Vol. 126 No. 4
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £9,387,700 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1952, 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.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
The Estimate now before the House is that previously introduced by my predecessor. Owing to the exigencies of the situation, it is not practicable to draft a fresh Estimate, but I should not, of course, be taken as subscribing to all the agricultural policies which the Estimate was designed to implement financially.
In the circumstances it would not be practicable to make a long statement on the present Estimate, which has already been the subject of considerable debate. I may say, however, that my objective as Minister for Agriculture will be to implement the recent declaration of Government policy which, I may remind the House, is as follows:—
"To assist agricultural production by (1) guaranteed prices for milk, wheat, beet and such other products as after investigation may prove to be practicable; (2) seeking new trade agreements to secure export prices fair to Irish producers; (3) ensuring the availability and encouraging the maximum use of fertilisers and lime; (4) extending the service of free technical aid and advice; (5) providing financial aid for the purchase of equipment; (6) extending State schemes for the improvement of farms and farm buildings; (7) operating a well-planned and practicable programme of reclamation and drainage, and (8) regular consultation between the Minister for Agriculture and representative farmer organisations on all aspects of agricultural policy."
There are some matters of special importance that I particularly wish to mention now. The first concerns the price of milk.
I consider that the increase in the price of creamery milk which was approved by the previous Government was inadequate. I am of opinion that that increase, which amounted to 1d. per gallon for the summer period, did not adequately reflect the net increase in cost of milk production since 1947, when the previous increase was given. The Government have fully considered the matter and I am glad to be able to announce that it has approved, with effect from 1st July, 1951, of a further increase of 1d. per gallon in the summer price and also of an increase of 2d. per gallon in the winter price. The new prices will therefore be 1/4 per gallon in the summer period and 1/6 per gallon in the winter period. Compared with 1950-51 the price for creamery milk will thus have been increased by a total of 2d. per gallon.
The new price arrangements will restore the margin of 2d. per gallon between the summer and the winter price, which obtained from 1947 until 1st May, 1951. There is every justification for this in view of the higher cost of producing milk in the winter period.
Consequential on these increases, the retail price of butter will be increased by 2d. per lb to 3/-, and the Exchequer will be charged with an additional sum of over £400,000. These are substantial increases, but they will be justified in full if producers will make every effort to increase their milk production so that home production of creamery butter will suffice not only to meet the ration but to enable off-ration sales to be resumed. I would much prefer that our butter requirements could be entirely met from home production rather than that, as at present, supplies should have to be supplemented by imports. The indications at the moment are that it may be necessary to import a few thousand tons in the coming season; the exact amount will, of course, depend on weather conditions here in the months ahead. With a view to ensuring as far as possible that future consignments of imported butter are fully acceptable to consumers, I have arranged for technical discussions in the supplying country with experts of my Department.
As regards past supplies difficulties arose mainly on consignments of sweet cream butter which had been specially made for the Irish market. Some of this butter was not satisfactory, principally in connection with keeping quality and odour. The quantity of such sweet cream butter returned by traders on quality grounds was about 340 cwt. or slightly over 1 per cent. of the total imports of such butter. I think that the defects were probably attributable to the fact that sweet cream butter involved a new technique for the supplying country.
The earlier consignments of sour butter did not please the Irish consumer, who was unaccustomed to its flavour. The vast bulk of this sour cream butter was in fact technically good.
The question of prices for farmer's butter has also been considered and I propose to enter into negotiations with butter factories with a view to working out details of a scheme under which factories would be enabled to pay 3/-per lb. for best quality farmers' butter and corresponding prices for butter of secondary quality. The quantity of butter likely to be involved during the current financial year cannot be gauged with any degree of accuracy at this stage. It is possible that with the incentive of the better prices which will be obtainable approximately 1,000 tons of farmers' butter may reach the factories, and the cost of the subsidy may be in the region of £75,000.
I am having examined in my Department the feasibility of extending the system of travelling creameries to areas bordering on those covered by existing creameries in order to get into the creameries milk from outlying districts. In the case of areas far removed from existing creamery facilities the question of making special arrangements for the collection in suitable areas of fresh cream separated on the farms is being considered with a view to having such cream made into butter in central premises specially equipped for the purpose.
I am considering the possibility of some arrangement under which the cost of milk production in the creamery areas would be reviewed periodically by some expert and impartial authority. The results of these investigations would be taken into account in fixing the prices for milk. I am not yet in a position to announce any final details but I shall do so as soon as possible.
On the question of tillage, it is obviously imperative in the present international situation that the maximum amount of wheat and feeding stuffs be grown at home. I propose therefore to give every encouragement to increased home production of grain and other crops and this matter is at present engaging my close attention.
Provisions about the sale of wheat will be incorporated in the Wheat Order, 1951, which will be made at an early date.
I am of opinion that the production from our own soil of root and other seeds serves a basic need in the national economy and should be encouraged and expanded. I am, therefore, taking steps in this direction while at the same time providing for imports to meet special cases.
Persons or organisations desiring to engage in the production and processing of such seeds in a substantial way will be facilitated; and commercial imports of such seeds will be proportioned to the efforts they make to produce such seeds at home. Farmers who wish to import small quantities of such seeds for use on their own farms and not for resale may do so, but it is my hope that the overall importations may be on a gradually diminishing scale according as our own production increases.
For the reasons mentioned in my opening remarks I am not proposing to elaborate in further detail at this stage on the matters arising on the present Estimate. I shall of course be glad to give information on any points which Deputies wish to raise.
I should like to secure a statement from the Minister indicating whether it is his intention to carry on the policy in relation to agriculture which has been in operation during the past three years. In the minds of the farmers of this country there is the fear that there may be a drift backwards towards the conditions which existed amongst them pre-war, then, following on, during the emergency and, later, after the emergency. The farmers found, during those years, that there was an inclination on the part of the Fianna Fáil Government to interfere too much with the management of their affairs.
I notice that the Minister has stated that at a later date he intends to make a statement regarding the guaranteed price for wheat. If he is a man as good as his word he will keep faith with statements made by him in this House on that subject. I believe myself that he said that 70/- a barrel for wheat, guaranteed, would not be a sufficient return for the farmers of this country.
On a point of order, I made no such statement at any time as 70/- per barrel. The Deputy had better refresh his memory.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to quote statements which the Minister has made.
The Minister has denied it.
I accept the Minister's denial. I hope, at a later date, to get an opportunity of quoting for the Minister his own statements. However, if the Minister did not advocate that price himself, certainly his colleagues did and I should like him to keep faith with his colleagues. I would like him to keep faith with his colleagues and with the representatives of his own Party by guaranteeing a minimum of not less than 70/- a barrel for wheat. Apparently the guarantee advocated was regardless of politics. Certainly, so far as the farmers are concerned, they would be very glad if he decided to meet the demands of his own colleagues in this respect.
With regard to pigs, I remember quite well—and I think the Minister cannot deny this—that when Mr. Dillon, the previous Minister for Agriculture, mentioned that he had secured and he was now in a position to guarantee 220/- a cwt. for pigs, the present Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Walsh, said that £12 10s. 0d. a cwt. would not be sufficient for the farmer. In that case, I hope that he will take steps to adjust the price of pigs upwards in order that the producers of pigs will get £12 10s. 0d. a cwt.
Similarly, I would like to know from the Minister whether it is his intention to control the price of barley as it was before Deputy Dillon came into office. When Deputy Dillon came into office, we found that the price of barley was controlled down to 35/- a barrel. We found a position where, when the maltsters had finished buying all the barley in this country at 35/- per barrel, they travelled to the ends of the earth paying anything up to 85/- per barrel delivered for their own requirements. We found that the farmers of this country lost what is calculated to be approximately £2,000,000 as a result of the control during the years when it was necessary for the maltsters to seek their requirements of barley elsewhere. At the present time, the world price of barley is even lower than the price being received by our own growers for the home product. I hope that advantage of that situation will not be taken by the new Minister and that he will not interfere with the farmers in the matter of applying control because I am in favour of private enterprise. I am in favour of giving the farmer a chance to get the best terms possible for those who are interested in the produce of the land.
I do not know whether this particular matter comes within the Minister's duties or not, but I would like to know what he is going to do in regard to the victuallers. Many of the victuallers have been complaining that they cannot make their business pay having regard to the present prices of beef. Representations were made many times to the inter-Party Government asking for an adjustment which would enable the victuallers to balance out. There are two months in the year, particularly May and June, when the butchers find it impossible to make ends meet and to compete in the market for beef.
I think that is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I just wanted to be corrected on that. If the matter does not come within the Minister's scope, I will bring it up on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce.
There is another matter upon which I want to get a statement from the Minister and that is the export of horse flesh from this country.
And ass flesh.
And ass flesh.
You should have asked that question long ago.
On various occasions, I have referred to the fact that the farmers are inclined to replace horses by tractors and other types of equipment on the farm. This leaves them in the position that they do not require as many horses as they required in the past. The result is that farmers are inclined to dispose of the horses at the best prices they can get. I am aware that there is a demand for these horses outside this country. So far as I know, only horses which are considered by qualified veterinary surgeons to be fit for work are allowed to be exported from this country. It is alleged that, when these horses leave the country, they are slaughtered on the continent and disposed of as horse flesh. If the Minister would make inquiries and see whether this is a fact, and if he is satisfied that this is what happens horses certified to be fit for work on leaving our shores, I would like him to consider whether it would not be better business to establish some kind of a horse canning factory in this country. Certainly, I am not in favour of any kind of industry in the matter of canning horse flesh. I do not believe that we should produce horses for that purpose. We should concentrate more on the production of beef, mutton and bacon. At the same time, if we find, during the next couple of years, that there is a surplus of horses so far as the farmers are concerned; that they want to dispose of them and that there is no organisation that will take the horses off the hands of the farmers, we ought to see whether it would not be better business now to find out definitely the purposes for which these horses are being used when they leave the country. If we are satisfied that the horses are being used on the continent as horse flesh and not for work, I think we ought to consider the possibilities of establishing now some kind of a horse flesh industry.
For what purpose?
For the purpose of eliminating the cruelty to these horses between this country and the place of slaughter if, in fact, they are being slaughtered on the continent.
What about the factory in Tipperary which the Coalition closed down?
The Deputy remembers quite well that it was intended at the time to slaughter those horses, put the horse flesh in tins and sell it as beef on the continent; "Con-Biadh"— in other words, canned beef on the continent. We decided, and rightly so, that people on the continent buying meat should not be deceived and that we should not send any kind of flesh out of this country under a wrong description. If it were beef, let it be described as such and if it were horse flesh let it be described as horse flesh. The factory to which Deputy Allen refers were requested whether they would describe the meat that was put into tins as horse flesh and they refused to do so. That was why an end was put to the scheme for the slaughter of horses and export of horse flesh at the time.
Deputy Allen knows all about that.
I think he does. I think he is pretty familiar with it all right. Another matter on which I should like some information is the price which butchers here receive for cattle hides. I understand that they are receiving only 10d. a lb., while there is a scheme in England under which the butchers there receive something like 4/6 a lb. If it pays somebody in England to pay 4/6 a lb. for hides, surely it must pay somebody in Ireland to give more than 10d. to the butchers here.
It may be argued that we should sell these hides as cheaply as possible so as to keep our boot and shoe industry going and put it in a position in which it is able to show a profit and provide employment. At the same time, I am sure that the factories here have reached a certain degree of competence and efficiency comparable with that which exists in factories in Great Britain. If that is the case, I do not believe that they are only one-third as efficient as they are in Great Britain, so far as making boots and shoes is concerned, but the price being offered to the butchers here for hides would appear to suggest that. Strangely enough, we find that boots and shoes are coming into this country and being sold across the shop counters in competition with our own products, although 4/6 a lb. has been paid for hides across the water as compared with 10d. a lb. for hides going into the factories here. Some effort should be made to bring about a proper adjustment and to ensure that somebody is not getting too much at the expense of somebody else because there is a big difference between 10d. a lb. here and 4/6 a lb. in Great Britain.
I should like to get a statement from the Minister regarding his attitude towards the poultry industry. For a few months early this year, the inter-Party Government were very severely criticised because they did not succeed in inducing the British Government to guarantee more than 2/- per dozen for our eggs. On coming into office in 1948, we found a position in which the British Government had to subsidise the poultry industry here. They had to offer £1,250,000 so that we could set up hatcheries and expand our poultry trade. That was just another example of the policy in relation to agriculture which was carried on by Fianna Fáil over the years. They were always regarded as the traditional enemies of agriculture and were proved to be such by reason of certain conditions which we found—the poultry industry having to be financed and re-established on the basis of a grant of £1,250,000 and also the position in the pig industry. We found that there was scarcely a pig left in the country and there was certainly no bacon. One would have to be a very good customer of the grocer to get a lb. of bacon in the week. We altered that position in relation to both poultry and pigs. The value of poultry and eggs exported from this country in 1950 was in the region of £8,000,000 and the value when we came into office was only oneeighth of that amount.
We should also like a statement from the Minister with regard to the price of oats. We remember that a couple of years ago the farmers had a surplus of 1,000,000 barrels of oats on their hands. A very strong and very deliberate agitation was carried on, mainly at the behest of the Fianna Fáil Party, to get the then Government to guarantee a price per barrel for oats at the expense of the general taxpayers, but the only time the Fianna Fáil Party guaranteed a price of 25/8 for oats was when oats could not be got and when there was no necessity to give any kind of guarantee. I should like to know whether the Minister intends to guarantee a price for homegrown oats. The farmers will be very glad if he decides to give any kind of reasonable guarantee in that matter.
With regard to feeding stuffs, I should like to hear whether he will consider the establishment of some kind of processing factories here which would enable a good supply of feeding stuffs for poultry and pigs to be made available. The prices of feeding stuffs from outside have gone beyond the pockets of the producers who cannot put pigs and poultry on the market at a fairly reasonable price to the consumers if they must pay exorbitant prices for feeding stuffs from outside countries.
So far as I can see, our agricultural economy at the moment is very sound and people living and working on the land were never so prosperous. Their present position is mainly due to the vigorous policy of expansion and development pursued by the previous. Minister who approached every problem fearlessly and improved each sphere of agricultural economy one after the other. One of the monuments to his efforts during the past three years is the land reclamation scheme. I believe that scheme will mean, in the long run, an improvement in the standard of living of our people which could otherwise never have been reached because it will have the effect of making the land more productive and of enabling farmers to produce more from a given acreage with less expense. These things, in the long run, will make for an improvement in the country's economy and will enable the farmers to put various classes of food on the market at a reasonable price to the consumer.
I hope the Minister will give us a very clear statement regarding his policy. We want to hear from him what his attitude towards the creamery milk suppliers is. His Party were particularly interested in the agitation carried on by that organisation, and it is only right that we should expect that he and his Party will adhere to the views they held on that question in recent months. I am not quite sure— perhaps the Minister will tell me whether it is a fact, as I had not time to examine the debate just now—but I am inclined to think that a figure of 1/6 per gallon was the figure he had in mind.
I have already made an announcement regarding the price of milk.
I was not here. In any case, I feel that it is due to the creamery milk suppliers from the Minister that he should keep faith with the attitude which he adopted towards this problem in recent months. Of course, it depends on the cost of production in future years as to whether the adjusted price will be a paying proposition or not. Certainly, dairying was on the downgrade before the Fianna Fáil Government was replaced by the inter-Party Government. There were less cows in the country than there had been for many years; we had reached the lowest point in the number of cows and the quantity of milk being sent to creameries.
In the past three years, the figures show that there has been an increase in the number of persons who went into the production of milk; there has been a considerable increase in the number of dairy cows; there has been a great increase in the quantity of milk supplied to the creameries and a huge increase in the amount of money received by the farmers in respect of the milk and, of course, in respect of calves, directly connected with the dairying industry. I hope that the attitude to be adopted now by this new Minister will have the effect of carrying on the policy so vigorously embarked upon by the previous Minister, Deputy Dillon.
I wish to start by congratulating the new Minister personally on his nomination by the Taoiseach and his selection by this House for the important post of Minister for Agriculture. I do so very gladly and in full realisation of the difficult task which faces him. It will be a task of considerable difficulty, not by reason of the problems which he will have to face but by reason of the standard to which he must work. He is taking over a Department which in three short years has grown from being a subsidiary Department to one of the premier Departments of the State. We all can recollect—and particularly the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil portion of the present Government—away back three and a half years ago to the days when the Department of Agriculture was under the guidance of several Ministers in succession. It was then merely a sub-Department of the Department of Industry and Commerce. They can recollect the days when the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, previously occupied that position and in fact dictated the agricultural policy. That was continuously the situation when the Fianna Fáil Government was previously in office. When the inter-Party Government was elected to power by the votes of the people in February, 1948, a change took place in agricultural policy. Under the guidance of Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture, the Department assumed an importance that it had not enjoyed since the days of the late Paddy Hogan.
While I congratulate the new Minister on his appointment, my congratulation must be tempered with some suspicion and doubt as to whether we are to have again a similar suppression of this Department. It is at least noteworthy that the present Minister should have been selected. He has only the same experience of Dáil Éireann, a very short experience, as I have; he has never occupied a position such as this before; yet he has been selected as the new Minister. I trust that does not mean that once again we are to witness the suppression of this Department as against others, that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce is not going to dictate again the agricultural policy to be pursued. I hope the new Minister can at least continue the work of his predecessor and ensure that agriculture will be recognised by the present Government, for its short period as a Government, as the important industry, the only industry, upon which the prosperity and economic fabric of the country depends.
I said the Minister will have a very difficult standard to attain. I say that in all sincerity. I do not believe there is a Deputy here, including the present Minister, who has any doubt as to the tremendous work achieved in three short years by the Minister's predecessor. I was used to hear the malcontent Deputies, such as the former Independent Deputy for Wicklow, Deputy Cogan, sniping at the former Minister. I was also accustomed to hear certain Fianna Fáil back-bencher Deputies, like Deputy Martin Corry from Cork, raising hue and cry regarding agricultural policy. Only eight or nine short weeks ago, the entire public business here was held up for some five or six weeks while this Estimate was being discussed.
Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party were clamouring like a pack of hounds for compulsory tillage and the hound master was the present Minister for Agriculture. Deputy Walsh, as he then was, only nine weeks ago declared his political belief and conviction to be that compulsory tillage was the only policy for this country. In that marathon debate Deputy Cogan had some other pet subjects which he ventilated and every section of the present Government—it is a sectionalised Government if ever we had one in this country; it is a Government by malcontents—had some different quarrel to pick with the Minister's predecessor. It was at least fortunate that the issue should have remained undecided by the 13th Dáil.
It was at least fortunate that the issue of the previous Government's agricultural policy should have been submitted to the votes of the people, and I challenge any member of the present Government, particularly Deputy Cogan from Wicklow and the Minister for Agriculture, to controvert the statement that if ever a portion of the Government's policy was completely vindicated by the people of the country it was the policy of the Minister's predecessor. In every part of rural Ireland, the majority of voters completely endorsed the agricultural policy of the inter-Party Government; in the West of Ireland Fianna Fáil seats tumbled one after another; the Kingdom of Kerry that used to be a Fianna Fáil stronghold returned one Fianna Fáil Deputy, and Deputy Cogan who fancied himself as Minister for Agriculture at one time, and who had a spleen because he was not selected, scrambled into the last seat in his own constituency in Wicklow, and he will never win any seat there again.
These are important matters because the people of the country in the general election undoubtedly decided the issue that we are now in a very unreal atmosphere discussing to-day. They undoubtedly decided that they completely endorsed the general agricultural policy put into operation by Deputy Dillon as a Minister of the previous Government. Naturally there were certain matters of detail which engaged the attention of smaller men with smaller minds. Take the question of milk prices. That is the one thing upon which some political capital was made by the Fianna Fáil Opposition when the election was being fought but even in the Golden Vale and in every milk-producing constituency in Ireland a majority of Deputies were returned who favoured Deputy Dillon's agricultural policy.
Except your brother.
My brother, unfortunately, was not in rural Ireland. If he were still in this House——
He was evicted by the Unionists.
I wish that Deputy Gallagher would behave himself for a bit longer.
I am far better than you are, my good man.
He is very sprightly for a new boy.
I am very fit.
He is something the eat brought in but he will be better later. Before Deputy Gallagher erupted I was referring to the endorsement of the policy of the Minister's predecessor even in milk-producing constituencies. In each constituency a majority of Deputies was sent back to implement that policy. It must have been the cause of some disappointment to our political opponents. To demonstrate that the endorsement of the policy contained in this Estimate was not confined to any one section of the agricultural community or to any one part of the country one can point to the same consistent vote in favour of the policy pursued by Deputy Dillon in each province and even in the poorer areas of the West and South.
Perhaps the greatest miracle of all, the most notable achievement of Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture, was the conversion of these gentlemen opposite to his policy, the conversion of Deputy Mark Killilea when the issue was to be decided by the Irish people to a firm conviction that the only tillage policy for Ireland was a policy which would provide farmers with the necessary fertilisers to put into their land, which would attract them to till by fair prices and induce them by guaranteed prices in an expanding market to work their land. There was the policy of Deputy Dillon. Against that was the policy of Deputy Walsh when in opposition, the policy of compulsion, of the whip and of the lash. The conversion took place right in the middle of the election campaign. Deputy Seán Lemass, as he then was, was sent posthaste from the City of Dublin down the country to make a speech declaring that Fianna Fáil had abandoned compulsory tillage. They were taught their lesson. They realised that the policy of the Minister's predecessor which Deputy Corry from Cork and the rest of them had been criticising here for three and a half years was the correct policy and the only one which would have the support of the people of the country. Now we find that the greatest exponent of Deputy Dillon's tillage policy is the present Minister for Agriculture. I congratulate him heartily on that conversion. I congratulate him on being a man big enough to realise that the Deputy Walsh who spoke in this House from these benches only eight weeks ago was an omadhaun. I trust that it is a sincere conversion. I trust that the cloak of penance which the Minister for Agriculture wears with regard to compulsory tillage does not still conceal the heart of a knave. I hope that the present temporary caretaker Government will not utilise present circumstances to ventilate their old policy of compulsory tillage. If they do, let me warn them that there will be something approaching open revolt in rural Ireland. It will not affect Deputy Cogan because he cannot go back to his constituents, but it will affect the Minister, Deputy Corry, Deputy Killilea, and the rest of them if they endeavour ever again in this country to compel Irish farmers to act the part of slaves.
There are a number of other matters which used to be discussed by our friends in the Fianna Fáil section of the Government when they were in opposition. I do not know whether they will endeavour to carry out the things they used to talk about. Possibly they may. I see that the Minister for Agriculture announced in the House an increase in milk prices. That, of course, is an important announcement both from Deputy Gallagher's point of view and from the point of view of country Deputies. An increase in the price of milk does not come from the pockets of the Minister for Agriculture no matter how elegant his salary may be. It has to be paid for either by increased prices direct from the consumer or by a subsidy which comes from the taxpayer.
The honest way, I suppose, is to put up the price of milk by whatever may be decided upon, by 1d. or 2d., and to say: "There is what milk is to cost; anybody who buys butter must pay the price." That may be the honest way of doing it. I suppose it would not be a politically acute way of doing it. If it were a politically acute way of doing it, we would not be honoured in this House by Deputy Gallagher. I do not know whether the Minister has indicated the manner in which this increased price will be raised.
I have.
By increasing the price of butter. The situation now is that Deputy Gallagher will have to meet his constituents and explain to them how generous the Minister for Agriculture has been in increasing the price of milk for the farmer, but that it is unfortunate that in doing so the Minister has increased the price of butter, particularly as I have no doubt that Deputy Gallagher during the recent general election campaign went around prating about the increase in the price of butter.
Surely the Deputy does not deny the right of the farmer to get an increased price for his milk?
I heartily approve of it. What I object to is the dishonest attitude of the gentlemen who support the Minister for Agriculture. Deputy Corry went down the country demanding an increase in the price of milk and the city Deputies went around Westland Row and Inchicore saying: "Is it not terrible that James Dillon is putting up the price of butter by 2d. a 1b.?" That is the attitude I object to. The entire campaign with regard to milk prices and the price of butter was a dishonest one. I know that the people saw that it was dishonest.
You do not agree that they should get it?
I approve of the increase in the price of milk. I think it is a proper thing. I only wish that the view of the Minister's predecessor was put into operation by the present Minister by encouraging a better type of cow for the dairy industry. Apparently that suggestion has not been pursued. That is regrettable, because I believe in what Deputy Dillon stated when Minister for Agriculture, and he will be Minister for Agriculture again soon, that we should so organise the dairy industry that we could produce a beast which would give a far higher yield of milk and thus increase the return to the dairy industry without increasing the burden of the consumer who has to pay for butter. However, the Minister has taken the quick way, probably the easy way, of doing it and I wish him luck in it. I only wish that he had supporting him a Party that spoke with one voice, because he will find that there are still two or three voices in the Fianna Fáil Party, one of them advocating one policy in relation to the cities and others advocating another policy in relation to rural Ireland. That did not work at the last election, because the people showed by their vote that they wanted an inter-Party Government to carry out the policy of the previous Government. That decision was set at nought. The present Minister was put into the high position which he now occupies by a few disgruntled malcontents who set at nought the decision of the Irish people.(Interruption.) Deputy Cogan is one of them and the voters are only waiting to get at him again. They are only waiting to get at Deputy Killilea, Deputy Allen and the present Minister for Agriculture. If there is to-day, as there undoubtedly is, a feeling of insecurity and instability in this country, it arises from the fact that the people know that a Government and a Minister they do not want have been foisted upon them. (Interruption.) The Deputy should behave himself.
Deputy O'Higgins should behave himself or he may hear something he may not like.
The Opposition will want to know who will dictate the agricultural policy of the Government. Has Deputy Cowan been consulted? If Deputy Cowan has not been consulted, have we any guarantee that the present Government will be here next week? Have we any guarantee that Deputy Cowan, who time and time again was attacked by the present Minister for Finance as being a Communist, will approve of the increase in the price of butter? These are serious considerations. In the Dáil we have discussed the policy of the Minister for Agriculture as the policy of one person. Unfortunately, we cannot do it with the present Minister because we do not know how many cooks have prepared the broth that now represents the agricultural policy of the present temporary caretaker Government. Apparently, Deputy Cogan has secured some sort of assurance that compulsory tillage will not be reintroduced. For how long will that assurance last? These are matters which are of considerable importance, because as Deputy Allen knows, there is to-day in every farming district in Ireland a complete feeling of insecurity with regard to the agricultural policy of the Government. Nobody believes that the Government will last. Nobody trusts any declaration or policy they may make. Nobody believes that the present Minister for Agriculture is in a position to act on behalf of the farmers.
That is a serious situation and it has been brought about because on the 13th June in this House a bad trick was played by five malcontent Deputies on the people of Ireland. I only hope that for the short time the Minister for Agriculture occupies that elevated post he will not try, out of a feeling of political spleen or anything of that kind, to undo the good work done by his predecessor. I am sure that he will not set about his duties in that frame of mind. I am certain that he appreciates, in his own constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, the benefit which his constituents have enjoyed from the land reclamation scheme. I trust that, in relation to that scheme and the other matters of policy implemented by his predecessor, although he may be urged by Deputy Cowan, Deputy Dr. Browne, Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll and the rest of them to do so, he will nevertheless recognise the good work which has been done and that he will not interfere with or retard it in any way.
I was sorry to read in a newspaper the other day the Minister's announcement that he proposes some modification of the land reclamation scheme. Perhaps the report may have been inaccurate as I read it in the Irish Press. I trust that the modification which the Minister refers to will not mean a reduction in the application of the land reclamation scheme. It will be a matter which the Minister will sincerely regret if he stops that work in any way.
I can only hope that, now that Deputy Martin Corry finds himself in the responsible position of supporting in this House and in his constituency in Cork the policy and personality of the present Minister for Agriculture, he will endeavour to understand some of the difficulties which face the Minister; he will endeavour to understand that the Minister has a high standard to attain to; that he has either to carry out the policy of his predecessor or admit the administration of his Department to be a failure. There is no other alternative before the present Minister for Agriculture. He must either implement what his predecessor was doing and subscribe entirely to the policy of his predecessor or find himself and his Government in chaos. There is no other alternative. It is a difficult position for a political opponent of Deputy Dillon to find himself in, a very difficult position indeed for the Minister.
I hope that when Deputy Martin Corry, as I am sure he will, administers spankings to the present Minister at Party meetings of the Fianna Fáil section of the Government, he will recognise the difficulties which face the present Minister. He cannot just endeavour to put back the hands of the clock and have us back in the days of 1947 when agriculture just did not count in this country. He cannot have us back in the days when the farmer was the cap-toucher to every businessman throughout Ireland. He cannot have us back in those days. He must continue the policy of his predecessor in building up agriculture into something of economic importance to the country.
That is what is in store for the Minister. I warn him on behalf of the Fine Gael Party that he will have to work; that we will allow no slacking in his Department or indeed in any other Department in the present temporary Government. He must watch his job and see that the good work that was being carried on in Ireland four weeks ago is continued. He must keep his nose to the grindstone, if there is a grindstone in the present Government, for 24 hours of the day, and every time he slacks we will show his shortcomings here in the nation's Parliament.
In conclusion, I may refer to one particular matter. Now that Deputy Walsh unexpectedly finds himself Minister of the Government, with Deputy Michael Moran behind him who, eight weeks ago, from this side of the House breathed fire and brimstone on all of us with regard to the thousands of bullocks and calves that were lying dead all over the roads of this country, I trust, when that problem undoubtedly exists, the present Minister for Agriculture——
You admit it exists?
I do not say the Minister said it. I say that Deputy Michael Moran said it. I trust that particular problem will engage the immediate attention of the Minister for Agriculture, as it was engaging the attention of his predecessor. I am sorry to have to say this to the Minister, that in one area in my constituency, the Luggacurran electoral area, there have been some losses of stock in the last three months or so—two and a half months—slightly less than that.
In the past three weeks, possibly?
A little bit longer than that.
I thought it might have occurred with the change of Government.
I can assure the Minister that I am not digging out dead carcases now merely in order to present them to the Minister. Indeed, if the Minister cares to consult the records of his Department he will find that this is a matter that I raised there time and time again, before ever the Vote for Agriculture was on last. I want to recommend this to the Minister. His predecessor was suggesting or considering a particular scheme that would give local relief. The particular problem had been brought about by the bad winter, and so on. There was a particular scheme being considered, for restocking, or something of that kind. It was mentioned in the Dáil. I trust that it will now get the attention of the present Minister for Agriculture. If it does not, I warn the Minister about the consequences because he has sitting behind him Deputies like Deputy Flynn and Deputy Moran who exulted over every dead carcase they found in Ireland eight weeks ago. Cattle may or may not have died but, if they died, their death will not pass unnoticed in this House if the Minister does nothing about it.
It was last spring that you should have made provision for the safety of those cattle, not now.
Are we to understand from the Minister for Agriculture that the losses suffered by these farmers are going to receive no attention from him?
Certainly they will receive every attention. Why did not you make provision then?
Every provision was made.
They did not die at all?
Deputy Moran said they did. I am referring the present Minister to the information given to this House by Deputy Moran, Deputy Flynn and the rest of them. I am giving the Minister my own information that, in the last four or five weeks or so in one particular area in my constituency, farmers suffered loss of stock. I do not know the medical reason for it. The Minister probably knows more about that than I do. I am informed that some of the losses are due to the fact that cattle that were in an undernourished condition, feeding on new grass, developed some particular ailment and died.
Scour.
That is a matter that the Minister's predecessor did not guard against.
It will not be long until Deputy Killilea's Party are suffering from it too. Deputy Killilea should bear that in mind.
Deputy Moran believes in the old adage: "Live cow and you will get grass." The Minister's very competent officials know Luggacurran from one end to the other because, at the behest of Deputy Dillon, they spent days in different parts of Luggacurran.
And the Minister's constituency.
They know that area well. The Minister will be armed with far more accurate information than I could give him. I do expect that, as regards those people who suffered in recent weeks and months, the Minister will take steps to compensate them in some way for the losses they have sustained. The particular area that I have mentioned is an extremely poor area. I am not making a case here on behalf of any man who had ten, 11 or 12 head of cattle. If he lost cattle it was his own fault because he could have sold some of them to get feeding stuffs. I am talking about the unfortunate fellow who had just a few cattle and lost them. They represented his entire asset. It is that man's case that I want the Minister to attend to. I hope it will engage his immediate attention.
I do not want to delay the House any longer. I wish the Minister every good fortune, personally, as Minister for Agriculture. I know that, when he speaks on the Estimate for Agriculture next year in opposition, he will wish all good fortune to his successor. While his period may be short, we realise fully the difficulties which he will have to contend with. We realise the rabble that he has behind him and the record that he will have to face up to, but, if he keeps his head and does not change the policy, if he stands aside and lets the work proceed, he will be all right.
I am indeed glad that this Estimate for Agriculture has to come again before this House, and before a different Minister. We remember what was the position in this House during the last few months when we had Deputy O'Higgins tearing around and chasing around the corridors, in the highways and the byways, trying to get Deputies to come in here and help to get the Vote of Deputy James Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, through this House. We remember how those Deputies failed to get the Vote through this House, and that, rather than be kicked out on this Estimate, they ran out.
We got the votes of the country.
And they are over there now.
That is why they are over there.
This present Estimate for the Department of Agriculture is what put Deputy Dillon back over there as a plain honest to God Deputy. It is what put all those gentlemen over there.
You were wrong.
They were a complete failure. We had Deputy Flanagan occupying the time of this House for, I think, five and a half hours trying to save the Minister from defeat——
Do not mix me up with Deputy Smith.
——and hoping that he would be a Parliamentary Secretary if things did not change. But things did change, and now they are over there.
Why was not Deputy Smith made Minister for Agriculture?
I am very proud of the fact that we have now as Minister for Agriculture a tillage farmer, a man who has been an honoured and esteemed colleague of mine for many years in the Beet Growers' Association.
That does not make him a decent man—to be a colleague of yours.
He is a man who knows his job and is second to none in this country. Now, let me "vet" some of the things which Deputy O'Higgins has said. Deputy O'Higgins was wild about the price of milk, ignoring the fact that, in order to depress the price of milk, the previous Minister for Agriculture sold on a foreign market what he had no right to sell—good, decent Irish butter. He sold it at 98/-per cwt. less than the Danes got for theirs. Let us take that first and examine it. He then had to rush to the Danes again and purchase inferior butter from them. Deputies protested against their people having to eat it. He brought that in here and paid more for it than he had been paid for our Irish butter.
Is there not more of it coming in?
Let us examine that in this land of milk and honey where we do not know what to do with the milk and find out what the position is now. In regard to that position, I addressed the following question to-day to the Minister for Agriculture:—
"If he will state (a) the total quantity of butter required to maintain the eight ounce ration for 12 months, including the ration of butter for creamery milk suppliers which they were receiving for a number of years and which was denied them in June, 1950; (b) the quantity of imported butter he estimates it will be necessary to import to supply the foregoing ration and the approximate import price."
Here is the reply I received:
"(a) Total quantity required, 740,000 cwt. (b) Present indications are that it may be necessary to supplement home production by the importation of about 3,000 tons. The exact quantity to be imported will, of course, depend on whether the weather during the remainder of the season is favourable to milk production. I am not in a position at present to say what will be the price of such supplies as it may be necessary to import."
That is the result of the activities of Deputy James Dillon as Minister for Agriculture in this country for the past three years.
Who is going to import it now?
Three thousand tons of butter have to be brought in now. Why?
Because our people can afford to eat butter now which they could not do before.
The reason is because the cows are gone to Roscrea. Let us turn our eyes to another little matter on that. I am quoting from the Irish Times of Wednesday, June 13, last.
That was the day they published Deputy Cowan's photograph.
That was the day they published yours, and you know what happened. I heard you had got a new hat for the new job.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
I am glad that the ringing of the bell has brought in some Deputies who were not here during the past three years, and that Deputy Corry, on Deputy Dillon's policy of agriculture, has succeeded in bringing them into the House. I will now read a statement which appeared in the Irish Times on the 13th June last:
"A meeting of creamery managers from all the Munster counties, members of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association, was held at the Town Hall, Mallow, County Cork, yesterday. The following statement was made after the meeting: ‘This meeting is of the unanimous opinion that the quantity of creamery butter produced this year would be at least 15 per cent. down on last year's production, and that the Government is faced with the importation of a considerable quantity of Danish or New Zealand butter to meet the country's requirements, or, alternatively, reducing the present ration to 6 or even 4 ozs. a week'."
That was the position in which Deputy Thomas Walsh, Minister for Agriculture, found himself on the day that he took over. The statement continues:—
"Having regard to the fact that all the indications show that the United States, Canada and Australia would probably join the other butter-importing countries this year—that is Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Switzerland—it means that butter prices are undoubtedly going to be higher.
The present sterling equivalent of creamery butter prices in the United States, Canada, Belgium and Germany to-day ranged from 449/3 to 550s. per cwt. If those prices are to be paid for imported butter to the extent of about 25 per cent. of our total requirements, it is strongly urged that an economic price be now fixed for home milk producers so as to ensure that a sufficiency of Irish creamery butter is available for our own people next season."
Three thousand tons to be bought from the foreigner at, taking the lowest price quoted there of 450/- a cwt., represents £1,350,000 of the Irish people's money paid to the foreigner for imported butter.
And nothing at all about what was paid for the five votes.
That is the first problem our Minister for Agriculture has to face. That is the direct result of the activities of Deputy James Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture. That was his policy: go to the foreigner and pay him the equivalent of 1/6 per gallon for milk at the creamery, pay that to the Danes and to the New Zealander but do not dream of paying it to the Irish farmer. That was the policy of Deputy James Dillon and there is the result. Is the Deputy not ashamed?
Yes. I am ashamed of my life to have to sit in the same House as you.
He sits there with a brazen face. He cleared out after selling the bed. The activities of the Opposition when they were in Government remind me of the lodger who took furnished rooms. The first week he sold a chair; Deputy Dillon did that. The second week he sold the table; Deputy Dillon has done that. The third week he sold the dresser; Deputy Dillon has done that. Then he sold the bed and, having sold the bed, he cleared out.
But we did not sell our principles.
And we are left with the bare walls and £1,350,000 to be found by our Minister for Agriculture in order to purchase foreign butter for our people. Is it any wonder that the Deputies interested in agriculture, Deputy Cogan, Deputy P. O'Reilly, Deputy Finucane——
Deputy Cowan.
——Deputy P.D. Lehane banded themselves together in the Lobby and refused to pass the Estimate for Agriculture?
There was no vote on it.
They refused to vote for that Estimate for Agriculture, and Deputy James Dillon had to fold up his tent and go.
After you bought the votes.
I was not trying to buy them at half past three in the morning.
You had paid for them at that time.
That does not arise on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.
Then you should control the interruptions.
I think if the Deputy looked for less he would probably get less interruptions.
The Deputy is dealing here with the Estimate.
I am afraid the Deputy went away from the Estimate.
However, that is the position. Now we have Deputy T. F. O'Higgins complaining because the price of milk will go up and because the farmer will get now what Deputy James Dillon handed to the foreigner and what Deputy James Dillon put us in the position of having to pay to the foreigner. We will have to go out now on the continent and pay the foreigner the equivalent of 1/6 per gallon for milk delivered at the creamery for foreign butter, for Brian Boru stuff, bring it in here and dish it out to our people for the next ten months.
I doubt if the Minister can succeed in 12 months in bringing back the dairy herds again. I can remember how often I stood up in the benches over there and warned the then Minister that there was one branch of agriculture back into which it was very difficult to bring the farmer once he left it. It is very difficult to get the farmer to go back into keeping a dairy herd once he gives up that branch of agriculture. I know that because I keep one myself.
One?
Yes. I know the difficulties. I know how hard it is on a man to see his neighbours stop work at 1 o'clock on Saturday and know that they will not have to go back to work until Monday morning. I know how difficult it is to induce agricultural workers to come back on Saturday evening and milk the cows and do the same on Sunday morning and Sunday evening. I know all the difficulties. Nobody knows them better than I do.
Then you know more than the Minister.
I know it from experience. This time you have the right Minister. He will be as good as Paddy Smith, and that is setting him a big headline.
God bless us and save us, do not set him that headline.
Deputy Smith did not get much of a chance when he was dumped down in Local Government.
Deputy Smith was put in a most difficult position.
I agree.
Deputy Smith was put in a most difficult position when he was given charge of the Department of Local Government to straighten out matters there.
He was put in there by Deputy Lemass against Deputy de Valera's wishes.
He was given a very difficult job.
The Department of Local Government does not arise on this Estimate.
I cannot help these interruptions. If the Acting-Chairman will endeavour to keep those gentlemen over there a bit quiet we will get along much faster.
The Deputy does not help by inviting interruptions.
That, Sir, is one of the things that the Minister has to face. It is almost an impossible task to induce a farmer, who now finds he need only ramble out on a Saturday evening and have a look at the cattle and go down on Sunday and look at them again, to change his method of farming. It would be a very difficult task to bring that man around to putting in a dairy herd and dairy stock, but it is a task that must be undertaken.
Where, now, is the surplus of butter which Deputy James Dillon assured the farmers he would have to sell to Britain at 271/- a cwt. when he came back with a five-year guarantee: "I will give you 2d. a gallon less than Paddy Smith gave you three years ago. I will give you 2d. a gallon less and I will give you a guarantee for five years; otherwise no one knows what will happen, there will be so much butter in the country and nobody to eat it. I have no market for it except the British market—271/- a cwt." That was the Minister's statement. That was the circular that was sent out by the Minister to every co-operative society in the country. That fraud, or attempted fraud, is the cause of our having to look for and purchase 3,000 tons of butter on the foreign market, and to pay for that, not the 271/- for which Deputy James Dillon was prepared to sell our butter to Britain, but from 450/- to 550/- a cwt. This is a lovely condition of affairs. Still, I grant him this much, that there are a couple of idiots of representatives of farmers who went into the Lobby—I do not know what guarantee they had from Deputy Costello——
The Deputy must not describe any member of this House as an idiot.
If you heard some of the descriptions I have heard——
The Deputy must withdraw that term he used in reference to any member of this House.
I will withdraw anything. Some very foolish Deputies who, apparently, had not come to the use of reason or who had gone so far into the imbecilic age that they did not know what they were doing, did travel around the Lobby. I saw my dearly beloved friend, Deputy P. D. Lehane, walk around there. I am certain that Deputy P.D. Lehane had extracted a very firm guarantee from Deputy Costello that Deputy James Dillon would not again be in charge of agriculture in this country. I am almost certain he got that guarantee. I do not know what promises were made. At that time Ministries were going night and day; they were there for the taking.
What an evil mind you have.
They were going for the taking.
We did not buy them.
Deputy Corry on the Estimate.
Will Deputy Corry tell us about Deputy Lemass's chats with the five Independents?
Not on this Estimate.
I have the utmost sympathy with Deputy Flanagan in that he spent four and a half hours when this Estimate was previously before the House, labouring hard, speaking against time in an endeavour to save the poor Minister's coat, and to save the poor Minister from defeat. He has my utmost sympathy. So much for the butter. I will give the Minister a description of what I saw last week from the train. I saw 14 milch cows in one field—nice dairy cows—feeding 28 calves.
And five Independents?
I thought you were an Independent.
I am one of the decent Independents—not the indecent ones.
I do not wish to go outside the rules of the debate, but I must say that the Independent, according to Deputies opposite, is a sort of mongrel Fine Gael man. I cannot give any other description of him.
Be careful, or they will put you out again.
The nature of the Independents on either side of the House does not arise on the Estimate for Agriculture.
I am not anxious to impart knowledge to Deputies. As I was saying, there was a flock of calves being reared by cows instead of the milk being sent to the creamery. It would be uneconomic to milk those cows and send the milk to the creamery for the price fixed by the ex-Minister for Agriculture. Such is the position that exists to-day. I am glad that the present Minister has taken as his first task the raising of the price of milk to an economic level. What is the reason for an uneconomic price? What is the justification for endeavouring to keep in this country a depressed class who are the only producers of wealth here to-day—the agricultural community? Why hold them depressed by giving them an uneconomic price for the foundation of their industry, their milch cows and the produce of their milch cows? However, the farmer is no longer the kind of fool who says: "God is good. We are going to get a better price next year." Those days are gone.
Who said he was a fool?
I heard you say it on one occasion. You stood up here and made a very serious complaint. I have not your speech with me but, if I am wrong in my statement, you can correct me. You complained that the farmers in your county were selling potatoes at a price from £4 10s. to £5 a ton, while the Dublin people were paying from £10 to £11 a ton for potatoes.
I did not say that they were fools.
What did you call them then?
I would not tell you for one.
You blamed the late Minister for Agriculture for that condition of affairs and you also told him about the unsaleable oats. I regret that I have not got the speech with me but I think I nearly know it by heart.
I did not say that they were fools.
You said: "What would you call a man——"
The Deputy must address the Chair.
A Leas-Chinn Chomhairle, the Deputy said: "What would you call a man who would go along and would take £4 10s. a ton for what was worth from £10 to £11 a ton?"
I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is not going to answer that.
That was Deputy Davin's statement in the House. The unfortunate farmers, through the policy of the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy James Dillon——
On a point of order, I ask that Deputy Corry, who is used to making false statements in this House and is now saying that Deputy Davin accused a former Minister, would be good enough to produce that statement here.
That is not a point of order.
It is a peculiar translation for Deputy Allen.
It is a matter altogether for Deputy Davin.
Is Deputy Corry entitled to make an accusation of this kind against Deputy Davin without producing the quotation?
I think the person to deal with that is Deputy Davin, if he alleges he is being misquoted.
I told Deputy Davin at the start that I had not the quotation by me but I have it nearly by heart. Deputy Davin has not denied the truth of the statement.
Every circus must have its entertainers. Go on.
Mind you, I had it in a little scrapbook and it will not take me five minutes to get it.
Are the rats in it that were in the oats?
I think if Deputy Corry were allowed to proceed without interruption, we would get through the business more quickly.
Another statement made by the late Minister was:—
"If anyone is short of fodder for his stock, let him phone me and within 24 hours the fodder will be delivered to him."
Perhaps the Deputy would give the reference, seeing that he has the quotation in his hands.
The reference.
I am sorry I have not that particular reference by me, but I did not think that Deputy Dillon would have the neck to deny it.
I thought the Deputy had the quotation in his hand.
What I have in my hand is a question asked by Deputy Palmer last week in this House, on the 20th June, when he was begging the new Minister for loans free of interest for farmers who, because of the severe winter and spring, and the lack of sufficient fodder, suffered heavy losses in their live stock. I wondered when I heard that question asked whether Deputy Palmer, on behalf of his constituents, appealed to the former generous Minister for Agriculture to send down some of the superfluous fodder so that these animals would not die, but apparently the stock were allowed to die for want of feeding stuff. I remember the former Minister for Agriculture over here challenging Deputies from Mayo and other counties to quote him a case where one animal was suffering from malnutrition or where there was one animal for which there were not feeding stuffs. The first job that our Minister has now to face is the provision of butter for our people. The country is now in the position that we are importers of butter and we have to pay for that butter the equivalent of 1/6 per gallon of milk at the creamery. It is an alarming position and a wrong position for an agricultural community. Our principal industry has been brought to such a state in three years that there is not now sufficient butter for our people and we have to import butter. I need not go further into the butter question than that.
I thought the Deputy was going to talk about the lime got in the beet factories.
That was the £140,000 that I extracted from the late Minister during the last quarter of an hour that he was here—the £140,000 that the Minister had refused to give to the Irish Sugar Company as a subsidy for delivering lime because they were carrying out an additional service in spreading that lime on the farmer's land. Deputy Dillon tried to dodge it here, but during the last quarter of an hour he sat here—I remember telling him that night that it was the last round and the last night he would sit here as Minister for Agriculture—I succeeded in compelling the Minister to make restitution to these unfortunate farmers of 10/- a ton on every ton of lime spread on their land this year. I am proud of that. I am sure some of the farmers got their cheques before polling day and that they remembered me in their prayers when they went to the polling booth. If there is any other question which Deputy Flanagan would like answered, I should be glad to hear it.
I only want to be helpful.
I am glad the Deputy wants to help me. Before passing on to other matters, I should like to mention that the costings of milk production prepared some time ago are over in the Minister's office. I am sure that Deputy Dillon remembers that. I was kind enough to present him with a copy of Professor Murphy's costings. It would not take any great ingenuity on the part of the Minister's officials to bring these costings up to date. When these costings are brought up to date the Minister will know exactly what the position is with regard to milk production. He will know exactly what increase there has been made in the cost of production of milk since March, 1947, up to date. It should be very easy to bring the costings up to date.
I have another idea as regards agriculture. I might be considered a pioneer in this idea.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
I consider that the first thing to be done in relation to agriculture is to fix the wage of an agricultural labourer so high that we are not going to be left with the dregs and the remnants of labour. All a farmer can depend on to-day as regards labour is what nobody else will take.
You are referring to your own constituents, of course.
I am referring to the general position of agriculture in this country. The wages paid to agricultural labourers should be as high at least as those paid for labour in other walks of life in this country. It happens that, at the present time, a sanatorium is being built in my constituency. I saw over 40 agricultural labourers from my parish leave their work on Saturday night and on Monday morning they were working on the foundations of that sanatorium for double the wages they had been getting for agricultural work. Why is it that our principal industry must always be in a depressed state? I suggest that the Minister fix a decent wage for the agricultural labourer, a wage as high at least as that which is paid to builders' labourers in this country to-day. Fix that first, and then come along and grade the price of agricultural produce to meet that position. You will then have some basis for demanding increased production from the agricultural community, and you will never have it until that is done. A farm labourer cannot take a pride in his work to-day when he gets a salary of only £3 odd a week while, if he goes outside the ditch and digs the foundations of a labourer's cottage, he will get from £5 10s. to £5 12s.
Where does that figure apply to-day?
South Cork.
It includes overtime.
It would want to include a lot of overtime.
It need not. The agricultural labourer to-day can sell his labour in any other market for one and a half times what he can get in agriculture.
I thought it was double it.
That is the basis, and the wrong basis, on which agriculture is working. It is an impossible position.
Yet the Deputy is supporting a contractor who is giving £2 10s. od. a week to his workers. Face that question and answer it. The Deputy is as well aware of it as I am.
Deputy Desmond's interjection is foolish.
That contractor is paying £2 10s. od. a week to his workers.
Any contractor coming into my district will pay a decent trade union wage or get out.
The Deputy does not believe in the one or in the other.
That is what leaves you where you are.
Deputy Corry, on the Estimate.
Fix a decent wage for the agricultural labourer. Come right along then and increase the price of farm produce to meet that wage increase. We find that when an increase is given to a section of the community who may make a particular article, that increase is reflected the following week in an increase in the price of the article they produce. If I want to buy that article I must pay the increased price for it. However, when it comes to farmers' produce, or the gallon of milk, we see the Labour Deputies walking into the Lobbies of this House and supporting the depression of their own class.
We have some of the world's finest economists on costings in our universities in this country. The Minister for Agriculture and myself are aware of the pains and the labour taken by Professor Murphy of University College, Cork, in getting the costings on beet from over 1,000 farmers. He got that information and now we know exactly where we stand as regards beet. When the wages go up, one simple little table is consulted and we have the increased price. Just one small example is social security—2/5. All that is worked out. The Minister's Department should have no difficulty in getting the costings in regard to practically every branch of agriculture. These costings should then be given to the farmer, plus a fair profit. He is entitled to consideration just as much as the industrialist is. When you have done that, you can say that there is a definite obligation on every owner of land in this country to produce food for the people of the country.
We have heard a lot of talk in this House on the subject of compulsory tillage. Fianna Fáil came into office in 1932 and from that date until the outbreak of the Emergency there was no compulsory tillage in this country. Fianna Fáil brought in compulsory tillage only when it became essential that the land of this country should produce enough food for the people of this country——
The Minister said a few weeks ago that compulsory tillage was necessary.
——and Deputy Davin supported that policy, and so would every other Labour Deputy. They believed in it and I believe in it.
Deputy Walsh, the Minister for Agriculture, does not believe in it.
The Minister for Agriculture believes in it. He believes that it is the duty of the owners of land to produce food for the people. It is the duty of the Government to see that the owners of land are paid a fair price for the food they produce. They are not going to be the depressed class for the rest of the community. So far as compulsory tillage is concerned, I have always ploughed more than my quota. Compulsory tillage never worried me, nor did it ever worry my constituents. That, to my mind, should be the basis of our agricultural policy in this country. We have here in this newspaper which I read the result of trying the other game. If the House wants other instances of it I can give them. In fact, I have given them repeatedly.
In 1948, we went to the general manager of the Irish Sugar Company, General Costello, to seek an increase in the price of beet in respect of the 1949 crop. The general manager of the Sugar Company was willing and consented to give an increase of 4/6 a ton. The matter was referred to the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. They refused to give the increase. As a result, there was an immediate reduction in 1949 of 6,600 acres of beet. In March, 1950, we had to go abroad; we had to tramp the high ways and the byways, and we had to tramp the world looking for something sweet. Finally, we landed in a place called Formosa where we found sugar. We purchased the sugar—nasty brown stuff—and brought it home. I am sure Deputy Dillon did not like it at all. It was great when tea was scarce.
At that time we were on the ½ oz.
We had Shamrock tea and when you threw a spoon of the sugar into it, it made it fine and black. The sugar was purchased and brought into this country at a cost of £12 a ton more than was paid for the best white sugar leaving the Mallow factory. The Government, who were responsible for that condition of affairs, are the gentlemen who refused to pay the unfortunate farmer the extra 4/6 per ton for his beet to bring it up to the cost of production.
What did you pay for the grain you bought in February, 1948?
Simply give me time. I have only started. I will tell you about everything if you have patience.
£56 a ton was paid for it.
£50 a ton f.o.b.
What about the Mesopotamian barley that I had to bring in in saucers into this House and show to Deputy James Dillon. It cost £26 10s. a ton.
Canadian oats would not have stayed on the saucer.
I will come to the question of the Argentine oats afterwards.
Canadian oats.
They were forming fours down on Union Quay.
After paying the Mesopotamians £26 10s. a ton for barley, Mr. Dillon came to the Irish farmer and asked him to grow 300,000 tons and he would give them £10 10s. less than he gave the nigger.
No wonder they did not make Deputy Corry Minister for Agriculture.
Is there not a clown in every circus?
I am not surprised to see him on the opposite side of the House. I remember, in company with the present Minister for Agriculture, having to go to Deputy Dillon, when he was Minister, and spend an hour appealing to him to endeavour to get him to give a little more to the Irish farmer than ten guineas a ton less than he gave the nigger for the mixture of rotten black oats, bad white oats and musty barley. And people wondered why there was no bacon! If you gave a pig a mixture of this kind the hair would stand straight on his back.
Is it correct for the Deputy to address the Gallery rather than the Ceann Comhairle?
I love it. The gentleman occupying the Chair is the nicest I have seen in the Chair for a long time. However, this is only one small instance of the manner in which the previous Minister for Agriculture looked after the well-being of the farming community
Will you come to deal with your own policy now?
That is the way the previous Minister for Agriculture looked after the farming community. I could keep on for a month——
Repeating yourself.
——giving instance after instance of the foolish manner in which Deputy James Dillon conducted agricultural policy in this country. I never dreamed that we were going to find a condition of affairs in this country in which we were going to be forced back into the ranching policy that unfortunately lasted here for too many years. That is the way the previous Minister for Agriculture carried on.
I was dealing with beet. The Minister's attitude, as I have already pointed out, cost this country an enormous amount of money that particular year. I appealed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on 1st March, 1950, to call a conference.
