Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1958

Vol. 166 No. 1

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £3,007,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, 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.—(Minister for Agriculture).

Mr. Wycherley

I spoke on this Supplementary Estimate last Thursday and since then protest meetings have been held all over the country against the reduction in dairying incomes in the coming year by the levy of 17/- per cwt. on the amount of butter which will be exported in the coming year and which obviously is to come out of the pockets of the most industrious section of the community—the dairy farmers.

The whole sum required to subsidise butter was £2,544,000. Of that sum £1,124,000 was required to subsidise butter produced in the 1956-57 period which was held in cold storage and subsidised in the 1957-58 period. If we deduct that amount from the total, we find that only £1,420,000 was the actual amount required to subsidise the butter produced and exported in the 1957-58 period. That was a very small sum, which we should stand over on behalf of this section of our people because they are engaged in the most important industry, responsible for producing most of the wealth of the country. Everybody should know that after our experiences last year when the cattle industry saved the whole economy. If the income of the dairy farmer is to be reduced—and I have no doubt it will as a result of the reduction of 4/5ths of 1d. per gallon on his milk—the obvious thing for him to do is to reduce output. If the dairy farmer goes out of production we will have fewer cattle for export and perhaps will not be in the favourable position again of having cattle to save the day. It is "penny wise and pound foolish" not to come to the rescue of the dairy farmer at this stage; instead of hindering him in his efforts to increase production, everything possible should be done by the Government to increase production of dairy produce and the number of cattle because these are the mainstay of the country.

The Minister may be misled to some extent by this farce of a Milk Costings Report issued a short time ago. One gentleman who professes to be a farmer, but who, I am informed, is not actually a farmer at all, is able to produce milk, according to the costings, at 4½d. per gallon whereas the sum allowed for separated milk by the costings commission is 5½d. per gallon. Does it sound like common sense to anybody that a farmer could produce milk at that price when the price of separated milk was found to be 5½d.? Of course it does not, and I hope the Minister will not pay too much attention to that gentleman. He was not a farmer and he should not be costed at all as a farmer, because his income was not derived from farming. It is figures like those which mislead the whole community in regard to milk costings. If costings are to be taken out on any farmer he should be a genuine farmer, deriving his living solely from farming and not somebody who has income from other sources.

The actual sum required for the subsidy is very little and should not be reduced in any circumstances. Were it not for the dumping of butter here from other sources I doubt if any subsidy would be required. It is a very strange thing that so much foreign butter should be dumped here to the detriment of the dairy farmer. I would ask the Government to look into this matter because if our butter were consumed here, instead of using imported stuff, there would be very little need to subsidise butter.

Where is this 4/5th of 1d. which I presume is to be collected from the dairy farmers from the 1st April to come from if there is no butter to be exported in the coming year? Whatever help the farmers will get they are entitled to it. They are entitled to whatever protection can be given to them in doing a good job for Ireland. I hope the Minister will not take the ridiculous Milk Costings Report too seriously; it has been proved to be what I can only call the greatest farce from which the veil has ever been lifted.

The limestone scheme for which there is a subsidy and an additional Suplementary Estimate, is a good scheme but I am afraid a body other than the farmers is deriving great benefit from the subsidy. I understand that C.I.E. get as much as 7½ per cent. even on lime they do not carry at all. If that is true I do not think it is fair to the farmers to leave them working under the illusion that they are getting so much money for lime subsidy when, in fact, C.I.E. is being highly subsidised as well.

Since I spoke in this debate the levy of 4/5th of 1d. was announced. I think that is a very foolish step. Instead of cutting down the income of the most industrious section of the community I strongly appeal to the Minister and the Government to reconsider the position because if they do not, the dairy farmers will have fewer cows, fewer calves, less milk and less butter for export and the country will be the poorer as a result.

Mr. Hughes

The main figure in this Supplementary Estimate is for the subsidy on dairy produce. No doubt it is a very big figure and I believe one of the fatal mistakes that the Government made was to withdraw the subsidy on butter last year. Consumption of butter dropped considerably. It seems extraordinary from the consumers' point of view that the Government is not prepared to pay 5d. per lb. subsidy while it costs 1/6 per lb. in Britain to subsidise the same butter for the British consumer. That was something that should not have happened.

Since we discussed this Estimate last week we have had a statement on the future of the dairy industry and it seems that the dairy farmers are now going to take a rap as well as the other sections of the agricultural community. It seems now that it is Government policy that when the farmers succeed in increasing production, as they have been asked to do for a number of years, their prices will be reduced. It is very bad policy. It will have the effect of putting us back to the position in which we were some years ago. It will mean that we will have no butter to export. The dairy farmers' costs have been increasing in recent years. Every other section of the community is being compensated in one way or another for increased costs. The farmer will not be allowed any such compensation; the scales will be weighted the other way in his case. He will receive less for what he produces. That is a very bad position and the dairy producer is feeling very hurt about it. As the last speaker indicated, it will have the effect of reducing output in the dairy industry and in that way will affect live stock and our whole economy.

There is an amount in the Estimate for ground limestone subsidy. There has been a statement on that matter in the last week. We find now that there will be a substantial reduction in the freight subsidy in that connection. Previously, the entire freight charge was carried in the form of a subsidy. Now, four shillings, will have to be carried by the user. That is disastrous. The good that ground limestone has done in increasing production need not be stressed. The ground limestone scheme was one of the greatest schemes ever introduced. The farmers are being hit on all sides and now they will have to pay more for lime.

The whole arrangement is very bad because the subsidy is being paid to C.I.E. If it were paid to the manufacturers of ground limestone, there might be a possibility that they would be able to bear some of that reduction. The number of people who engage in the haulage of ground limestone is very limited. Most of them are allowed only one lorry to haul their produce while there may be 20 C.I.E. lorries employed in the same business. It is very unfair that the producer should have to carry the increased burden. There is no hope whatever of the price being reduced because at 16/- a ton it is very competitive and any little profit that was in it was in the haulage. Obviously, the reduction in this matter will be very detrimental to the agricultural economy.

There is an amount provided in the Estimate for seed testing and seed certification. I compliment the Department on the progress and success of that scheme. It is now accepted that the seed produced is first class. Previously, there were some farmers who were anxious to get imported seed. Now they are quite satisfied, and rightly so, that the certified seed is first class and can compare with the seed produced in any country. The scheme has been very well organised and the results are excellent. The produce is first class. I should like to compliment the Department on the success of that scheme.

Mr. Corry

This is an Estimate, apparently, for an under-estimated amount in last year's Estimate for Agriculture. It is a pretty hefty sum that was under-estimated—£3,000,000 odd. I am wondering by what machinery the Estimate for Agriculture was introduced last year with such an under-estimation. It is a commentary on the manner in which the Estimate was prepared last year, that we have this Estimate for an additional £3,000,000.

For dairy produce subsidies, the revised Estimate is £3,210,000. That seems to be a pretty considerable amount of money and I know the steps the Minister has taken this year, but I should like to make a rather general estimate of what is happening in other Departments of State. There was a Bill brought in in 1956 to give grants to people who were prepared to start industries in order to export. Here we have an instance of an industry out of which for the first 11 months of last year exports amounted to £75,000,000.

The total here is £3,210,000, the additional sum required being £2,544,000. I am amazed that any Minister of State would estimate that the total amount he would require for subsidies on dairy produce for the last 12 months was £666,000. It is a rather amazing mistake to make, particularly for a Minister who was boasting about the large number of cows he had got and the manner in which he had brought up production, that he should estimate that he would require only £666,000 for a butter subsidy which amounted to £3,200,000.

You have here an industry, the dairy industry, out of which there were exports valued at £75,000,000. I do not think that even £3,000,000 is anything out of the way to pay for that large export considering that we have gentlemen coming here from abroad and starting twopence halfpenny industries. No notice is taken of giving them a grant of £100,000 or £200,000 although such industries will not carry as much as £50,000 a year in exports. I have studied the question as closely as I can and I make the prediction that within three years we will be back again on Danish butter. I would make a complaint against the Minister who brought in the Estimate at that time which is in keeping with the other burdens that were left one after another by the Party going out of office.

In regard to the provision for a research grant to University College, I should like the Minister to tell us what research they are carrying out in regard to agriculture. If the Government decided here as far back as 25 or 26 years ago to advocate the growing of wheat, we would expect that any money that would be leaving the Department of Agriculture for research would go towards keeping up with the increase in the acreage of wheat and keeping up with each step that the agricultural community was taking, so that it would be unnecessary to be paying millions of money abroad for wheat. I should like to know if this money is being directed towards that end and also how much has been given in the past 26 years towards endeavouring to see that the millers and bakers are brought into line and brought to the position where an all-Irish loaf can be produced.

I should like to add my commendation to that of Deputy Hughes in regard to seed testing and certification. A very good job has been done there and we should be at the point now where it would be absolutely unnecessary to import seed from abroad. As regards live stock, I should like to be more sure as to the improvement there. The National Stud seems to be paying for itself. We had four winners at Cheltenham to-day.

In connection with the ground limestone subsidy, I have been for a long period commenting in this House on the manner in which that subsidy was being spent. It reminds me of an old neighbour of mine long ago who took the wife's cheque for the geese at Christmas and went off on a three-day spree. When he was apprehended he said: "Sure, it was only goose money, anyway." Apparently the attitude in relation to this money is that it is only American money, anyway. To take money that was given to the agricultural community and to subsidise with that money an incompetent, useless machine known as C.I.E. is a scandalous waste of public money.

It is a sad commentary that, if the owner of a ground limestone plant has three or four lorries of his own drawing out that lime and distributing it for the farmers, C.I.E., without even having seen the plant or the lorry, are drawing 7½ per cent. of the money paid. It should be very easy and should not be beyond the intelligence of the Department of Agriculture to zone those areas. I know that there is lime going from Mallow within a mile of two limestone plants in Carrigtuohill. The State is paying for the hauling of that lime that could be and should be supplied locally. It is all very well when your hand is in another man's pocket. In this case the hand is in the pockets of the Americans who gave the money to subsidise lime to farmers. This is the fourth occasion on which I have called attention in this House to that anomaly and steps should be taken by the Minister even now to see that those areas are zoned and that an area, say, within 20 miles of a ground limestone plant should be stipulated for the delivery of lime from that limestone plant, so that you would not have the joke of seeing lorries using petrol, rubber and American funds for that purpose. If the Minister examines the books he will find that the £60,000 extra that is being sought here has been spent in that manner.

I notice a sum for the purchase of stock bulls, other than dairy bulls, for leasing to cattle breeders. I am wondering what good that will do? How many of the progeny are kept? Is one in a hundred kept? It is a waste of public money, at a time when we have not got public money to waste, to go abroad and pay anything up to £1,000 or £1,500 for a bull particularly when the progeny are not kept for breeding. Very few people have pure bred herds and those who have provide their own bulls. What are these bulls for?

I am wondering, too, about this £60,000 compensation to the owners of animals slaughtered because of swine fever. I know farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in County Cork who illegally imported pigs. Those pigs got swine fever. They were duly slaughtered by the Department. Have the owners of those illegally imported pigs been compensated? I know one particular place in which compensation amounted to a pretty hefty sum. When these animals were discovered, was there any prosecution taken against those who had illegally imported them? Were any steps taken? I know of none. There were public advertisements in the papers every day offering these boars and sows for sale. Surely they read the papers in the Department of Agriculture. Surely they saw these advertisements. Were any steps taken? In the end, after compensation had been paid, the Department legalised the animals, but they took no steps during the period in which these animals were illegally in the country.

In the Appropriations-in-Aid I see a recoupment figure in relation to the American Grant Counterpart Special Account for bovine tuberculosis eradication. I should like to know how that money has been spent, where and why? Would the Minister be kind enough to tell us now the results of the Bansha scheme? How many reactors are left in Bansha to-day? It is time that other areas who derived no benefit from any Grant Counterpart Fund for bovine tuberculosis eradication should be made aware of what the position is in Bansha and how long it will take to clear any particular area elsewhere. The information at my disposal is that there are more reactors in Bansha to-day than there were five or six years ago, when the scheme started.

Mr. Russell

The House, whether it agrees or disagrees, must appreciate the difficulty of the Minister's position. He must maintain prices for the reasons that have been mentioned and, at the same time, he must have regard to the capacity of the community to pay the subsidies required. A large part of the community paying these subsidies are the farmers themselves and, therefore, there must be a limit to which the country can go in order to subsidise the export of dairy products. Furthermore, the Minister is faced with the problem that farming here is under-capitalised and the farmer, with the best intentions in the world and irrespective of how hard he works, cannot produce more because he has not got the capital to invest in the land. That is a problem that cannot be settled in a month or a year; it is one that will be with us for a long time.

Reference have been made to surplus production. Now "surplus" is a word which should not be used in an agricultural country. After all, we all of us exhort the farmer to produce more and tell him that the economic survival of the country and the wellbeing of every section of the community is dependent upon increased production on his part so that we can export more and import the things we do not produce ourselves, mainly the raw materials for our factories, on which hidden subsidies are paid by way of high tariff walls. It is wrong to talk about a surplus because if the farmer does not produce more than is sufficient for our needs we shall not be able to export to buy the things we cannot produce ourselves. It is largely a question of costs.

There is no doubt but that a few years ago we would have had no difficulty in selling all our so-called surplus of butter on the Continent of Europe at very fancy prices. As certain Deputies have pointed out, it is not many years since we were faced with the possibility of having to import very inferior butter. These things go in cycles. I agree with the view expressed by Deputy Dillon that we are now in the position of going through an artificial slump in dairy products in which all the countries in the world, or at least those competing with us such as Denmark, Holland and New Zealand, are heavily subsidising their exports of milk and bacon products.

We have got to decide whether to stay in the race or get out of it. Even though it is a severe strain on the country's economy, I do not think we have any alternative but to stay in to the limit of our financial capacity. It is a very big burden on the taxpayer, both direct and indirect, but as an agricultural country whose main—I might say whose only—asset is 12,000,000 acres of arable land, we have no other course but to remain in this until the normal laws of economics assert themselves and proper, rational prices are received for agricultural products. As was mentioned by other speakers, it is not purely a subsidy on butter or on pigs. It is really a subsidy on almost all agricultural production. The cow is the basis of all agricultural production. Everything comes down to it. In fact, we are subsidising not only the milk producer, but virtually the whole agricultural economy. For that reason £3,000,000 is not a very big sum of money in those terms.

In my own constituency our prosperity is based on two things—on milk and on pigs. As Deputies are aware the only condensed milk factory in the country is situated in Limerick City. If anything were to happen to interfere with the flow of 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 gallons of milk to that factory every year, it would have very serious repercussions on the already serious unemployment position in Limerick. Three of the largest bacon factories in the country are situated there, and there are other analogous industries such as grain milling, feeding stuffs, distribution and transport by sea, road and rail which are also dependent in the final analysis on the production of milk and bacon.

There are two things in regard to which we must, as an agricultural community, stand by the farmer even in difficult times and give him a chance. I am sorry the Minister found it necessary to ask the farmers to bear some of the subsidy on the export of butter. I know he is faced with a difficult problem, but I think I am correct in saying that, as against subsidies, the price of milk in this country if not the lowest must be very nearly the lowest in Europe and possibly in the whole world.

There is another aspect. If you depress the price of milk any lower, there is great danger that those producing it will go out of it altogether. In my constituency the producers of milk are very largely, almost entirely, people who either rely on family labour or bachelors living alone who have a tradition of milk production. If they go out there will be nobody there to take up the production of milk after them. I do not know how far down you can go in the price of milk. It strikes me that the minimum of 1/6 per gallon is very low indeed and to go below that is gravely endangering the whole milk industry.

One of the things we must do is to ensure that in our exports we try and get the best prices for butter and bacon. I am not satisfied we are doing that at present. I would like to see the farmers themselves take a more active part in procuring markets, particularly in England, for the wholesale and retail sale of bacon and butter. I know that every section of the community thinks that the proper thing is to appeal to the Government. The Minister must do everything. If he does not do it, he is the worst in the world and is threatened with being put out of office at the next election or with being asked to resign.

There is a lot to be said for the old policy of self-help. That applies to the farmer as well as to the section of the community I represent myself. There is a lot more to be done on the marketing side. It is rather disconcerting to find that not even a small amount of the £250,000 which was ear-marked 12 months ago in connection with marketing—I think I am correct in saying this—has yet been spent.

I sympathise with the Minister but I warn him that any further interference with the price of milk will have disastrous consequences. The Minister and the Government in general should take the long view. These price difficulties come in cycles. I do not think one would have to be a visionary to see that in two or three years' time, or perhaps less, the outside world might be glad to pay far higher prices for butter and bacon than they are paying at present.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Like Deputy Russell, the constituency which I represent is predominantly a milk producing constituency. In the Estimate we have before us there is reflected the contribution which the dairying industry has made in increased production in recent years. It is an extraordinary thing that, within a matter of days of the Minister for Health and Social Welfare bringing in a huge Estimate to cope with the amount of illness that existed in insurable occupations last year and as a consequence of which, we presume, there was a proportionate decrease in industrial production at the time because of the 'flu epidemic so jeopardising industrial production, the farmers of this country, and in particular the dairy farmers, should succeed in making such a dramatic contribution to the national production.

We have here, as was pointed out by other Deputies, the very core of the agricultural industry reflected in dairying. We are providing the raw materials for the cattle stocks that are now agreed as being absolutely the anchorage of our entire economy. The market prevailing for live cattle, for frozen meat and tinned meat is a good one and one which is likely to remain useful as long as this Government, or any Government, realises its value to the economy of the country. Should there be any upheaval in the parent industry, on the dairying side of it, you will have an immediate reflection in the numbers available to replace those cattle we export in whatever capacity they are exported.

There are many people who do not live on the land and do not appreciate the difficulties of those who are living on the land and who are producing these goods. These people express certain criticisms of the necessity for a subsidy such as this. But we must realise that we must export and that for too long, when we had to import agricultural commodities, these were the very people who were critical of the standard of those imports. We can well remember the Danish butter and how the people in the cities of Dublin, Cork, and Limerick, reacted at that time, how they wished that they would see the day when they would have ample supplies of good Irish creamery butter. Thanks be to God, that day is with us. It would be impossible for any Minister for Agriculture or for any cohesive farmers' organisation to arrange things so that we would have the supply of butter, milk or other products derived from cattle in the exact quantities required in this country. The variability of the weather and other factors would make that impossible. It is therefore a very happy state of affairs that we have the situation in which we have this exportable surplus. It is regrettable that in these circumstances such a disruption should be created as the recent announcement in relation to the levy on the producer of practically one-third of the cost of possible future exports of butter.

It is known to everybody who has any knowledge of the creamery industry that butter manufacture is the poor relation of that industry, that those concerned in the manufacture of chocolate crumb or in the disposal of milk as dried milk and the export of that dried milk to countries far removed from these islands, have a distinct advantage over the creameries not so advantageously placed and which have to produce creamery butter. We know, of course, that they are not in a position to withstand the impact that is now being imposed on them by governmental direction. It is a pity that it is that aspect of the creamery industry that is being faced with this additional levy. If that levy is designed to drive that part of the industry away from the production of butter then it is unfortunate because one of the few good things which was presented in the last Budget by the Minister for Finance, and one which contained something of real advantage to the future of the country, was an Estimate for research in practical marketing. Indeed, there were many who felt that the Government should have gone further in providing markets prior to seeking the increased production which we now have.

Of course, you cannot provide a market until you are in a position to guarantee supplies to that market. We are now in that position and it is a pity that something more concrete was not done in using that money for the furtherance of marketing. Instead what is being done is the placing of a levy on our surplus production in wheat and in milk. Deputy Wycherley will recall my remarking to him when the levy was placed on wheat that similar applications would follow in regard to other agricultural produce and that milk would be the next in that regard.

What the Minister has done has been to divert the minds of the dairy farmers at the moment from the greatest challenge ever presented to any sector of our agricultural industry. That is the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. It is regrettable that the injustice perpetrated by the Minister and the Government should evoke from anybody in the farming community even a suggestion that there would not be the closest co-operation in stamping out what is a cloud hanging over our export horizon, a cloud which, if not cleared away, will have its repercussions on every single section of the economy of this country. In those circumstances the origin of the present trouble must be attributed to the Government's action because they led so many people to believe that the production of the Milk Costings Commission's report would present to the dairying industry an absolute Magna Charta in relation to the future.

Some of us never had any faith in that document. We felt that it originated as a way out to relieve the Government of that time of an embarrassment. Now that it has been produced it is a great disappointment because it has been clearly pointed out that the whole system of the costings is open to very severe criticism. Consequently there is now no faith in the report of that commission.

An Ceann Comhairle

Might I remind the Deputy that this is a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am saying this in relation to the disposal of the surplus of butter in this country. I am merely referring to the fact that the industry is being disrupted by these factors. In conclusion, I want to refer to the fact that the people who were charged with increasing the production of these commodities and who have achieved that aim are now being penalised for having produced the commodities that the country so badly needed. It is unfortunate that those apologists who are being loyal to the Party doctrine are to-day making so much play on the fact that there is this charge on the Exchequer.

As far as we are concerned, having been responsible for the policy that led up to these surpluses, we do not regard them as an embarrassment. We think it is a grand thing that a situation should arise in which a Minister should have come into this House in order to face up to the problem presented by overproduction. It is a good thing that the producers' organisations are directing their attention to the advisability of improving the market for dairy produce.

I am firmly of the opinion that the time is ripe for a "Drink More Milk" campaign in this country. We are often advised of the advantages to this country of being self-sufficient and of consuming our own produce. There is no item of food produced in this country which does not make a greater contribution to the country's welfare than milk. Could there not then be an effort made to increase the consumption of milk? Could there not be a logical case made to the consuming public of the advisability of eating good Irish butter? Is it not a great pity, now, as has been brought home so forcibly to so many families, that we have placed Irish butter beyond their reach, that by wiping out the subsidies which existed on butter so many of them are to-day denied butter and in consequence have been driven to eating margarine? The substitution of Irish butter on the table of the home by margarine is reflected to some extent in the necessity for this Supplementary Estimate.

It is unfortunate that those people who are naturally concerned about charges on the Exchequer and the fact that the Exchequer has to meet such a formidable amount as is contained in this Estimate, would use it as still another instance of the agricultural community receiving something more than their due. It is unfortunate that anybody in authority would express such views or lend any support to them and it is particularly unfortunate that they should try by governmental action to cut down production in butter, milk, wheat and barley at a time when they had assured people that they were to take positive and clear steps to improve by marketing research the markets available for such commodities.

These actions are contradictory. If the markets were in existence and capable of being developed why discourage the producer from producing even the amount he is now producing? Instead we should be carrying on from the position reached in 1957 and pointing out that it was to the national advantage and to the advantage of the individual that he should maintain not alone the 1957 level of production but go on from that, keep more cattle, rear more calves, produce more milk and more butter, chocolate crumb, dried milk and all the other things which flow from that industry, that he should go out and produce coarse grains to be converted into bacon for export and do that secure in the knowledge that the Government in office had discovered better means of marketing his surplus produce.

The people would then be assured of sufficient supplies of these commodities for their own needs and at the same time they would be saved that kind of impact on their standard of living which would be made necessary should our balance of payments again go against us. This is the industry that has resolved the balance of payments problem and in consequence the people who do not sympathise with the necessity for bolstering up our premier industry should realise that if it was not there, and if we had not sent out from this country £45,000,000 worth of cattle last year, they would have had to meet in other ways, perhaps, a serious personal impact on their occupations and their homes. It is because we are conscious of that fact that we feel this House should pass the Estimate and bring it home to the country that it is not being passed in any apologetic way but as a tribute to the achievement of the people who succeeded in increasing production against such great difficulties and over such a short period to the point where the present Government are in the good position that all they have to face is the problem of marketing the surplus production which their predecessors handed to them.

General MacEoin

I feel Deputy Corry should not be allowed to get away with his comment on the Minister's predecessor who, he said, miscalculated and did not give care and attention to the preparation of this and that Estimate, otherwise we would not have this Supplementary Estimate of £3,000,000.

The Minister set out the grounds for this Supplementary Estimate and it is quite clear that Deputy Corry made no attempt either to listen to the Minister or to read the Minister's speech. If he had done so he would not have made that charge, but it appears no attempt is ever made by some members on the Government Benches to give credit where credit is due. The increases in the Estimate are due to many causes, including the fact that more grade A bacon was produced than could have been anticipated. That required a subsidy. More milk and butter were produced than could have been anticipated and this required a subsidy. In his opening speech the Minister set out the facts fully in regard to the reasons for the Supplementary Estimate and it is an astounding thing that Deputy Corry or any Deputy should come in and make such a charge in the face of the Minister's published statement.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

When this Supplementary Estimate was being discussed last week-end I was taxed with my failure to make certain announcements regarding Government policy on milk and butter production. At question time I was pressed on the same matters. In fact, the public outside, if they were not as intelligent as they are, would have got the impression that my failure to make such announcements would have some dire consequences of which I, certainly, am not aware.

In the course of replies to supplementary questions I think I said that pending the making of such an announcement the farmer was free to dispose of his milk in the way he had been disposing of it. Over the week-end I was glad to be able to make the announcement before we completed the discussion of this Supplementary Estimate, not because I wished to have a full-dress debate on departmental policy generally but because I wanted to see that members of the House who were naturally concerned about a question like this would have an opportunity of giving their views on what had been done.

I do not like to make a political issue of a matter such as this although once in a while we may have a showdown in this House, but some of the claims made here in relation to important matters like these are really so provocative and so unjustifiable as to drive one to a line of action in debate that one would wish to avoid. For example, Deputy O'Sullivan has just stated, "We left you with this surplus of butter as a result of the policy that we pursued when the previous Government was in office on the first occasion, between 1948 and 1951 and between 1954 and 1957". Is not that an absurd claim having regard to a history that is here before me and into which I have no desire whatever to go for the sake of making Party capital or for the purpose of securing political advantage? It may transpire that on some other occasion I shall have to delve in thoroughly in order to blow sky high the preposterous claim that has been made here on that matter.

General MacEoin

We will give the Minister the chance now. It would be much better that he would do it rather than half do it.

Mr. Smith

This is a Supplementary Estimate and the Chair will keep me in my place, as he will keep all Deputies and Ministers. It is my duty as a Minister to do my best to keep within the limits of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister will get another chance.

Mr. Smith

It is my duty to keep within the limits without having to be reminded by the Chair that I am exceeding my rights. Therefore, I am afraid I will have to try to choose my own ground. I can say this much about the claim that has been made across the floor here and I do not do so in any boastful way—whatever average price the creameries have been receiving it was we who gave it to them. Whether it was too high or too low, it was this Government who created these standards for them. I should like to assure Deputy Wycherley and other Deputies who have spoken on this matter that I personally regard the dairying industry as the very body and soul of our agricultural economy, and have always so regarded it, and that apart altogether from the responsibilities that a man has as a Minister my own natural tendency and my own determination as an individual would be to do everything within my power to help it.

It has been repeatedly stated down through the years in this House and outside it that the dairying industry is a difficult business and that the dairy farmers are situated largely in some of the poorest or in the medium land, that the dairying industry is all-important from the point of view of the live-stock trade. I say, not in relation to this Government or any other Government, that one of the disappointing things in relation to the dairying industry is that in spite of the fact that the store cattle trade and the cow trade in every form is so profitable, in 1957 the cow population was not as large as it was in 1938-39.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They were killing calves at one time.

Mr. Smith

Nonsense.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I will give the Minister the figures.

Mr. Smith

I am talking about 1938-39. If the Deputy's little mind is so political that he cannot examine this proposition objectively, I am not responsible for that.

Mr. O'Sullivan

You were responsible for the calf slaughtering.

Mr. Smith

I am saying that if we were serious and if we were generally concerned about the people who have cows and who produce milk and send it to the creameries and who rear calves and feed pigs and all the rest of it, we could with advantage give some thought to that fact and try to see the way in which that state of affairs might be altered. Much as I and every member of the Government dislike having to interfere with milk prices, we have had to face up to this matter of the provision of the necessary subsidy in order to sell whatever excess butter there might be over and above what we consume.

As regards the limitation of production, the one thing that can be said about the solution we have found—and it is entirely to its advantage—is that we have not placed any limit as to the distance we will go with the dairy farmer and we have not placed any limit because we recognise the truth of what I have already said about the importance of that class of the community. If we have asked the milk producer to contribute one in three, if we have asked the consuming public to maintain a support price at home plus a contribution from general taxation, and if we have placed no limit on the amount that they may produce, I do not think that that was an unfair deal having regard, as Deputy Russell said, to the general circumstances.

We had the matter of bacon to provide for. We had surplus wheat to provide for. We had to provide entirely from taxation for the bovine tuberculosis scheme. We had to provide for the first time entirely from taxation for the ground limestone scheme and, as has been said by others, while the farmer and the milk producer may, and will, as a result of this decision get less to the extent that is already conveyed to him, then the overall picture and the overall contribution by the taxpayer to agriculture must be vetted if we are to arrive at a fair decision as to whether or not the community is treating that important section of our people in a fair way.

Sometimes I read reports of discussions which take place at the meetings of public bodies, county councils, county committees of agriculture, and so on, on all these matters. You often see, in the course of these discussions, on the part of those who take part in them, a tendency to cultivate a misunderstanding between the consuming public and the producer. Indeed you often see efforts made to put over a certain point of view, say, in the milk-producing area and then an entirely different point of view in the grain-producing area. I have in mind the case of, I think, the County Committee of Louth. They spent some considerable time in discussing the Government policy, and my policy in particular, in regard to wheat. After they had spent, I suppose, most of the day discussing that question, they proceeded to pass a resolution asking that butter would be distributed and sold to the people of County Louth at the price at which it was being sold in Britain. They wanted protection there for the grain grower. They wanted the assistance of the consumer and the taxpayer to keep their economy in order, but when it came to asking them to make their contribution to supporting those who were engaged in another line of production then it was a different matter and could be conveniently switched around to be made a political question.

You find these efforts being made and there is no means, nor as far as I am concerned is there any desire, to discourage them or to stop them. I say that because I feel our people are intelligent enough in relation to these matters, just as they will be intelligent enough to understand the meaning of what the Government is attempting here in order to meet their difficulties and to deal with the complex problems that confront us in the matter of the export of whatever excess butter we have or whatever surplus bacon may be produced here.

We are surely not anxious, as has been truthfully said, to offer this bacon or this butter anywhere below cost of production. The production of milk and butter is vital to us and, as I have said, one of the reasons why no limitation of subsidy is provided for is because of the fact that the dairying industry is so vital to us in the sense that it is, you might say, the very foundation of the whole live-stock trade of the country.

I shall conclude on the note on which I started. Making allowance for the little bit of political exaggeration which one is bound to find in an Assembly like this, I can detect in the course of the limited discussion we have had here on this subject, an appreciation on the part of Deputies that the solutions and the suggestions that have been proposed and publicised over the week-end, while they are not everything that those who are interested in these very important matters would like them to be, they appear to have made their mark in the sense that they are regarded as being a fair effort to deal with what is and, I suppose, what will be for some time anyhow, a very awkward problem.

Vote put and agreed to.