Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1958

Vol. 171 No. 11

Private Members' Business. - Price of Milk—Motion.

Mr. Wycherley

I move:—

That, in view of the national importance of the dairying industry, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the price of milk supplied to creameries should be increased to cover the increased cost of production.

As far as I am concerned this motion is of far greater importance to the people I represent than the Bill which is getting so much publicity in this House for the past week. The price of milk to the dairy farmers of this country is of far greater significance than that Bill. It is very important that we should know what the price will be next year and the years to come because if the price is not improved there will be no one in rural Ireland left to vote one way or the other. I come from an area which has suffered very much from depopulation, an area which has its whole economy built on the dairying industry, with pigs, poultry and a few store cattle.

After the severe year we have passed through; after the severe harvest, the bad weather and the low prices which we got for our milk, I see a very dark cloud hanging over the small farmers of Ireland who are dependent on the dairying industry for their future livelihood. I come, therefore, before this House to-night in the hope, and with a certain amount of confidence, that I shall convince the Government that at the moment a serious crisis exists in this country as regards the dairy farmers. The levy of 17/- per cwt. which they paid on the export of butter this year meant a reduction of approximately £1,000,000 in their income. The reduction in the production of milk meant another £1,000,000 loss to them and the serious weather conditions, together with the high cost of production, also meant a considerable loss.

Much time has been spent discussing how we are to compensate the wheat growers for the great losses they sustained, and I now understand that negotiations are pending between the Minister for Agriculture, An Bord Gráin and the National Farmers' Association, as to how to compensate them for their losses. I understand that they are to receive back the 5/9 levy retained from them. The wheat growers have made their case and I feel it my duty to make the case, as best I can, on behalf of the unfortunate dairy farmers whose losses are far greater, and are of greater significance to the economy of the country than the losses sustained by the wheat growers.

I sincerely hope that the Minister for Agriculture will seriously consider the arguments I am putting forward to-night on their behalf, and that he will compensate the dairy farmers also. I may start by pointing to the levy of 17/- per cwt. on butter which they had to pay to subsidise the English market. I had great hopes in the early part of this year when I spoke during the debate on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture. I listened to the Minister saying that we had no option but to sell butter below its economic price, because of the entirely uneconomic price obtainable in the export market. We had no option but to support the export price as was done for many years before the last war. That was the position that obtained for many years before the last war but it was only this year that the dairy farmer himself, who was the mainstay of the whole economy of the country, had to bear the brunt of the export subsidy on butter.

If we have not the exports where will we be? I gave my advice during that debate and I remind the Minister of what I said on that occasion. I stated:—

"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."

I made that statement on the 11th May this year, and how true it was, because we have a position to-day in which our cattle exports are declining.

Our cattle exports are considerably down in value from last year. They have decreased in value from £44,595,862 to £39,558,136, and that is a very disturbing factor for the country's economy. If there is a further reduction I wonder where will we get the money to buy the raw materials necessary for our industries? It is a very serious thing when we reduce our exports of cattle, and it is even more serious when, at the present time, our production of butter has decreased considerably over the past 12 months.

When I read some of the articles printed in those booklets issued recently, entitled "Economic Development", I wonder whether any practical man at all is at the head of affairs in framing the policy of the country. This is what was said in this little book called "Economic Development", but which I would say is more in the line of economic destruction:—

"The principle to be aimed at in the disposal of milk is that production above home requirements should be disposed of, in whatever form, at the best price obtainable on the export market without State subsidy. Since our competitors in the British market now subsidise their dairying exports to a greater or lesser degree, this ideal may not be attainable in the immediate future but the subsidy must be kept to a minimum and should be used to the best advantage, which is not necessarily to subsidise butter exports."

If we follow the line we are taking I am afraid we will not have the butter to subsidise for export, and that will be a far more serious position for us to face than having the butter. When we have it we should thank God for it because, when we have not got it, we will have nothing.

Our production of butter has decreased this year from 928,218 cwts. to 904,858 cwts., that is up to the 15th November. That is a very serious position to be in and it means a reduction in the production of butter to the extent of 23,360 cwts. In addition, we have reached a new low level in the amount of butter held in cold storage. At the present time there are only 170,516 cwts. in cold storage as against 240,001 cwts. at the same period last year and, if the rate of decrease continues, we shall be faced in a very short time with the necessity to import butter from New Zealand and the far ends of the earth, a position that we were in only a few short years ago.

When I read some of the statements in this little booklet, Programme for Economic Expansion, which was printed for our information, I wonder what we are coming to at all. In one paragraph it says:—

"During the past 100 years the number of milch cows has remained virtually stationary at around 1,200,000."

That is the system obtaining over the past 100 years, but the wishful thinking of some genius says:—

"An annual increase of 50,000 cows accompanied by an annual increase in yields even of only ten gallons per cow would at the end of five years quadruple the amount of milk surplus to home requirements. On the basis of present export prices and subsidy arrangements, this would entail an Exchequer subsidy of some £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 per annum."

It is frightening to think that we have to subsidise to the extent of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000, but it is more frightening, and it should be more upsetting to the Minister and the Government, that in the year 1958, our dairy products instead of increasing, are being drastically reduced, and our cattle numbers are decreasing. Wishful thinking such as is in that book will not increase the output from the dairy farmers. Something more practical is needed. Hard work and industry must be the keynote in developing the economy of the country. I have no hesitation in saying, as I have said before, that the whole future economy of this country must be based on the dairy industry. Without it, we would have a sorry tale to tell over the years, because it was our exports of store cattle, fat cattle and various cattle products that saved the situation.

Having dealt with the cattle side, I shall now turn to the dairy products themselves. I got the latest available figures in answer to a parliamentary question to-day. They prove the importance of the dairy industry to this country. It is an industry which gives tremendous employment. It gives more employment than all the other industries put up in this country with State subsidy and aid. In addition to supplying our own requirements at home, we had an export this year of £8,624,970. I did not get that total to-day. The total I got to-day was £4,640,095, but chocolate crumb was not included in to-day's reply. I appreciate that it may not come under the heading of dairy products, but I really think that the dairy industry is a very solid basis for the export of chocolate crumb. Without the dairy industry, we would not have the export of chocolate crumb and I am pleased to state that our exports of chocolate are very much on the increase.

Unfortunately, that cannot be said of our exports of cheese. Our exports of cheese have dropped by over 50 per cent. in the last 12 months. While, in 1957, we exported cheese to the approximate value of £20,000, we imported cheese to the value of over £30,000. I cannot see any sense in that position, and I should like to know why it should obtain in this country. Is the cheese produced here not sufficiently good for our own people? I eat it at every opportunity, whenever I feel like it, and I think it is second to none. There must be some underhand work by which the imported cheese is getting pride of place in the shops of this country and is being sold by the shopkepeers in preference to Irish cheese. It is a regrettable state of affairs that the sale of a foreign product—in my opinion, far inferior to our own—is being pushed in Irish shops in preference to our own cheese, which is of excellent standard. I can recommend it to our own people and our people abroad as being of first quality.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is widening the scope of the motion very much.

Mr. Wycherley

It is a very wide motion because the price of milk is so important. If the farmer does not get a better price for his milk, he will be obliged to reduce the number of his cows. I have pointed out the consequences to the country if that should be brought about. I know some genius here recommends in this book that the farmers in the Midlands should put calves under cows. Single suckle calves were sold in the Dublin cattle market at £35 apiece. I saw it for myself. I should not like to be the man to recommend that type of farming to the cattle ranchers in the Midlands, unless they have a very good bank account. The cost of the dropped calf was at least £25, so the man's profit for the year from his cow was a mere £10 note.

An Ceann Comhairle

This motion seems to me to mean that the price of milk supplied to creameries should be increased to cover the cost of production. It does not allow the Deputy to travel over all the methods of dairy farming and farming in general.

Mr. Wycherley

The point I am making is that the dairy farmers I am acquainted with are for the most part small farmers with an average of about eight cows per farm. If they do not get an economic price for their milk and go in for single suckle dairying, their net profit from the eight cows would be roughly £80. How, in the name of heavens, could the farmer with eight cows maintain his wife and family, feed and clothe them, on £80 of a net income?

We are all very well aware over the past year of the high cost of living, but most people were very well compensated for it. But the dairy farmer suffered a very serious reduction in his income, a reduction of 1d. a gallon on his milk. In addition to that, he suffered a reduction in a decreased output of milk from his cows as a result of the bad weather. The future does not seem to be very bright. Because of the bad hay crop, the bad root crop and the bad grain crop, the cost of maintaining a dairy herd during this coming winter will be frightening to any man who wants to maintain a decent herd of cattle. If farmers want to save their cows from dying, they will be compelled to buy very valuable food, the bills for which will be frightening because of the serious position they are in with regard to feeding stuffs. It is important then that the Minister should come to this House now before it is too late and make a statement.

What I am saying may be unpopular here in Dublin where we have 30 T.D.s all hoping to get their butter and milk as cheaply as possible, but I have a duty to the people of rural Ireland, a duty to the unfortunates who have gone through such a trying time. I feel that I am only pushing an open door when I tell the Minister that there is a grave necessity to do something for the people now, the people who have suffered so much during the past year. I know it would be a very unpopular thing indeed for any man living in a city or town to stand up and support my viewpoint because the cost of butter and milk is so very great, but look at what it will cost the country if our cows die of hunger because the farmers will not feed them. It would cost the country far more because the whole economy would be upset if we have nothing to export and our exports depend on the dairy cow. No matter what course we may take, the dairy cow traditionally is the essence and foundation of Irish farming.

We may try to change the pattern which has obtained in this country down the years. We may try to induce the Midlands to go in for a system of the single suckle dairy cow, but that is not going to work overnight. From the time the dairy man in the Midlands gets his dairy heifer it will be at least three years before he has anything to export. How many farmers in the Midlands could afford to wait three years, compared with the usual practice where a farmer went down the country and bought a little yearling from the dairy farmer, often at his own price, but in any case it suited him and the economy of the country, and it is important that a statement be made now so that some confidence will grow up in the dairy farming industry which at present is in a very low condition.

Unless something is done, I can assure the Minister that a very serious position will arise. I cannot stop it and I know that the Minister will have a big job to stop it, but it is his duty and his responsibility and the responsibility of the Government, because once the rot sets in and the farmers go out of cows, because of the uneconomic price of milk, it will be too late to try to bring them back and revive an industry which is dying.

I think we were too anxious altogether to get rid of our surplus butter last year. Butter is a very important commodity and I notice that the price is increasing week after week on the English market. We are in a far more favourable position to export and subsidise our butter on the English market than either New Zealand, Denmark, Holland or any other country. They are primarily dairying countries. They go in very extensively for dairying, but they are more dependent on their butter exports to England than we are. Deputies may bemoan the fact that we pay more than a couple of million pounds to John Bull for eating our butter. I think a somewhat similar reference was made here even to-day. I certainly do not bemoan it. I consider that we are doing a good day's work in subsidising the export of our butter in order to get the dairying industry over a crisis and so that its products may compete favourably with the products of other countries.

Even if we are subsidising butter to the extent of a couple of million pounds a year—let it go to £3,000,000 or £4,000,000—we are still in the happy position that we are getting far more back in return because of the feeder subsidy which the English Government is paying on our store cattle for feeding purposes. The more milk we produce, the more cattle we have for export and the more British subsidy we will get, and we should not on any account begrudge what we are paying in subsidies when we will reap far more in the reward.

I asked a question myself on that subject but I was unable to get correct figures. I doubt if anybody could and I do not blame the Minister for not giving them to me. The fact remains that if we can export 1,000,000 store cattle to England, at a subsidy of £15 a beast, we will be getting a very substantial amount of the £15,000,000 back to help the Irish people balance their economy and get money into circulation to buy the necessary goods to keep the wheels of industry going. It would be a very short-sighted policy for the Government or the Minister to hamper in any way the production of more milk and more butter. The more we have of it, the better we should like it. I hope I will see the day, although I do not expect to, when our butter production will be trebled and our export of butter will also be trebled, even at the cost of subsidising it, so long as we get the benefit of that subsidy which is so beneficial to the Irish cattle trade.

Great stress is laid in this little book on more efficient production of milk. It says that if the dairy farmer could be more efficient and could produce more cheaply, he would be able to sell his milk more cheaply. I wonder to how many more concerns would the very same argument apply. I hold that the dairy farmer in his own-way of life is just as efficient as those in any other industry.

I see another note which I have made here to the effect that the subsidisation of agricultural products must come, in the main, from the agricultural industry as a whole. The agricultural industry as a whole has been the backbone of this country. Out of £120,000,000 worth of exports last year, over £90,000,000 worth was agricultural produce and the more we have, the better it will be for the country.

I think I have said sufficient, I hope, to convince the Minister of the absolute and immediate necessity for a statement which will ensure that there will be a substantial increase in the price of milk in the coming year.

This book says that there may be ground for retaining temporarily a measure of subsidisation for butter and bacon. I hate that word "temporarily" in that book, because it gives rise to such fear and uncertainty in the minds of the dairy farmers. They do not know what the future may hold for them. If the farmer goes to the fair to buy a heifer he does not buy her on a temporary basis; he buys her as a heifer to last for eight or nine years.

I want the Minister to assure the farmers now that if they keep their dairy cows and go to the expense—it will be tremendous—of eliminating bovine T.B. from our cattle they will have his support and the support of the Government. I have no doubt but that they will have the support of every section of the Irish people that understands the magnitude of the job confronting the dairy farmers at present. Eradication of bovine T.B. which has cost England £100,000,000 up to date is a matter of such major importance to this country that I——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling away from the motion which deals with the price of milk.

Mr. Wycherley

The price of milk is so closely associated with the eradication Of bovine T.B. that it is almost impossible to separate them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not travel over the whole field of agriculture on this motion which is specific and deals with the price of milk.

Mr. Wycherley

If the dairy farmer does not get an increase in the price of milk what hope has he of going to the expense of getting rid of bovine T.B.? I see no future unless there is some great step forward in that direction. The number of heifers in calf is at a new low level and if the dairy cows that have been producing milk for the past few years are to be eliminated from the herds I see no hope of replacing them in the immediate future with T.B. free in-calf heifers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion deals with the price of milk, not the volume of milk.

Mr. Wycherley

The price of milk is so closely associated with the price of the cow, the price of the in-calf heifer and of all dairy commodities, chocolate crumb, milk powder, sweetened full cream, ice cream, cream in bulk, and tinned cream that I really think this question is even more important than P.R. because unless the dairy farmers get what I am suggesting—a substantial increase; I shall not mention a figure at present—the number of dairy cows will be drastically reduced and so will the number of in-calf heifers. There will be less butter, less chocolate crumb, less tinned milk, less for export, less bacon and less of everything including fewer cattle.

I said at the outset that I felt I was pushing an open door in appealing to a Minister who comes from County Cavan, the heart of the small-farming community, where he made a living himself. I felt he would be sympathetic, as I expect he will be. I sincerely hope he will give a substantial increase and guarantee it over at least five years. If that is done the dairy farmer will know where he stands and the can go happily about his business with the assurance behind him from the Government that the money he has invested in that industry will not be lost to himself or to the country. The country will gain as a result of his investment in an industry which— to use the Minister's own words—is the very body and soul of the country, the dairying industry.

I strongly appeal for an increase in the price of milk, and I would ask Deputies on all sides of the House to stand behind me in this campaign. It is of greater importance than P.R., or of anything I have known since I came to this House. It should be the unanimous decision of all Parties to have the dairy farmer put on a proper footing by giving him an increase in the price of milk and guaranteeing it for a long period so that he will be able to get rid of bovine T.B. cattle, produce cattle for export, and increase the wealth of the nation. I formally move the motion.

Mr. Finucane

I second this motion and in doing so I should like to point out that the dairy industry is the most important industry in this country. Our cattle exports depend entirely on the dairying industry and on the number of cows maintained by the dairy farmer. It is absolutely essential that the dairy farmer should be given every possible encouragement to ensure that that line of production will be maintained.

From time to time, complaints have been made in this House, by way of questions and otherwise, that the price of milk at creameries is not economic. To my mind, the price of milk is, indeed, uneconomic and now more than ever with the cleaning out of T.B. herds and the extra costs of replacements, surely an increase in the price to the dairy farmer is justified.

Dairy farmers have to work harder than any other section of the community. Cows have to be milked twice a day—seven days a week, Sundays, holydays and even Christmas Day. In addition to milking, cows require care and stall-feeding for from six to seven months of the year and there is no extra pay or allowance made for overtime to the producer.

Young people growing up on those dairy farms are no longer prepared to accept slave conditions. They are flying from the land into the cities or emigrating to England where they have shorter hours and better pay. If the dairy farmer goes out of production, we will have fewer cattle for export. This would have a very serious effect on our national income.

I ask the Minister to accept this very reasonable motion, and that it should be given every consideration when the price of milk to be paid at creameries for the coming year is being arranged.

Mr. Beirne

I certainly support this motion. It may seem, perhaps, somewhat strange that I should do so, but I live in a dairying area. In part of my constituency, dairying is carried out on a very extensive scale. I know that the people in that area are displeased with the present price of milk which, I understand, is about 1/2 per gallon. I cannot understand how milk can be produced at 1/2 per gallon and there may be some deductions from that price. I think there are deductions for cartage. The net amount the producer receives in my part of the country is 1/- per gallon. I cannot understand how that can be economic for any milk producer in the country.

There is no doubt that in my area —I do not know whether this applies in the south—people are gradually getting out of cows. The reason for that is that the price of milk does not justify the keeping of cows, and farmers are turning over to dry cattle. That is bad. Although I am not a dairying man—I am in the store cattle business—yet I appreciate that the dairy farmer is one of the pillars of our agricultural economy. The day the dairy farmer is dissatisfied with the price he gets for his milk and the day he goes out of milk production will be a bad and sad day for this country.

As Deputy Finucane said, and rightly so, dairy farming is a laborious and tiresome job and involves a big amount of expense. In dealing with the price of milk, you must, I think, associate with it the farmer's expenses —what he has to pay out. This year, above all other years, the farmer experienced a very serious and trying time with bad weather and bad crops. Even his fuel is scarce. Everything one can mention has been more or less disastrous, as far as the farmer is concerned.

This motion could not have been introduced or spoken to in this House at a more appropriate time. I am sure that the Minister himself, coming from a farming area, realises the difficulties of the farmers at the present time. I am one of those people who comes from a clearance area where T.B. testing is almost compulsory and where people are getting their herds tested day after day. While the incidence of T.B. in the constituency is not very high, it has yet taken its toll. Reactor cows have to be sold and replaced. While I may be told that anyone who has to sell a reactor cow will get a fair price and the valuation is reasonable, yet the consequential loss to the farmer is never taken into account. The loss of income suffered by a farmer as a result of selling a reactor cow may be very substantial because he will have to buy another cow at a much higher price and this cow may be very much inferior to the reactor he has sold.

I appeal to the Minister to consider this motion very seriously in this year especially. I suppose I am telling the Minister a lot of things he knows himself. I wish to give the two Deputies who tabled this motion all the support I possibly can. Seeing that the Chamber is almost empty, I can only conclude that there are few Deputies who take an interest in this matter of the price of milk. I, representing the farmers of my constituency, would not be doing my duty if I did not support the farmers in other areas in putting forward a claim for an increase in the price of milk.

I conclude by saying that no one understands the position better than the Minister himself. I know he has difficulties to contend with. I know he has difficulty in extracting funds from his Cabinet to assist the farmers but I know that he is kind and sympathetic and that he will come to the aid of the farmers in one of the worst periods of their history.

Mr. Blowick

Could we not hear something from the Minister, Sir, on this very important motion?

Mr. Smith

There is no set time for the Minister to intervene on a motion.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Good.

Mr. Blowick

That is not a very courteous reception of the motion.

Mr. Moloney

I understood that the next turn went to the Opposition. I was giving Deputy O'Sullivan, who seemed to be anxious to speak, an opportunity of doing so for many reasons. First of all, he has been in this House longer than I and, secondly, he is one of the principal spokesmen for the main Opposition here. I thought his turn would come before mine but now, that I have got to my feet I had better remain on them.

I, as a Fianna Fáil Deputy coming from a dairying area, think there is nothing unreasonable on the face of the motion. It has from me a certain amount of sympathy. It would have a good deal of support from me, if I were satisfied that the Government were in a position to give the necessary subsidy to implement the terms of the motion. It is desirable that on a motion of this kind we should go back some years. Now that the Fianna Fáil Party are the Government and have responsibility for the provision of subsidies, they have to be interested in order to keep the price of milk at the level it is, or, to give an increase such as this motion seeks.

I am very happy to be able to say here that it is the Fianna Fáil Party that have the proud record of striking a fixed price for milk back in 1937. I have gone to the trouble of getting some figures and I find that on that occasion the price of milk stood at 4.54 pence per gallon. It increased gradually every year. In 1938, it was 5.8 pence per gallon and it increased until 1944 when it reached the price of 11.2 pence per gallon.

It went on from that. In 1948, it was 15.02 pence per gallon. That is the average price paid for milk supplied loose to the creameries during that period. During the period we were out of office, from 1948 to 1951, the price remained rather static. There was a slight increase from 1950 to 1951 of from 15.02 pence per gallon to 16.40 pence per gallon. In 1952, it went to 16.94 and by 1954, when we were back in office again, the price had gone to 18.66 pence per gallon.

In 1955, it fell very slightly to 18.55 pence per gallon. In 1956 it remained at the same figure. There was a slight reduction of 0.1. In 1957, it went back slightly again—0.02. In 1958, the first real fall for a number of years occurred. It is not for me here, in the course of my contribution to this debate, to make the case as to why that course was necessary. The Minister himself will be well able to take care of that aspect of the matter and accordingly it is only right that I should leave that to the Minister to explain.

Mr. O'Sullivan

On a point of order, I am loath to interrupt the Deputy, but his figures are very interesting. May I ask the source of the figures?

Mr. Moloney

The figures have been supplied to me and I do not have to give the source from which I got them, but I am prepared to stand over them.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Would the Deputy say who supplied them and where he got them?

Mr. Moloney

I am not obliged to say where I got them. They will be on record and if they happen to be incorrect, they may be queried.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Unfortunately, neither the Deputies nor the movers of the motion on this side of the House have the same facilities of having an official of the Department to supply them with the figures as he has.

Mr. Moloney

I did not say I got the figures from an official of the Department.

Mr. O'Sullivan

We saw the Deputy get them.

Mr. Moloney

The figures are on public record.

Mr. Blowick

On a point of order, it has been alleged that an official of the Department has supplied the Deputy with figures while in the House. I understood that was a privilege only of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries and if such is the case, it is a very gross breach of the privileges of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not aware that the Deputy has been supplied with any figures.

Mr. Blowick

In many cases, when I——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Moloney resume his seat?

Mr. Blowick

In many cases, when I gave quotations. Deputies have asked me to supply the source from which I was quoting. I understood always that I was obliged to do so. Deputy Moloney has been asked to supply the source of his figures on this occasion and he has declined to do so. Are we to take it that a precedent has been established in the House?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No precedent has been established but it has always been the rule that a Deputy gives the source of his quotations. Deputy Moloney is not quoting but he is giving figures and I have no way of knowing whether the figures are correct or otherwise.

Mr. Blowick

I believe it is in accordance with the established practice of this House that the Chair asks Deputy Moloney for the source of the figures which he is quoting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moloney has been asked for the source of his quotation and is unable to give the source. There is nothing the Chair can do about it.

Mr. Blowick

He must do so; otherwise the figures might be fictitious and should not be allowed into the records of the House.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I wish further to develop my point of order. When it is an established rule of this House that only Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries have the benefit of the advice of their Departments and can be supplied with this matter in the House, and we on this side of the House, who are preparing our case with the resources available to us, it is an unfair advantage that a Deputy on the Government side can be directly supplied with information from an official who is in the House to advise the Minister.

Mr. Smith

I do not know when that principle was established. I want to make a statement——

Mr. O'Sullivan

We all have eyes in our heads.

Mr. Smith

If any Deputy wishes to get information on any such matter —I do not know where Deputy Moloney got his figures; I have not the faintest idea—he can go to my office up to 5.30 p.m. or 6 o'clock and ask any official there for any figures dealing with such matters as Deputy Moloney has been dealing with.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I agree. That is right.

Mr. Smith

If any Deputy meets an official of my Department in the passages of this House who should happen to be in a position to give these figures he can say to the official: "Can you give me figures dealing with so and so?" If the official has the figures, he is perfectly entitled to give them to any Deputy. I do not know for the life of me what clever point or what substance is in the point that is being made.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Surely there is a distinct difference between the established rights of Deputies to go to the officials of any Department to seek information, and Deputies on the Government side having the convenience of officials adjacent to them who are there to provide their Ministers with the information the Ministers may require. If it is now becoming a practice that Deputies on the Government side may also have recourse to the officials who are in the House specifically for the benefit of Ministers, then we are establishing a very dangerous precedent because it would be very difficult for Deputies on benches other than the Fianna Fáil Benches to have the same access to such information as the Deputies seated behind the Minister.

Mr. Blowick

In view of the Minister's explanation, I now insist on asking Deputy Moloney to give the source of his figures to the House. If it is true that he has got them from an official —we have the Minister's word there is nothing irregular in that—why should he not give the source?

Mr. Smith

You have the Minister's word for nothing. I have not the faintest idea where Deputy Moloney got these figures. I was merely saying——

Mr. Blowick

Why did you explain then?

Mr. Smith

Why should I not explain?

Mr. Blowick

What are you denying so?

Mr. Smith

I am denying what is untrue.

Mr. Blowick

Yet the Minister says he does not know where Deputy Moloney got his figures. If the Minister does not know, what is it that is untrue?

Mr. Smith

What is untrue is the allegation that a Deputy cannot approach an official and ask him for these figures.

Mr. Blowick

That argument has never been put forward. That is not the point. The allegation was that Deputy Moloney got his figures from an official in the House. That is the allegation. The Minister has said that is in order and quite regular. I insist on putting the question to Deputy Moloney: What is the source of his figures? Let him give the source of the figures for the records so we will know they are authentic.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

I suggest that Deputy Moloney be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Moloney

I have not the slightest intention of gratifying Deputy Blowick. He was probably very upset when he heard these figures quoted.

Mr. Blowick

Not a bit—interested, not upset.

Mr. Moloney

Deputy Blowick should know enough to understand that these figures can be obtained from many sources. It would cause me, or the source that gave me the information no embarrassment whatever if I were to disclose where I got the figures. I stand over them and I know why exception has been taken to them.

Mr. Blowick

There is no exception being taken to them.

Mr. Moloney

I resent very much Deputy Blowick's imputation that my figures are fictitious. I am not in the habit of giving fictitious figures. I do not know if Deputy Blowick is or not.

Mr. Doherty

He is.

Mr. Moloney

I have given the figures and I stand over them. It is rather interesting to find that Deputy Blowick and Deputy O'Sullivan should worry about those figures.

Mr. Blowick

Why is the Deputy ashamed to give the source, so?

Mr. Moloney

They are on record. The Deputy is never ashamed to do anything. The Deputy represents more dairy farmers than Deputy Blowick and is more competent to speak for them. The dairy farmers have long since repudiated Deputy Blowick: they have not yet repudiated me.

Mr. Blowick

There is some reason for not giving the source.

Mr. Moloney

The Deputy need not think he will draw me out like that. I am not as long in this House as he is but I might be just as clever as he is—and that would be very easy for me. Our record, as far as this whole milk question is concerned, is one that we do not have to be ashamed of.

As I have already said, I subscribe in principle to the case made by Deputy Wycherley and supported by Deputy Finucane. The price of milk is a hardy annual with every Government here for many years. The Milk Costings Report, which was much in discussion last year, gave rise to a suspicion at that time that the recommendations arising out of the report may cause a reduction in the price of milk. This Party has been interested in the price of milk month in, month out.

I, and other Deputies from dairying counties, lost no opportunity to bring the case of the dairy farmers before our Minister on many occasions last year. I am glad to be in a position to say we always found the Minister sympathetic. It did not require, on our part, any great amount of ability to make the case of the dairy farmers to the particular Minister who had control of that Department for the past 12 months.

The Minister, as far as I know, is a dairy farmer and is very conversant with the problems of the dairy farmers, as such. We were all aware that, particularly in recent times, due to this intensive drive that has been undertaken for the eradication of bovine T.B., the morale of dairy farmers should be kept at the highest possible level. For that reason, we were satisfied that the price of milk should, if at all possible, be maintained.

As I have said already, no opportunity was lost by the members of this Party—particularly the members representing the dairying counties, many of whom are themselves dairy farmers —in making the case to the Minister. When the reduction in the price of milk was announced, we were all very disappointed. I make no secret of the fact that I was disappointed. I certainly brought that disappointment to the Minister's notice and I had at least two or three very comprehensive discussions with him on that matter. I heard the Minister's side of the case. I had to put myself in the position in which the Minister was then and ask myself what I would do under similar circumstances.

We know that, at the time the last price reduction took place, some months ago, the international market was in a chaotic condition. At that time, one Commonwealth country which was exporting to the British market had made representations to the British Government protesting against the method of subsidy or "support price" this country was giving to its butter exports. It was obvious, then, that it was only a question of weeks, perhaps days, until the British Government would have to take some action in connection with the matter.

I think the Minister, when he did approach the British on this question, must have made a better case than we expected he could at the time. Were it not for that fact, in my opinion, the price reduction in milk would be far more drastic. I am not one of those who will put forward a case that we were rather lucky we had not a more drastic reduction in the price. I feel the reduction was drastic enough and caused a good deal of loss to dairy farmers as a whole. However, we have to take things as we find them. The Exchequer was not in a position to provide the necessary subsidy to enable the Minister to maintain the price of milk at the then existing level.

With regard to the whole question of subsidy, there is another point that we have to bear in mind. That is that the principal complaint against us by our New Zealand competitors was that we were subsidising butter exports to the British market in a manner not in accordance with the Trade Agreement into which this country had entered with Britain. I understand that the Minister had some difficulty in answering that case and in satisfying the people who were a party to the other side of the agreement that, in fact, what we were doing was giving what is known as a "support price". By making that case, evidently the Minister was able to get over certain international complications.

I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with those milk producers who, at the moment, are co-operating wholeheartedly with the Minister's Department in the eradication of bovine T.B. I have a very strong view that those people should get some encouragement above that which the ordinary producers who might not be co-operating to the same extent are getting. I have conveyed that view to the Minister on a number of occasions and I take it that Deputies from the dairying counties have done the same. I would avail of this debate to do so again and to ask the Minister to examine this suggestion very seriously with a view to giving a special increase or bonus to such producers. On the face of it, it does not appear to me that there could be any grave complications in applying an arrangement of this kind.

I feel that the people who are co-operating in the eradication of bovine T.B. are sustaining considerable losses at the present time. Though reactors are being purchased at reasonably economic prices, nevertheless owing to the shortage of suitable replacements, a very big difference in price is necessary in order to buy a suitable cow to come up to the standards required by the Order. I feel that, when this is the case, that type of dairy farmer is entitled to some extra encouragement. I hope the Minister has already given very full consideration to this matter. Perhaps, in the course of his reply to-night, he will be able to tell us whether or not it is a practicable suggestion.

I am rather pleased with the manner in which previous Deputies have put forward the case. Three Deputies who have spoken on the subject have, I think, put it forward in a reasonable way. The motion is clear-cut. It indicates that, in view of the national importance of the dairying industry, the price of milk supplied to creameries should be increased to cover the increased costs of production. We all know that in recent years the costs of production of every article, whether agricultural or industrial, have increased considerably. We all know, too, that, in a number of cases where increased costings were brought about as a result of labour and certain other conditions contingent on the industry, it is not always possible to get that increased cost passed back to the producers. I am sure that is the case with the Minister in this particular matter.

I am glad Deputy Wycherley, in particular, said he thought he was pushing an open door and I would be rather surprised if he were not. My position in this matter is that the Minister has made a decision. As a Deputy of his Party, subject to the ordinary Party discipline, I have to vote with the Minister on the matter. I want, however, to put it on record that I am entirely in sympathy with the principle of the motion and that I shall be prepared to do anything I can in the ordinary way to help in getting the Minister to treat this motion sympathetically.

Mr. McQuillan

And vote against your conscience at the same time.

Mr. Moloney

I do not vote against my conscience. There is such a thing as Party discipline and procedure.

Mr. McQuillan

Strong Government again.

Mr. Blowick

Would Deputy Ó Briain, who used to be very vocal at one time, not give us the benefit of his advice?

Mr. Cunningham

Why did Deputy Blowick advise Deputy Jones not to get up?

Mr. Blowick

I did not.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy did, of course.

Mr. Blowick

I did not speak to Deputy Jones at all. I have no influence whatever over any Deputy nor would I like to have.

Mr. Cunningham

Even of your own Party?

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy from Donegal might find some other subject to make fun of, besides the farmers. He is very keen to get their votes when he wants them. There might be times for fun but not when there is such an important motion as this down for discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If no other Deputy offers——

Mr. Blowick

Surely it is customary for the Minister to speak?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The seconder of the motion has spoken and, as there is no other speaker, I shall call on the mover of the motion to conclude.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Deputies who tabled this motion are certainly very mild in the request they make to the Government in relation to the dairying industry. We can all recall—it is not long ago—when the price of milk and the conditions in the dairying industry were very warm political subjects. The demand was not the kind of moderate request that we have to-night. A very firm demand for a quite substantial increase in the price of milk was sponsored and fostered by the strong Party which is now in Government. I thought that when the proposer and seconder of the motion sat down, we would have had the Minister straining at the leash to get up and say: "We are committed to this for quite a long time. This is something that was of infinite value to us in the North Kerry by-election and the West Limerick by-election. This was something we used to considerable effect. We made very firm promises. We gave very definite undertakings that we would give to the milk producers a measure of prosperity they had never known in the past."

Mr. Moloney

I would ask Deputy O'Sullivan to give the instances to which he refers in relation to the North Kerry by-election.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is this a point of order?

Mr. Blowick

Let me say——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Sullivan is in possession and should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Smith

The proposed leader of the Farmers' Party is going to become Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Sullivan.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Deputy Moloney from North Kerry has spoken. The people of North Kerry have spoken. I can recall seeing the posters of the Creamery Milk Suppliers' Organisation taken to the North Kerry campaign by a former member of this House, ex-Deputy Cogan. He lashed them to the schoolhouse railings.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

On a point of order, Mr. Cogan is not here. I submit it is improper to make any allegagation of that kind.

Mr. Blowick

There is no allegation.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There was nothing unlawful at all in it. It was a political activity that was quite legitimate.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It is not true.

Mr. O'Sullivan

And it was quite effective.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order to mention the names of people no longer in this House.

Mr. Moloney

I do not want to interrupt Deputy O'Sullivan——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moloney may not interrupt anybody. He will resume his seat.

Mr. O'Sullivan

He was a very useful member to the Fianna Fáil Party in that campaign. In my presence, he tied posters printed by the Creamery Milk Suppliers' Organisation to the railings of a polling booth side by side with "Vote Dan Moloney No. 1."

Mr. Doherty

On a point of order, I think the Deputy is talking through his hat.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is scarcely a point of order.

Mr. Moloney

On a point of order, I deny absolutely that any such publicity or any such action was taken by ex-Deputy Cogan.

Mr. Cunningham

Is it in order for a Deputy to make an accusation against an individual or individuals who cannot come into this House to defend themselves?

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am sure the Deputy rose on that point of order. When Deputy Booth attacked Deputy Sweetman yesterday, was there any point of order raised? At any rate, I had a precedent. For too long have the problems facing the suppliers of milk to creameries in the South of Ireland been made the playthings of a political Party. That Party to considerable effect used the circumstances in Deputy O Briain's constituency at every chapel gate and at every farmyard they visited. When faced with the by-election, they assured the milk producers in that area that all that was necessary was to bring influence to bear on the newly-elected Fianna Fáil Deputy in the House to gain immediately for the dairy farmers a substantial increase in the price of milk.

These unfortunate farmers were led to believe that the increase would be such—they were actually offered 1d. per gallon of an increase by the previous Government—that they would not take 1d. under 3d. per gallon. This increase of 1d. per gallon was rejected by the dairy farmers at the time because they said they were awaiting the furnishing of the results of the report of the Milk Costings Commission which the Fianna Fáil Party had established to bring to light facts in relation to the cost of producing a gallon of milk—results which would end in the Government giving immediately a substantial increase in the price of milk.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 4th December, 1958.