Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Mar 1951

Vol. 124 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1951, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain Subsidies and Sundry Grants-in-Aid.

This is a token Estimate for £10 because the bulk of it is met by savings on other sub-heads. At this stage perhaps the most helpful procedure will be to go shortly through the several sub-heads.

The first sub-head, sub-head B, in respect of which a supplementary sum of £4,000 is required, arises in connection with travelling expenses. These are difficult to forecast with precision and they depend in each year very largely on the degree of activity proceeding in the Department. In the financial year under review I am glad to say that the activity exceeded our most optimistic anticipations and it is necessary to provide that additional sum of £4,000 to meet the travelling expenses which will come in course of payment.

Sub-head E (2), which is in connection with veterinary research, makes provision for £48,350. That includes the sum of £37,000 which is the purchase price of Abbotstown, the property recently acquired in the vicinity of Clonsilla for adaptation as a veterinary research station. As soon as we have the necessary adaptations carried out it is proposed to transfer the work hitherto done at Thorndale, Drumcondra, to the new premises. One of the difficulties at Thorndale is that it is now completely encroached upon by the City of Dublin, and at no time had it more than 25 or 26 acres of land which was obviously a very inconvenient arrangement for a veterinary research station. Abbotstown is a relatively large property and extends to some hundreds of acres. It is proposed in the initial stages to divide the premises, and to appropriate the main residences and part of the outoffices for the purpose of a veterinary research laboratory, together with 100 acres of the land, using the remaining 300 odd acres for the purpose of the new division of my Department which has been constituted for the purpose of propagating cereal seeds, root seeds and grass land experimentation. It is intended, in the event of the veterinary research station requiring, as its work progresses, more land, to transfer blocks of land to it from the propagation division of the Department, as and when the necessity shall arise.

There is also provision in this sub-head for the purchase of a year's emergency supplies. It was thought in the circumstances well to have at the research station approximately a year's reserves of stocks in view of the disturbed state of the world.

We are also providing under this sub-head for the purchase of heifers. That is really a part of a larger project. It has been always the practice on Department lands to provide live stock to consume the produce produced thereon. Last year, on the farm at Grange, live stock, bullocks, were fed. We are now about to embark on a very large-scale programme for the elimination from the dairy herds of the country, on a purely voluntary basis, of uneconomic cows. When we came to consider the basis upon which that programme should be developed, we had to consider the scale of compensation that would be payable to a farmer who had agreed that two, three, four or five cows of his herd were uneconomic for one reason or another, and had best be eliminated from the dairy herd. It occurred to us that a farmer might feel that though you paid him ample compensation, he would find great difficulty in replacing cows or heifers that had been removed for slaughter to the canning factory on the ground that they were no longer economic milch cows. It was, therefore, thought well to provide for such a man the alternative of an in-calf heifer of his own choosing from the stock of 800 heifers which we propose to assemble at Grange farm in the County Meath, Abbotstown and possibly at Clonakilty, each of which heifers would have been submitted to the tuberculin test, inoculated against contagious abortion, artificially inseminated and proven in calf to one of the high-priced stock bulls which are now being installed in the insemination centres established by the Department. One such insemination centre will be located at Grange, Killeshandra, Lough Egish and North Leitrim. Another will be established in Clonakilty with sub-stations, and another at Castle-island in County Kerry with substations to cover County Kerry. There will be a further station to serve the Clare area, the site of which has not yet been determined.

There may be headquarters for another insemination centre, which has not been decided upon yet, at Abbotstown for the purpose of serving such part of the Dublin milk supply area as is not supplied from Grange. I think it is a desirable thing if you want to secure the maximum co-operation from dairy farmers in getting rid of uneconomic cows, to be in a position to say, if a man has for slaughter a substantial number of cattle: "You can either have the money wherewith to go and buy your replacements and use your own judgment in the local fair, or you can visit the Grange farm, the Abbotstown farm, the Clonakilty or the Athenry farm, and you should be able to pick out of the 800 in-calf heifers, three or four for the replacement of those which have been slaughtered." In any case it will be purely at the election of the farmer to take his compensation in whatever form he chooses. That is the reason we are now stocking farms with heifers, rather than with dry stock.

Sub-head E (3) refers to subscriptions to international associations and research organisations. It is not always easy these times to know what your liabilities are likely to be in respect of such bodies because their multiplication has become so remarkable since the war that very often, new ones arise in the course of the financial year which were not in existence at the beginning of the year and which, in the circumstances, it is desirable that this country should adhere to. One is the International Committee for the control of the Colorado Beetle. We have every reason to be grateful to Providence that, so far, we have not encountered the Colorado Beetle pest in this country. Unfortunately, we have learned that in England and the Channel Islands, they have encountered the Colorado Beetle arriving on the breeze almost like locusts and it is necessary to be ready, in such an event, to mobilise effective measures at once so that the spread of this pest to the potato crop can be controlled and expelled before it spreads throughout the country. It is, therefore, necessary for Ireland to take an active part in these international bodies so that we may exchange information, one with another, as to the best methods to be adopted in the case of any unforeseen arrival of the pest.

After the declaration of the Republic here, naturally, our membership of the Commonwealth Bureaux became incongruous and we accordingly withdrew from our membership of the Commonwealth Bureaux of agricultural sciences of one kind or another which have their headquarters at the Imperial Institute. However, the close and cordial relations which have always existed between the Department of Agriculture in this country and the Department in Britain, result in constant discussions taking place between the officials of my Department and the officials of the British Department of Agriculture. In the course of these discussions, and of certain discussions which the ambassador had in London, it became clear that the Commonwealth Bureaux were not only willing, but anxious, to receive associate members from countries which were not in the Commonwealth or in the Empire. They were gracious enough to indicate, in the new situation, that such associate membership of Ireland would be very welcome. That was an indication which we were very happy, indeed, to acknowledge, and happy indeed to avail of, because these bureaux are the depositories of vast reservoirs of research and scientific information, and constant access to their proceedings is of incalculable value to anyone who can avail of them. Our associate membership will appropriately mark the conditions under which we participate. It affords to Ireland all the advantages of full membership which the members of the Commonwealth would ordinarily enjoy.

Sub-head F (1), which deals with agricultural schools and farms, contains provision for a year's emergency supplies, and for the purchase of heifers for Clonakilty, Ballyhaise and Athenry. There is also provision for the insemination equipment at the Grange cattle farm and the expenses of the management of the Chantilly stud farm. I might mention that we hope to evacuate Chantilly at an early stage when the activities hitherto carried on there will be transferred to Grange. Chantilly is situated in the direction of Loughlinstown, and from many points of view is very convenient. It was held by the Department on a number of extraordinary titles, leases and head rents. We would have evacuated it some time ago but for the fact that the surrender of our tenancy is a matter of such grave complexity that it has taken us about 18 months to persuade the landlord, or the variety of landlords whose tenants we are that we desired to terminate the leases, head rents and so on that fall to be extinguished.

The additional grant to the university college was, I think, dealt with by the Minister for Finance when he brought the main Estimate before the House. There is a rather odd convention in connection with that matter. The Minister for Finance answers to the House and explains the university grant, but inasmuch as Albert College was at one time under the direct administration of the Department of Agriculture, prior to its transfer to the National University in 1924, the financial provision by way of a Government grant for the classes in the agricultural faculty, continue to be chargeable on my Vote. In fact, the practice has been and will continue to be, that the Minister for Finance answers to the House in respect of it, as he does in respect of the balance of the Grant-in-Aid to the university.

Sub-head I (1) will be, I think, of special interest to the House because it involves a somewhat larger sum than we had anticipated for the allocation of increased numbers of rams in the congested areas. Heretofore, the House will remember that we have always provided pedigree rams at reduced prices for the people living in the congested areas for the improvement of sheep flocks. In 1946, the allocation was 157, in 1947 180, in 1948 194, in 1949 227 and last year 412. I think I will have correctly interpreted the wishes of the House by the general direction which has been given to the agricultural overseers in these areas to place black faced or Cheviot rams wherever it appeared to them a useful purpose could be served. That has resulted in practically every application from sheep farmers in the mountain areas who required rams being granted in the past two or three years. The results have not been unsatisfactory in as much as some of us here in this House will remember black faced wool being sold in West Donegal at 4d. per lb. It realised this year up to 8/7½d. per lb. Our forecast in multiplying the number of rams has been amply vindicated. Deputies will learn that Cheviot wool which used to sell at 1/- per lb. was sold during the last three months at 16/3 per lb. The activities of the Cheviot rams, we will all agree, have been of a very remunerative character. Perhaps the House will be interested to learn that the exports of wool in 1950 were valued at £3,516,767.

Anybody familiar with the congested areas will remember the perennial difficulty of providing West Donegal and parts of Connemara with the type of cow which would give a decent yield of milk under the very rigorous conditions that obtain there. It is true that we have always been able to provide the people in these areas with a type of cattle which will produce good stores by the judicious crossing of certain types of Scotch cattle with Shorthorn foundation stock. But it has been a chronic problem to secure an adequate milk supply in West Donegal and in parts of West Connaught. No one would seem to have adverted to the fact that that chronic problem did not exist in Kerry. It seems to me perfectly obvious that the reason it did not was because there was in Kerry a breed of cattle unique in the whole world. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there is only one breed of cattle in the world which could live on the mountain and give milk on a scale which justifies it being kept as a milch cow, and that is the Kerry cow. I confess it caused me some irritation when I learned that certain sophisticated farmers in the country were bringing in Jersey, Guernsey and Ayrshire cows. I apprehended that they would start bringing in Abyssinian cows at a time when we had already an indigenous breed of cattle in the country of which you could keep three on the grass that you would feed two Shorthorns, and of which you could keep four on the grass that you would feed two Friesians. But there was no respect for the Kerry cow in this country because it was the Kerry cow. If it was an Andalusian cow people would be paying 200 guineas for it, and would bring it in in a passenger liner.

Accordingly, we have arranged that, to meet this chronic milk problem in West Donegal, and in the west of the province of Connaught, instead of bringing in Ayrshires or Andalusians, we should bring in Kerry cows. To date, we have only one moment of anxiety and that is because we discovered that the Kerry cows do not take kindly to sea voyages and that if you want to escort them, without mishap, to Aranmore island or across the sea, it is necessary to handle them for some time before you show them the bottom of a boat. Otherwise, they are inclined to leap over the side. However, we have overcome that difficulty and we hope to embark the first contingent for Aranmore, if it has not already gone there. We have located the first brigade on the mainland in Glencolumbkille and we propose to send further platoons and battalions in due course to various parts of Connemara, West Mayo and West Donegal.

I am glad to inform the House that one of the most distinguished breeders in Scotland hopes to establish a model farm in the south-west of Ireland, whereon to assemble consignments of Kerry cattle for shipment to Palestine, where a profitable market exists for them for precisely the same reasons as they are proving a success in West Mayo and West Donegal. Throughout the whole Orient, one of the great problems has been to find a breed of cattle which, on the extremely impoverished grazing there available, will survive and provide milk. There are any number of indigenous breeds of cattle in the Mediterranean and East thereof which can be made to do in the special conditions there, but it is one of the chronic problems of the Middle East and the Orient to find livestock which, in the conditions there obtaining, will provide milk.

I ignore no market, however novel, which can be conquered by the peculiar merits of the stock we have to offer and I think that, for certain conditions, in densely populated countries, particularly where poverty and malnutrition have been a perennial problem, the Kerry breed of cattle can provide milk from the domestic forage resources there available on a better scale than probably any other breed of cattle in the world. If we could make of Kerry cattle as remunerative a business as the people of the Channel Islands have made of Jerseys and Guernseys, we would have secured for the kingdom of Kerry a not insignificant source of income, a source of income which would be perennial, which would not be for this year, next year or the year after only, but for all time and on an expanding scale.

There is only one thing, in my judgment, that can prevent that development and that is the deplorable tendency of our own people to look down their noses at their neighbour's son or their neighbour's beast. If it is ours, it is no good and it is only a "cod" to be trying to sell it to the people in Palestine, or the people here, there or elsewhere; but if it is a Jersey or a Guernsey, everybody kneels down in front of it and says: "Is it not wonderful? Is it not lovely?" I do not know why our people have that supreme contempt for the neighbour's son or the neighbour's beast, but the interesting thing is that the neighbour's son or the neighbour's beast from this country conquer the world when they get outside Ireland and very often are driven out of this country by the contempt heaped upon them by these neighbours. I have no doubt that contempt will be heaped upon me for suggesting to anyone that it is anything approximating common sense to send a Kerry cow a couple of thousand miles away from Ireland—"Sure, the poor creature will die of the lonesome". A good many are going to go and I hope that considerable sums of money will be sent back for them. In the meantime, I am going to send them no further afield than Donegal and Connemara, and, speaking as a Connacht man, and, as a Donegal man by adoption, I can guarantee that there will be a very warm welcome for them in both these localities.

Sub-head M (9) refers to the potato reserve scheme. That money was used for the purpose of breaking a racket which was started in this city towards the end of last year. Some enterprising souls got it into their heads that there was going to be a scarcity of potatoes in Dublin about May or June of last year, and suddenly, where there was an abundance of potatoes, to my knowledge, the vanishing trick took place. There was not a potato to be found. The price of potatoes began to shoot up on the Dublin market and mirabile dictum, as the price rose, a thin trickle began to approach the City of Dublin from the general direction of Donegal. I then took precautions to bring sufficient potatoes into Amiens Street to create a situation in which the Great Northern Railway were not prepared to accept consignments of potatoes from Donegal because their storage in Dublin was packed, and, to my great amusement, a number of public spirited citizens sent urgent messages from a number of stations in Donegal asking what, in the Name of God, had happened and why would they not take potatoes, and they were damn nearly fainting on the floor when told that there were too many potatoes in Amiens Street to permit the shipment of another ton. Whereupon, the lorries began to roll and the scarce potatoes, the non-existent potatoes, began to arrive from the faminestricken areas where men and beasts were dying from want of food, by night, and were hawked around the greengrocers of Dublin at any price they would fetch. If I am not mistaken, some fingers were burned in the transaction. I must say that I never smelt burning substance with greater joy.

Would the Minister say how he came to lose this amount of money?

Because I broke the market. I had to bring in the potatoes to break the market and the measure of my success was the loss I made, because the gangsters held me up when I went to get potatoes, but, when I got the potatoes, I held them up, and the holding I did was much longer than the holding they did. I saved the citizens of this city, by the outlay of £5,000, probably £100,000. The only difference was that that £5,000 went into the pockets of relatively honest potato growers, whereas the £100,000 would have gone into the pockets of the racketeers who thought they could get away with murder but learned, by night, that they could not. I can assure the Deputy that if I lost £5,000, the racketeers lost 20 times as much, and I know that it will console him to know that the public were saved that exploitation by the expenditure of so modest a sum and he will be further consoled to know that the racketeers who sought to rob their neighbours were so sternly punished by the outlay of so modest a sum of public money, so prudently employed.

Sub-head N refers to the provision of overalls for inspectors and protective clothing for veterinary inspectors at the ports.

Sub-paragraph (h), is merely the winding-up of the expenses in which we were involved by the outbreak of fowl pest. May I avail of this occasion to express my admiration and that, I think, of everybody who knows anything about it, of the admirable co-operation afforded both by the people and by local officers of my Department in bringing under control as dangerous a situation as ever we have been confronted with in this country since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. We have modest reason to be proud that, in a very widespread outbreak of Newcastle Pest covering five south-eastern counties, the officers of my Department and the local collaborators so grappled with it that it never spread an inch outside the area and that we drove it back steadily to the coastline and eliminated it—and we have not had a similar occurrence since that outbreak. Other countries who have been confronted with this appalling pest—on the continent or in the United States—have either abandoned their schemes or else have suffered staggering losses. I know that the House will join with me in wishing the British Ministry of Agriculture the same measure of success in bringing the pest under control as met our endeavours and in expressing our sympathy with them for the staggering losses they have sustained in the past few years. In some measure we are indebted to them for the exhaustive precautions they have taken and continue to take. There is no use in disguising from ourselves that the continued presence of that disease in Great Britain would constitute a menace to this country. It is a matter for congratulation to both of us that wherever our measures could be co-ordinated they have been co-ordinated to protect our several territories from the continued existence of this pest amongst us.

Subhead N. (2) provides additional money for the Bovine Tuberculosis Order. My only regret is that we cannot spend more under that Order. I am not without hope that farmers generally will have more constant recourse to their rights under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order and at an earlier stage. The great pity is that farmers allow cattle to become diseased and that when they are slaughtered they only get a pittance for the beasts which have been destroyed. If they would take time by the forelock and notify the county veterinary surgeon at the earliest stage at which they suspect tuberculosis in a beast then it ought to be possible to give the farmer 75 per cent. of the market value of the beast destroyed under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order. I sincerely wish that farmers would realise that if they call the county veterinary surgeon the first moment they have reason to suspect tuberculosis in a beast and if the veterinary surgeon determines that there is tubercular infection and slaughters the beast, they will get 75 per cent. of the true market value—whereas if they allow the beast to go on they will get only £3 or £4 for it when it is emaciated. Further, while the beast is emaciating there is the danger that it will infect a few of the other beasts in the byre, which need not happen.

The extra money required for part-time veterinary examiners arises from the growing trade in dead meat. The House will be glad to hear that the animals slaughtered for the dead meat trade under the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Acts and under the Pigs and Bacon Act are as follows:—

1949

1950

Cattle

70,100

114,300

Sheep

2,400

87,900

Pigs

580,300

708,800

That shows remarkable expansion and it has the unsatisfactory feature in it that the hides and pelts of these animals are retained for processing in our own country. We have inherited from our predecessors a most extraordinary situation with regard to hides, the resolution of which presents a most complex and difficult problem. When I came into office as Minister for Agriculture I found that if you slaughter a beast in Ireland you are under an obligation to dispose of the hide to a member of a ring.

On a point of order. I take it that others will not be held to be restricted to what is contained in the Supplementary Estimate in view of the Minister's remarks.

If the Minister says it on the Supplementary Estimate.

The slaughter of cattle for the dead meat trade in this country is materially conditioned by the price realised for hides. I have shown that there has been an increase in the numbers slaughtered, and the hides retained for the domestic market. But for that peculiar feature of the situation, we should greatly increase that figure. I discovered that if you slaughtered a beast in this country, you had to sell the hide to a ring which had endowed itself with the high-sounding title of the "Hide Improvement Society". The improvement was that nobody else could buy a hide but themselves. They paid the long-suffering farmers of this country 5d. per lb. for a hide. At that time, hides were fetching 1/8 per lb. in Great Britain. After some considerable negotiation, we succeeded in persuading that society to pay 10d. a lb. The world price of hides is now about 3/- a lb. But take it at 2/10 per lb. An average hide is about 50 lb. weight. You lose 2/- a lb. on the hide or, in other words, £5 a hide. The reason for that is that the tanning industry must have cheap raw materials or the price of leather and boots will go up. The result is that at this moment the tanning industry, the boot and shoe industry, enjoy high protection and a subsidy from the live-stock trade of this country of between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000 sterling per annum.

The Minister has gone pretty wide now. Others are entitled to follow.

Not only that, but also to wander as far from his Estimate as he is.

That does not follow.

That anything the Minister says may be answered.

On a point of order. I refer the Chair to the fact that the normal practice in this House, on the discussion on a Supplementary Estimate, is to confine speeches to the matters contained therein.

Yes, and the Minister says that this is connected with it.

Is the Chair satisfied?

The Minister seems to be wandering far in talking about a subsidy on boots.

A sum of £5 per hide deducted from the price of cattle because they are being slaughtered in Ireland and the meat exported has resulted in great difficulty in my expanding the dead meat trade which would bring grist to our mill in Ireland. If the hide goes out on the beast, if the beast is slaughtered abroad and the hide is torn off the carcase, it goes into the world market at the world market price. But if the same beast is brought to an abattoir in Ireland for an Irish butcher to tear the hide off the carcase, it costs the Irish farmer £5 to let the Irish butcher tear the hide off his beast.

I will tell you. That was the position when we took over.

And is it not still the position?

A stroke of the pen can alter that. But if that situation is altered one must remember that a whole structure has been built up on the basis of that annual subsidy. Now it is perfectly true that we could end the subsidy by giving the hide merchants leave to export hides at the best prices they could get, and that would mean that the tanners would have to pay world prices for them. That would put £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 on the price of boots. If I were dictator of Ireland I could say that I did not give a hoot about the price of boots and that I wanted to get the best possible price for the farmers for their hides, but this House represents Ireland and all its constituent parts, and if you create a situation in which that set-up exists it is extremely difficult to put an end to it. In theory it is perfectly easy, but to come up against the hard core of facts, where is the £1,500,000 to come from without which the leather and boot industry cannot carry on?

I would like to see our hides flayed by Irish butchers fetching their full value. I resent the fact that the hides of Irish cattle flayed by British butchers should be worth £5 while hides flayed by Irish butchers should not be worth more than 50/-, but that is the way it is at present and I have not been able to find a way out. If I do, however, I can double, triple or quadruple the quantity of cattle slaughtered in this country for the dead meat trade for which there is now a remunerative market not only in America, Canada and on the Continent but in Great Britain. The present situation creates the deplorable problem that although the British would gladly receive carcass meat if we sent them carcass meat I fine the farmers of this country 50/- on every hide I send out. I would be glad if any Deputy on this side or the far side of the House could make any suggestion to me how I could resolve that dilemma without putting 5/- a pair on every pair of boots that the people in this country wear or closing down the tanning factories.

I hope that I have not trespassed unduly on the time of the House and that I have established a nexus between this problem and the problem of the number of cattle being slaughtered in our slaughter-houses which I would like to see much higher than it is.

Sub-head P deals with the flour and wheaten-meal subsidy.

Do not pass O5 without a word, the next one.

That is agricultural produce (cereals). Is that not the flour and meal subsidy?

That is P.

I beg your pardon, the Deputy is quite right. This is a subsidy to the pedigree seed growers. When I came into office I discovered there was an arrangement with a body of gentlemen who are the pedigree seed growers and on whom I wish to cast no aspersion whatever. They were invited by the previous Government to collaborate with them in the propagation of cereal seeds for subsequent sale to our farmers and they were, as part of a general arrangement, made the channel through which all pedigree cereal seeds reached the public. It appeared that they had the effective enjoyment of a monopoly which I did not consider to be in the best interests of the farming community. I gave directions that all monopolies which forced the farmers of the country to deal willy nilly with one particular supplier were to be brought to an end. It was suggested that there were some grounds for the belief that the members of this particular monopoly believed themselves to be possessors of a guarantee from the Minister for Agriculture that their monopoly would not be terminated without two years' notice and that if it were so terminated they would be entitled to some compensation. The view I took was that they were not entitled to any compensation, but whether they were or not I was going to put an end to the monopoly and give the farmers access to whatever source of supply would give them the best seeds at the lowest price. I ended the monopoly and discussions ensued as to whether they had any enforceable rights or not and if they had enforceable rights what those rights were. Being reasonable men on both sides we eventually compromised on the issue and agreed that the payment of this sum would liquidate any claims that they had without prejudice on our part that any claims existed. That is the history of that transaction.

The Minister's story does not tally with the explanation in the Estimates sheet.

Even I have been known on occasions to nod. I will have another shot at it and see if I have got the wrong one. No, that is right. It reads:—

"Compensation to seed assemblers in respect of losses incurred on unsold stocks of pedigree seed wheat held at the end of the 1948-49 sowing season."

Is that what the Deputy thinks does not coincide?

Unsold stocks.

Old Vesuvius is off again. Deputy Derrig found fault with me in the debate on the Vote on Account in one of the most humorous and delightful passages ever recorded in this House for approaching the Lenten collation of the Minister for Finance with too romantic an eye. Perhaps I have approached this modest arrangement for unsold stocks with too romantic an eye. Perhaps I have told the Deputy too much. These are the real facts. In the course of breaking the monopoly these boys said that they had unsold stocks and that they would lose on them instead of getting the mill price for them; it was all my fault that they had suffered a loss that they should not have been asked to sustain. By whatever they lost the farmers gained, but this is a free country; I was working for these people and was their servant. My duty was to sit down with them and try to treat with them on an equitable basis. That is the settlement I made, and now I come into Dáil Éireann to tell them of that settlement. I would ask them to agree that this is a reasonable arrangement and ask them to foot the bill.

When did you abolish the seed growers?

I did not abolish them. I simply abolished the monopoly and as soon as I abolished the monopoly the boys did not last much longer. It was not seed growing that interested them but the right to take the monopoly.

Then the Swedish monopoly began.

Have I satisfied the Deputy?

It was not for the want of trying.

There is more than that to it.

Now I come to sub-head P. This is a matter of such considerable complexity that I propose, by your leave, to have recourse to a copious note. The original Estimate was for £7,200,000 and our revised Estimate is for £8,365,000. The Department of Agriculture originally computed the flour and wheaten-meal subsidy Estimate at £7,400,000. That was based on estimated weekly deliveries of subsidised flour, 50,600 sacks; and the estimated subsidy payable was thought probably to work out at 57/6 per sack. We hoped on an estimate of the delivery of unsubsidised flour to recoup ourselves to the tune of 4,750 sacks a week and we hoped on that unsubsidised flour, which was provided for confectioners for the manufacture of white bread and cakes and biscuit manufacture and other luxury products, to realise a sum of 17/6 a sack, in relief of the subsidy payable on rationed flour. It was computed that the subsidy required in the financial year 1950-51 to cover 12 months' deliveries of flour would amount to £7,465,000. The sum of £7,465,000 covers only 12 months' deliveries up to approximately 19th January, 1951.

Up to 1947-48 inclusive, the annual subsidy payments covered deliveries from the 1st March to 28th February, but in 1948-49 we had to meet the unexpected charge which fell upon us as a result of certain purchases of wheat from an emergency source. The House will remember that the Minister for Finance, in dealing with the flour subsidy, mentioned that he proposed to approach it on the basis of a quinquennial calculation with the intention of applying one-fifth of the quinquennial global sum to each financial year. Therefore, in 1948-49 when this unexpected burden fell upon the annual appropriation to meet the quinquennial sum, that quinquennial sum was charged to the subsidy which came in course of payment in that year only to the 1st January, 1949, instead of 28th February, as had been the practice heretofore.

If you follow that on, you discover that a 12 months' payment of subsidy in the ensuing year only brought you up to January, 1950, and then 12 months' subsidy after that only brought you up to January, 1951. It is now intended—and that is the purpose of this sub-head of the Supplementary Estimate—as from 1950-51 to revert to the practice of covering subsidy up to 28th February; and the sum here required it to fill the gap between 1st January, 1951 and 28th February, 1951.

And the estimate for flour subsidy was otherwise correct?

What is wanting?

Am I to understand from the Minister that there has been no change whatever in the cost of subsidy this year except the decision to provide two months' additional subsidy this year?

Not that I know of, except that it is difficult to estimate in anticipation what quantity of white flour people will consume and also what amount of success will attend the efforts to prevent one's neighbours from illegally feeding subsidised flour to greyhounds, or to ovens for the production of confectionery which is to be sold at an unsubsidised price.

Did the Minister say 1st January?

No. I beg the Deputy's pardon—19th January to 28th February.

Will the Minister explain how the flour subsidy for that period cost £1,165,000 when for 12 months it only cost £7,000,000?

Well, I am not nearly at the end of this copious note yet. I am in full cry and will try to make up for it, if the Deputy will wait. I would wish the House to understand that I have been studying this note for the past fortnight but it is not an easy whetstone upon which to grind the axe of one's intelligence.

Just tell the plain truth, unvarnished.

That is a practice calculated to fascinate the Deputy, he is so unaccustomed to it. The Estimate for 1950-51 takes credit for a refund of approximately £40,000 due by the milling industry, arising out of the examination of the milling accounts for the year to August, 1948. That was another odd thing I discovered when I took over this Department, that the millers accounts were normally from two to two and a half years in arrears, and they had a fit when I suggested to them that at some time in the calendar year after their financial year they should be able to produce accounts. They have all been in a flutter ever since. In any case, when we got the 1948 accounts we got quite a normal repayment which reflects on nobody but is part of the ordinary procedure, as a certain degree of approximation is necessary when the accounting year does not correspond with the year in which they draw their annual remuneration.

It is anticipated that payments not exceeding £200,000 will have to be made to millers in respect of the milling accounting period to August, 1949. We have only got the accounts for that now and they are being wound up. No provision had been made for that in the original Estimate and it could not have been made because we never knew of its existence. I do not think we knew of the £40,000, either, until the accounts were completed and submitted.

The sum, which is £1,165,000, is now made up on this basis: the balance required to meet the original Estimate, based on 12 months' deliveries to approximately the 19th January, 1951, £265,000; an additional amount required to meet deliveries in the period from 19th January, 1951 to 28th February, 1951, £700,000; an estimated amount required in respect of the milling accounting period ended on 31st August, 1949, to bring the millers' profits up to the guaranteed amount, 6 per cent. on capital, plus depreciation, £200,000. The total amounts to £1,165,000.

What is the first figure?

£265,000.

What was that for?

A balance required to meet a provisional estimate based on the 12 months to the date approximately of 19th January, 1951. I beg Deputy Lemass to rest assured that, if he will put on his considering cap to-night and formulate any query as to further information on that sub-head, it will be my pleasure, as it will be my duty, to furnish it to him in whatever form he requires it.

Was that an estimated deficiency to the extent of £265,000 on the original Estimate?

It would be much more convenient if Deputy Lemass would be good enough, in the course of his illuminating address on this Estimate, to formulate these queries in the most categorical form and I shall be happy to provide him with the information.

I thought I should have got it unsolicited.

I did my best to make an extremely complicated matter as clear as I could and, if I failed to satisfy him, I assure him that it will be my duty as well as my pleasure to furnish any supplementary material he may require. I think that ends the subject matter of the actual Charges that come in the course of payment. I must refer briefly to the Appropriations-in-Aid.

Do not forget sub-head Q.

I beg the Deputy not to get excited. The first item in the Appropriations-in-Aid deals with butter.

Do not describe it as an Appropriation-inAid—it is an expenditure.

No. One of the astonishing miracles that, I must say, for the first time knocked me a bit off my perch was the astonishing capacity, the admirable and splendid capacity, of our people to absorb butter.

A Deputy

New Zealand butter.

Not at all—the native product. We furnished everybody in this country with eight ounces of butter per week, the highest butter ration provided by any country in Europe.

Housewives will not tell you that.

We then announced that anybody who wants to pay 3/6 per lb. for butter can buy it. We made a modest profit on butter wrappers which we sold to the creameries at 10d. per wrapper, so that they could wrap it around the 2/8 butter and collect 3/6 from the consumer. We commissioned, I thought with undue optimism, 500,000 wrappers. They hardly got into the Department at all. As often as they came in, they shot out again and we sent for 1,000,000 more wrappers, which came in in one door and out in another. We then sent for another 1,000,000. We have, I think, distributed over 2,000,000 wrappers to go around pounds of butter and there is collected already in hard cash £287,000 at 10d. per wrapper.

You are still putting them around New Zealand butter.

I am glad to hear the Deputy say that. Is there any reason why I should not?

If the people want to import tobacco, castor oil, Scotch whiskey or champagne, that is all right. But, if somebody wants to import one lb. of butter over and above what we have available for sale, is it high treason to say: "If you want it, buy it and pay for it?"

It is high treason to exploit the people.

It is not, provided you make provision so that everybody, great and small, rich and poor, will have a basic sufficiency at a level price.

Major de Valera

Why can they not get Irish butter at the subsidised price?

Open confession is good for the soul. I never realised that our people were capable of absorbing as much as they did. They got more butter from native production in 1950 than ever was eaten in Ireland since Brian Boru was killed at Clontari and, frankly, that took me by surprise. The Irish Press, the kept newspaper of the Fianna Fáil Party, charged me with falsifying figures in saying in this House that we produced and ate more butter in Ireland in 1950 than we had ever eaten or produced since Brian Boru lost his life at Clontarf. They said they knew a year since then, if you included the farmers' butter, when we ate more, but the astonishing thing is that in calculating for the year the poor innocent creatures compared our consumption of farmers' butter and creamery butter in 1935 with the consumption of creamery butter in 1950.

When I wrote and told them they were liars, they would not publish the letter because they said it was too rude. I must say they published a charming cartoon, the original of which I very much like to have, because it is about the best I have seen. What tickled me was that their skin was so tender, when they got their ears nailed to the post and their hands pinned to the table for a lie, they said that it was a nasty, rude thing to call them liars and they could not publish it. I will give them this credit—I think I know the reason why, because I took precautions to see that certain prudent pressure would be brought on them to publish the truth—to give the devil his due, in the most obscure possible language they did confess: "We are liars. You caught us out, but there was no need to get so vexed about it. Are you surprised to find out we are liars?" I only hope the newspaper will give up treating its readers like morons and recognise that, silly as they may be, they are entitled to be treated as rational human beings. I hope that kept paper will come to realise that only a fool or a rogue would compare one set of figures in 1935 with an entirely different set in 1950; a fool to think that he would be let away with it and a rogue who would make the attempt. I have actually moved the risibility of Deputy Aiken, which is no small achievement. I like to see his bright countenance, because he is ordinarily a depressing figure.

I should like to know what the Minister wants the £400,000 for under the sub-head—"Subsidies for Butter."

I am coming to that. I thought that other story was worth telling, recalling the injured innocence of a kept newspaper caught in its traditional practice of lying. The reason for the deficiency was that my own performance in facilitating the increase of butter production which took place far outstripped my most optimistic anticipations.

We made provision when we were drafting the Estimate on the assumption that we would produce in the calendar year 700,000 cwts. of butter. In making that estimate, I felt that, perhaps. I was allowing my natural tendency to optimism to bedazzle myself; but lo and behold, so beneficial had been the activities of my Department that instead of producing 700,000 cwts. we produced 725,000 cwts. of butter, and as a subsidy is payable on butter, but not at the point of production, the creamery is getting a subsidy as the butter passes into cold storage and is subsequently disposed of. The difference between the sale price and the price which the creamery receives is either met by way of subsidy out of the Exchequer or, when the butter is exported or sold at an economic price, the difference is met by what is paid for the butter which we consume. My performance so far exceeded my most optimistic anticipations that I discovered my production had outrun my best hopes. I would like to go back to the House deferentially to await their applause for the unprecedented achievement of drawing to the creamery a quantity of milk unprecedented in any year except 1936 when no less than——

The Deputy must wake up. In this House the Deputy must be constantly awake. Springing out of his sleep every quarter of an hour will not keep him au fait. I am talking of deliveries of gallons of milk to the creamery. The Deputy will find that has been only exceeded in one year, 1936, in which year we were engaged in the profitable occupation of paying the British people a handsome subsidy to eat our butter. We exported in that year between 300,000 and 400,000 cwts. of butter to every pound of which we attached a sum of money as a bribe to the British people to oblige us by eating it. In this year, 1950, our people ate the butter, but if they had not eaten it and we had exported in 1950 the quantity of butter that was exported in 1936 it would have been worth £8,000,000 in the Balance of Trade. Thanks be to God our people were fit to eat it and fit to pay for it. Thanks be to God our people have more sense than some of our continental neighbours who send their butter abroad for money and eat margarine themselves. No Minister for Agriculture could ever face our people and suggest that they should eat 2½ ozs. of butter and ship 11 ozs. every week. It is not the butter but the Minister that they would eat if he made any such proposal.

What we exported we sold at the price of margarine—266/- per cwt. Those are your own figures.

Have sense. If we sent out the quantity of butter that was shipped in 1936 we would have got £8,000,000 for it.

What would you have got if we had a salesman here this year to sell our butter and if we had somebody who could make a bargain?

I will send Deputy Walsh on the trot the next time. I never like to see Deputy Walsh giving scandal. Woe to the scandal-giver. If Deputy Walsh will tell me what he is saying I will try and relieve him of his misapprehension.

I said 266/-.

Does the Deputy think that butter was sold abroad at 266/- per cwt.?

It went to Britain according to the Taoiseach's answer to myself on 13th December.

God give me patience. We are talking about creamery butter not factory butter. The Deputy is rambling about factory butter. Does he not know the difference?

The Taoiseach should have said factory butter.

He did not think he was talking to an omadhaun.

To whom did he think he was talking—a "lepping" lunatic?

Just imagine a responsible Deputy of this House pretending he did not know the difference between factory and creamery butter. Well, he did. Deputy Corry is telling him to keep quiet. He is right.

Major de Valera

He said "leave him alone."

Deputy Corry has said a mouthful and I will add nothing to it.

I want to see him here next week, not in Grangegorman.

Deputy Walsh has a good nursemaid—a seasoned old warrior who knows the road. Item 31 in the Appropriations-in-Aid represents £1,500, which represents the sale of 30,000 doses of vaccine for treatment of cattle against contagious abortion at 1/- per dose. I am not certain whether that was actually produced at the station or not but it was certainly distributed through it. I think that covers to the best of my ability the various sub-heads to which the Supplementary Estimate applies. It is not at all impossible that I have overlooked some detail.

Would the Minister be good enough to tell the House what are the sub-heads under which the savings are made and what are the amounts?

Is that not set out, Deputy?

The savings are derived entirely from the sub-head in which provision was made for the Land Rehabilitation Project—sub-head M11.

We did not spend as much as we thought we would.

We did not. I hope we will be able to spend more this year and more afterwards.

You heard me that time?

Yes. There is not much the Deputy says that I do not hear, but a lot of it I am charitable enough to overlook. I share the Deputy's hope as, I know, he does mine that the munificent activities of the land project will confer even greater benefits on the county he represents than it has heretofore. The land project has in his county brought, at least, some useful work. I have heard him in another place, on another occasion pay a gracious tribute to the concept and those who seek to give effect to it. We are constrained to express regret for our failure to achieve perfection. I can assure the Deputy, particularly so far as Kilkenny is concerned, that our constant hope is to attain that desirable goal. We hope also——

Major de Valera

Further to some of the Minister's remarks, why is it not possible to sell Irish creamery butter in Dublin at the moment at the subsidised prices instead of at the higher prices?

I am obliged to the Deputy for giving me the opportunity of dealing with that matter. If we had sought to distribute Danish butter on the ration, I understand the distribution costs would have been greatly increased. What we sought to do then was to let the Danish butter go straight out again as it came in without measuring it in the way that the rationed butter was done. I may, however, tell the Deputy that, though I think it is, perhaps, something of an extravagance to implement the wishes that he and Deputy Byrne and a number of other Deputies representing the Dublin constituencies have given expression to, I have directed the officers of my Department that in the event of any such necessity arising again, we must closely examine the matter to find out whether a method cannot be devised in which the domestic butter will continue to be available on the ration and that any butter imported from outside sources will be sold in the 3/6 wrapper.

I move:—

That the Supplementary Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

If we dealt with the Minister in the way in which he used to treat this Party when we were in Government, we would call this Supplementary Estimate—I will quote the Minister's own words—"A dirty fraud, a dirty deceitful game, a piece of flat-footed incompetence." Without using the extravagant language which the Minister used when he was Deputy Dillon on occasions when violent language could not be so well justified as on this occasion, I want to say that this Supplementary Estimate is completely false and that, instead of wanting another £1,000,000 odd to subsidise food for human beings, the real reason why we have to give the Minister this £1,000,000 odd for extra food subsidy is to provide him with another underhand means of subsidising food for cattle and hens. The Minister is quite fraudulently diverting food for human beings into food for cattle and hens. The Minister is importing wheat at £32 per ton and the reason why he wants this extra subsidy is to buy that wheat at that price and sell it at the subsidised price.

Nonsense. There is no wheat being sold at a subsidised price for cattle food.

American wheat at the moment is being bought at £32 a ton and sold on the ration for a fraction of its market value.

On the ration?

On the ration. Irish wheat which was bought at £25 a ton is being turned into cattle food.

No, no. £31 a ton dried.

It was bought at £25 a ton and it is being turned into cattle food.

I will explain it to the Deputy later. He does not understand it.

If we used wheat for which we paid £25 a ton on the unrationed flour we would not have to pay the Minister this extra £1,000,000 odd. The Minister is, in fact, asking us to subsidise in an underhand way his campaign to drown John Bull in eggs and give him all the cattle the Minister would like to give him. That is the situation. I think it is a scandal that the Minister for Agriculture, in a situation in which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have definitely said that we should spend money on stocking up because of a possible emergency, has not yet asked one farmer to grow the most essential food for human consumption, wheat. He has spent a lot of money on advertisements asking the farmers to grow extra barley and oats, but not once has he by way of advertisement or appeal asked our farmers to grow wheat.

Why should he? Should not the farmers grow it?

It is now the 8th March. We know, of course, that Deputy Captain Cowan takes the Stockholm line that war is not inevitable. He wants to lull us into a sense of false security.

I know there will be no war.

That is what Stalin said the other day: war is not inevitable and why is the world fussing. Deputy Captain Cowan, Deputy Connolly and others have made the same comment. Why go to all this trouble? Everything will be lovely in the garden so long as we refrain from spending money on trying to produce those things which will sustain us in the event of an emergency. There are queer bedfellows in the Coalition Government, but I think the queerest pair is Deputy Cowan and Deputy Dillon.

I wonder what word Deputy Boland has had from Moscow.

I would advise Deputy O'Higgins to refrain from interrupting me. The Minister must think that we are all very innocent in relation to this extra subsidy for butter. Surely, he does not want us to believe that because of a 1/28th increase in the production of creamery butter he miscalculated the subsidy required by 1/5th. The Minister said that production, instead of being 700,000 cwts., rose to 775,000 cwts. He estimated in the beginning of the year for a butter subsidy of £2,600,000, and now he wants us to give him another £479,000, or nearly £500,000 on £2,600,000. The figures do not tally.

I will get a great shock if they do not.

One-twenty-eighth on the £2,600,000 would come to very much less than £479,000. As a matter of fact, it would come to only something around £100,000. The fact of the matter is that the reason the Minister wants this £479,000 is to buy dear Danish and New Zealand butter and sell it on the ration.

I hope I have not misled the Deputy. The original Estimate was in respect of 650,000 cwts. I offer the Deputy my apologies. He has reason for complaint. I misread this. The original Estimate was for £2,639,000, which would have been sufficient to subsidise production of about 650,000 cwts. The Estimate was prepared in November, 1949, when the prospects of the financial year, 1950-51, were largely conjectural, weather conditions, and so forth. It transpired that the production had reached 700,000 cwts. at the end of January and it is expected to reach 725,000 cwts. by the end of March. That is the position. If the Deputy checks, I think he will find that that is approximately right.

There is still a big difference.

The Deputy will remember that Deputy Lemass made an observation in the middle of my speech which put me off my step. Frankly, I read from the top of the page when there was a little addendum on the previous page. To tell the truth, I did not believe that I could exceed the Estimate by 75,000 cwts. I had 700,000 cwts.

You claimed you had 25,000 and you had 75,000, according to the present figure.

My typically modest approach.

The Minister might have explained that in the production of creamery butter he corralled and got into the creameries quite a lot of milk that would ordinarily have gone for production of butter on the farm. The reason he got it into the creameries was that he cut off the subsidy on farmers' butter, and a farmer who had cows and was not within striking distance of the creamery, even under the new system of collection, had to continue to produce butter at home and got no subsidy for it. The result was the complaints that we hear that the farmers could not get even 2/- a lb. for butter at some periods last year.

I think it was a crazy policy on the part of the Minister to export the butter in the early part of last season before he knew what the situation would be. He paid a very much higher price for the butter he imported than the price he got for the butter he exported. He talks about the cost of distribution of the Danish butter that lands in Dublin port and goes down throughout the country, and gives that as his excuse for not giving Irish butter on the ration and the Danish butter off the ration. Surely, the Irish people have to pay in one way or another the costs of transport of our butter from Limerick to the port and to England and elsewhere and then to pay the cost of transport of New Zealand and Danish butter from New Zealand and Denmark to the Dublin market.

The Minister has succeeded in reducing the acreage under cereals pretty considerably during his day. He has reduced the area under tillage crops by over 500,000 acres. Last year he paid an additional £6,000,000, or so, for cereals.

Segregate them. "Cereals" is a very comprehensive word. Segregate them.

Just half the quantity you bought in 1947.

Sorghums.

Wheat went up from £3,400,000 to £5,500,000.

And you bought just half as much more in 1947.

The Minister was boasting about the great increase in agricultural exports. Last year, his total increase in live stock and live-stock products amounted to about £5.7 millions.

Put in the chocolate crumb there.

We put in crumb.

And the wool and the feathers.

Anything you like. The thing is that we exported an additional £6,000,000.

Nonsense.

£5.7 millions in live stock and live-stock products.

Compared with what year?

In 1950 as compared with 1949.

Compare it with 1947.

Will the Minister let me make my speech? We imported an additional £6,000,000 worth of cereals. Those cereals were bought mostly with dollars and they were converted into an extra £6,000,000 worth, let us say, of animals and live-stock products to be sent to England and sold for pounds.

Yes. Which is the harder currency to-day? Cross your heart and hope to die.

We converted cereals bought for dollars into animals and live-stock products and sold for sterling.

Which is the harder currency to-day?

Both are hard enough for me. I do not mind which the Minister gives me.

Which is the harder currency to-day?

The dollar.

Your judgment will be gone for nothing at a not far distant date.

I wish the Minister would give me a few dollars and I will hold on to them.

I would consider doing it even now if you have a proposal.

The fact is our boasted increase in live stock and live-stock products last year arose from our borrowing in dollars to buy an increased quantity of cereals and, if the Minister had kept up and had endeavoured to keep up any reasonable level of tillage, we could have given——

One more sow, one more cow, one more acre under the plough.

The Minister does that jingle occasionally in the Dáil to suit some of the back benchers here, but, effectively, he stands in the country for grass and nothing but grass.

You were eating me a minute ago for publishing advertisements asking the farmers to grow barley.

We have to produce grass but we cannot live on grass yet. Human beings cannot live on grass and the first thing to be got and that should be got from Irish land at the present time, is food for the Irish people. That is our objection to it. I think it is a tragedy that in a situation when the Government has to appeal to all sorts of businessmen and others in the country to stock up, in view of possible emergency, the Minister is de-stocking our granaries.

They were never fuller.

By his inaction and sneering at the growing of wheat he is trying to prevent our farmers sowing wheat.

62/6 is an expensive sneer.

62/6 that was given in 1947.

In 1947, it was announced.

Ah, but not given. Not given.

Is not this Supplementary Estimate to give at least £30,000 for additional experience in the running of his farms and he will not give the farmers an extra shilling for wheat?

The Deputy said it was given in 1947. It was not.

It is now the 8th March, four months after the first of our wheat should have been sown and it is even a couple of weeks after our first run of spring wheat ought to have been sown.

I suppose the Deputy thinks I brought down the snow.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.
Top
Share