them some time in the near future that 2/- a dozen will be better than the 2/6 a dozen they are getting now, having regard to the present cost of feeding stuffs. I wonder is there any connection between that reduction in exports in the first quarter of this year —165,000 great hundreds value about £300,000—and the trend in the price of feeding stuffs? I remember reading a speech the Minister delivered at, I think, Portumna Show some time last September. He was talking about the price of maize and the price of fertilisers. He told us in that speech that he was our Minister for maize. "As your Minister for maize," he said, "I can assure you that there will be no increase in the price of maize within the foreseeable future." I do not know what the Minister meant by "the foreseeable future" but the meaning people normally apply to that phrase is that we would be very much older at any rate before anything would happen in regard to maize. What happened? Some months later the price of maize went up very considerably indeed. Of course that was a most outrageously foolish statement for the Minister to make in view of the devaluation of the £ which had happened a few days before, but it is only in consonance with many more statements this Minister has made since he became Minister.
Would you describe them as amazing statements?
That is good— the amazing Minister for maize. Gura maith agat. He can be described as the Minister for contradictions, the Minister for inconsistencies, the Minister for somersaults as well as the amazing Minister for maize and the Minister for fertilisers. He also told us that he could see no prospect of any increase in the price of fertilisers in the foreseeable future. Goodness knows, fertilisers are dear enough or have been dear enough in recent years without having any increase.
So devaluation did not affect them.
Devaluation did affect them because the price of artificial manures generally, if it were not for devaluation, would be much cheaper now.
Oh! I see.
So I understand anyway from people in the trade who are in a position to judge. I do not know anything about that. The Minister knows far more about it than I do because it was part of his profession before he became Minister.
Not a profession, a trade.
Part of his livelihood or part of his activities. In any case the prognostications of the amazing Minister for maize did not work out. The price of maize has increased very considerably within the past three or four months. That would have justified an increase in the price of poultry, eggs and pigs which are produced on imported maize. The Minister has had a disappointment on that question as he had in regard to many other questions. I hope that this reduction here in egg exports, to which I have been referring, in the first quarter of this year, will not be the start of another serious disappointment for the Minister. I hope that this sea of raw eggs in which he was to drown the British will not turn out to be a small pond.
You must lie awake at night.
The Minister was also very cocksure of himself a few years ago when he was talking about the agreement which he made with the British with regard to the purchase from us of our agricultural produce. He told us then that there was an unlimited market for all our agricultural produce at remunerative prices. We did not hear very much from the Minister recently about the negotiations that were going on in regard to agricultural produce, pigs, bacon and so on, that we will have to export. Perhaps these talks are continuing yet and it might be unreasonable to ask the Minister to make a statement about them but we have been exporting some bacon recently to England and in order to export it in that way we had to pay a subsidy so as to give the producers here a reasonable price. That was because of the bad price which the British were prepared to give us.
When the Minister went across to England recently to meet the British Minister of Food he told the newspapers shortly after he returned on one occasion that he did not have any talk with the British about butter purchases because he thought it was useless to talk about butter there when you could not get the price which was necessary to give the producers in this country a remunerative return for their labour.
1s 2d. a lb.
Where then is the unlimited market at remunerative prices for our butter and bacon? There was no price to be got for butter that would pay us and we have to subsidise any bacon that we are sending to the British market at the moment.
We are not sending any at the moment.
Well, I believe that with the trend of things and with the way they are going at the moment we would need all the agricultural produce we have for ourselves, and the Minister should be very careful about supplying this "glorious market" that we have at our door and of supplying "the old and valued customer" we heard so much about some time ago in case our own people who need these products might be left without them.
They were long enough without them, were they not?
I wonder is the Minister convinced that there is still an unlimited market across the water at remunerative prices for our products. Does the Minister still think that? Has the experience which he has had since 1948 in dealing with these people not changed him in that belief? I do not think that there is any change whatever in the attitude of these people towards the Irish producers. They have always got us or tried to get us to give them the best of our products at the lowest possible price. There was in the last century a pronouncement made by one of the British Lords Lieutenant——
A Chinn Chomhairle, when we get back a century, might I appeal to you to bring him to order within the scope of the debate?
I do not want any lesson from the Minister for Agriculture on how I should make my speech. When the Chair tells me I am out of order I will accept that.
The Deputy may proceed.
As I was saying, that Lord Lieutenant made a statement that the future destiny of this country was to be "the fruitful mother of flocks and herds". He was replying to a statement made by a famous Tipperary man, Charles Joseph Kickham. No matter what the Minister may say or what discussions he may have with the British, that is the attitude of the British still to our country and to the products which we have to sell to them. That has always been their attitude in the past and that still remains their attitude. If the Minister thinks that by taking up that attitude that he can sell to them cheaper because they were our "old and valued customer", he is barking up the wrong tree and is adopting the wrong attitude in not demanding of these people a better deal for the country and for the farmers of this country. He should take a strong line in regard to all these things and withdraw all his past gyrations in the matter of agriculture.
It is very hard to know what the general policy of the Minister is. His policy is, apparently, not that of the whole Government. He is evidently supreme in his own. Department and will not take any dictation from any of the splinter Parties making up the Government or even from the main Party on which the Government is based. He is a lone bird and he has no authority from the Irish people for the things he is doing. He is a bird alone and has been ever since he was thrown out of the Fine Gael Party and he has no authority for any of the somersaults and inconsistencies which masquerade as an agricultural policy. Is the Minister's policy one of bullocks and permanent pasture? Is he a believer in the old dictum of that Lord Lieuteanant who said that the future destiny of Ireland should be that of "a fruitful mother to flocks and herds"? We heard from the Taoiseach shortly after he was elected that they hoped to carry on the agricultural policy of the late Mr. Hogan, who was Minister for Agriculture for Cumann na nGaedheal—go ndeanaid Dia Trócaire ar a anam. I want to tell the Minister and Fine Gael and all the splinter Parties comprising this Coalition Government that that policy was emphatically rejected by the electorate in 1932 and was never given a mandate since. The Fine Gael Party held on to it down through the years and they kept dwindling and dwindling until the day they found that they had only 31 members in a House of 147. That policy was rejected by the people at election after election.
They talk about another cow, another sow and another acre under the plough but they will not say that there was a tail to that statement which had a sting in it. That statement was made in Hospital, County Limerick, when the late Minister, Mr. Hogan, urged the farmers to keep another sow, another cow, another acre under the plough and added that they should "tighten their belts and stick it". We do not want to see any more tightening of belts. Our policy should be the Sinn Féin policy of self-reliance, producing from the land what we need for our people here, and do not let us go, as the Minister is going, to nations outside. He is going to Iraq for barley, the Argentine for oats and to other places for maize and other things which we could produce here from our own land and for which we could find a market at home.
I think we cannot get back to the system in operation here prior to 1931 by which time the price of milk had fallen to the level of 4.47d. per gallon. It went up during the intervening period of 16 years so often referred to here and the average was 1/2¾ or 1/3 for the year round 1947. We cannot go back to the system of laissez faire as far as agriculture is concerned. The best policy here is the Sinn Féin policy of relying on the land of this country to produce our requirements.
You have it in butter now, and you do not like it.
We have not a surplus in butter yet. Recently I got figures for last year from what I regard as a reliable source that we produced 704,000 cwts, of creamery butter and consumed 714,000 cwts. on an eightounce ration. That production is still far and away behind the peak production of 836,000 cwts of creamery butter in 1936.
How much did we export in 1936?
About 35 or 40 per cent.
The people are better off now. They can eat it all at home.
That has been the case for years. We have not exported butter for years. We have not exported a pound of butter since 1940. They ate it all at home.
We had not got it.
Thanks be to God that the time came when the people were able to fare better and had not to depend on margarine as was the case when I was a young lad and as was the case during the Cumann na nGaedheal Government when they sold their butter and bought margarine because it was cheaper. We ate more last year on an 8 oz. ration than we produced—if the figures I got are correct. I believe that the source from which I got them is reliable. I am subject to correction in regard to those figures. The Minister can give us the figures in respect of production and consumption. I think the production figure is correct. It was given in reply to a Parliamentary Question in this House. If that is so, where is the necessity for the eight ounces at all: where is the necessity for the ration? Why not do away with it? It is a disgrace to continue the rationing of butter when production is at the level at which it is at the moment; when there has been an increase in the number of cows and when the cows are milking better, thus pertar mitting of an increased supply of milk to the creameries.
How would you make up the difference between the price for milk and the price for butter?
That is the Minister's responsibility and let him face it.
That is not an answer to the question.
I have an answer to it. However, let the Minister deal with the problem. If we were the Government we would have dealt with it and faced whatever the consequences might have been, popular or unpopular.
The Deputy is making a case; he should answer the question.
I am making the case that we should do away with butter rationing, and I am entitled to do so on the figures available. This matter is the responsibility of the Government. They are continuing the rationing and there is no meaning in it in present circumstances.
I was thrown off my line a small bit but it did not make any difference. I think I got on better as a result. I was asking what was the Minister's policy. I suggested that the best policy for this country would be to produce what we require from the land of Ireland and to let our own people have first preference in purchasing the produce. If there is a surplus in any line we will have to dispose of that surplus as best we can, realising the limitations which there are. There has been a good deal of talk about increasing our agricultural production. There is room for an increase and a substantial increase, in some respects. There is room for an increase in bacon until we meet all our own requirements—and when there is a surplus, well then, God help us because unless we have a better purchaser than the British we are going to be treated as we have always been treated: we are not going to get the price which will give our producers the cost of production, particularly in present conditions and even, as the Minister says, if they walked the pigs out of the houses. There is room, particularly, for an increase in tillage crops—wheat, oats, barley, potatoes, roots and so forth. There is room for an increase in the production of crops, such as vegetables, tomatoes. The Minister is very fond of tomatoes and he has shown it especially as far as the Gaeltacht glasshouse scheme is concerned. However, there is not so much room for increases production in butter, bacon and eggs because as the position is beginning to show itself now, we are going to get burned. If there has to be an export market, the farmers and their workers should not always be expected to provide at sacrifice prices the exports required in order to enable us to purchase those goods which we cannot produce here. Every section of the community should take a share in bearing that burden.
Hear, hear!
What, then, is all the talk about in connection with exports and remunerative prices and so forth?—more of the ballyhoo that we are sick of listening to. Will the Minister shut up about it and, instead, implement a rational agricultural policy, seeing that he occupies the position he does occupy and which he obtained by backstairs barganing. We want no more somersaults, ballyhoo and blather. We want a rational policy which will give security to our people on the land and, so far as it is possible, to know what kind of a future they are facing in this uncertain world. If he can get a policy of that kind on which we can all more or less agree, in principle at any rate, whatever about the details, then we shall be doing a good day's work and, in future, avoid a lot of the interchanges that takes place in these debates every year in regard to agricultural policy in this Minister's period and when other Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Government were in his place.
It might be well at the outset to call attention to the fact that probably we would have a better debate on agriculture if some nonfarming Deputies in their contributions would use language other than that of which I have taken down examples here. I do not think it tends to improve the tone of agricultural debates when certain people who know nothing at all about agriculture come in and accuse the Fianna Fáil Party of having done certain things—of having told inaccurate and untrue stories, and so forth. They talked about the quagmire of agriculture. There are a few Deputies in this House who are noted for stirring up quagmires. It would be much better for agriculture if these Deputies would stick to their own lasts and leave the subject of agriculture to be hammered out by the farmers Deputies. We have heard appeals to the farmers of the country, to the members of the Opposition and to others to co-operate with this Department and these appeals would be given a better hearing if certain Deputies would remain silent. However, the statement was made that there are 70 per cent. of the farmers behind the policy of the present Minister. It might be all the better if we could get away from the practice of using percentages and estimates in certain directions. I challenge that statement and I do so on the basis of having listened to this debate and other debates here and what I have heard from various sections, not alone from the Opposition but from supporters of the inter-Party Government, various criticisms and suggestions to the present Minister about the policy concerned.
We have been arguing here whether there was a surplus of barley, oats and potatoes in the past few years. I am in this position, I happen to be a farmer, and two years ago I had a surplus of potatoes. That was in 1948. I had them in sacks for the buyer; I used to deliver several tons at a time. The merchant I was to sell them to could not buy, and there they were actually growing out of the sacks, and eventually I had to sell them for pig feeding. I had a surplus for feeding my own animals. I suggest that instead of arguing and trying to put on the Opposition that we are out for propaganda, it would be much better to face up to the actual position. We are in fairly normal times but, unfortunately, we are entering on very abnormal times again and the Irish wheat that is growing to-day will have to feed our people until 1951, supposing you cannot get foreign supplies. On that basis I would suggest to all and sundry, to people who get up here and who are not farmers, who get up here only to score points, that it would be better for all of us even to encourage and back up the Minister to give a price incentive for the production of a greater quantity of wheat.
There are many people parting to-day about wheat and what the Fianna Fáil policy was. They were very glad to eat the wheat produced here when we could not get wheat elsewhere, and even then it was necessary to mix in barley and other cereals to keep up our bread supply. I think the Minister will get full co-operation there. We are told of the success of the presentday policy and figures are compared, particularly in regard to cattle and crops. I want to know whether, as regards cattle and crops, it is fair to compare the 1947 season with other seasons. Do we not know that cattle died then in the winter and spring because of the bad class of fodder and the severe weather? It was one of the severest periods in memory. Do we not all know the difficulties the farmers had with the bad quality of the grain after the harvest? They were confronted with great difficulties, due to conditions over which they had no control. We ought to thank God that last year gave us good crops. There was a period when the farmers were perturbed until the rains came, and then things turned for the better.
I do not see any use in all the talk about growing as much wheat on a smaller acreage. It is true, and why not? If the farmers in 1945, 1946 and 1947 had access to manures for their land, conditions would be very different. I heard several speakers refer to the land. I come from a mixed tillage area. Mixed tillage is no new things to us. The word was bandied about by some people who do not know what it means. I come from an old tillage area and I know well that the majority of the farmers are doing their job fairly well. If they had manure from 1946 to 1948, as they had it during the past couple of years, free access to manure, they could have as good crops as they had last year and the year before. That is only common sense.
I give every credit to the Minister and his Department for what they are doing to improve the soil. But let us not give all the credit to the Minister. There must be fair play and it must be admitted that the Fianna Fáil Party started the work at Johnstown Castle, in Wexford. There is splended work going on there and I was glad to hear the Minister giving us an invitation. As a matter of fact, I am going there on the invitation of the young farmers of the district. It will be well worth while.
I would like to nail the lie that Fianna Fáil will not co-operate for the common good. That is wrong. Some of the juvenile speakers here took up that line, but it is wrong. Fianna Fáil will co-operate where necessary for the common good. That sort of talk will not get us anywhere. We have all this talk about the farmers never being better off. I would like to know how many successive good years farmers have had—and by good years I mean years in which average prices would leave the farmers with a reasonable margin over the cost of production. The point is, will one good year make up the difference to a farmer who is hard hit? Will it put him on his feet again? Can anyone say that in recent times the farmers are so well off as some Deputies have suggested here?
My colleagues in my constituency have talked about farmers having motors cars outside churches on Sundays. Are they not as well entitled to have them as the other sections of the community, no matter who they are? As against that, perhaps there was no motor car except the priest's car there ten years ago, but if there are seven or eight cars to-day I would be glad to see them there, and I would be glad to see 40 there. I would not talk in a derogatory way about it.
Those who talked were boasting about it.
As regards the price of wheat, I would ask the Minister to be fair about it. Before we have any more crossfire in the House I would like to ask if it is not a fact that there was an announcement made by the Minister for Agriculture in October, 1947, as a guide to farmers for the 1948 crop, that the prices would be 62/6? It came from the Minister's mouth and we were glad to hear it. He announced that price early in the spring, and he added that it would hold for five years. That was a step in the right direction. I put it to the Minister now that from the time he took office many changes have occurred in farming. Have the farmers' costs not gone up? Are the farmers' costs to-day not going up? Has the cost of machinery to-day, due to the recent devaluation, not gone up? Is the farmer not paying more now for agricultural machinery than he was paying two years ago? Should there not be some set-off against, that?
People talk about average farmers. What does an acre of wheat or barley or any cereal mean in the economy, in the income, of a small farmer? How much net income will he have after all his labour in producing any of those crops? That is a point some people should examine into and they might be less vocal then. They think because the farmers had a good yield and got 62/6 a barrel that he should now be a millionaire. That is contrary to the fact. The same applies to butter. I am sorry the Minister agreed to stop giving a subsidy to the farmers in those areas where there are no creameries and where there was a surplus summer production of butter. I agree there was a certain quantity of butter put on the market that could not be considered of first quality. In the interests of Irish agriculture the less said about that the better.
Hear, hear!
It is not my business to go around parting about how my neighbour does his work. If my neighbour does something that I do not like, that is his business. If we want to sell our producer abroad. I advice the Minister that it would have been better, instead of removing the subsidy at that time, to have sent one of his inspector to stand by in the local towns or get the butter buyers from Cork or wherever they come from to refuse to buy the butter if it was not up to a certain standard. In the year when the subsidy was on, on every Tuesday morning for a number of weeks in the peak period I delivered butter for my wife in the town of Mountmellick.
The butter buyer called attention to the fact that he would like to get more butter well washed and cleanly handled. I agree that if there is an appeal made to segregate the different qualities of butter and to tell people who bring in butter that is not up to quality to go about their business and bring it home, in the same way as our Minister in our time had to tell people to bring home dirty eggs, the situation would be better. We could then leave the good farmers who produce well-made and good-quality butter to get the 2/11.
I say that the recent Government decision proves home to the hilt what I said when you can buy non-subsidised butter at 3/5. I say that the farmers who were producing during the peak period of production were entitled to a price above 3/- for their butter. We have heard some Deputies say that if the butter were brought into Mullingar a better price could have been obtained. How many people could get a fair price for their butter? Do Deputies think that a woman would have the time to go hawking her butter around the town to see what she could get from a few customers? Would it not be better that she should dispose of it in bulk and so have it handled properly?
I suggest to the Minister that if he could establish creameries in suitable areas to take up the peak supply of milk and have it manufactured into butter, it would have the result of increasing the gross production of butter all over the country. That would be a good thing at a time when farmers who cannot afford to pay £7 or £8 for suck calves are at their wits' end as to how they will dispose of their milk.
Will the Deputy help me to have it manufactured into cheese?
On the question of beetgrowing, I think the Minister would be well advised by the Dáil—I think Deputies, no matter in what part of the House they sit, should forget their prejudices and give the Minister this advice—to consider that now is the time for him to prepare a new and a bold policy for the next season. Whether the ploughs that are employed in the work of sowing next season's crop are horse-drawn or tractor-drawn is immaterial. The crops that will be harvested in 1951 will be sown next spring. We see dark clouds hovering around the world. I think the Dáil would be well justified in giving the Minister full support if he were to prepare a bold and a vigorous tillage policy for 1951.
We have heard a lot of talk about Fianna Fáil compulsion. I heard one young Deputy say that Fianna Fáil imposed compulsion in 1939. It did no such thing. I think it was Deputy Fagan who referred to certain selfish farmers who would not do their duty. If it were not for the fact that men who had good land and who could afford to do the tillage which the nation needed failed in their duty, Fianna Fáil would never have imposed compulsion. It was a case of dire necessity when compulsion was introduced.
The same thing happened in the case of the Minister for Supplies. He was criticised afterwards for the provision that he made in having supplies of fuel available. I refer to this because the handling of fuel is considered agricultural work. I am simply making a passing reference to that. But we all remember the talk there was here about the Minister's madness in piling up supplies of fuel in the Phoenix Park. I think that if the Minister for Agriculture were to start now piling up supplies of wheat, oats, barley and beet to ensure the nation's supplies in the next two or three years, every every Deputy should stand behind him, no matter what amount of subsidy he might need to give a fair deal to the farmer and the agricultural worker in producing these supplies. If the Minister were to do that he should not be criticised un fairly for it.
Where would I put the three years' supply? Is it in the Park-with the coal and the turf?
There were some references made to the Tuam beet factory. Some Deputies expressed the hope that it should be closed and taken elsewhere. I think it would be far more sensible to advice the farmers in the western parts of the country, those within a radius of 30 or 40 miles of Tuam, to grow the best which the factory requires. I think every encouragement should be given to them to do that so as to keep the factory in full production and so that the farmers in the midlands would not have to send their beet to the Tuam factory. I think that would be more practical advice to give at the present time than to have this talk of closing down the Tuam factory or of transferring it elsewhere. If that transfer were to be made it could hardly become effective for a year or two. I think the sort of talk that we heard here about the Tuam factory is not calculated to do any good.
I would ask the Minister to press home in the Department that part of the policy which he inherited from his predecessor in relation to farm buildings. Now that buildings materials are becoming more freely available, farmers should be encouraged to avail of those grants and progressively to put up storage for their own grain so that they may be able to earmark a certain quantity of it for the feeding of their own live stock. The question arises, whether the granting of a large number of such applications would interfere with the house building that is going on privately and under the Department of Local Government. I am anxious to know whether in such circumstances there would be sufficient supplies of cement to go all round. I have heard of builders down the country who are doing work for local authorities and when asked by farmers for estimates for the building of cowbyres and lofts for the storage of corn, replied that they had to let men go at a certain time because they could not get supplies of cement. If we could get an assurance that supplies of cement would be available, I think it would be good policy to encourage farmers to avail of those building grants.
The Deputy would not be afraid of his valuation being raised?
No. I am glad the Minister reminded me of that because it was stated by some Deputies who sit on the benches behind the Minister— they must have been referring to me or to some of my colleagues—that at a Fianna Fáil meeting we advised farmers against participating in the farm improvements scheme and the farm buildings scheme. Speaking for myself, I want to say that I never did any such thing. If that statement is attributed to me by any of the spokesmen at the other side of the House, I want to say that it is not true. I am not responsible for what other people may say
This evening a Deputy at the other side said I was scribbling madly and taking notes. I want to say, in reply, that I am entitled to take notes of anything that is said in this House. I have often heard the Minister upholding the privileges of members and I make no apology to anyone for making notes during any debate. If that is the sort of thing that is going to be put across, then, whether it is good for debate or bad for debate, I do not know.
On the question of providing storage for native grain credit must be given to the Fianna Fáil Government for having deliberately had silos erected in our major cities and towns to act as the nation's granaries. I suggest to the Minister that he should erect more granaries at certain strategic points. For instance, one would be very useful in Athlone to take the midland corn. That would be on the direct supply route to the West, where the farmers are not in a position to produce enough grain for their own needs. I remember a few years back when grain was selling at a very unsatisfactory price. I remember having a chat with a certain Deputy here, and telling him how unsatisfactory the price was in the Mountmellick area. We discussed the possibility of transferring the grain from the midlands, where it was in abundance, to the western counties where it was in short supply. This Deputy came from County Mayo. We wanted to transfer it at a fair price to the midland farmer. He agreed to make inquiries, and the following week he came back and said that he could place three or four wagon loads to commence with. He told me the price. I compared the price with the home price and it was better than the price we were getting at the time. But when I went to the railway station to inquire the cost of carrying the grain from the midlands to the west it knocked the bottom completely out of the whole idea. I suggest there is room for improvement in respect to the cost of transport and, if necessary, the Minister should subsidise the railway to enable it to transfer grain to those areas where it is needed.
The Minister must agreed that he did make a mistake with regard to maize prices. I do not blame him for that. Anyone can make a mistake. He certainly promised us Indian meal at £1 per cwt. Taking into consideration the cereal acreage this year, I think this is a matter which should be examined if we are to continue our poultry and pig production. The distribution of grain produced here and its removal at the right time calls for careful examination and consideration of the position. In my opinion the right time at which to take grain off the farmers' hands is when it is in sacks having come back from the mill except, of course, in the case of those farmers who are lucky enough to have adequate storage accommodation. Last year in Tullamore I know that the farmers who had oats to sell could not sell them to the local merchants because there was not sufficient storage. I was standing by when an arrangement was reached between two farmers, one a big grass farmer and the other a small tillage farmer. The man with the grass farm agreed to take the oats at £1 per barrel from his neighbour. I do not think anyone could approved of that arrangement. I think the Minister would be well advised to strike a fair price and to make arrangements through the medium of some State-sponsored scheme to buy up all the barley, oats and wheat at harvest time, and to make arrangements for its storage. That should not be impossible, and I think it would be very advisable in view of the fact that we appear to be approaching yet another emergency.
The Minister did state that extra storage accommodation will be provided. That is a step in the right direction. It is essential that that accommodation should be provided in the right places. In that respect the Minister should pay particular attention to those counties which have a reputation for mixed tillage and where, no matter from what quarter the wind blows, the soil does not become run out. These are the counties with the tillage tradition, and the farmers in them will stick to tillage.
I know a little about the Department and I have had very close association down the years with its officials and instructors. I know a bit about what goes on in Glasnevin. It is not next November or December we should consider this matter. Now is the time to do that. I can assure the Minister that I know several farmers who brought their corn in to the merchants in the normal way and the merchants could not take it off their hands. They had to store the corn in the town.
And they had the storage capacity there?
I do not blame the merchants.
I see.
The Deputy need not try to draw a red herring across the trail. I am probably more concerned about the farming community than the Deputy is since I happen to be a farmer myself. I was talking to a man in Tullamore and, at that time, the quotas were full and some of the merchants had stocks, in fact, from the preceding year.
Idle stores!
That is a matter for the Government and that is where the Government should step in and commission certain people to take up the surplus corn at a fair price.
I suggest a farmers' co-operative should do that for themselves.
Storage cannot be built in a day.
I know that.
I know the Deputy made the suggestion in good faith but there are a lot of snags. If there are areas, as Deputy Davin says there are, in which there is surplus corn the Government should instruct certain merchants to take that corn away and store it to be subsequently dealt with in whatever manner they think fit.
You would agree to that.
I do agree with it.
It should have been done last year.
I am sure Deputy Flanagan's word will be taken. He referred to two districts with which I too am acquainted where the farmers should malting barley at less than £ 1 per barrel. That should satisfy Government Deputies. I am not trying to make propaganda out of it. I am merely stating the fact.
I know you are, and the sooner the co-ops. start working the better it will be for the farmers.
It is a pity that speech was not made last year.
I do not want any dialogue across the floor of the Houses. I do not interrupt other Deputies. I could never understand why the Department, under the direction of the Minister, had to close down the farm improvements scheme for a whole year. I could never understand why that scheme could not have been carried on during that period and then slipped in as part of the land reclamation project. I asked the Minister on one occasion— I think it was a fair question—if he would be prepared in cases where his officials could certify that a farmer had done a certain amount of reclamation work, such as he intends doing himself or getting the farmer to do under the land rehabilitation scheme in order to clear land, to make available to those farmers certain manures and lime. I cannot see why a farmer who cleared certain fields under the guidance of the Minister's predecessor in 1947 and 1948 should be debarred from getting the same benefits from that part of the Minister's programme in relation to lime and manures as the farmers are getting who actually carry out the same work under his particular project. I would advise the Minister not to spend as much as one shilling on certain land unless he is sure that that land will be subsequently maintained. I know old farmers in my constituency who remember certain reclamation work being done. There is an example of it in the Wolfhill area. Deputy Davin knows that area very well. Drainage work was done there; the land was not subsequently maintained and after four or five years it went back to the derelict condition in which it was in the first instance. I think the Minister could improve on his programme if he went out after the second-class land first and put it into good heart. There is a tail of land on practically every farm overgrown with bushes and furze. I think that type of land should be dealt with first. I think it would bring about a better increase in production.
I have recommended and do recommend all farmers to avail of the schemes outlined. I think better improvement work can be done by the farmer and his employees than by an outside interest. There are areas, perhaps, where a Government scheme might be necessary. That is the difficulty. There are areas where there is a scarcity of agricultural workers already.
Hear, hear.
I think that a machine and a couple of men will do a lot of work, but I would prefer the other thing to come first. I am not suggesting that any farmer who wishes to avail of the other parts of the scheme should not have a free choice to do that. That is his own business.
I agree that labour is a problem. There is practically full employment.
Mr. Blaney
40,000 have emigrated.
Where?
Mr. Blaney
Since you came into office.
I do not want to carry on this debate any further. I certainly suggest to the Minister that he should not follow the bad example of some of his supporters who have spoken. I think we would have a higher tone in the debate if certain things to which I have been listening were left unsaid. In that way we would face up to a debate of such importance, in the way it should be faced up to.
Since this debate started, one thing that I have noticed flung across to this side of the House from Government Deputies is the allegation that we in Fianna Fáil have deliberately gone out to sabotage the land rehabilitation scheme. I heard my colleague, Deputy Madden, make that accusation against us. Speaking in this debate when introducing the Vote, the Minister as reported in Volume 121, column 1810, said when dealing with the land rehabilitation scheme:—
"Open confession is good for the soul. I ran into a bottleneck. I took a gamble. I believed that the land project would not develop faster than I could locate pipes. In a sense, I am glad and happy to say that it did, but I do not deny that I experienced a couple of weeks' embarrassment because I had drains opened and could not gets pipes to put in them. But where there is a will there is a way. We got them in Derry, Holland, Crumlin, Athlone. We got them wherever we could get them."
He asked for the co-operation of all Deputies in this House to help him out of his difficulty as regards the procuring of pipes. I am glad to inform the Minister that I took him at his word. Further on in the same column the Minister said when speaking about the unsuitability of concrete pipes:—
"Provided the land has not an acid reaction generally (he was speaking in reply to an interjection by Deputy Smith), then the Deputy will have observed that in that category of land we are using clay pipes. These are the ones that we had to get in Derry and anywhere else that we could put our hands on them."
I have welcome news for the Minister. I became interested, and I shall read here a letter I received from a farmer in West Limerick, and I am sure if the Minister was serious in the statement he made here on 15th June that he will take due notice of this letter. It reads:—
"Re yours of yesterday, which I regret I could not answer by return, as I was away from home, the greater portion of my home holding of 200 acres is of clay deposit, the same as that which the brick was made out of years ago. It is about half a mile from the surrounding bogs. This clay deposit is also in many of the adjoining farms. The brick works in Clounleharde were started by Colonel Dixon in the year 1812 and continued successfully until Mr. Sheldrake (Colonel Dixon's steward) retired through illness, when the work fell through. A sample of the clay deposit here was sent to the geological section, Hume Street, and was considered by them as the best of its kind in Eire. There were a great many houses built of the brick—even a number of houses in Limerick City. It is about 130 years since the houses were built in this area and they are in perfect condition."
Further in a postscript he says:—
"The clay (drainage) pipes made from the clay deposit here are still to be seen through the lands in this locality."
I am very glad to have this information for the Minister, as I think that it is proof that the accusation which has been made against us in Fianna Fáil, that we set out deliberately to sabotage the land rehabilitation scheme, is untrue. As a Deputy representing Western Limerick, I can say that the farmers there have availed more of the land project scheme than the farmers in any other district in Ireland. I resent the accusation made against us by Deputy Madden that we went out deliberately to sabotage this scheme.
It was also said that we told the farmers that if they availed of the schemes their land would be revalued. That is not so and the proof of our genuine desire to help in anything that is for the general good is contained in that letter. I would ask the Minister and his officials to look into this matter and if they are anxious to start this industry in Clounleharde they can get clay pipes manufactured there.
May I ask Bord na Móna to get in touch with the Deputy?
I shall be delighted to help. We on this side are at all times willing to co-operate in anything to promote the general interest, but we shall not relinquish our right to stand up here or outside to criticise anything with which we do not agree. That is our right and our privilege. Dealing with the land rehabilitation scheme, there is one factor operating in my part of the country which is not really suitable or acceptable to the small farming community. The fact that in bog land or heavy land they have to bring in heavy machinery is in itself a kind of deterrent to the farmers concerned. I think that Deputy Ben Maguire mentioned in the course of his speech that it would be much better if the farm improvements scheme had been continued so that that particular type of farmer could avail of it.
The farmer need not bring in machines on his holdings. He can do it himself.
He can do it himself but there is one matter I should like to bring to the Minister's notice as regards County Kerry and County Limerick where the inspectors are operating these schemes. I think that Deputy Smith explained the matter already. Inspectors go out, pay their visits and come back again with a map of your holding. I know of one particular instance in which they came back and told the farmer:—
"You will have to make 120 perches of drain to the acre, so many main and so many minor, as the case may be."
Many of the farmers in that district were satisfied that 80 perches to the acre would be just as effective as under the farm improvements scheme. Again there is too much delay. I have evidence that when the scheme started In County Limerick on 1st November a good many people applied for application forms, filled them up and sent them to Dublin. These people have got no directions from the inspectors or the supervisors as to when they are to start work. The Minister can state otherwise if he likes but I am telling him what the actual position is. There is no headway being made with that scheme whereas under the farm improvements scheme if it was expanded to meet the case of the people I have in mind you would have three times the amount of work done in the last six months.
You are quite mistaken, Deputy.
If the Minister says I am quite mistaken it is a matter of opinion and a matter of his opinion against mine. I am only giving him the evidence of what I know.
But I have the facts.
And I am telling the Minister what I know and trying to show him that there is some negligence or undue delay on the part of the inspectors carrying out the scheme. I received a letter this morning from a man on this matter. He said:—
"Mr. Collins will you kindly ask Mr. Dillon a few questions? I sent in a form in February to have work done and completed by April 18th. The work was completed on that date, but up to the 3rd of April I was still waiting on the manure. It has so far not arrived and has held up the whole crop."
If this Department which is charged with the responsibility of administering the land project scheme is administering it in the way that Mr. Leahy of a certain town in Limerick says it is being administered, I am sure it would be a matter that the Minister would take up.
You bet, and as you have read the complaint I will read the answer.
Leaving the question of the land rehabilitation scheme I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to what I consider to be the very unfair rate of pay that is given to the farm improvements inspectors as against the rates paid to the supervisors employed in the land rehabilitation scheme. Is the Minister aware that the majority of the farm buildings inspectors have ten farm experience and some of them have up to 15 years, experience?
Their scales were fixed by my predecessor and the other scales by me.
The Minister is now the man in occupation of that office, and is he not prepared to give equal pay to the officials working inspectors employed on the land rehabilitation scheme had no experience whatever, and in some instances they were men who were brought back from England.
Quite right. We brought the exiles home without talking about it.
But others who were employed on the farm improvements scheme for a number of years were thrown out of their work and they had to go across to England. They were men with five and six years' experience of the work, and they were dumped out.
Who were they?
They were men with five years' experience on the scheme. I would be prepared to give the Minister the names of these men.
If you are be sure that you have got their permission before you raise their case in public.
I am glad to have raised that point. I want the Minister to give the same recognition in regard to pay to the men employed on the farm buildings scheme as he has given to the supervisors on the land rehabilitation project.
On the question of manures, is the Minister aware that Limerick County Council initiated a sea-sand scheme and it was sanctioned by the Minister's Department?
Long, long ago.
This sea-sand subsidy was very beneficial to the small farmers in this particular area of 200 square miles but that scheme has been knocked on the head by a recent Order.
How long would the Deputy take to get to the Ballybunion Strand?
What has the Minister in mind about Ballybunion?
How long is the Deputy going to take to get there?
Has the Minister any objection to my discussing sea sand as a manure?
None whatever.
The value of sea sand as a manure is of very great importance to the farmers in whom I am interested. I do not know what the Minister thinks about it, but I do know that it is valuable and was being used extensively. The Minister may be surprised to hear that this particular sand from the foreshore of Ballybunion contains 65 per cent. of lime and potash and other salt deposits in surprisingly high percentages. Apart from its manurial qualities and value, it has a physical value on the land which is of great importance to tillage. We have in Limerick loamy soil, and the physical value of this sand to the soil is very important. It prizes up the land for dressing and tillage. I am sure the Minister is aware that quite recently, as a result of a regulation made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, farmers in the area are precluded from taking this sand.
I beg the Deputy's pardon.
Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Industry and Commerce issued a regulation prohibiting the farmers from taking this sand?
No, but I am aware that the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Lemass, made a regulation to that effect which was substantially relaxed by the present Minister and which was designed to exclude contractors from taking this sand away for gravel for assistant county surveyors in another part of the county.
Can I therefore accept the Minister's assurance that farmers are free to avail of this sand?
As I did not make the Order I cannot speak in that regard. It was an Order made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I want to impress on the Minister that he should endeavour to arrange with the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have the traditional rights of the farmers in the district to take this sand for their soil restored to them. The Minister should arrange with the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the right of the farmers of that area from time immemorial should be given back to them and that any recent restrictions or rearrangements of the regulations under the Foreshore Act should not preclude the farmers of that area from drawing sea sand for their own use,
The Minister is not responsible.
I know that the Minister is not responsible, but I am asking him to use his influence if it is his policy to go out for increased production.
The Fianna Fáil Foreshore Act of 1933 caused the trouble.
It never caused us a bit of trouble. Under that Act a certain mark was laid down in the foreshore and we had a right to take what sand we required within that mark. It is only within the past few months that a committee in Ballybunion used its influence with the Minister for Industry and Commerce to prevent us from taking what sand we required. There is no use in blaming Fianna Fáil for the Act of 1933. They brought in that Act—and rightly so—in order to protect cliff bound coasts, but they were wise enough to realise the value of the sand to the farmers of West Limerick and North Kerry and to give us the right to draw all the sand we required. Now we are cut off and we are not allowed to draw it.
I come now to the price of milk. The price of milk was last fixed in 1947 by Deputy Smith when he was Minister for Agriculture. Surely the present Minister does not contend that the price fixed in 1947 is justified to-day in view of the increase in costs of production and so forth? The Minister's offer to the creameries of a five-year plan of 1/- a gallon was, I believe, mainly influenced by the defeat of the motion in the names of Deputy Cogan and Deputy P. O'Reilly in this House on the 8th March last. When that motion was defeated I believe the Minister realised he had a backing and that he could with all confidence issue this ultimatum to the farmers. The farming Deputies who supported the rejection of that motion were, I believe, responsible for driving our farmers into a defensive position in respect of the ultimatum issued by the Minister. I am glad that Deputy Halliden is here now and listening to me. I read an account of proceedings at a meeting which was held in North Cork at which he was to some little extent brought to task for voting against that motion. The excuse he gave was that it was Fianna Fáil inspired. Can any reasonable person or body of men imagine that Deputy Cogan or Deputy P. O'Reilly would be inspired to do anything for or by the Fianna Fáil organisation or the Fianna Páil Party? The present Minister immediately issued his ultimatum to our farmers to accept 1/- a gallon on a five-year plan. That was rejected. I think the circular was sent to about 100 creameries and that only three agreed: that means that 97 threw it back. It is regrettable that those of us on all sides of the House who are interested in the dairying industry should now find ourselves in a defensive position—trying to defend and hold on to the price of 1/2 a gallon when we should be making strong representations to the Minister to increase the price of milk. The Minister told us that he would never interfere with the dairying industry without the full consent and approval of the industry itself. I am sorry that he is now leaving the House. I had a few interesting things which I should have liked him to have heard.
Did I not stand my ground well?
The Minister is tiring.
I shall be back.
I shall read an article from the Irish Times, dated the 12th May, 1950. Mind you, the Irish Times is not a Fianna Fáil paper. I am sure it never had much love or regard for or interest in the Fianna Fáil movement.
"The statement in yesterday's Irish Times that the Minister for Agriculture intends to dispose of surplus creamery butter at 3/6 per lb. off the ration was officially confirmed last night; and the butter— which may be bought in unlimited quantities—will be wrapped in a distinctive wrapper.
The Irish Times also learnt from official sources that there is no intention to alter the price of milk at the creameries.
Farmers supplying milk to creameries have been receiving a family butter ration of 12 ozs. for each person; this will be reduced to 8 ozs. for each person and will result in a saving to the Exchequer in sub—sidy of some £120,000 a year. The butter subsidy for the present year is estimated at £2,639,000."
Note this and note it well. By reducing the family butter ration of 12 ozs. per person to 8 ozs. the Minister has filched £120,000 from our dairy farmers and driven them into his black market to buy the extra amount at an increased cost of another £120,000, which two figures, added together, total £240,000—almost £250,000. The figures are there to be contradicted if the Minister is able to do so. That is really what happened. Then we hear a lot of talk about non-interference with the dairying industry and that unless the people concerned give willing authority, so to speak to the Minister, he will not interfere. I think the interference with the butter ration was an interference that should not have been made by any Minister. Imagine almost £250,000 being taken overnight from the dairying industry!
I listened on Thursday night last to my very distinguished colleague, Deputy Madden, of Limerick, defending the Minister and making a prima facie case for the Minister in connection with a circular which he sent out to 100 dairying societies to accept 1/- a gallon over a period of five years. On the 22nd June—column 2260—Deputy Madden is reported as follows:—
"The dairying industry, it is admitted, is the basis of our whole economy and it is to this point I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Agriculture—I am glad he is here.
Perhaps there was good and sufficient reason for the Minister to leave to the farmers of the country a few months ago to decide whether to accept 1/- a gallon for a period of five years, but I would draw Deputies' attention to the international position of milk. In the United States of America £1,000,000,000 sterling of milk has been converted into food and in that same country there has been converted or manufactured into food— and this is rather staggering—nine years of the United States egg supply ready if you like to be released on the world market."
I would like to ask the Minister—I am sorry he is not here—a very simple question. I will first point out that quite recently Eggsports received from America a request for Irish eggs which would be paid for in hard currency but, owing to our egg agreement with Britain, they could not accept the American order, much as we in this country require hard currency. It is, I suppose, a repetition of the old proverb, having all our eggs in the one basket.
This statement I make publicly in this House, to be checked by the Minister if he so desires, that Eggsports received from America an order for Irish eggs and America would pay for the eggs in hard currency; but we could not supply them with an egg because we were tied up by our egg agreement with Britain. That offer from America had to be refused. The Minister told us in the Dáil that 2/- a dozen for eggs sent across the water was a sufficient price, a fairly reasonable price, and he said that during the winter months the price would go up to 3/6.
We all remember when the Minister came back from England and when he announced the terms of the trade agreement with England as regards eggs and other things that he tried to sell at the time. He said that the more eggs we supplied to the British market the better the price would be, and he could guarantee a continuity of a good price. Our people in every part of rural Ireland went full-steam ahead into the poultry industry.
We have here, as a matter of fact, according to the White Paper issued by the Minister, the amount of public money invested in the creation of poultry stations all over the country. The wives of small farmers made applications to county committees for loans or grants. What do we find at the moment? We find that that industry has gone. There is no use in refusing to face facts. The egg industry is killed for this reason, that the Minister was prepared to give all the eggs to John Bull at 2/- a dozen. I maintain that he had no right, in the first instance, without the approval of this House, to go to England to make that egg agreement with the British. He had no right to subscribe to any condition or stipulation that the price of Irish eggs would be governed by the price the Danes would supply eggs at to the English market. He committed our egg industry, by subscribing to that condition, to such an extent that now the egg industry is destroyed.
He was in a big position to fight and to say to the British: "We can supply all the eggs you require at a fixed minimum price over a fixed number of years." When he came back here he was actually applauded by Deputies on his side of the House when he announced the terms of the agreement, but he never told us that this secret clause was in that agreement, or that the price was to be governed by the price the British were prepared to pay to the Danes, the price the Danes were willing to supply at. That has put our egg industry in a bad position.
At the time the egg agreement was made with the British the Minister made a statement to the effect that we could get all the maize required for £1 a cwt. Possibly, it might not be fair to the Minister to criticise him unduly for making that wild statement. Possibly, unforseen world conditions made it possible to prove that the Minister should not have made that statement. Anyhow, the fact remains that the price of maize has soared, with the result that any sensible Deputy who comes from a rural area cannot deny that the people cannot continue putting eggs on the market because there is no reasonable margin of profit if they have to pay the present price for maize.
America has sold eggs to England, 15,000 tons at 2/- a lb. She has eggs in her stores to do for seven years.
I will repeat for the benefit of Deputy Hickey that Eggsports received an order from America for eggs to be paid for in hard currency and they could not supply the eggs. Is that not very clear? We have heard an awful lot during this debate about the Dairy Livestock Act of 1926. All my life I have felt that this Act was of British design and was imposed on this country to suit British interests. The results have proved that I am right, because to a great extent, notwithstanding all the talk about the dual-purpose cows, dual-purpose bulls, dual-purpose hens and so forth, the operation of the Dairy Livestock Act of 1926 would eventually destroy our dairying industry. In my opinion, at any rate, you cannot have beef and milk. I have seen pedigree dairy shorthorn cows mated to pedigree bulls and I saw the second and third generation leaving the milk strain and going into beef.
The late Deputy Patrick Hogan gave it as his opinion in 1932, when he was speaking here on the Opposition Benches, giving way to Deputy Dr. Ryan who was then Minister for Agriculture—Deputy Hogan was handing over the Department of Agriculture in 1932—that you could not have milk and beef. It is the opinion of the vast majority of our dairy farmers also. Just before the change of Government I understand a conference of the beef and dairy interests was held and for some time there was a discussion about the repeal of this Act.
As I have said, it was the British who imposed it and, unfortunately, it was readily accepted in 1926. It is easy to understand why it was accepted then. I am firmly convinced that the Dairy Livestock Act of 1926 should be repealed. I know that my pleadings and representations will fall on deaf ears while the present Minister for Agriculture occupies that post. I firmly believe that in agriculture he has a one-track policy. His policy in agriculture was, I think, very ably demonstrated here to-day by Deputy Fagan. His policy in agriculture is the policy of the rancher. I was amazed, and rather surprised, to hear Deputy Fagan say that the present Minister for Agriculture was the best Minister for Agriculture that we ever had in this country, and that he could not see many Fianna Fáil farmer-Deputies at the Dublin cattle market any morning. Well, a lot of them would not have the opportunity of going there and even if they were they would not be in the happy position that Deputy Fagan is in of being a salesmaster.
The policy that was initiated here and carried on for a long number of years, a policy that was imposed on us in 1926, was specially designed by the British to destroy our dairying industry and to change it over, in the course of time, to the production of beef of the best and finest quality to suit the people at the other side. It is no wonder that Deputy Fagan should throw bouquets at the Minister and tell us that he is the best Minister for Agriculture we have ever had. If the agricultural policy of this country as it relates to dairying and its allied branches is simply to be one primarily for the production and development of bullocks here, then the people who imposed that Act on us in 1926 can say: "Well, we have scored at last."
I maintain that if the dairying industry, which we recognise is the basis of our agricultural policy, does not get the protection and the help it requires, Deputy Fagan from Meath will have very little to offer for sale some fine day in the Dublin market, because if dairying is not encouraged and maintained you cannot have cattle for export. Well now, we cannot expect to keep our dairying industry on a safe level unless our dairying farmers are paid a decent price for their milk. We hear a lot from the Minister about this "Drink more milk" campaign that he has initiated all over the country, and we hear a lot of complaints and objection about the price of milk to, say, the Dublin consumer or the Dublin housewife. The people who make such complaints never pause for a moment to ask themselves the question, what quantity of milk does it take in, say, the counties of Cork, Limerick or Tipperary to make a pound of butter? It takes from 2? to 2½ gallons of milk to produce a pound of butter. That is the position in the Golden Vale. The farmers are selling their milk at 1/2 a gallon, and so the calculation of what it takes to make a pound of butter is a simple one. On the other hand, we find that the same quantity of milk which the housewife consumes costs exactly 3¼ times the price. Is there any Deputy from Dublin, be he a Labour Deputy or a Fine Gael Deputy or a Deputy of any other Party, who will contradict me when I say that butter is the best food that can be made available to any family?
The Minister for Agriculture asked while Deputy Gorry or Deputy Ó Briain was speaking for a solution or a way out of the difficulty. That is his responsibility. Deputy Ó Briain advocated the total abolition of butter rationing, and so do I. Immediately the Minister asked: "What will you do between this and between that"? That is his responsibility and his job as Minister. If he is not able to present to this House a solution, that is an admission of failure on his part —that he has not a solution. We have a solution which we will put into operation when it is our responsibility to take over agriculture in this country. The solution will be found, and was found by Deputy Dr. Ryan in 1932, when he brought in the Dairy Stabilisation Act, at a time when milk was as cheap as water.
I heard comments being made here as regards the price of milk in certain years. We were told that in 1931 the price of milk per gallon was 4.47d and that in 1932 it was 4.53d. In 1933-34, when Deputy Dr. Ryan's Dairy Stabilisation Act of 1932 would be coming into operation and giving us in the dairying industry the results we expected, our prices were pegged back to 4.12d and to 4.13d., due to the British tariffs. As Deputies will remember, we were then in the throes of the economic war when tariffs were imposed. When we go down along the line we find that the price paid for milk in 1945 and 1946 averaged between 11.32d. and 11.45d., while in 1947 the average price was 14.56d. In 1948, due to the fact that fertilisers had become more plentiful, milk supplies increased and the average price paid was—I am speaking of butter fat at the moment— 15.02d.
I think that even if I had the oratorical gifts of Philpot Curran I would be only wasting my time trying to make any impression on the present Minister. No matter what representations are made or what case is put up, I believe the Minister has definitely decided to keep the price of milk pegged down. I know that a certain amount of pressure has been brought to bear on him by the farmer Deputies supporting his Government. They are no fools and if Mr. Dillon——
The Minister.
And if the Minister insists on 1/- per gallon on a five year plan that will spell political suicide for the farmer Deputies supporting the present Government. The farmer Deputies supporting the Government cannot play fast and loose with the people who sent them here. They should stand up and openly tell the people through the House that the farmers who are getting 1/2 per gallon are not getting a sufficiently remunerative price. If they have not the courage to do that, then they should do what some other Deputies did recently in relation to the foreshore sand.
Deputy Finucane, in the interests of the dairy farmers of North Kerry, had to take a certain line of action when he discovered that 41 farmers from his particular area were fined a total of £700 for taking this sand for manure. The position was fraught with danger for Deputy Finucane. I understand a solution was found along a certain line of action adopted by Deputy Finucane; that line of action was to issue an ultimatum to the present Government that if the restriction were not relaxed and the regulations amended he and some of his colleagues would withdraw their support. Naturally, rather than have a split, the Government surrendered. I wonder would the farmer Deputies listening to me now have the same courage as Deputy Finucane had and another Deputy from the Midlands who inspired the move. Can they not be as courageous as Deputy Finucane was? It is hardly likely that they will be when one remembers that Deputy Cogan and Deputy O'Reilly brought in a motion to increase the price of milk and were the first to vote against it.
It can be proved beyond yea or may that production costs have gone up by at least 25 per cent. since 1947. Would the farmer Deputies not have the courage now to bring in a motion on behalf of the people they represent asking the Minister to fix a minimum price of 1/4 a gallon? If they have the courage to do that they will be assured of the wholehearted support of the Fianna Fáil Party. I know that they will not do that because, hitched together as they are, if one thread gave way the whole fabric would be destroyed. We should be honest with ourselves and with the people who sent us here. The present price of 1/2 per gallon does not pay any dairy farmer any more than it pays his wife to sell eggs across the water at 2/- per dozen. I am sorry the Minister cleared out because I had some interesting points to make.
On the 2nd May, 1950, addressing the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society at their annual meeting in Dublin, the Minister is reported in the Irish Press of Wednesday, 3rd May, 1950, as follows:—
"Unless they could produce milk during the seven months period of growing grass and convert it into butter for sale over the 12 months the dairy industry had no future.
Mr. Dillon, replying later to suggestions that the present prices should be maintained, said that he did not pay the subsidies, and nothing could be more attractive for an active politician than to pay a subsidy of £6 instead of £4.
What good did it do to him to vex every dairy farmer in Ireland, he asked, when he would not be a 1d. poorer if the subsidy was raised?
He could not, in consequence, recommend to the farmers of this country that they should pay foreigners £4 a cwt. to take our butter away. He had been criticised for making the London agreement on beef exports without getting a price for butter. Could they demand from any foreign purchaser a price in excess of that at which the Danes could supply it?"
There, the cat is out of the bag with regard to the agreement he negotiated when he went across the water to meet the British Minister of Food.
"Mr. Dillon said that, in spite of the problem in front of them, he was not in the least pessimistic. He might get trampled underfoot in the process but he would know his resurrection behind the counter from which he came, and it might pay him better than the £1,525 which he was paid as Minister for working 14 hours a day; but if he had not wanted the job, he need not have taken it. `I was 15 years wanting to be Minister for Agriculture,' he said. `I got what I wanted, and when I stop wanting I will tell you. I will continue to give my best and if you sack me before I resign there will be no ill-feeling.' "
If part of the Minister's speech could become effective, it would be the best news the farmers could have. He said he might be trampled underfoot in the process but he would know his resurrection behind the counter from which he came; as far as the dairy industry is concerned it is a pity the Minister did not stay behind the counter. One extraordinary thing in this debate is the fact that the Minister is singled out, not here in the Dáil but outside, as being responsible for the failure of the agricultural policy.
Again, the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture should be the responsibility of the whole Government. Their attitude brings to my mind an expression used in army circles. They remind me of the round robin. None of them is prepared to take responsibility and they sign their names in a circle. They are not prepared to bear the collective responsibility they should bear for the policy of agriculture, as it relates to the country at the moment. I think that, in the absence of the Minister, I am more or less wasting my sweetness on the desert air. I have a lot of stuff here, but I do not like to inflict it on the Minister for Defence, who has the responsibility of defending the agricultural policy of the Government in the absence of the Minister. In conclusion, I would again appeal to the farmer elements who support this Government to see that the policy of the Minister for Agriculture as regards dairying is changed, and changed in the very near future.
I had the privilege, as this debate went on so long, of reading the speech the Minister made in introducing the Estimate very carefully. I was also able to compare his speech with the speeches he made in introducing the 1949 Estimate and the 1948 Estimate. What was interesting about a comparison of these three speeches is the change we find in the Minister for the couple of years he has occupied that position. I would describe the speech of 1948 as a most optimistic, a fighting speech, if you like. In the speech of 1949 he was on his guard, and this year his speech might be described as a defensive speech. I do not wonder at that, because the Minister was unduly optimistic about his expectations from the agreement made with Great Britain in 1948. He based his optimism for the future on the benefits that were to accrue from that agreement.
One could read several quotations from the speech the Minister made at that time and on the Estimate for 1948. As a matter of fact, the Ceann Comhairle might recollect that the Minister was ruled out of order on the Estimates for his impatience in trying to talk about the merits of this agreement with Great Britain. He actually said: "It is my impatience to deal with them and to disclose their advantage which brings them to my mind." Eventually, when the question of order was discussed and when the Ceann Comhairle had agreed that it would be practically impossible to prevent a reference to the agreement in the debate, it was thought that the agreement might be referred to. The Minister said that the articles of agreement created quite unprecedented advantages for the agricultural industry of this country. He said it was his job, or part of his job, to give the farmers an opportunity to dispose of the fruits of their labour. "That I have already done," he said in 1948. If the Minister goes back over his speeches and particularly dwells on these few words: "That I have already done" and if he then runs his mind over the last few years and just dwells on oats, potatoes, flax, bacon, butter, cream, cheese and eggs and the other items, would the Minister now ask himself: "Was I unduly optimistic?"
Would you?
I would say the Minister was foolish to make such statements. I do not know whether the Minister would agree with that. Either the Minister was mistaken as to the terms of the agreement or he was absolutely mistaken as to the general conditions of agriculture and what might be expected in the coming couple of years——
Was there anything during your whole administration that would compare with last year?
The Minister——
Deputies
Answer the question.
The Deputy is entitled to make his own speech.
I want to refer to the Minister's statement. If I ever said that my job was to provide an outlet for the fruits of the farmers' labour, that might be my job, but if I were to say then: "That I have already done," I think I would be subjected to criticism. In fact, I would say that it would be very difficult for any Minister for Agriculture that ever appeared in this country or probably will ever appear—at least unless the world changes very much—to say: "That I have already done." It is only a man with the optimism of the present Minister that could say a thing like that. I said here before and I say it again that we on these benches were inclined to believe that the Minister had made a great settlement. We did question the Minister very much because we felt to make an agreement equal to that described by the Minister was a very difficult matter and we questioned the Minister very closely. He assumed, of course, that we did not want to see a good agreement, that we were jealous, and he said that he did not wonder at our being rather disturbed about the agreement. These were the sort of answers he gave us. These are the types of answers which it is customary for him to give but he persisted that everything was right. He said that it was on success or failure of his policy in respect of agriculture in regard to these matters that his whole policy would ultimately fall to be judged.
Quote the text.
At column 2607 of Volume 3 Official Reports he says:—
"I am in a position to say to the farmers of this country that there is an unlimited market. Mind you, it is an unlimited market."
Not an unlimited market for 5,000 tons of potatoes but an unlimited market. It is not a market for 2,000 tons of farmers' inferior butter but an unlimited market at remunerative prices for cattle, sheep, pigs—and we exported one pig in January—and for butter.
Remember we had no pigs for the previous eight years.
And he continued:
"For cattle, sheep, pigs, butter, for cream."
Yes.
He says yes although the British will not take cream at all.
Who will not take it?
The British.
Are you sure?
The Minister for Food said so a few weeks ago.
To your great rejoicing.
No, I am not rejoicing.
Do not rejoice 100 per cent.
No, the position may change. I am just asking the Minister is he prepared to state now what he stated in that particular instance, that he was in a position to assure the farmers of an unlimited market at remunerative prices?
Yes, for cattle, pigs, sheep and butter, I believe.
He believes.
For cream, cheese and bacon?
Yes.
Without subsidy?
Yes, I hope so. You know negotiations are proceeding in London.
And potatoes?
No, I never said potatoes. You made that mistake last year and I had to correct you.
Did I make that mistake last year? Sorry.
Yes, I made you get the book——
Deputy Ryan is surely in possession.
You said potatoes according to this reference.
Will the Deputy read it out?
I will read it out. It says:—
"I am in a position to say to the farmers that there is an unlimited market at remunerative prices for cattle, pigs, sheep, cheese, butter, cream, bacon and potatoes."
Go on.
I made a mistake last year but there is no mistake this year. It goes on:—
"Potatoes, barley, and oats and the more they can produce the better we hope prices to be..."
Yes, go on.
"There is no reservation and no qualification about that. I do not think that any Minister for Agriculture has ever been in a position to say that before, or to say to the farmers of this country that it will be irrevocably true for at least four years."
Two years of that four have already gone and do the Deputies behind him believe what the Minister says is true?
Without a shadow of doubt.
In what respect do you deny it?
Does the Minister deny that he said it?
The Minister continuing said:—
"And we hope it may be for a much longer term to come. Therefore I say to them to increase the number of their fowl, to concern themselves to sell their eggs especially in the winter."
Yes, 3/6 a dozen. Would you lend me the book?
Yes.
Stop the interruptions.
The Minister could not content himself with naming certain things.
Might I interrupt the Deputy?
Will the Minister have manners?
He could not content himself with naming certain things and in June 9th, 1948, at column 2607 he repeated all those things. Again at column 2252, Volume 112 of the Official Reports he said:—
"There is no achievement in the course of my ministry of which I shall be prouder than this agreement which my colleagues and I have brought back from London. It provides for the farmers of this country a sure and certain market at remunerative prices for every conceivable product that the land can produce."
Including pigs.
Including pigs and butter. For every conceivable produce that the land of Ireland can produce. There was no qualification about that.
Pigs?
There was no qualification in the Minister's speeches in 1948. I stated here, before the Minister came in, that this type of talk was wrong. I had the advantage, or should I say privilege, of reading the Minister's speech, because it appeared in the Press some days ago, and I am in the position that I was able to read it in 1948 and 1949 and to know that this particular optimism has disappeared.
Oh, no.
We do not hear now that there is a remunerative market as a result of this agreement with Great Britain for every conceivable product that the land of Ireland can produce.
I think there is.
We will take them item by item.
Take them seriatim.
Yes, we will take them seriatim, and I will start with cattle. Cattle are, I presume, the one particular product which the Minister and the Deputies sitting behind him here would say had benefited considerably by the agreement of 1948.
Say a word about calves now.
On a point of order a Leas-Chinn Chomhairle, the Minister for Agriculture is continuing to interrupt and are we not entitled to ask that if he cannot sit and listen to the speech of Deputy Ryan he should leave the House?
Interruptions are disorderly from whatever quarter they come and they should not be persisted in.
The Deputy was to take the items seriatim, and then he proceeds to head away and skip over some.
All interruptions are disorderly.
I am taking the first one on the list and I presume it is the one which the Minister claims has conferred the greatest benefit on this country. I do not mind the Minister's interruptions because as long as he interrupts me I know I am doing very well. If he did not interrupt me then I would know I was not making a good case.
Do not be too hard on him.
I will not be too hard on him but I want to tell him the facts. First of all the agreement so far as cattle is concerned did not make any change whatsoever in the position as regards store cattle. Under the 1938 Agreement store cattle were allowed into Great Britain free of duty and free of restrictions as regards numbers so that the Minister in his agreement made no change to our advantage in that matter. He did make a slight change so far as it affected fat cattle shipments to Great Britain. In the speeches in this House to which I have referred—both on the Estimate in 1948 and on the agreement in 1948—and the many speeches made by the Minister down the country, it will be seen that he gave the people a very glowing outline of what it was going to mean to the future of the fat-cattle industry in this country. I have no doubt that the Minister felt that that agreement was going to improve the fat-cattle trade —and it did, but not very much.
Oh, a mere bagatelle! You could put it in a child's hands.
I would not call it a mere bagatelle, but at the same time it was nothing amazing. Let us take two years before and after for the sake of comparison. The number of fat cattle exported in 1946 from this country to Great Britain was 35,000—I am giving the figures to the nearest thousand. In 1947 the number was 110,000; in 1948, 66,000; in 1949, 134,000. If any Deputy wishes to examine these figures I may say that he will not find that between 1947 and 1948 something remarkable occurred to make any enormous difference, because there was not an enormous difference. To take the two years together, 1946 and 1947, and comparing the total with that for 1948 and 1949, there was an increase in 1948-49 compared with the two other years, but it was nothing very much.
Oh.
With regard to this agreement, I would say that we must do our best to give the farmer of this country a better market in Great Britain for his produce. That was the object of the agreement. It was on that basis that the agreement got all the praise the Minister and the other members of the Government gave it. Therefore, it is well for us to take note of the total number of cattle exported during the four years. I have given the House the number of facts already. However, the total number of cattle exported in 1946 was 462,000; in 1947, 482,000; in 1948, 373,000—that is 100,000 down.
What did we get for them?
In 1949 the number was 467,000. As my colleague behind me has said, there is very little use in talking to the Minister because he does not listen. The price of store cattle was in no way related to the agreement made with the present Minister for Agriculture. Therefore, if he asks me how much we got——
What we got for the cattle would seem relevant.
What we got for the cattle is a very important matter, but I say that the Minister's achievement, as he refers to it here, in negotiating that agreement had nothing to do with the price. I would remind him that world conditions are an important factor to be taken into consideration.
Still, it would be very interesting to hear it.
I think that that is as much as I shall say in regard to cattle. I have a large number of items to go through and if I am to give a few minutes to each I must proceed. Sheep: the number of sheep is small because we are using practically the whole output of this country and what sheep are being exported are getting a good price. We can dismiss sheep at that. Pigs: Now, we will have something to say about that industry.
You have nothing to compare with them because there were not any pigs when you were there.
I am sorry if the Minister gets annoyed.
Not a bit.
I thought I was entitled to take part in this debate. When the Minister was in opposition and when I was on the Government side of the House, he never lost an opportunity of speaking on this Estimate. He used to say very hard things but I did not get annoyed because I knew he did not mean them. I ask him, therefore, to try and control himself while I am going through those few points. Strange to say, when the Minister took over control, although I made what you might describe as a fairly close search of his various statements—and the Minister speaks very often and volubly —I could not find any reference to pigs or bacon in the early months when he took over.
There were not any.
The Minister, speaking at Clones on 18th July, 1948, said that the position was obscure regarding feeding stuffs up to now but that now he is satisfied that we can secure maize and other feeding stuffs at a price which will make pig-feeding profitable. That statement is fair enough. It was the first statement he made and it was an indication to the farmers that they should go more into pig production. The next point we note is that which I have already quoted in relation to the trade agreement where he told the farmers that for whatever they might produce—pigs or anything else—there would be a certain market at a remunerative price. That was a very good hint to the farmers to go ahead. Pig production then increased fairly considerably and we had reached the point where we had enough bacon for ourselves—and then the Minister began to talk about bacon for export. In October and November of last year, the Minister, in a number of his statements, complained of the treatment of the farmer by the factories. He said that they were not paying the farmer a price commensurate with the price they were charging for the bacon. He made two threats—(1) that he would licence the export of live pigs and that, if that did not succeed, (2) he would build Government factories.
In or around that time, about August, 1949, the Minister removed the control on the price of bacon. Of course, we had an agreement with Great Britain in regard to bacon whereby we would get 225/- per cwt. for what are known as Wiltshire sides. Some of the Deputies sitting behind the Minister are not too well up on these things and I will explain for their benefit that a Wiltshire side is just a side of bacon with a shoulder and a ham on it. I do not think we exported a whole lot of bacon last year, but when it came to 1st January, 1950, the price was reduced to 217/- and the Minister felt that it was not good enough; in other words, it was not a remunerative price—we were not getting a remunerative price for all our products. We were not getting a remunerative price for bacon on 1st January, 1950.
There was another thing the Minister did. He condemned me over and over again for paying subsidies on food going over to Great Britain. I am prepared to turn up 500 quotations from the Minister where he condemned me for paying those subsidies.
Certainly, emphatically.
The fact is that the Minister found the price was not remunerative and he paid a subsidy in order to get the bacon over to England. He got the Pigs and Bacon Commission to act for him. He had not the courage, as I had, to come before the Dáil and put an Estimate before it and say: "That is for a subsidy on bacon going to England." He did it by the backdoor method. He gave a ring to the officials in the Pigs and Bacon Commission and he said to them: "Come over, boys; can you do this in a quiet way?" And they did it and the money was paid out of their funds.
The Pigs and Bacon Commission was condemned up and down by the present Minister when he was a Deputy sitting on the Opposition Bences. According to him, the members of the Pigs and Bacon Commission were amongst the greatest ruffians and racketeers. That was when the Minister was in opposition. But the members of the commission are still there, they are still in operation, and now they are useful to the Minister; now they are paying the subsidy on bacon going over to England and in that way the Minister has a remunerative price for bacon going to Britain.
There is no bacon going to Great Britain.
It is stopped now?
It is stopped now.
I must always remember that there are Deputies sitting behind the Minister who need to be informed on these matters. The Minister says there is no bacon going to Great Britain, but bacon did go and, according to an answer given in the Dáil, the Pigs and Bacon Commission paid out £18,000 on bacon going to Great Britain by way of subsidy. But the Minister apparently does not approve of subsidies on our products going to Great Britain.
Agreed.
He would not pay a subsidy on farmers' butter going to England or on anything else, but he got the Pigs and Bacon Commission to do this little job for him. The Minister repeated here several times in 1948, by way of accusation against us, that he would never allow the British Minister of Agriculture to regulate things in this country. None of us would, of course, if he could avoid it.
If he could avoid it?
The Minister could not avoid it—that is what I am coming to. The Minister made an arrangement with the British that he would agree to accept what the British gave the Danes. He was not making any bargain with the British, but he said to the British Minister of Food: "So far as I am concerned, you will tell me what price you are to give me." That is very little removed, mind you, from regulating agriculture here. He made no bargain, but he said: "Do your best with the Danes and whatever you pay the Danes, that will do me."
What is good enough for the Danes is good enough for us.
Yes, what is good enough for the Danes is good enough for us.
You never got the Danish price for bacon during the whole time you were Minister for Agriculture.
Try to keep your temper. Everybody sees through you.
You never got the Danish price once while you were Minister.
When he was introducing this Estimate here the Minister had some very interesting comments to make on bacon. He said:—
"If the whole community has got so stylish and so rich that they will eat nothing but the best rashers, I hope to God they will be made to pay 5/- a lb. for them."
He hoped they would have to pay 5/- a lb. for those rashers. Then he went on to say that so far as he was concerned, being a very humble man, he was prepared to eat pig's cheek and he recommended everybody else to eat pig's cheek. I was blue in the face when I was sitting over there where the Minister is now, trying to convince him and other Deputies that pigs do not consist entirely of back rashers and apparently now he is beginning to realise it. I will not say any more than that about it.
In the course of the debate Deputy McQuillan made an interjection and he spoke of the advisability of keeping some reasonable control on the price of bacon. The Minister said he hoped that would be done within 48 hours. That is the Minister who in the same debate said he hoped to God people would have to pay 5/- a lb. for rashers and later he said he hoped within 48 hours the price would be regulated.
No, reduced.
When he was bringing in his Estimate he hoped they would have to pay 5/-. That hope disappeared and his next hope was that the price would be reduced.
I was more concerned with the people who could not buy back rashers.
We have this extraordinary change from day to day, and nobody knows what the Minister is going to do about the pig industry; he says one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow.
The price of bacon has come down.
In a reply the other day we were told that sow services are coming down. We could not expect anything else.
The price of bacon is coming down and will come down.
At one moment it is the Minister's wish that they will have to pay 5/- a lb. for the rashers, and the next thing is that the price of bacon comes down and the Minister seems to be delighted. What about your wish of a few days ago?
The moon changes too, you know.
I move to report progress.