Last evening I was referring to the confusion which has been created by the Government in relation to the price for eggs exported from here and also in relation to the price of chickens and boiling fowl. I indicated that the producers of chickens and boiling fowl who have to sell their produce for export are getting barely more than 1/- per lb. at the moment. A further load in the matter of price is put upon them before they reach the British market. That is another aspect of our economy during the past year in which there has been deterioration and a falling-off as compared with the situation that existed when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture. In 1950 the value of eggs exported amounted to £5,145,000. In 1952, the value was £3,345,000. In 1950 the number of ordinary fowl in the country was 18,000,000. In 1952, it had dropped to 16,300,000. I quote these figures to show that as compared with 1950 there has been a considerable decline in the egg and poultry industry.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture (Resumed).
What was the figure for the poultry population in 1952?
16,300,000.
Mr. Walsh
You will get the correct figure in the White Paper. Look at Appendix II.
The Minister will get the figures on page 10. The number of ordinary fowl in the country in June, 1952, is given as 16,286,000.
Mr. Walsh
In June, 1952, the total number of poultry in the country was 19,296,000.
That is not in the White Paper.
Mr. Walsh
It is.
The Minister must have a special White Paper for himself. Which figure is right? This is the one the Minister issued. Has the Minister a private one?
I want to refer now to the conduct of the Minister in relation to the price of creamery milk during the last 12 months. I know the Minister does not want to hear anything about the creamery milk suppliers. He does not want to have anything more to do with them. In 1950 and in 1951, when the Minister was on this side of the House, he agitated for an increase in the price of milk. Having led the farmers to believe that he was in favour of an increase, he followed up his agitation here by seconding a proposal at the Kilkenny County Committee of Agriculture that the price of milk should be 2/- per gallon.
Mr. Walsh
Will the Deputy quote?
I quoted it for the Minister on another occasion. The fact remains that the proposal was made by Mr. O'Mahony and seconded by Deputy Walsh, as he then was, that creamery milk should be per gallon. The Minister was given his opportunity in 1951 when the change of Government came about. He immediately gave a token of his goodwill towards the creamery milk suppliers by increasing the price of milk by one penny.
Mr. Walsh
And 2d.
The 2d. came at a later date.
Mr. Walsh
It came at the same time.
The Minister knows quite well my facts are correct. During the election campaign of 1951 Fianna Fáil Deputies in the creamery milk supply areas promised an increase of 6d. per gallon. The change of Government took place and that promise has never been implemented. The cost of milk production has increased by 20 per cent. as compared with 1921.
Mr. Walsh
Did the Deputy subscribe to 1/- per gallon?
There was no 1/- per gallon.
Mr. Walsh
There was.
Deputy Rooney should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
When the Minister was pressing for 2/- a gallon the cost of milk production was 20 per cent. lower than it is to-day. Rather than give an increase to 2/- a gallon, plus a further increase now to meet the 20 per cent. increase in the cost of production, the Minister allowed a dispute to develop in the early months of this year. Strangely enough, although he is Minister for Agriculture, he could not be found in order to negotiate with the suppliers and thereby prevent a stoppage of milk to the cities and towns. Nobody could be found except the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach, of course, knows nothing about agriculture or industry.
That does not arise on the Estimate.
The Minister for Agriculture is supposed to know something about the agricultural industry but the fact remains that he could not be found at that time and the people of Dublin and Cork were left without milk supplies for 16 days.
Mr. Walsh
That is not true.
I heard Deputy MacCarthy make some remark. He is the Deputy who got in here on the 2d. per lb. increase on butter.
Mr. Walsh
Are these the kind of statements that got you in here, the ones that you are making now?
My constituents sent me here, not my statements.
Mr. Walsh
On that kind of statement? Shame on them if they did.
I wanted to say that the Minister, when he could be found,and the Taoiseach had carried on negotiations and announced an increase for the creamery milk suppliers which amounted, on the average, to five farthings per gallon. That went to meet a 20 per cent. increase in the cost of milk production. Similarly, we have seen a considerable drop in the number of milch cows. During the last couple of years, the number has dropped by something like 80,000. We also have the situation where there is more foreign butter being imported at the present time than ever before in the history of the country.
Mr. Walsh
And more chocolate crumb exported.
If the Minister wishes to offer that as an excuse he can, but he must remember that the chocolate crumb industry was established by Deputy Dillon, the former Minister for Agriculture.
Mr. Walsh
What? That is a new one.
That seems to be very amusing to the people opposite, but we can get the figures to show up the Minister in relation to the quantity and value of the chocolate crumb exported. I will have them later. The fact that the chocolate crumb industry has increased progressively since it was established in 1948 does not justify a situation where our dairying industry is being allowed to decline to such an extent that in the last couple of years, the number of milch cows has dropped by 80,000. Similarly, the number of men engaged on farm work has fallen. I challenge the Minister to deny that, even though the housing campaign and house building have been brought almost to a standstill. In spite of the flop in the building trade, the number of farm workers on the land has not increased. There has been a decline.
Mr. Walsh
And yet the volume of output is greater.
According to Professor O'Rahilly one out of every three young men is emigrating from the country. I am not putting all the blame for that on the Minister for Agriculture because it is the Government which mustshoulder the responsibility in that respect. But, in order to shelve his reaponsibility, we had the Minister last year establishing a costings committee. That was supposed to be a way of pawning off the milk producers, of leaving them to look to somebody else except himself and his Department for an increase in the price of milk supplied to the creameries. It was a typical example of shedding responsibility. I feel sure the Minister knew that the costings committee would come to nothing. He knew the various interests that would be involved when it was established, and he knew the difference of opinion that existed amongst the members, and that it was not probable an agreement would be reached.
As I said a moment ago I shall deal later with the figures relating to chocolate crumb. It is important for the Ministsr to realise that that industry was established to absorb the surplus milk that was being produced after the three years under Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture. We have the situation now where we are importing more butter than ever before. We have had the position, for the first time, when it was illegal for an Irish citizen to buy Irish butter. That was the situation in Dublin and Bray. That position has been eased, probably only for a couple of months, when people will again be obliged to eat foreign butter. It is only those in the other parts of the country who can eat the fresh Irish creamery butter.
I hope the Minister will not deny the statement in his own White Paper that 800,000 cwt. of Irish butter were exported during the year 1952, and that the amount received for it was something like £134,000. I think it was a very bad thing for the Minister and his Department to export 400 tons of Irish butter last year, and at the same time to have ships coming in from London loaded with New Zealand butter.
Mr. Walsh
Factory butter was exported.
It was not described as factory butter in the statement.
Mr. Walsh
The Deputy knows it now.
If it was factory butter it was a different matter, but the Minister should have taken trouble to indicate that it was 400 tons of factory butter which had been exported. The people are now being asked to eat what he calls factory butter or margarine because the policy of the present Government and of the Minister for Agriculture is forcing a very large portion of our population on to margarine. In the long run, that is going to upset the economy of the Irish creamery milk suppliers because the fresh milk used for butter making will not be required if our people are forced by this Government to acquire a taste for the many brands of high-grade margarine which have come on the market in consequence of the choice of getting New Zealand butter, or no butter at all, at 4/2 per lb.
As regards butter production, if the Minister tries to be critical of Deputy Dillon While he was Minister for Agriculture, let me remind him of this. Deputy Dillon found a situation here in which our people were receiving only 2 oz. of butter per week. When I examined the figures for 1947 I found that the total quantity of butter produced in that year was 518,000 cwt. I think that was the lowest quantity of butter ever produced here.
Mr. Walsh
The Deputy knows the reason far that.
In 1950, three years later, the quantity of milk produced was so great that 786,000 cwt. of butter were produced—more than our people could eat. Our people have never been able to eat 786,000 cwt. of butter in any one year. That was the second highest figure ever reached in this country. It is probable that it would have continued to go up if there had not been a change in the Minister for Agriculture at that time.
Mr. Walsh
What did the Deputy do with the surplus at that time?
I do not propose to continue answering questions but Iwill tell the Minister that we exported the surplus.
Mr. Walsh
And imported butter to replace it.
We had to export a surplus of pigs and bacon also in 1950 but I will give the Minister the figures for that at a later stage in this speech. I would like to remind the Minister that the cost price of New Zealand butter is something like 3/3 landed in this country. In fact, I think it is only 2/6 landed in London. I do not know how it gets so dear coming from London to here but it lands here at something like 3/3 a lb. and then the manipulation begins, so that before the butter gets on the table of the consumer it has reached 4/2 a lb.
I asked the Minister questions recently which he refused to answer. At this stage perhaps I should mention to him some of the purposes of my questions. I wanted to know from the Minister what was the cost of chopping up this butter and putting it into lb. packets. What was the cost of the wrappings and the paper? That information would enable me to see how much of this 11d. the paper wrappers in this country are getting. I believe it is substantial. The public ought to be told what these people who are parcelling the butter into lb. packets and wrapping it in Irish paper, no doubt, or at least in paper that says "Irish Butter", are getting. We ought to he told how much these people are getting for this service because we know that there was a racket in relation to butter about 15 years ago and at that time it was a scandal to those who became aware of it and it is possible that there is a scandal going on at the moment. The Fianna Fáil Party were very closely connected with the butter scandal of something like 15 years ago.
It scarcely arises on this Estimate.
Mr. Walsh
I have already told the Deputy or other Deputies that the £160,000 profit is going to meet cold storage. Now you know the answer.
That answer will not suit now. I have asked for the information and apparently the Minister is determined that we will not be-told.
Mr. Walsh
You have been told.
We are not going to be told because the Fianna Fáil Party are so closely associated with the packers and wrappers of this New Zealand butter but we will be able to get it in some way or another.
Is it not packed by the creameries?
The Deputy had better-ask the Minister about that and he will find that it is not. In relation to wheat, we have heard the Minister boasting here that in consequence of what he calls his "tillage drive" the acreage of wheat has been increased considerably and that a campaign of advertising had been carried on in order to get wheat and beet grown. I would like to remind the Minister-that there always has been a consistent advertising campaign to enconrage farmers to grow wheat, beet and, of course, the other crops. It was nothing out of the ordinary this year to read these advertisements in the Press. They appeared in the past.
Mr. Walsh
You should have reminded us that there was a consistent policy at present prices.
At present prices?
Mr. Walsh
In the Coalition period.
If the Minister likes to refer to prices—when the inter-Party Government came into office in 1948 the price of wheat was 52/6 a barrel.
Mr. Walsh
No, it was not.
62/6.
No.
Mr. Walsh
It was not ever 52/6 or 62/6.
52/6 was the price.
Mr. Walsh
No, you had better get somebody to give you the figure.
It was kept at the price of 52/6 in order to relate it to the fixed price for barley, which was 35/- a barrel. That was to make sure that people would not start growing barley instead of wheat.
Mr. Walsh
Give up. There is no cure.
The price of wheat and barley were tied together.
Mr. Walsh
Give up.
If the Minister would contain himself in patience and keep quiet.
Mr. Walsh
If one could sleep during the speech it would be all right.
I hope the Minister will not go asleep because I have a few things here which will wake him up. I want to remind him that our attitude in relation to wheat growing was shown by the fact that during the inter-Party régime the price of wheat was increased in stages until it reached an increase of £1 a barrel compared with the price that was being paid for wheat when the inter-Party Government took office.
It never increased until the last month the inter-Party Government was in office.
I wish Deputy Cogan would stop squeaking because his own constituents will not listen to him and I do not want to listen to him.
Deputy Cogan had something to say at that time. He was supporting the inter-Party Government at the time.
Perhaps Deputy Rooney might be allowed to make his speech.
I wanted to remind the Minister in relation to wheat that the inter-Party Government which included various political Parties, showed that they were in favour of the production of home-grown wheat by increasing the price paid to farmers at that time for wheat.
Mr. Walsh
Is the Deputy in favour of it now?
Of course.
Mr. Walsh
Is Fine Gael in favour of it?
Of course.
Mr. Walsh
That is a conversion. We are glad of it. We are glad to hear it. The Deputy is speaking on behalf of Fine Gael, even including Deputy Dillon. Wheat will not go up the spout any more.
You are terribly worried about Fine Gael.
Mr. Walsh
We will get wonderful conversions.
All this talk about beet and wheat from the Minister, will not convince anybody. We have shown our attitude in relation to it. We found a situation where the wheat price was £1 lower than it was when the change of Government came about.
Now I shall put a very important question to the Minister. Has he heard some of the whispers in the Fianna Fáil cumainn regarding the price of wheat and abolishing the guaranteed price for wheat? There is an agitation in his own cumann and in his own Party to have the guaranteed price either reduced or abolished. The argument put forward by these Fianna Fáil members in the Fianna Fáil cumainn is: which will they do—will they have the bread price increasing or the wheat price decreasing; which would bring greater political advantage to them?
The Minister should make a statement at this stage in relation to the price to be paid for the wheat crop next season because there is a doubt in the minds of wheat growers regarding the price to be paid for wheat in 1954.
Mr. Walsh
That will come in its own good time.
This is the time.
Mr. Walsh
This is not the time.
Sowing of wheat mustbe done in October or November this year.
Mr. Walsh
You do not sow it in the month of July.
Will Deputies please remember that this is a debate, not a conversation?
You should remind some of the people on the other side of the House.
The Deputy is making a charge against the Chair. I said "Deputies will remember". The Deputy will withdraw that.
The Deputy withdraws. With great respect to the Chair, you addressed a particular Deputy whereas the interruptions were coming from the other side.
The Deputy is repeating the charge.
The Deputy withdraws, with respect to you.
What the Chair said was that Deputies should remember that this is a debate, not a conversation. There are Deputies on this side and on that side of the House.
The Deputy on this side of the House, Sir, was in possession.
I said that Deputies should remember that this is a debate, not a conversation. If the Deputy persists in the charge against the Chair he has means of ventilating it but he will not make the charge here.
In reply to these interruptions from the Minister and from Deputy Cogan, I would like to ask the Minister at this stage whether he intends to dispense with the guaranteed price for wheat. He should make that statement in his reply and he should make it clear to the wheat growers of this country in order that they can make their arrangements for nextyear. I know that the wheat flour subsidy has been taken out of the control of the Minister for Agriculture by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He has taken over that portion of the Department of Agriculture. It would be a bad thing if we had the Minister for Industry and Commerce instructing the Minister for Agriculture to dispense with a guaranteed price for wheat because he wanted something done about the increase in the price of bread and considered that the best adjustment in relation to the price of bread could be made through the Department of Agriculture.
We have had all this talk from the Fianna Fáil Party about wheat production and all the rest. We hear them talking about dollars as if they were made of gold. But during the last 12 months the Fianna Fáil Government have spent something like £21,000,000 on imported wheat, which comes to something like £7,000,000. That is sufficient answer to Fianna Fáil when they talk about dollar wheat. They have only to look at the imports for 1952 to find that dollars to the value of £7,000,000 were spent on importing wheat.
We have had the Minister claiming that he and his Party were the sponsors of wheat growing in this country. I should like to remind the Minister that in 1947 the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, put up a programme to the O.E.E.C which showed that the Fianna Fáil Government at that time intended to reduce the acreage of Wheat. Ths acreage of wheat at that time was 650,000. Of course we know that there was a very poor crop got from that, because it was acreage and not barrels of wheat they were interested in. Deputy Smith at that time indicated that there would be a progressive reduction in the acreage of wheat, that it would be brought down to 235,000 acres in 1951 if the Fianna Fáil Party programme was carried out and, I presume, if the Fianna Fáil Party were in office. But the inter-Party Government came into office in the meantime and we find that the acreage of wheat never came down to that low figure. In fact, it wouldhave been necessary to take positive action in order to bring down the acreage of wheat to that figure. I assume that it was intended by the Fianna Fáil Government to take that positive action and to cut down the acreage to 235,000, as was indicated in the programme in 1947.
Strangely enough, when we did have a big acreage of wheat and a big acreage of various other crops we had at the same time the lowest live-stock population in this country for 50 years. Then we have the Minister going round the country saying that the more tillage you have the more live stock you are going to have. But the figures for 1947 and other figures prove that that is not the case, that economics in general will dictate the relation which tillage will bear to the live-stock population.
The credit for the increased acreage of wheat this year—I am talking about acres because we do not know how much wheat we will get—is due to the seedsmen because, owing to the circumstances of the time, they were obliged this year to give 100 per cent. credit to persons desiring to grow wheat. They gave that credit because there is a guaranteed price for wheat. If the farmers were depending on the banks to give them credit, or on the Fianna Fáil Government to bring about a situation in which the banks would give the credit for the growing of wheat, we would not have any wheat growing in this country because credit has been destroyed as far as agriculture is concerned. Interest charges on even temporary loans from the banks have gone so high and the question of security for a loan is so difficult that credit could not be given. But the seedsmen gave credit for the seeding of the acreage of land which is carrying the wheat crop at the present time. It would be most unfair for the Minister or the Government to disregard the fact that the seedsmen are the people to whom any credit that is to be given is due.
Mr. Walsh
I introduced that scheme.
The position with regardto the introduction of that scheme is that the Minister found that his Government had destroyed business to such an extent, had destroyed credit to such an extent, and had increased interest charges so much that there would be no hope for farmers getting credit from the banks or even from the Agricultural Credit Corporation in order to grow wheat. Therefore, in order to side-step the austerity policy which was being and is being pursued by the present Government, he got the seedsmen to give the credit, instead of the Government taking the responsibility on themselves to ensure that the land would be seeded. We also know that the flour millers are to a very great extent financing the growing of wheat at the present time. As they have a monopoly in this country, it is only to be expected that they would take advantage of the situation by financing the growing of wheat. The lime scheme pursued by Deputy Dillon——
Mr. Walsh
Was a failure.
——during the years of the inter-party Government was responsible for the increased yield per acre from the land. They found a situation where the average yield per acre was below ten cwt. after 16 years of Fianna Fáil Government. When Deputy Dillon was leaving office the yield per acre of land had been almost doubled in consequence of experiments and in consequence of the lime scheme operated by him at that time.
I see also that the Beet Growers' Association have now been given responsibility for the distribution of fertilisers. In 1951 something like 50,000 tons of fertilisers were imported by Deputy Dillon which would have been made available at £9 per ton to the farmers, but it was collared by the Beet Growers' Association and was sold out at something like £15 per ton to the farmers.
Mr. Walsh
On a point of order. As far as I know, the Beet Growers' Association are not involved in the sale of fertilisers.
Has the Minister control over this?
He was responsible.
Has he control over it—I doubt it.
I am sure he has.
If the Minister says he has not it does not matter what the Deputy says.
I am a member of the Beet Growers' Association and the Minister has nothing whatever to do with it.
The Deputy should pass from that.
Deputy Lehane says——
If the Minister says he has no control over it the Deputy must accept that.
I believe I referred to the Beet Growers' Association, but I intended to deal with the Sugar Company which is quite a different matter. I know that Deputy Lehane is a member of the Beet Growers' Association. It is strange that the Minister did not know that it was the Sugar Company. The Minister knows that the Sugar Company are the people who get the opportunity of handling the imported fertilisers and distributing them. That happened shortly after the change of Government.
Mr. Walsh
It happened before Deputy Dillon left office.
The Sugar Company only got a certain amount of control when Deputy Dillon was in office. They did not have sole responsibility for the distribution and allocation of fertilisers.
Mr. Walsh
That is right.
It is not necessary to contradict a Deputy every time he makes a statement. The Deputy can make his own statement.
On a point of order, I wish to register a protest. Since he commenced his speech at six o'clock Deputy Rooney has had nothingbut a constant barrage of interruptions.
I am trying to protect the Deputy.
They are in good humour to-day. I do not know why. We have a situation in the Sugar Company where there is a credit scheme operating also and the result is that the acreage of beet has been kept well up and has been extended in consequence of that credit scheme. We know very well, owing to the conditions that have been created by the Government, that beet growers could not embark themselves on the seeding and growing of beet but because of the credit scheme operated by the Sugar Company they are enabled to do it. It is unfortunate that the Agricultural Credit Corporation who are supposed to provide money in connection with agricultural production do not step into the breach. If you ask them for money to grow wheat or beet they will wonder what is wrong with you. We have a situation where wheat and sugar are dependent mainly on credit schemes being operated by vested interests, people interested in the production and who have a monopoly.
I would like to refer also to the fact that there is grave dissatisfaction among various seedsmen owing to the attitude of the Minister in relation to the importation of pedigree seed. As the Minister knows arrangements were made by Deputy Dillon during his term of office, although he was tied up for a couple of years owing to a contract entered by the previous Fianna Fáil Government. He intended to put an end to that monopoly and the date of expiry just came about at the time of the general election. When the change of Government came we had a meeting immediately between the Minister and those interested in the seed monopoly in order to tighten that ring and we have the situation here where the freelance seedsman is not permitted to import pedigree seeds; he must go to this seed ring in order to get supplies and of course he cannot engage in trade in the ordinary way as a seedsman.
Last year—there was a lot of things happened last year—the Minister for Agriculture destroyed the market for barley in this country. The situation then developed in which people who had contracts found that there was an attempt to dishonour them. We have had this situation, for instance, where malting barley which should have been sold at 75/- a barrel was being sold at 48/- or 50/- a barrel because the farmers were glad to sell 20 barrels at 50/- instead of ten barrels at 75/-. Although they were only getting the lower price, all the barley was being used for malting purposes and we have the situation where some distillers bought double the quantity they required and have barley on their hands and in conseqeunce it is not necessary for them this year to purchase barley for malting purposes.
The confusion caused among the barley growers has caused a considerable drop in acreage of malting and feeding barley. Both of these acreages have dropped considerably in consequence of the positive action of the Minister. We had the situation where the growers of malting barley were able to get 85/- per barrel in 1951 when the present Minister took office but we found in the following spring arrangements were being made to depress the price of barley and the price was depressed as the result of an agreement between the distillers and the Beet Growers' Association—I beg you pardon Deputy Lehane—to 75/- a barrel. Ordinarily the reduction in prices was negotiated by these people supposed to be representing the producers. I think it is the only time ever that organisation representing the producer negotiated for a reduction in the price and the result was that the confusion among the farmers caused a considerable amount of barley to remain on the farmer's hands unless he was able to sell at sacrifice prices. The Minister has refused to put a floor to the price of barley. Last year the floor price was about 48/- a barrel. This year the floor is the limit, as far as the drop is concerned. This year it is probable they will have to hold on to any barley they have and of course the acreageunder barley has dropped considerably in consequence of the manner in which the Minister depressed the price of barley during the past 12 months. I believe he set out deliberately to do that because he started from malting barley prices and worked downwards until now we have a situation where even the floor price for feeding barley is gone.
Another thing that has occurred during the last 12 months is that the price of fertilisers has been increased by £5 a ton. That increase has to be shouldered by the farmers. That price has been increased by the imposition of a tariff. They have put a tariff on their fertilisers of something like 20 per cent. notwithstanding the fact that in this country we are not in a position to produce our full requirements of fertilisers. Even when we can produce our full requirements of fertilisers there is a tariff of 20 per cent. or £5 a ton which means that less fertilisers will be used by the farmers. We have the Minister advising us to use fertilisers and at the same time he has increased the price by about £5 a ton during the past 12 months. All these things are putting extra costs on to the farmer and in consequenee the price of food is increasing. Then they wonder why the cost of living is going up. Is the cost of living not going up? In fact, it is being put up by the deliberate policy of Fianna Fáil in relation to production costs whether it be the production of butter, bread or any other class of food or the fertilisers which are coming in. The Minister should indicate also the extent of the loss on fertilisers and the cost of the loss in 1951 when the present Fianna Fáil Government came into office and began to juggle with the fertilisers. They were so busy moving it out into various farms and stores that it became concrete and a dead loss. The country should be told the amount of that loss, the number of tons of fertilisers which were lost in consequence of the way in which fertilisers were handled during that year.
Only recently we found that when the British Government offered a bonus of 6d. per lb. for spring lamb exported from this country, that announcementwas made on the 8th June, but it was a fortnight afterwards that it was discovered by the farmers that this arrangement had been come to. In the meantime we found that the Minister had sent a letter to the Executive of the Livestock Exporters' Association telling them about this adjustment of prices. The result was that hordes of dealers visited farmers' places asking them to sell them lambs but not telling them about the increase of 6d. per lb. offered from the 8th June for spring lamb. In consequence, farmers who sold their lambs at the old price sold them at about £1 per head too cheaply. The dealers knew what they were doing. They became aware of the bonus through the Executive of the Livestock Exporters' Association. The Minister must decide whether he is to act for the farmers or on behalf of vested interests and groups whose only purpose is to get a profit out of the farmers and out of agriculture. At least when we had Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture he was the farmers' champion. He was the champion of the farmers above all things. The Minister is in a position to be a guide to the farmers and he should fulfil that role.
Wool prices fell also during the last year. I suppose we cannot blame the Minister for that as it was due to a change in world conditions. Will the Minister, however, explain why prices of machinery are allowed to increase? The price of machinery at the moment seems to be unreasonable for farmers and it is certainly beyond their capacity to pay, yet the Department does not seem to be doing anything about it. I know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is the big boss but at least the Minister for Agriculture should go and have a word with him about the price of farm machinery, because it also is adding considerably to the cost of production. The Minister can get any list of items he likes, especially farm implements and compare the price of these farm implements in 1950 with the prices in 1951, 1952 and 1953. These prices have been advanced considerably and no excuse has been offered for that very heavy advance in the price of machinery which is used for the production of foodand which must be paid for in the long run by consumers.
A very heavy price is also being paid by farmers and the community in general for the policy in relation to tariffs. It is probable that tariffs in this country are costing something like £50,000,000. The Minister should examine the figures and see whether the very high prices that are being paid by the community for these tariffs are justified. Certainly, in relation to machinery and materials which are imported for use on the land, the tariffs are not justified. I do not wish to single out any particular item but I shall take wire as one example. We saw recently where a tariff of 37½ per cent. was put on wire imported into this country and which is used mainly-on farms. That means that farmers must pay £137 1Os. Od. for wire for which they were paying only £100 up to a fortnight ago. The excuse that is being offered for that tariff is that the production of wire at home will give employment. We must examine how much employment it is going to give. If it will give employment only to a handful of men and to a board of directors, it would be far better to have no tariff. If it could be justified by the fact that a large industry was being established, that would be another matter but at least the tariffs put on materials which are used in agriculture should be examined very carefully and the Minister should make sure that in the long run these tariffs will not be the cause of forcing up prices unnecessarily.
The Minister arranged during the last year to sell the machinery formerly utilised for the land project. I do not think the big sale has taken place yet but he has come into this House and made that announcement. If the Minister sells machinery required for land drainage we know that the small farmers are not going to get a square deal. They will not have the same claim as the man who has a large acreage because the man with a large acreage will get preference from the contractors to whom the Minister proposes to have this machinery sold. The previous arrangement wasthat the landowner, large or small, could ask the Department to carry out the work under contract. The farmer had a choice and that made certain that the small man had the same opportunity to have drainage carried out on his land as the man with the large farm, who would be the most attractive proposition so far as the contractor is concerned.
I have heard the Minister and others speak about the expansion of drainage, the acreage covered and the amount paid out. They thought perhaps that they could fool somebody when they said that the figures were much larger than the figures published when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture. It must be remembered, however, that Deputy Dillon was merely getting the scheme under way; in fact, in many cases he was only getting in the machinery when the change of Government took place. In addition, many schemes had been put up but had not been sanctioned when the change of Government took place. Of course, as the work had not been sanctioned, payment of the amount involved could not be made. Bearing these facts in mind, I think the arguments based on the payment of money and the acreage drained fall to the ground.
We have seen a progressive drop in the acreage of potatoes in 1951, 1952 and 1953. The Minister should explain why the acreage under potatoes has dropped. We know the important part that small potatoes play in the pig and bacon industry. In 1947 the housewife was lucky if she could get 1 lb. of bacon in the week. When we came into office in 1948 Deputy Dillon had to put some of the bacon curers in jail for breaking the law, for carrying on illegal curing and a flourishing black market. A strong hand was taken by Deputy Dillon at that time to end that state of affairs and the result was that in 1950 we had a surplus of pigs and bacon. In that year 708,000 pigs were delivered to the factories.
The present Government and the Minister for Agriculture boast about the increase in pig and bacon production. But comparing figures we find that even in 1952 this Government didnot reach the figure that was reached in 1950. One reason for the increase in the pig population was the 1951 Agreement entered into by Deputy Dillon shortly before the change of Government. That agreement enabled the price of pigs to be tied to the price payable in Great Britain. Prior to that agreement the British Government had taken advantage of the situation and the result was that Deputy Dillon found it necessary to bring about an agreement in relation to pig prices similar to the agreement reached in relation to the export of cattle.
One reason why the pig population increased so rapidly as compared with 1947 was that Deputy Dillon, instead of waiting to convert the farmers to the growing of barley again—they had been put out of it by the price of 35/-per barrel—imported maize as quickly as he could and that maize came in here at £16 per ton. A very cheap feeding stuff was therefore available and the pig population rapidly increased. Maize is now double that price and the farmers have to rely once more on barley and potatoes. But it was Deputy Dillon who converted the farmers to the growing of barley by giving a price of 84/- per barrel in the case of malting barley and £3 per barrel in the case of feeding barley. Deputy Smith when he was Minister for Agriculture estimated that this country would import 700,000 tons of maize in 1951; that was the estimate furnished in relation to O.E.E.C. In 1951 it was not necessary to import that quantity of maize because the farmers were again growing barley.
The policy of the present Government has resulted in an increase of 5/-in the £ on agricultural land. The rates have gone up by 5/- in the £ and it is now intended—we have not heard anything to the contrary—to put a further burden of £500,000 on the rates payable in respect of agricultural land because the intention is to withdraw the supplementary allowance in relation to rates abatement.
Is the Minister for Agriculture responsible for that?
I am dealing with agriculture.
Is the matter to which the Deputy is referring the responsibility of the Minister?
I am not referring to what the Minister did in relation to the matter. I am referring in general to the burdens being carried by agriculture.
The Deputy is referring to £500,000, an impost on agricultural land. Is the Minister responsible for that imposition?
Being a member of the Cabinet, I presume he is.
The Deputy will answer the question: Is the Minister responsible for the imposition of that £500,000? I understand it is the responsibility of another Minister.
I want to know from the Minister is he responsible for imposing this burden in the form of rates on agricultural land on the farmers? This matter came under discussion at Cabinet meetings.
At Cabinet meetings every Minister is not responsible for all that is discussed. He is responsible only for the administration of his own Department. I understand that what the Deputy is referring to now is the responsibility of another Minister.
That is so. In addition to the burdens I have mentioned the farmers will in future have to pay an extra 5/- in the £ on agricultural land plus the 5/- in the £ they have been carrying since 1951. The Minister for Finance in the course of his Budget statement said that taxation presses lightly on the land. Does the Minister for Agriculture agree? These burdens would lead one to believe that the Government considers there should be further taxation put on the land.
We had an announcement from the Minister lately that the differential as between this country and Great Britain would be reduced from 5s. per cwt. to 4s. 6d. per cwt., a difference of 6d. per cwt. That is not a very substantial sum and apparently this annex to the 1948 agreement has notbrought much advantage to the farmers. In the last two years, dressed meat and frozen meat has increased 20 times over what it was in 1948. In three years the inter-Party Government had increased exports by ten times. Apparently they are still increasing. That trade is of definite benefit because we have the advantage of the offals. I am glad to learn that the Minister regards the British market as an important one. That market was despised by the Minister and his colleagues 16 years ago when they were trying to exterminate the live-stock population.
The live-stock industry is the keystone of our economy. It represents the bulk of the money received by this country for goods exported. We can only export a surplus. If our land was to-day carrying all the live stock it should carry we would be in a very happy position because there is a considerable demand for meat.
What does the Minister intend to do in relation to cattle hide prices? The butchers are receiving on an average only £3 per hide and the world market price is at the moment about £5 per hide. Yet, this racket in hides is allowed to continue. Somebody is getting something out of it, especially when we see that in the last week a tariff of 60 per cent. was slapped on leather goods coming in here. These include ladies' handbags and other kinds of leather goods. While that tariff of 60 per cent. is slapped on leather goods coming into the country, our cattle producers are only getting £3 each for the hides they have to offer for sale. The world price for hides is around £5.
I do not propose to say anything more on this Estimate. I hope that when the Minister comes to give an account of his stewardship this time next year——
Mr. Walsh
Hear, hear!
He will not be here then.
Mr. Walsh
I will be here next year. That was a slip, of course.
I was trying to give the Minister a bit of hope.
Mr. Walsh
The truth slips out now and again.
I am afraid I am an optimist if I put the Minister in good humour by referring to that. I hope, however, that when an account is being given by the Minister for Agriculture next year, and I am not referring to the present one, he will not come in with the story that he had last year. That was the milk dispute, the butter racket, the 5/- in the £ on the rates, the barley muddle, the fertiliser tariff, the bonus for lambs being handed over to the dealers instead of to the producers, and, of course, the significant drop in the value of our exports in eggs and poultry.
I want to refer briefly to a few aspects of our agricultural policy that are, to my mind, the most important. In doing that, I think I will be closely reflecting the views of the people in East Cork, views that were solidly endorsed by them within the last three weeks. Since I started to read the newspapers, some few years ago, it seems to me that the main aspect of our agricultural policy, the dairying end, has been sadly neglected by successive Governments since this State was established. In 1923, what was known as the Livestock Breeding Act was passed. During the years that have since elapsed that Act has been criticised in this House and outside of it by Deputies of all Parties. It was found to be faulty, and I believe it was. What I cannot understand is, why some attempt has not been made to change it. I believe an amending Act was passed in 1926, but so far as I know nothing has since been done to change the Principal Act.
I believe that the whole vexed question of the dairying industry centres around this Livestock Breeding Act. Last year, the Minister set up a costings committee to inquire into the cost of milk production. I believe he would be much better advised if he had set up a commission to inquire as to whether or not, or as to how and when, we can get rid of this wretched animal known as the uneconomic cow. I would not mind whether that was done by a Minister in a Fianna Fáil Governmentor in an inter-Party Government, but I believe that if it had been done by some Minister, we could get a more rational approach to the vexed question of the price of milk, and the vexed problem of the dairying industry. I understand that the Minister expects to have the results of the investigation of the costings committee on milk production in 1954. These results will not be relevant to the price of milk in 1953, and will not, I believe, reflect the cost of the production of a gallon of milk in that year.
The uneconomic cow is the whole problem centring around the dairying industry at the moment. We also have this wretched animal known as the dual purpose cow. I do not believe there is any such animal. I am afraid that officials in the Department of Agriculture, some Ministers and some of the higher inspectors believe that we can get milk and beef together. It is my opinion, and the opinion of the people in East Cork, that that cannot be done. What is happening is that you are sacrificing the two. I want to suggest in all sincerity to the Minister that he should immediately set up some commission, not in a political way but in an economic way, to inquire into the best means, first of all, of eradicating the uneconomic cow, and, secondly, of arriving at something that will give us beef or milk economically, and not to try to get one to the detriment of the two.
That is my opinion as regards the dairying industry. I believe that the price of milk, a very vexed question, will automatically solve itself if we can get rid of the uneconomic cow and produce something that will give us quantity. In other businesses, we know that it is mass production that counts.
I should also like to refer the Minister to the price of feeding barley. I understand that, in a letter recently to the Knockraha branch of Muintir na Tíre, the Minister indicated that the price in 1953 for feeding barley would, more or less, be determined by the rise or fall in the price of live stock and live-stock products during the coming year. I think the Minister should state now what the price is likely to be before the crop is harvested. There is an immediate andurgent desire that he should do so— that he should tell us what will be the price of feeding barley for the 1953 crop.
With regard to wheat growing, the farmers of East Cork who sent me here within the last three weeks, are worried about the position. East Cork is a place where there is a great deal of wheat grown. There is the danger, more than a danger, that the crop will not be grown there at all in 1954 unless the Minister can speed up the investigations which are being carried on in the university into the ravages caused by the wheat midge. Within the last three weeks, every farmer in my area had to spray his wheat against an attack of the midge. Apart altogether from the extra cost which the spraying involves, the farmers there are not at all satisfied that spraying provides a safeguard against the damage that may be done by the midge. I understand that the Minister is making some inquiries into this, and that research on scientific lines is being carried out into the ravages caused by the wheat midge. In order that wheat may be grown extensively in the wheat-growing area of East Cork, I suggest to the Minister that he should push forward the investigations and research which have been undertaken so that next year the farmers may feel that they have a preventative against this attack and that they will be quite safe in growing the crop.
I think it is only right that I should say that the farmers of East Cork—in fact all the farmers of Cork and of Munster—have sent me here to tell the Minister that he should take a few more leaves out of his predecessor's book. He should now be more decisive with regard to the schemes such as land reclamation, which were inaugurated by his predecessor, Deputy James Dillon, and instead of more or less putting them in the background he should give them more publicity and put more push behind them. My constituents feel, and recorded it in the ballot boxes, that the policy of Deputy James Dillon was much better than the policy of Mr. Thomas Walsh, who is now the Minister for Agriculture. Iam telling the Minister the message that came from East Cork. He should give these schemes more publicity. It seems rather strange that the Minister should think of selling the land reclamation machinery when it was doing such useful work, when it kept so many people in gainful employment. The Minister should not think of selling it to private contractors for private gain. The message they gave me to bring here to Leinster House is that the Minister and the Government should decide that that machinery should not be sold, that it should be used to resume the activity for which the Minister's predecessor intended it and that the Minister should give more push and more publicity to the schemes inaugurated by Deputy James Dillon. The sale of that machinery is one of the most degrading and retrograde steps that agriculture has seen.
The Minister should be more decisive. What is lacking in his Department and in him more than anything else is some kind of progressive approach. I believe, and the people of the country hope it is true, that Deputy James Dillon will soon be back with us. The Taoiseach used a phrase commenting on the results of the by-election which I use in regard to Deputy James Dillon: "Beidh lá eile ag an bPaorach." 'Sé mo thuairim go mbeidh sé amhlaidh.
My contribution to this debate will be brief. First of all, I should like to congratulate Deputy Barry on his maiden speech and to say that his approach to this important Estimate and this important industry was quite reasonable. I am glad he did not follow too much on the line of Deputy Rooney, in telling us what a great fellow the previous Minister was and what a shocking character the present Minister is. Deputy Rooney has a family tradition of farming behind him, which is an excellent one. If he would cut out this business of saying what a great fellow Deputy Dillon was and is and what a terrible character the present Minister is and give us some practical ideas from his own knowledge, it might help cityDeputies like me to have a good approach to this industry.
No matter what we may hear from the Opposition, the Dublin man will tell you that since Fianna Fáil came into power the farmer has got increased prices for many of his products. There is no denying that. We in Dublin, who are paying through the nose for milk, butter and so on, want to know where it is going to end. Since Fianna Fáil came into power there has been an increased price for wheat of, it has been said, 15/- a barrel. There is a guaranteed price for beet. There was an increased price for milk. These are facts. Fianna Fáil cannot be regarded as an enemy of the farmer. The people opposite find it very difficult to attack Fianna Fáil very strongly on the question of prices paid to the farmers. They may bring in personalities but that gets them nowhere.
If the farmers could do something about the animal that Deputy Barry has referred to as the uneconomic cow and give the people of Dublin cheaper milk, I would be very grateful. I am not an expert, and do not pretend to be an expert, on farming. We would be very grateful if anything could be done to give the people of Dublin milk at a cheaper price and at the same time to give the farmer a reasonable price for his produce. I do not know how that will be done, but there are enough farmers on both sides of the House and we in Dublin would like them to put their heads together and give us some relief. The Dublin man's point of view is that the farmer has been well looked after by every Government since this State was founded.
There is one matter to which I wish to refer. It may not appear a very important one. There is a very old sport in the City of Dublin—pigeon racing. For years upon years many young and old people have gone in for pigeon racing in Dublin. It has been banned by the Minister as a precaution against fowl pest. I have an interest in sport and I have been approached by the national association here to see what can be done about it. Iappreciate the Minister's difficulty and the difficulty of his officials in regard to fowl pest, which is a serious disease and which could do a great deal of damage to poultry breeders. The people in control of pigeon racing here tell me that they went to a great deal of trouble to see if any blame can be attached to pigeons in connection with this disease. They tell me that the International Pigeon Federation have established on the highest authority of the scientific and veterinary world that racing pigeons play no part whatsoever in spreading this disease here. I think it is known as Newcastle disease.
I would refer the Minister to a report from this international federation. I have a copy of it here. His inspectors, or the Department, may have it at the moment. It is very interesting indeed. I suggest that the Minister should read it. He will get it in the issue of a paper known as the Racing Pigeon,dated April 25th, 1953. This report gives a detailed account of how the federation went about proving that this pigeon does not bring the disease with him. I would ask the Minister to consider the matter very seriously.
This is a bit flighty after the barley.
It may not appear important but there are thousands of young Dublin people who are interested.
I give the Deputy all my sympathy in his effort.
You have listened to Deputy Rooney for over an hour and you will find that there is more sense in my small contribution than in his. I do not intend to praise the present Minister or the previous one. I am getting down to points made to me. I am trying to deal with some of the points made to me by these men. This may not be as important as the price of milk, but to these people in Dublin it is as important as the other is to Deputies from Cork. This report from the international federation was signed by Dr. P. Schigns and Dr. A. Florent, of the State Laboratory for VeterinaryResearch in Brussels. They went into the matter thoroughly and examined every aspect of it and they were satisfied that these racing pigeons played no part in the transmission or catching of the disease known as Newcastle disease.
I ask the Minister to consult his veterinary director and see if anything can be done on the basis of this report. The report is too long to read it, but I have studied it very carefully and it certainly impressed me very much. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see his way to allow the ban on pigeon racing to be lifted. After all, you cannot control every bird that flies, but this is one case in which you can and I think the ban should be lifted. The Minister may have a serious view on it, but the report shows that there is a reasonable case to be made for it. That is my main reason for speaking, although people may look upon it as audacious for a Dublin Deputy to speak on agriculture. I am putting forward this case because I was asked to do it by these men who are very good friends of mine and are very keen on this sport. It is a very popular sport in this city and I should like the Minister to do what he can to meet these people.
As I said, I am not an expert on agriculture, but the Dublin people certainly feel that it is about time something should be done to give the Dublin people milk at a reasonable price.
With Deputy Gallagher, I should like to congratulate our friend, Deputy Barry, on his very effective and admirable contribution to this debate in his maiden speech. I believe that there is great room for the expansion of the agricultural industry here and that if it were properly developed it would absorb all our unemployed in rural Ireland. We have to face the position that it is not being properly developed at present. We know that in the Midlands the farmers are not developing the resources they have at their disposal. We know that the vast bulk of the land in that area, which is the best land not only in this country but in the world, is not being properlydeveloped. Passing through that part of Ireland anyone can see that the percentage of land tilled there is negligible in comparison with what it should be and what it is in other areas.
A peculiar feature of this discussion is that we approach our agricultural problems as if they were the same all over the country. We know very well that that is not the position. We have some of the finest land in the world here in Ireland but we have also very poor land, and the position is that the people who own this poor land are the hard-working type who mainly produce the bulk of our agricultural products. The position in the West and South of Ireland is quite different from that in the Midlands. In the Midlands the farmers are having a very good time. They are doing no practical farm work, but are relying on the fact that they have good land and can graze cattle on it, cattle which they buy in the South and the West. That is not the position in other counties. In my county we have to take off our coats and work, not for eight hours, but in many cases for 12 or 13 hours, in order to eke out an existence. I come from one of these uneconomic holdings. We have to be up and doing in order to keep things going.
I think we must divide this country into zones as far as agriculture is concerned. What is applicable in one part of the country is not applicable in another. You have an entirely different set of circumstances obtaining. We should not forget the uneconomic holders and the Minister or some future Minister should do something to help these people. It has been said: "Why should we be asked to subsidise uneconomic holders or to help them in any way beyond the general help given to the farming community as a whole?" If we were to accept that contention, the result will be that the day will come when all the uneconomic holders in Cork, Kerry, Galway and Mayo, particularly the younger ones, will be leaving their holdings and going to Limerick, Cork and Dublin to try to get work in an already overcrowded labour market.
My contention is that some definite help should be given to these people. They reside mainly in the congesteddistricts which are clearly and fully defined. These districts are mainly along the southern and western coasts of this country. I contended last year, and I think with every justification, that so far as the principal industry in these areas and indeed in the country is concerned, the dairying industry, some help should be given to those engaged in it if they are to continue in existence. The necessity for that is more apparent to-day than it was then. Even though the Minister and other people in Dublin may be complacent about the position, we find that we have to import at heavy cost a substantial quantity of butter from a country 6,000 or 7,000 miles away. I believe that the quantity is in the region of 100,000 cwt. Surely in a country like this, with the agricultural resources it has, that should not be the case. It is the case, however, and were it not for the milk produced in what are termed the congested districts, instead of importing 100,000 cwt. of butter from New Zealand I believe we would be importing three times that quantity. Therefore I think we have some claim on the Minister to see to our case.
In dealing with this matter last year I pointed out that the bulk of these farmers in the congested districts are very small farmers. So far as milk production is concerned they would not have possibly on an average more than 13 or 14 gallons of milk a day in my own immediate locality and particularly in the western portion of my constituency. I contend that so far as overhead expenses in the taking of that milk to the creamery are concerned it is just as costly to take 12 gallons to the creamery as it is to take 100. Furthermore a man is not in the position to get the same production from his cows.
We have heard comments about the uneconomic cow and the question has been asked why do people keep uneconomic cows. People keep the type of cows that will live in the particular area and the cows that will give a big milk yield will not exist in my constituency. People have to rely on cows in my constituency—and I say this formore than half the constituency I represent, and I am sure it applies also to the Dingle peninsula, to Connemara and other places—giving about 300 gallons of milk. Such a cow is deemed to be uneconomic by the experts, but whether the people like it or not they have to put up with that type of cow. It is mainly only the hardy type of cow that will exist there.
I contended last year that such people were entitled to subsidies of one form or another. I then mentioned that the best method of approaching this problem was to give to the creameries operating in these particular districts a sum which would enable them to subsidise milk to the extent of, say, 3d. per gallon. That, I think, is what I mentioned last year. The Minister is very much against that suggestion. He thought it would be completely unworkable. I do not see that it would be in any way unworkable. He alleged it would seem very strange that you would give a farmer in one district such a price for his milk and a farmer in an adjacent one another price. Well, there must be a division somewhere. They have a division in this country as it stands. The circumstances of two townlands on either side of the Border differ from each other entirely, and we have to be satisfied with that. I did not then know that this was in no way unworkable so far as other countries are concerned. I have since learned that there were similar problems in Sweden where farmers were finding it very difficult to keep in milk production. If something could be done in Sweden by the Swedish Government it could be done here to help farmers in uneconomic holdings if the Irish Government had not been so complacent.
I have here some facts dealing with the problems in Sweden showing the way the Swedish Government dealt with it. I believe it was a very admirable and effective way. I cannot see why the Minister could not do the same thing in Ireland. Their main aim, as it should be the aim of every Government in every country looking after this important industry, was, first, the fixing of prices for agricultural crops based on the cost of production, giving a fair wage to the worker and a fairreturn to the farmer for his work and interest on capital investment. It was recognised that a just figure for a farmer in what was considered to be an uneconomic holding could not be taken as the standard for price fixing purposes; the basic price was fixed on a farm of some 25 to 50 acres. The standard of economic holdings visualised for the future is from 50 to 75 acres. Indeed that should be the standard here, too, if we ever do have economic holdings. The Swedish farmers get a subsidy which varies according to production and disappears completely when the figure of 5,000 gallons per week is reached.
In the congested districts of this country very few farmers would reach the 5,000 gallon figure. In Sweden, the costings, in a general way, are not so different from ours, and if the Swedish Government have devised a method for dealing with that problem why could not the Minister for Agriculture do the same thing?
If he believes that it would not be the best method to subsidise milk in these areas then he could possibly put into operation a scheme for the elimination of any uneconomic cows and replace them with more suitable types such as the Kerry type or some other. I am not only referring to the mountainy districts of the country but also to districts where the land is reasonably good but the holdings small. I am very keen on this point because I come from a constituency where there is general mixed farming, where everyone is up and doing, where we are carrying no one on our backs and where we are trying to get a just and fair price for our products as the people of that constituency have tried to get from every Government of the State.
I am just following the footsteps of the Deputies who came here before me and were fully conversant with the position as it obtained. I am sure it is typical of other areas in this country. I ask the Minister to consider some way of helping milk production in these particular districts. In many areas they are labouring under the disadvantage that for three or four months of the year they have nocreamery facilities whatever because they are told that it is not worth while for the creameries to operate. No wonder then when they know that no help is coming from the Government or the last one, except when Deputy Dillon did provide travelling creameries in many districts, that we have in two adjacent townlands in my constituency seven farm houses bolted up and the people away in England. They could not get a penny for them if they were put up for auction. The doors are locked and the families gone over to John Bull to eke out a living. That will be the position with several more if nothing is done in this particular line.
We have been told about the need for industries and I think we have to rely on agriculture which is our principal industry. In West Cork as in many other places the main activity is milk production and our duty is to see about the people who are producing milk. It may be said that it is not a question of merely increasing prices for milk, that it might mean increased prices to the consumer and an increased price for butter and so on. I am well aware of that but in making plans for the congested districts, I understood two years ago that so much money was to be set aside for the development of industries in these particular areas. Now agriculture is the main industry in Ireland and could not some of this money that is provided under the Undeveloped Areas Act be used in these congested districts for subsidising milk or for helping farmers in any other way that the Minister or advisers think fit? Our farmers living on the islands around the Irish coast are finding it very difficult to live at the present time. Perhaps the Minister may not know so much about them, but, as one who takes a trip fairly often to five or six of them, I am fully conversant with the position as it obtains in the islands off the West Cork coast. These small farmers have no creamery facilities except in one or two cases and these people have to make butter.
Mr. Walsh
Did I not give the people on Whiddy Island a travelling creamery?
I doubt that. My information is that it was given by the Minister's predecessor.
Mr. Walsh
Check up on that. It was I gave it to them.
I am not doubting the Minister's word but, as the Minister mentioned Whiddy Island, I believe that it was Deputy Dillon provided the travelling creamery there.
Mr. Walsh
Oh, no.
If the Minister did provide the travelling creamery which I think he did not he is getting very little credit for it as the people believe it was Deputy Dillon who provided it.
Mr. Walsh
Thanks for the information.
You can find that out for yourself.
Mr. Walsh
You can tell them the truth the next time you are down there.
We have a number of small farms in the islands around our coast and they are cut out so far as the production of milk is concerned. They have to manufacture it into home made butter and sell it at a reduced price. They have also to sell their cattle at £2 or £3 per head below the current market value due to the fact that they have a very limited market and are dependent on some buyer coming from the mainland. They have also to sell their pigs at a price less than the market value while they have to buy any commodities they require at a price above the market value. I think that the people on these islands deserve special consideration from the Minister. There are five or six islands in my constituency and it would be very much out of place for me, or I am sure Deputy Collins, to pass over this Estimate without referring to the plight of the farmers on these islands.
Mr. Walsh
Do not forget to tell them that we gave them the travelling creamery.
I do not wantto leave this matter of the production of milk without again emphasising, as strongly as I possibly can, the need for some special provision in these particular districts. I have travelled to creameries morning after morning myself, often with only five or six gallons of milk, and I have seen several people from West Cork like myself bringing milk from these small farms. In time alone, it is at least a three hour job because the transport facilities in some districts are not very good and people have to travel fairly long distances. I think the day is coming when, if something is not done for these people, milk production for the creameries will cease because young boys and girls in these places will definitely emigrate as there is no other possible alternative for them. The Minister is certainly in good humour to-day and I am glad to see that he has so fully recovered from his recent illness. I hope he will take cognisance of my representations regarding a milk subsidy for these people in the congested districts.
Another very important line in farming in this country is poultry production. It provides self-employment for many of our young boys and girls on farms throughout the length and breadth of the country. It eliminates the need for emigration amongst these boys and girls. We were all hopeful that this industry would be developed to the greatest possible extent. However, unfortunately, due to one condition or another, the industry has been struck and struck very heavily in recent times. I am fairly conversant with that particular line, and I know very well that the prices obtained for poultry and for eggs at the present time are not economic. The people were led to believe, when chickens were being hatched early this year, that certain prices would obtain—at least they were given that impression when they bought eggs for hatching early in the year, but they were dumbfounded to find subsequent to the purchase of the eggs and subsequent to their entering on preparations for the production of poultry on a large scale, that the price dropped 1/- per lb.
Mr. Walsh
9d. per lb. It is a seasonal drop. They dropped last year also.
I do not think the Minister can get away with that argument. Last year there was a price of 3/6 per lb. for chickens in season, and the price this year was 2/6. The difference between 2/6 and 3/6 is 1/-, and the poultry keepers learned subsequent to their purchases of eggs that they were going to be paid 1/-per lb. less than last year.
The cost of living is coming down.
What did the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor say?
The cost of living is coming down.
We are not narrow or sectional in our outlook. We are out to give justice to everybody. We are out to give justice to the self-employed worker as well as to every other worker. In speaking of workers, I am using the term in a very broad sense. I am speaking for the industrious people who are self-employed in this industry which the Government is slowly but steadily killing. The Minister may say that, so far as poultry is concerned, nothing can be done, that world prices control the whole position; but when the Minister was in opposition, he and his supporters down the country attributed any decline in poultry prices and any decline in the numbers of poultry to the policy pursued by the former Minister. Now they have had their chance but the industry was never in a worse state recently than it is at the present time. It was never in a worse state for the last five or six years. I am not going to go back to the days of the economic war.
Mr. Walsh
A higher price prevailed for eggs for the last five years than ever before.
We take into account that any increase in price must be borne by the consumer, but so far as chickens are concerned, due tothe policy pursued by the Minister for Agriculture, supported by Deputy Pa McGrath, there are very few, if any, chickens consumed by the workers in West Cork.
You are demoting him now. A few moments ago he was the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor.
I should like the Minister to make a very clear and definite statement so far as the poultry industry is concerned. Another very important line, particularly so far as small farms are concerned, is the pig industry. In various areas in my constituency, and I feel sure in several other similar districts throughout the country, along with poultry the people generally engage in pig production and they are anxious that that industry should be in as flourishing a condition as possible. We feel in County Cork that some improvements could be effected in that vital line. We believe that there should be some more effective measure of control over bacon factories than exists at present. Certain bacon factories have a complete monopoly of the purchase of pigs in this country. I assert, as I asserted in other places, having a fair knowledge of their actions, that they are not giving justice or fair play and that they are using that monopoly to the detriment of pig producers. The sooner we look after that particular section of the people the better for all concerned. I move to report progress.