Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 May 1958

Vol. 168 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Dillon).

Mr. Corry

I was dealing with the ground limestone subsidy. I should like to suggest to the Minister now that, as this subsidy has to be paid directly by the people of this country in taxation, there should be a minute investigation into the manner in which the money is being spent. If it is to appear here as a subsidy to agriculture, I submit it should be a subsidy to agriculture, direct and not a subsidy to an incompetent transport service.

The owners of ground limestone plant who take out the lime on their own lorry and spread it on the farmer's land should be paid directly from the Department. It is scandalous that from 7½ to 10 per cent. of the transport cost of every ton of lime taken out by a private owner of a limestone plant and delivered on the farmer's land must be paid as a fee to C.I.E. for the honour of taking it out. An enormous amount of the money given by the American Government in this connection has in my opinion been misspent as the benefits did not go to the farmer but went, instead, to support C.I.E. That should not happen. I have had general complaints in regard to the matter. I have raised the subject in this House repeatedly. I consider it a grave injustice.

I want to deal now with the farm buildings scheme and water supplies. The amount of the subsidy for that purpose this year is £713,536. Again, I question whether that amount or a large proportion of that money should appear here as a subsidy to the agricultural community. Where we have to subsidise any firm of manufacturers who bring blank iron sheets into this country and then turn them into corrugated iron, and who must pay an exorbitant figure for that raw material due to a cartel, it should not be passed on here and for that reason I think a great proportion of the subsidy for hay barns should appear in the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce and not here.

The amount for the coming year which is to be paid to the Pigs and Bacon Commission is £650,000. I find that the total amount of Grade "A" bacon exported was 315,000 cwt. Therefore, that represents a subsidy on bacon of over 40/- a cwt. I do not think any advisory service or marketing service, for which we have quoted here a sum of £250,000 will get over that gap. Again, I suggest we should control production. I am totally opposed to the policy of endeavouring to sell surpluses to foreigners at give-away prices. We get nothing from foreigners at give-away prices. I think that it is wrong and the subsidy works out at well over 40/- a cwt. in this connection.

In regard to feeding barley, it is stated in the trade statistics this year that some 683,000 cwt. of feeding barley have been imported at a cost of £840,000. That works out around 47/- a barrel for the imported material. I am sure if our farmers got a little incentive in the shape of a better price there would be no need to import that barley.

I do not think the Minister will be troubled after this year with any surplus wheat. I admit that when the prices are not known until March and farmers have their land ploughed, they have no option. But the ordinary small farmer, the man who grew the wheat during the emergency, will be compelled to get out of it for economic reasons. He would not grow it at Deputy Dillon's price; neither will be grow it at the present Minister's price. It is an uneconomic price and there is very little good in pursuing it further than that. Where it might pay a man with 500 acres to turn them over to wheat and have a clear profit of a £1,000 it would not pay the ordinary farmer with 30 or 40 acres and with ten acres under wheat to devote a quarter of his total acerage to making a profit of £20. It would pay him better to go on the dole.

What is required by the agricultural community at present is a definite agricultural policy covering a definite number of years so that we will know what the Government want us to grow and do not want us to grow. It is very evident they do not want wheat. It is equally evident, for a reason I do not know, that they do not want feeding barley. If they wanted it, they would not be offering £18 10s. 0d. a ton. It is also evident that they want no more butter. On those commodities, at any rate, farmers have got to cut down.

If the farmers must evolve a policy for themselves, it should be a definite policy of producing only somewhere around 75 per cent. of your requirements. In that way, like the oats, you will be paid for what you grow. Otherwise, you will not. I do not agree for one moment with this idea of paying enormous sums for putting on the market a product which cannot be produced here at an economic price. What would be the price of milk at 2/11 per lb. for butter? It costs 40/- a cwt. to market Grade A bacon in Britain. There is no use in increasing production of milk if the increase means that with every extra gallon there is a further cut in an already uneconomic price.

Farmers are entitled to a fair crack of the whip and I do not believe they are getting it. I went into this matter as reasonably as I could. I found that from 1951 to 1957, on the production of wheat and feeding barley alone, the farmer has dropped somewhere between £4,500,000 and £5,000,000 in the price he is getting for his product. On the other hand, during that period his rates have gone up by something like 14/- or 15/- in the £ and everything else he has to buy has gone up.

As for this educational service, I was rather amused to read in the paper to-day about Senator Ahern's cows. Some genius made out that it was the grass produced from all those fertilisers was the cause of setting the cows crazy. In East Cork we have another way of putting that. He was advised to get rid of those fertilisers and go back to natural grass. Which is right? If all the cows in the country are to go "daft" after these fertilisers, the farmers will be obliged to have a special insurance policy for milking them.

I do not think it just or fair that we should have that reduction in the farmer's income at a period when the farmer's costs are steadily increasing. We come along with a glorious gesture and tell him he can go to the Agricultural Credit Corporation for a loan. Is there any Agricultural Credit Corporation in Europe who would give the farmers the £4,000,000 a year by which their prices have been cut? Look at the treatment meted out to other sections of the community. We turn over the Estimates here and find £400,000 and £500,000 being offered on a platter to some fellow to come in here and make hooks and eyes on condition that he exports them abroad. There is that treatment for one section of the community and this for another. It is neither just not fair to the ordinary farmer.

I appeal to the Minister to come forward now and give us a definite agricultural policy. Tell us plainly: "We have too much wheat, we do not want any more, cut it down. We have too much butter, cut it down. We have too much barley, cut it down." Let us know exactly where we stand instead of this attitude of penalising production. It is a wrong policy. If another emergency arises we shall find ourselves back in the self-same position we were in in 1945, 1946 and 1947. There is this difference, that we will not have the ordinary small farmer coming to the rescue and growing the bread for us.

I should like to comment on the attitude of other industries towards agriculture. For the past 30 years, as long as I have been in this House, we have been listening to appeals here year after year for increased production, particularly in wheat. In the Estimates each year, a large amount of taxpayers' money has been voted for research councils and so on. Surely, during the past six years, the Governments should have known we were reaching a period when the farmers would produce our full requirements in wheat. Why, then, have we the extraordinary position that the industrial and manufacturing people have fallen down on their side of the job?

The enormous combination of millers and bakers say we cannot have an all-Irish loaf but must be satisfied with what is not an all-Irish loaf. I would advise Deputies interested in this to look up the official Dáil reports for 1946, when this country was crying and begging for bread from foreign nations. Look at the replies received then and compare that with the present situation. It is extraordinary that all Irish wheat produced a satisfactory loaf in 1946 and 1947 and cannot do it now. I am relying on the published statements made here by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass. It was in the Official Report, if anyone wishes to read it. That was good enough for the Irish people in 1946, and we have spent a few million pounds since on research and standards, so surely we should be able to finish the job.

We paid £3,400,000 from January to December last for foreign wheat to feed the Irish people and £3,500,000 more for animal feeding stuffs. That is £7,000,000 which should be the property of the Irish farmer. He has not got it and evidently he is not going to get it. If there is to be a revision of policy in that direction, we should demand a revision of policy in other directions as well. We have no intention of subsidising the production of fertilisers. If the market is not there for us, the market is not there in fertilisers for Gouldings either. If we have to cut down on production, I suggest the Irish farmers' first cut should be on fertilisers and then he will have less and a smaller surplus to suffer a cut in price.

Mr. Crotty

I listened to the Minister this morning and his statement took only ten or 15 minutes. He is in full control of the Department and is the accepted adviser of the Government on agricultural policy. I remember that in 1948, I listened to him speak for four hours on agriculture, when he was in opposition and was not adviser to the Government. To-day he is satisfied with ten or 15 minutes and even then he did not go very deeply into the policy of the present Government.

Deputy Corry, who has just finished, said that the policy of the Minister and the Government on agriculture is "daft." Could anyone imagine a very prominent supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party, a man recognised as in the running for the position of Minister for Agriculture, stating here that the policy of the Fianna Fáil Minister and Government on agriculture is "daft"? That is the greatest condemnation that could be uttered of this Government. If it came from me or some other Opposition member, one would say it was biassed and antagonistic to the Government and that it did not see the good points in the Government's policy. Coming from a Deputy who has been here for many years, a prominent spokesman of the Government, it seems very strange. That is his opinion and I have no doubt it is the opinion of many farmers. If the Minister's speech were made 12 months ago, we would have accepted it, as he would have been only two or three months in office and would have been bringing in an Estimate prepared by his predecessors and could not be expected to make many material changes in a month or two. However, after 12 or 15 solid months in the Department, one must expect something more than we had this morning.

Since the present Government came in, prices in general have increased substantially. The cost of living has gone up by nine points. Bread, flour, butter and other things have increased in price. Other sections of the community—the workers and others—have been compensated during that time for those increases. The cost of living increases must have borne equally on the farmers as on other workmen, business men, company directors and civil servants. Only recently civil servants were granted by the Minister for Finance an increase of £250,000 to cover increases in the cost of living brought about by the deliberate action of the Government in removing the subsidies in the Budget of 1957.

The only one who has not got compensation is the farmer. Indeed, instead of getting compensation, he is being asked to stand a reduction in four very important items—wheat, barley, butter and pigs. It has been suggested that, in order to balance the Budget this year, the Minister called on the creamery suppliers to take a reduction of 1d. per gallon for milk so that he might have £1,000,000 more in the coffers of the State. The farmers have to stand that. Instead of getting an increase, as other sections did, they had to make a contribution towards the Budget.

There was, too, a cut in the double byre grant. When that was first announced, the Minister thought to push that over on his predecessor. He did not know then that the precedent was established here that, if something is brought out in public here and there is a file in the Department dealing with the matter, that file must be produced. In this instance, the file was produced and it was clearly shown that the Minister's predecessor had nothing whatever to do with the matter. It was solely and simply the action of the present Minister, in consultation with his Government.

No wonder there has been a reduction of 10,000 in the numbers working on the land in the past year. If the farmers are not given the money to enable them to employ labour, how can they be expected to increase employment? In answer to a question last March, the Taoiseach stated there was a reduction of 10,000 in the numbers working on the land.

There has not been one word about land reclamation in the Minister's speech. That was one of the greatest boons ever brought to this country. It was due to Deputy Dillon but, being known as the Dillon Plan, that was enough to damn it in the eyes of the Minister and his Government. He did not say one word to-day about land reclamation, and land reclamation has been responsible for the enormous increase in agricultural production.

Last year, there was a great deal of flag waving during the Budget debate. It was stated that £250,000 had been allocated by the Government for the purpose of finding new markets for agricultural produce. To-day, 12 months later, we find that a mere £900 has been spent. That money could have been put to good advantage in finding markets for surplus agricultural produce.

Last January, the Minister announced a reduction of 5/- per cwt. in the price of pigs, to take place in July next. Were it not for the fact that his predecessor had made a stipulation that farmers and pig producers should get six months' notice that reduction would have taken place immediately. At the moment the price of pigs has gone up considerably. Not so long ago, there was a very big difference between Grades A, B and C bacon—in some factories, 60/- to 80/- per cwt. People sold pigs about ten stone in weight and the most they received for them was about £10. It was impressed upon them that they must produce Grade A bacon. Grades B, C or X were not wanted.

I wonder what the farmers must think of the position of the bacon industry at the moment. They were told they must produce Grade A bacon, that they would ruin the industry if they did not. We could not export Grades B and C. Now, when there is a demand for bacon, the people producing pigs are getting practically the same money for Grades A, B and C. A friend of mine who sent a considerable number of pigs to the factory within the past week received 240/- per cwt. for Grade C bacon. The Department should have some control in this. They are the people who should direct the marketing of this bacon, and it is not right for the Minister to advise, on the one hand, that one must have Grade A pigs only and Grades B and C will be cut very substantially when, in a few months, the demand goes up and one gets the same price for Grades B and C as one gets for Grade A. It would appear that it is demand that controls the position, and not quality.

If the price of Grade B pigs is pushed up, then the price of Grade A should be pushed up as well to ensure that producers would continue to aim at producing Grade A bacon. There is no purpose in producing Grade A pigs, whether by reducing the feed in the last fortnight or something else when he gets the same price for Grades B and C. A few months hence, if there is a surplus of bacon, we shall have the same procedure again. What the markets want is a regular supply of a good quality graded article, irrespective of whether the demand is small or good.

We had a very big surplus of wheat this year. I put the blame for that on the Government. It is they who created this surplus by discouraging the production of feeding barley. Deputy Corry has dealt fairly extensively with that, but I think I should follow him a certain distance. The first year this Government came into office, they cut the guaranteed price of feeding barley by 3/- per barrel and, instead of getting 43/- for barley bushelling 23, one got only 40/- for barley bushelling 20. Although the requirements of barley were not met in full last year, the Government have adopted the same approach this year and there is a further reduction in the guaranteed price of barley. This year it is down to 37/-, and that is 37/- for barley bushelling 20, a reduction of 10/- per barrel under this Government.

What do we find? At the present time, Grain Importers Limited, are charging close on £3 per barrel for feeding barley to the farmers and pig producers. Now, £3 per barrel at the moment is no good to the barley grower. He wants the price when he is cutting the barley, in the harvest time. Very few farmers have the way or the means of carrying over their barley crop into the Spring. It is an advantage to Grain Importers Limited to get that price now, but there is no point, in my opinion, in cutting down one year after another on the price of barley. The Minister should have continued his predecessor's price and, if a surplus was produced, there might then be some point in having a reduction. We have not had a surplus in barley for a number of years and we have had to import other feeding stuffs to fill the gap. It is hard to understand that policy.

One of the first acts of the Government in their first Budget was to increase the price of butter by 7d. per lb., thereby reducing consumption. According to the Minister's statement, we are the second largest consumers of butter in the world. The Government is trying to make us a much larger consumer of margarine than of butter and at the moment, when there is a glut of butter all over the world, we have to export much more butter than we would in the normal way, had the Minister not interfered with the subsidy. The Irish consumer of butter was not subsidised to the extent of 7d. per lb. but the English consumer is now subsidised by the Irish taxpayer to the extent of over 2/- per lb.

This year, for the first time for many years, the guaranteed price for wheat was withdrawn. Up to this, the farmers knew, when sowing the wheat, the price they would receive when it was harvested. That guarantee has been withdrawn by the Government. The farmers will not know that price they will get, until the Minister or his officials make an estimate of the likely yield in July. That is a very bad principle. If the Government feel that there is too much wheat in the country and that a reduction is necessary, they should make the decision early in the year and not wait until farmers have sown the crops.

We do not want to see again farmers having to crave somebody, having to go to the millers or brewers with samples of barley. We did that long enough. It was a grand thing for the farmers to have stability of price and to know that they could sell their crop. They should not be put back in the old position of having to go with their samples to this one and to that one, to give a hand-over here and a hand-over there to get their barley accepted. It is coming very like it when that guarantee has been withdrawn. The farmers have to tolerate weather conditions and many other things. The crops may not be coming on as they should be. At least, they should be promised a guaranteed price when the crop is ready for marketing.

This year, the sheep trade has suffered a set-back. The Government have allotted so much money for the promotion of markets and it is felt that they should try to recapture the market which existed some years ago in France for the export of lambs and thereby stabilise the price of lambs on the home market and stabilise the price of sheep. This Government seem to be complacent in every respect and do not seem to be bothering about markets. They are very lucky that the price of cattle has held and is rising, but that is no thanks to the Government. The Government would not bother as to whether the price went up or down. In spite of all the reductions the farmers have had to suffer in respect of wheat, barley, butter and pigs, there has been an increased tax on machinery. The farmers have had to subsidise the manufacture of machinery in this country and to pay out of their reduced prices this year for the purchase of new machinery.

Exports of agricultural produce have risen from £39,000,000 in 1947 to £90,000,000 in 1957 and the Minister should direct his Department to look for markets for sheep or lambs in France at the present time.

The National Farmers' Organisation over the past few years have started to improve marketing of cattle by opening auction marts. That has been done at very heavy expense and in a very enterprising way all over the country. Having tried to improve marketing conditions of cattle, they find that they are not allowed to use their own lorries to bring cattle to the marts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Minister any responsibility in that matter?

Mr. Crotty

He has. He could advise the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a matter for another Minister.

Mr. Crotty

The Minister for Agriculture would be more interested in this matter than the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I am sure that it is on the advice of the Minister for Agriculture that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would act. I am suggesting to the Minister that he give that advice to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the matter could be put to the Minister for Industry and Commerce during the debate on his Estimate.

Mr. Crotty

I will put it to him but I want to get the support of the Minister for Agriculture when I do put it to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The mart committees are being hampered every day by people inquiring who brought in the cattle and what lorries were used. In Kilkenny, if one wants a C.I.E. lorry, one has to bring it 30 miles from Athy, where they are based. The lorries have to go from farm to farm collecting three cattle here, four there and two somewhere else. They would need a guide to know where to go.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how the point can be debated on this Estimate. It does not arise on the Estimate for Agriculture.

Mr. Crotty

It does.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It arises on another Estimate—the Estimate for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Crotty

It arises in this way, that it is a question of improved marketing conditions and the Minister spoke about improved marketing conditions. These people are trying to improve marketing conditions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy could argue very widely on that point. The point appertaining to lorries does not arise on this Estimate.

General MacEoin

On a point of order, the Deputy is arguing that, if the farmers were permitted to use their own lorries, distibution costs would be reduced.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That point would be relevant on the Estimate, but the point that Deputy Crotty makes about regulations in respect of lorries is one for another Minister.

Mr. Crotty

I may have gone a bit far on the point, but all I am asking the Minister is to advise the Minister for Industry and Commerce. A creamery can send out its own lorry to collect milk and to return the skimmed milk. Likewise, special permission is given for the collection of wheat at harvest time to wheat assemblers to use their lorries and employ lorries to bring in wheat. The same should apply in the case of cattle being brought to and from marts.

I would ask the Minister to give stability to the farmers. The farmers have proved their worth over the past ten years. There were 16 years of Fianna Fáil Government up to 1947 and the exports of agricultural produce at that time stood at £39,000,000. Since the change of Government, since a new outlook was brought to agriculture, these exports increased to £90,000,000. I would ask the Minister, if he has any policy, to frame that policy and to give it to us when he is concluding. The main thing is to give stability to the farmers so that they may know, when they are sowing, what price they will get when the crop is harvested.

Mr. Wycherley

It is a source of satisfaction to all of us to know that our financial position is improving and that our exports are increasing. It is, indeed, very gratifying that the farming community have increased production to such an extent in such a very short period.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Wycherley

Now that Deputy Corry and Deputy Crotty have succeeded in securing a quorum I hope I shall be able to treat them to something good.

Mr. Smith

In emptying the House?

Mr. Wycherley

I am rather surprised at the lack of interest in this Vote.

Mr. Crotty

The House was just as empty for the Minister this morning. There were six Fianna Fáil Deputies behind him when he was making his speech.

Mr. Smith

The members of the Opposition are so satisfied, and trust me to such an extent, that they cannot see their way to spend a few hours here during the discussion on agriculture.

General MacEoin

Maybe we could count the House again.

Mr. Wycherley

I am sure the Minister was quite pleased in making the statement this morning that he had increased his Estimate by £2,500,000 as compared with 1957-58. Looking over the Estimate, I find that it falls very far short of the Estimate away back in 1952 when the total amount voted for Agriculture was £13,621,000. The value of money has decreased enormously over that time and no other Estimate shows such a reduction over that period as the Estimate for Agriculture. In looking at the Book of Estimates one would think that agriculture was not really as important an industry as we all claim it to be. The amount of money voted, while it may show an increase this year, is relatively small compared to the Estimates under other heads and compared to what it was in 1951 and 1952.

Notwithstanding the decrease in the amount of money allocated for agriculture the farmers have succeeded in producing £90,000,000 worth of our exports out of a total of £131,000,000. If figures count for anything that should be sufficient to make all of us realise that the future of this country depends on what the Irish farmer can produce. It is up to us in this House to see that he gets every encouragement and every protection. There is no use in shouting here or in shouting down the country: "Increase production", unless there is a sound marketing system to cater for our agricultural produce. This greatly increased agricultural production cannot be brought about without increased capital expenditure. The lack of capital was the great drawback all down the years. No matter what Deputy Dillon may have said here this morning about the necessity for capital, I have no doubt that if more capital were thrown into Irish agriculture all down the years, we could compete with any country in the world with our agricultural produce.

We must realise that we cannot have capital development without credit, especially for the small farmer. The change over which is taking place needs a tremendous amount of capital. If a man is to buy modern machinery, it means the investment of at least £1,000 or perhaps up to £2,000 in some cases. Unless he is able to procure that money at a reasonable rate of interest and is assured of a ready market for his produce afterwards, we cannot expect much progress. I appreciate what is being done by the new marketing committee. I hope for the best and that the Minister will help them to secure the markets so essential to us all. If we can market our produce in any country in the world, even at a subsidised rate, we shall be doing a good job of work.

From the figures for artificial insemination last year. I notice that the shorthorn breed of cattle is very much on the downward trend. Of the total number of cattle inseminated, 351,539, only 87,505 were of the shorthorn type. The production of beef is a far greater attraction nowadays than the production of milk and the breeding of Herefords and blacks holds a greater future than the production of milk. I come from an area which is a traditional dairying area and where the shorthorn breed of cattle thrived all down the years. They are looked upon as the mother breed, so to speak, of the whole cattle population of that area. I would be very sorry indeed if the shorthorn breed of cattle were to lose their importance as the foundation cattle of this country. In most areas, for producing milk and producing a good store, it is very hard to beat the good type of shorthorn cow.

When I speak of the good type of shorthorn, I do not mean some of the breed which came in from England and which did not give such satisfactory results. I speak of the old breed of shorthorn cow, the older breed which was developed and kept by our ancestors down the years. It produced a good deal of milk and it was a good store beast, whether it was a polled Angus or a Hereford.

With the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, I can foresee a great scarcity of this very valuable breed in my area. Should they become so scarce that there will not be sufficient numbers of them, I wonder where our future cattle exports are to come from. I am sure the vast majority of our cattle exports are bred from the shorthorn cow. Whether they are Hereford or Polled Angus, they are the foundation in the dairying districts and everything possible should be done to maintain that breed. The Minister for the Gaeltacht did bring in a scheme, Scéim na Muc, for the Gaeltacht and before the eradication of bovine tuberculosis is completed in the poorer areas, the Minister for Agriculture will need to do something to preserve the foundation stock of this country, the shorthorn cow.

Deputies from other areas may not see eye to eye with me in this respect. They are more interested in the all-out dairy breeds, but if we went all out for the dairy breeds three years ago, our Government to-day would be faced with a far greater problem than they are faced with in subsidising our butter exports in the English market. We are very fortunate that we did not lose our heads and go all out, as we were advised to do by many men in high positions, for the all-dairy breeds which were to flood the English markets with butter in the same fashion as we drowned them in eggs.

Mr. O'Malley

Only two Fine Gael Deputies are present now, no one from the Labour Party and no Independent Deputies.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Wycherley

A Milk Costing Commission was set up several years ago to inquire into the cost of producing a gallon of milk. The report of that commission was published several months ago, but the extraordinary thing about the report was that seven of the eight members signed a document repudiating any confidence in that report. They decried the truth of the whole thing at a time when the dairy farmers were expecting an increase for their milk. I do not know if that went home forcibly to the dairy farmers, but it was published in the Irish Press and the Irish Farmers' Journal at the time, that those men did not stand for the truth of the report.

Notwithstanding that, I was very sorry that the Minister did see fit to reduce the price of milk knowing as I do that no farmer has yet made profit out of milk production. I know from experience, and from my childhood days, that if the production of milk was paid for, having regard to the man hours entailed, they would be very much at a loss. The production of milk by the farmers in the county from which I come is not carried on for the sake of the milk alone. There are other factors which govern it. It has been traditional for generations to produce milk, to produce pigs, poultry, turkeys and eggs. Unfortunately, we have to rely on those small sidelines to maintain a reasonable standard of living which, indeed, is very moderate and very low compared with the standards in other societies.

I know that when our esteemed Bishop of Cork goes down to West Cork he always strikes a very strong note on the subject in that area. When he goes to other areas, South Cork or East Cork, where there is good land, he does not speak in the same terms. When I speak as a West Cork man, and when Dr. Lucey speaks in West Cork in those terms, I think they are words that should be considered in the light of the manner in which they are spoken, because they are applicable really to those congested areas and do not apply to the other areas where big farmers can make a living in a different fashion.

It is very hard to understand the great difference that exists between the different areas. One would need to travel to realise the vast differences in the ways of making a living in the various parts of the country. Reducing the price of milk at this time, when the cost of the bovine tuberculosis scheme is going to be a great burden on the small farmer especially, will have a serious effect on those who are trying to eke out a mere existence on those small dairy holdings. I hope the Minister did not take the milk costings which were turned out by the Milk Costings Commission too seriously and base his prices on that report because other technical experts who went into the figures had no hesitation in saying that the cost of producing a gallon of milk was 1/10.

I said before, but it is no harm to say it again, that what is necessary for our agriculture is a long term policy, if it can be brought about. In framing such a policy it is necessary to talk with our customers abroad, in France, Britain, Scotland and Wales. If they can assure us that they have a market for our products I have no hesitation in saying that in the next ten years we can again double our production of these products as we did over the last few years. The farmers are not geared to full production. They are afraid to do that lest prices would slump when increased production came on the market. That happened in the case of pigs, eggs and turkeys and in the case of practically every commodity except cattle.

We should concentrate therefore as much as possible on increased cattle production for the export market and we must base those exports on dairy cattle. The trade is too valuable to risk cutting the price of milk because, when we do so, we lose the confidence of the dairy farmers and we lose the cattle population which is so vital to our economy. Without exports we cannot import, as otherwise we could not balance our payment. Fortunately that balance was achieved this year through our cattle and I hope that balance will continue.

In West Cork we had a very flourishing industry some years ago, the flax industry. I see that the acreage has dropped to an insignificant figure. The flax industry brought more wealth in its time into my constituency than many another industry although some Deputies may not be familiar with it. It is unfortunate that such an industry has been allowed to dwindle and eventually die. If the Minister for Agriculture would confer with his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I think some good could be extracted from such an industry. The raw material is produced in soil which is very suitable. We can produce the best flax in Europe in my constituency, but the mils are now idle; so are the ponds, and most of the men who made a profitable living out of flax have emigrated. Before the art of growing flax and saving it dies completely, some serious step should be taken by the Government to develop an industry based on flax as its raw material.

Deputy Briscoe is returning from America with plans for some industries one of which, I am informed, is chewing gum. I do not know where he will get the raw material for that but we can produce the raw material for the great industry of making good Irish linen from Irish flax. This would give good employment in rural Ireland if the matter were tackled seriously and if Government finance were forthcoming, or even if outside interests were induced to support it. We hear much talk about capital from America, Holland and elsewhere but if we can get capital from an Irish linen industry it will be a great asset to West Cork and will help to maintain a declining population. I hope something will come of this because the tradition and the skill are there and the anxiety to live in their native place is still deeply enshrined in the hearts of the people of the area.

I do not think we have any reason to become excited over our butter exports. We produce less than 50,000 tons of butter altogether and 35,000 tons of that, I presume, are consumed at home. I am glad we can afford that; I am pleased that we are the greatest butter-eating population in Europe because we can get no better food. The amount of butter we have for export is negligible. Possibly we can send 7,000 or 8,000 tons to feed our fellow-countrymen in the North and the remainder goes to Britain. I feel that we should not lose our head about that. Instead of reducing the price of milk by a ld. a gallon, I would strongly recommend the Minister to increase it by a ld. and so give an inducement to dairy farmers to increase the production of milk, cattle and pigs. I would also ask him to guarantee such prices that poultry-keepers producing turkeys for next Christmas will at least get a reasonable return for their labours.

"The past year," said the Minister, "has seen a further rise in agricultural production and exports." How delighted we should be at that, but some people seem to think it is a burden to have this extra production. I could not agree with Deputy Corry who advises the farmers to reduce production because if they do, the same thing will happen as happened in regard to potatoes and every other commodity the production of which will be reduced. It happened with pigs. It is far better for every section of the community to have prices stabilised. It is no use getting £13 per cwt. for pigs to-day when we got only £8 a month ago. What we want is more stability so that when we invest our money in any line of agricultural production we will be assured of a reasonable return for it.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 20th, 1958.