I never like to start at this early hour——
Committee on Finance. - Vote 49—Agriculture (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration".
Nobody does.
——but I suppose it cannot be helped. Last night I was dealing with land reclamation and, while I did not complete the observations I had hoped to make, I do not propose to return to it now. A few other points arose in the course of the discussion that are, in some way, associated with that subject. As I said at the outset, I do not like the sort of childishness resorted to in this House of laying claim to what a particular Minister did or did not do. One of my predecessors spoke on the subjects of lime, fertilisers, grassland and grassland improvement and the attitude to those subjects over the years. After all, the use of lime is not anything new in this country. Our great grandfathers used lime, and on the hillsides in the county in which I was born and reared one can see traces of the old means by which they burned lime in those days.
That went on, as I say, all down the years and indeed in 1934, a very short time after we came into office, the first subsidy on lime was introduced by one of my predecessors and it was continued up to 1950. I was amazed to hear some of the claims made by Deputy Dillon on this whole matter of his contribution to the production of ground limestone. The strange thing about it is that any evidence that I could find went to show that Deputy Dillon was very reluctant to devote the moneys made available at the time, to ground limestone. He had other ideas—maybe ideas with which I would not disagree myself.
I mention that merely to show that so far as this Party and this Government are concerned, we have, in fact, been paying this subsidy on lime from 1934 to 1950 and we introduced a subsidy on superphosphates in 1938 and continued and increased it in the early years of the war until the raw material was no longer easily available. I refer to those matters briefly to show that when a claim is made or an allegation advanced that there has been a change of policy so far as the Government are concerned, there is no justification whatever for that claim or that charge. After all, with whatever arable land we have in the country, 10,000,000 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 acres, even during the war years we never succeeded in reaching a stage when we could induce our farmers one way or the other to till 25 per cent. of the land to produce wheat as well as feeding stuffs for animals. If, during the war years, we could not succeed to that extent, surely in time of peace we could not hope to do better.
What, then, are we going to do— whatever Party is in office, whatever Government are in office or whatever Minister is in charge of Agriculture— with the other 75 per cent. of the land of the country except use it for grazing and the production of animal feeding stuffs, be it hay, silage, or anything else? Naturally, the more profitable that occupation becomes, the more one is inclined to devote attention and energy to it and to expend on it whatever moneys or resources can be made available for the improvement of our grasslands. It is nonsense then to say that there has been a change of attitude or a change of policy. Away back, pre-war, as a result of Government subsidy I was able to purchase ground phosphate and have it delivered at my place at £2 9s. per ton. That was a low price, perhaps, but it must be remembered that money was scarce at that time and it was just as difficult, if not more difficult, to come by £2 10s. as it is to find ten guineas or £11, or whatever the price of phosphate is now.
References were made to the possibility of a scheme being introduced for the disposal of this year's barley crop. Discussions have been taking place with all the interests concerned, with the officials of my Department and myself, for many months past on this matter. A scheme will be announced shortly. I do not want to refer to it in detail now except to say to those who have shown some interest in this matter that there are three important factors that I shall try to safeguard and there are three important interests I shall try to protect.
First, a Government guarantee has been given to the people who grow barley. It is naturally the responsibility of the Government to see that that guarantee is honoured to the extent that marketable barley will be produced by the growers. If that is secured, then the growers will have no cause, I hope, for complaint. Secondly, the scheme will provide that foodstuffs will be available to those who feed animals, livestock of all kinds and poultry, at the cheapest possible rate. That is a very desirable objective and one which, I am sure, will be accepted by everybody.
It is very desirable.
The third factor is one about which I have shown concern and it is also one I shall endeavour to safeguard. I agree with the growing of barley here. I do not belong to a barley growing district but my mind is not so small, and never was so small, as to fail to grasp the importance of barley growing both to those who engage in it and to those who use barley. I am aware of the prejudice that existed for many years in favour of maize meal.
In any scheme that is devised it would be undesirable that such a scheme could be used for the purpose of shipping out barley without any qualification and allowing maize freely —I say "freely"—to come in and take its place here. Habits, customs and practices are difficult to cultivate. Everybody knows that. Many people have now become accustomed to using barley and, as far as I am concerned, I shall try to ensure that, in the scheme devised, reasonable protection will be given to those who continue to engage in the production of barley.
As far as I possibly could, I have tried to get all the interested parties to talk to my officials, and on a number of occasions to myself, because I like to meet people who are interested, even if they are prejudiced and even if their interests are selfish ones. I like to hear the worst because, knowing both sides, enables one to judge and to strike a fair balance. We have subjected this proposal to scrutiny, examination and discussion. More will be heard about it. For the moment I merely want to tell the House and the country that, in devising a scheme, I am trying to provide for and against the three important factors or interests that I have mentioned. I believe the scheme will meet the case, for and against.
With regard to wheat and the wheat levy, I shall not say anything more on that. I dealt with it in my opening remarks and what I said then has been stated over and over again. Reference was made to growing wheat on contract. Members will recall that when the levy was introduced and the Grain Board set up I stated quite clearly here at the time that the idea was not mine. The representatives of the growers knew the problem that was there and knew the problem that had to be met. They had discussed it with my late predecessor and, following on his death, they came to see me. I showed no enthusiasm at all for the scheme and they appeared to feel at one stage, in fact, that I would not accept it. I was taking the line of showing all the weaknesses, as I would like those who would come to see me in relation to the barley scheme to do, provided they were doing it genuinely. Finally, I informed the Government that the growers' representatives wanted a scheme along those lines and I gave it to them.
In this House and outside it, in my own Party and other Parties, in county committees of agriculture and all the rest, I was asked, "Why do you not grow wheat on the contract basis? See how Guinness can have barley grown on the contract basis and the Sugar Company can have beet grown on that basis, and so on."
It is only the privileged ones who get the contracts.
I am not defending this. I am merely saying what was said to me. I know every weakness in all these things, just as the Deputy does. I am merely telling the House that when this scheme, which was admitted by the representatives of the growers to be necessary, was introduced, it was their scheme. They did not regard it as ideal but they said, "This is the scheme we want" and they got it. I was thinking of the contract system and my officials had examined it. Now, we have had some experience of the working of the scheme that is in existence and it has been demonstrated this year that it has one weakness that I do not like. I do not think we should try to grow more wheat than we want for national purposes. I think it would be foolish to do that. It is wise to rise to that level. With the system at present in operation, we had last year, in spite of the proposed levy, a substantial increase in acreage and would have had a very substantial increase in yield, were it not for the bad weather that was experienced.
As a result of that bad year and the decrease in acreage this year, of which there is evidence, it appears as if we will not have a yield sufficient to meet the national requirements. Instead of growing wheat, people have gone over to barley and oats and perhaps some other crops. I do not know to what extent that is the case. I am not objecting to their going over to barley, provided they give us the wheat acreage that will meet the national requirement.
I see one advantage in the contract system. While it has, as Deputy Crotty reminds me, all the weaknesses that we know, the favouritism and all the rest, it would at least ensure an acreage each year that would be likely to yield our requirements. That may be 300,000 tons or, if the percentage of Irish wheat were increased, the acreage could also be increased. Through the contract system, the requirements could be gauged much better than is possible through any other system.
County committees, through their central body, the National Committee, and the millers and others have told me that they propose to examine the possibility of introducing a contract system. They are doing that on their own. Any and every assistance in the way of information that is available to my Department will be given to them in order to enable them to carry out that work. It is their responsibility. I know that, in the circumstances, it is not possible to get an ideal scheme. There is a scheme in operation. It is not ideal. The contract system may not be ideal. It is a matter of getting the best of the two or three schemes available to us. I look with favour upon the activities of any body or group of people such as I have indicated. I wish them every luck in their efforts and I and the Department will give them every assistance possible. Officially, we cannot take any part in this, but, having regard to our knowledge of the difficulties, we are entitled to make that assistance available to them.
Now I come to the butter levy. There has been a great deal of discussion and publicity and a great deal has been written on this subject. I do not blame the I.C.M.S.A. for its activities. I shall not charge the I.C.M.S.A. with being a political body associated with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or any other Party. I know that in the I.C.M.S.A., as in the case of other organisations, there are people of all political persuasions, because the matter with which they are dealing is one in which they are vitally interested. They could, in fact, be regarded as a trade union. Whatever they may think or say about me or the Government of which I am a member, I really do not mind. I have heard it charged against us in this House that when, on another occasion, we went out of office, we encouraged the activities of these people. As far as I am concerned, I can, with a clear and open conscience, entirely repudiate that suggestion. In fact, I can go so far as to say publicly that when that organisation was being founded, after we had gone out of office, in 1948-49, I had been the Minister for Agriculture in the outgoing Government and I received an invitation to take part in that organisation from a very decent man who is now very high in the ranks of the I.C.M.S.A.
I wrote to that gentleman telling him that I was a politician, a public man, that I had been Minister for Agriculture, that I had a special interest in milk production and milk producers and people engaged in that branch of agriculture, and had tried to show it while I was Minister for 12 months, and did show it, but that I would not join any such organisation because, I said, I might be Minister tomorrow or in two years or 10 years; that if I am not, it does not matter, but, if I am, by joining the organisation now I would be leading them up the garden and making them believe that as long as I was with them, if ever I became Minister again, they would be all right. Therefore, in a very wholehearted way, I can repudiate the suggestion that we ever sold ourselves to that sort of activity.
I am prepared to admit that in all these organisations that are made up of people of every political persuasion, there may be a section that would try to take advantage of a political situation. I cannot be sure of that. If it is happening against me now, I shall not complain about it because I do not deny the right of the milk producers to organise themselves and to make the best case they can and take the best stand they can, within reason. They are free to thump me around the ring in any way they like but, in thumping me around the ring, I would ask them to remember—I do not want to make any boastful claim about it; I think I have said it before—that I happen to be the fortunate one who came in in 1947, when things were beginning to settle down after the war and the shortages and the controls, and, as Minister for Agriculture, was able to get my colleagues to give the dairying industry fairly reasonable conditions as far as the price of milk was concerned at that time.
I do not want to claim that it was a wonderful achievement of mine, or anything like that, but if you look at the figures of the cow population since 1947-48 and note the solid growth in the number of cows supplying milk to creameries and the number of farmers attached to creameries as suppliers you will see that the very first real benefits they got after the war years were secured as a result of the luck that fell to me to come in at a time when I was able to help them substantially. I have not lost my interest in them now. I do not blame them for their activities. I do not blame them for resenting that we were obliged to collect this levy. If I were outside, not associated with this House, and were one of these suppliers, the chances are that I, too, would stand up for my rights and try to get all that was going, just the same, possibly, as members of any other trade union might.
A short time ago, three Deputies called to my office in this House and presented me with a resolution passed by their own committee of management of the local creamery. The resolution was to the effect that they called upon their Deputies and Senators to interview the Minister for Agriculture with a view to securing that he would abandon the levy collected the previous year on butter manufactured, and so on. I read the resolution half aloud and half to myself. I looked at the three or four Deputies and Senators and I said, in effect: "Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a resolution with which, if I were a supplier down in that area, I would find myself in thorough agreement. I am not a supplier in that area. I am a supplier of milk to a creamery but I am Minister for Agriculture. I take a realistic view, with my colleagues, of the problems that confront us in this regard."
With the present Taoiseach, I found myself in London in 1958 discussing the whole question of butter. You all remember the reason. In that year we had a surplus of butter. It cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of £3,000,000 to sell it, as butter prices were very low on the British market at that time. Even then, I was dreadfully anxious, because of our general policy and our general aims, not only to maintain milk production at the level at which it then was, even though it gave us a surplus towards which we had to contribute largely from the Exchequer in order to dispose of it, but to increase milk production because of the other advantages that would obviously flow to the producers themselves and to the community as a whole.
Having regard to the steady increase in the number of cows that in 1947-48 were supplying milk to creameries, and the number of suppliers, it was desirable to foster the idea that that tendency would continue and develop. If it were, do you think, in our circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the taxpayers to meet it all? Do you think it would be reasonable to expect them to give a home-supported price at a level about which we have had complaints from Deputies and then come along and, from the Exchequer, subsidise the sale of whatever surplus we had?
While conceding all the rights I have conceded to the organised producers to agitate for themselves, I am now defending myself as Minister and asking myself and my colleagues —and my colleagues ask me: "Is it reasonable that you should go out to increase and expand, even if you turn the increased milk into cheese, chocolate crumb, milk powder, and so on? Is it reasonable still to keep pressing in the direction of an increase? Is it reasonable to ask the taxpayer to do these two things, to maintain a home-supported price at the present level and carry the whole burden of the export subsidy?" I am not afraid to say here, with the shelter that this House affords me, that I am completely and absolutely in my conscience justified in standing over that decision. Not only will I say it in the quietude of this place but I shall go into any area and claim that that is not an unjust and unfair decision in the circumstances in which we find ourselves and which could at any time arise.
The case that is made is that in 1958, contrary to expectations, butter production decreased. It did. However, at this time in 1958, all the evidence went to show that, as far as supplies were concerned, we would have an increase on 1957. Nobody was more disappointed than I was. Just as in the case of the crops, the Almighty intervened. The remaining months of the year turned the increase into a deficit. Anyhow, we had a considerable amount of butter to export. In fact, the levy we collected was barely sufficient to meet one-third of the cost of selling the reduced quantity of butter available for export.
Then this year came along. All last summer, the season was bad. Cows suffered because of it. The winter was hard. The early part of the grass season was not very good. I was being pressed to abandon this levy by people who were making prophecies as to the outcome of the season. I claimed and I still claim, even though we are half way through it, that, even yet, nobody knows for certain how this season will turn out. Undoubtedly, up to the present there has been a reduction of about 15 per cent. in deliveries to creameries as compared with last year. The second part of the season could make a wonderful change in that position. I am prepared to state, even before those who are justifiably selfishly interested in the matter, that there is no real benefit in a policy if you switch and change from one foot to the other every six or twelve months.
I have given to this House and to the suppliers outside the assurance that any money collected from them by way of this levy—although it was stated to the contrary by people in this House who well knew they were not presenting the case fairly—will stay in that fund and belong to the suppliers. Every £ that comes out of that fund for the purpose of disposing of any surplus butter we may have means that £2 must come from the Exchequer. I can assure you of this. The more £2 we have to part with, the more I will like it, either this year or next year or any other year, because I know, in the general line of things, this is a very important industry. We should be prepared to give reasonable assistance and the industry should be appreciative of the difficulties that are there. While they should naturally complain, they should be a little bit reasonable in such matters.
This levy looks like becoming a permanent tax on the farmers.
I cannot prevent the Deputy arriving at all the reasonable conclusions at which I know he is capable of arriving on questions of this nature, and I do not propose to dispute vigorously the method he adopts in order to arrive at whatever conclusions he wishes to arrive at.
What does the Minister mean when he says the money will belong to the suppliers? It will not.
It will never be touched as far as we are concerned until such time as it is necessary to serve the purpose for which it is designed.
They will not have any control over it.
I do not know what the Deputy means by that.
The Minister said the money, even if it is not expended by way of subsidy on exports this year, will belong to the suppliers.
So it will.
It will not.
I could have money deposited in the bank in my name but the money could belong to you.
I would take good care I had control over it.
That would be a personal transaction and I would not blame the Deputy for being cautious there. He may take it that what I have said in this respect is completely in order. The money was never collected and will not be used for a purpose other than that to which I have referred.
Levies that were previously imposed to right the balance of payments were switched to permanent taxation.
That is another subject. You could be tossing that over in your mind for the next three or four years.
When the supplier is paying one-third are you paying two-thirds all the time into this fund?
We are paying two-thirds on every pound of butter that is exported at a loss.
But that fund is being built up when there is no butter exported.
That would be foolish. That money will be there when it is required. I do not know what form the fund takes in that regard. What difference does it make?
It makes a bit of a difference.
Not a bit in the world, unless you thought you would not be solvent when the payment would have to be made. That will not happen as far as this Government are concerned.
The same could happen to the farmers. We are expecting the farmers to be solvent all the time.
I am talking about insolvency. Some criticism has been levelled against us on the grounds that in the Government's proposal for economic expansion there is a recommendation and a hope expressed that the cow population would be increased and some of the critics of the Department of Agriculture and of myself have expressed themselves as very doubtful as to the wisdom of the paragraph advising farmers in certain parts to produce more calves on the basis of their using the milk of the cow and the heifer. The whole aim of the policy as outlined in that document is to increase the cow population one way or another irrespective of what course the individual farmer pursues in helping towards the realisation of that aim. The cow population has been almost static for many years. Although it has increased since the price of milk was fixed away back in 1947/48 at the level which was then determined, the number of cows has been fairly static over a very long period and the aim of the Government, as indicated in that document, is that we should bring cow numbers in 1964 to 1,500,000.
No matter what policy is pursued by the individual farmer we cannot do that without increasing the volume of milk that is bound to come into the creameries and go into the production of butter, chocolate crumb, cheese, milk powder, and so on. We do not feel in any way distressed about that paragraph. That paragraph was carefully vetted and referred largely to areas that were not at all accustomed to milk production in any form. We did hope that in those areas there would be the development in relation to heifers and the rearing of calves that is taking place in other counties, a development which has taken place in these parts of the State and, we hope, will continue. Side by side with that we could see that if the aim was to be achieved which was set out in the document to which I have referred we must also have an increase of cows in the milk areas and that as a result of that increase we would have a gradual increase in the supply of milk. It would be our responsibility, as the Government acting on behalf of the taxpayer, and the responsibility of the farmers to combine as best we could to see that that is disposed of in the most profitable way and diverted to the most profitable purposes possible.
There was no question whatever in relation to that paragraph, as I gave the assurance before, of our turning our back on the milk suppliers, the milk producers, or a failure on our part to recognise the vital importance of these people to our whole economy and the vital contribution they will have to make if we are to be successful in the aims that have been set out.
I intended to give numbers and percentages from 1947-48 to 1957-58 of the general trend to which I have been referring. I do not like to give these numbers because if you take, for example, the numbers of cows that are now supplying milk to creameries as against the numbers for 1947-48, we know there have been changes. Farmers' butter for many years has not been as saleable as it was. There had to be a spreading of the travelling creamery and the collection and conversion of milk through the creamery organisation that was formerly disposed of in the old fashioned way. That resulted in bringing into the creamery network a large number of herd owners and a great number of cows.
It would be unfair of me then to say there was not some other factor as well as improved prices contributing towards that end. However, even allowing for that, those who claim that there is a desertion of the business on the part of creamery milk suppliers, a business in which they and their fathers before them have been engaged, have no evidence to show for it. There is no evidence of a desertion and there is not likely to be any such evidence. The total increase in the cow population in those years is roughly 127,000. That is not nearly enough. I would hope that, as a result of their activities, the number would steadily increase to the number mentioned in the target during the next four or five years.
The matter of pig production and the grading of pigs in factories is not a new subject to any of us who have any association at all with this business. The reduction in the number of pigs has been checked very substantially in recent months. As far as we can find out through the C.A.O.s and through other checks which we carry out, there is a very welcome tendency to show an increase and in the months ahead we have no doubt that that increase will be felt at the fairs and in the factories all over the country.
There are at least two reasons which I know of for that reduction. There was the swine fever and, again, there was the unfortunate year we had from the point of view of feeding stuffs. There was a shortage of potatoes, oats and all the rest of it. For that reason, of course, the tendency towards increasing the production of pigs was bound to come to an end. In fact, you might almost be sure that a decline was on the way. That, as I say, took place for the two reasons given. It is now corrected and we are on the upward trend again, which is a very welcome thing.
With regard to grading, I do not see what you can do on this subject. I think I spoke about it last year on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. I am well aware of all the criticism which is sometimes levelled at the grading system and at the alleged injustice of it. Still I contend that the percentage of pigs taken in on a grade A basis is proof that the system must be reasonably fair. I do not know how you can devise any other scheme that would be more likely to give a greater degree of satisfaction than the present one.
The weights at which pigs are being exposed for sale has quite a lot to do with the improvement in the grading of pigs. People are becoming fairly knowledgeable with regard to the live weight of a pig which is likely to grade best. People who have gone in for pig production in a big way maintain that that has a lot to do with it, apart from breeding and feeding. Nobody whom I have met has been able to devise any other scheme that would be likely to give satisfaction to the producer as far as grading is concerned.
I am always very anxious to meet anybody with new ideas on that matter. We have plenty of discussion on the subject in the Department with outside representatives of producers and county committees and, while they are prepared to be critical, none of them really has any worthwhile suggestion to make as to the way in which this matter might be dealt with.
I referred to the question of the bovine T.B. eradication in my opening speech. I will not go into any great detail now except to say that I was not present here when a Deputy of my own Party apparently made some suggestion that we have been discourteous to a particular county committee because of our failure to reply to a scheme which a sub-committee of that committee designed to help us in this task.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we had no complaints direct from the committee itself because in the Department of Agriculture we get many schemes and suggestions from every conceivable kind of source. They are all taken seriously as far as we are concerned.
Our approach to this task is changing from day to day and will change but we cannot, simply because a Deputy in this House or a county committee of agriculture has certain ideas as to the way we should approach the matter, adopt the proposals until we have these suggestions examined by every conceivable interest in the whole trade. We have often had our own minds clear on a course we would hope to take in the future and when we brought in some of the interests vitally concerned they said they agreed it would have to be done ultimately, but not to do it just then. I say then that if the allegation is made that we were discourteous in any way to a county committee of agriculture or to any individual interested in a matter of such tremendous importance as this, it certainly was not intended. We will always welcome every criticism of that nature, either in writing or verbally, as far as this work is concerned.
We have a tremendous knowledge of it in the Department at the present time. We have a tremendous idea of the difficulties of it. We have, I think, a staff of very keen-minded active men. I sometimes think that if we could only get half the co-operation to which we are entitled from the public and the stockbreeders, I would not be the least bit doubtful that we could achieve this task within the time set for it. Unfortunately, it has to be brought home very clearly to some people before you can get them to give the sort of co-operation that is necessary. The house has to be really falling on their heads.
The reasonable concession which we secured from the British as to the importation by them of once tested cattle is satisfactory from our point of view but only in a limited way and in a very limited way as far as the farmers are concerned too. They wanted tested stock. This is only just a make-shift arrangement. It has weaknesses both from our point of view and from theirs. We are glad to have this arrangement and we are glad to take advantage of it because we could not just carry on without it. But while we are very thankful for it, we feel the effects its shortcomings have on us. We want, therefore, to get to the point where we will be approaching the end. As I have already said, I have not the slightest fear or doubt in my mind but that we can accomplish this task if we can get a reasonable degree of co-operation.
We are getting a fair degree of co-operation but there has to be vim and enthusiasm on the part of all the veterinary people who are working in the country. They have their own private practices but I would ask them to try to press this work forward and ask the farmers and people calling upon them to try to co-operate and not be so indifferent as to who is there to meet the vet. and indifferent as to the amount of time the man is going to lose there. There are so many ways in which the farmers can show by a small contribution of that kind their enthusiasm for the work. If they do that we shall be able to make progress.
The Department will be making some further announcements of changes in the scheme very shortly. These will not be the last either, the House may take it, and I merely mention this to let the House know that in so far as we may not have replied fully to the Cork County Committee and their scheme, it is because whatever proposals they make have to be examined in conjunction with half a dozen other proposals from other sources and the ideas that we have ourselves. When all these are blended together and discussions have taken place between the interested parties, we have to arrive at any amendments which we conclude are desirable. I ask the co-operation of all Deputies in all Parties to do what they can by word and deed to encourage all those with whom they come in contact to get and to keep this work moving.
Deputy Dillon reminded me of our alleged failure to deal with the condemnation of some pure bred cattle that were recently exported to America. The Deputy must have missed the statement which was released from my Department a short time ago. It was a public release dealing with this whole matter. When this took place we sent one of our most experienced veterinary people to the United States and he investigated the whole question very fully. He sifted all the facts and circumstances and following his return the statement which I hold in my hand was issued to the Press dealing with that situation, so that it is not necessary for me to read it. The date of the issue was the 12th June, 1959.
Deputy Russell referred to the London talks. Yesterday the Taoiseach dealt with this matter in the course of a reply to a Parliamentary Question and to some Supplementary Questions which followed. I have nothing to add to that. The official statement which was issued following the talks which we had with Mr. Maudling and Mr. Hare indicated clearly that these talks were of a continuing nature and I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect that statements would be made here as to what exactly took place. The Deputy can be assured that the official statement and what it contained is genuine in the sense that we are anxious to maintain and strengthen our trading relations with Britain and that it is a mistake for Deputies, as they sometimes do in this House, to emphasise overmuch the importance of the British market to us. We are conscious of it and the British are also conscious of our importance to them. It is on that basis that discussions here should be conducted.
After all, the British do not have to be reminded of these things. They know them well. If we have any remarks to make we should direct them to the two sides. There are advantages on both sides but I certainly agree with some of the speakers who expressed themselves as being disappointed with our ability to find a market for such commodities as, say, eggs, and who have expressed themselves as being depressed, as I am indeed, with the condition of the poultry industry.
I remember in 1947 when the then Taoiseach, the present Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and I went to Britain for the first trade discussions which took place after the war. We discussed the question of developing our poultry industry and I was tremendously interested in that because apart altogether from my national interest in it I knew it was a business that was of great importance to smallholders everywhere and had been all down the years. I was anxious to get some arrangement that would prove attractive and bring the business to real life.
I remember saying to the British Minister with whom I had that discussion:—"For goodness sake, if we are to set out on a development programme, let us set out on that programme and on that policy with a reasonable prospect of continuity, a continuity of opportunity". We had the feeling that that would be so. In 1948 the permanent agreement was made and anybody who looks at the discussions that took place in this House will see that many of the hopes which we had as to the availability of all kinds of markets have not materialised. Any Deputy will see what the British should be able to see, that our present trade relations are based on the 1938 and 1948 Agreements and the whole pattern has changed so much since then as a result of Britain's policy in favour of their own producers.
We cannot complain or protest about their rights in that regard but we can at least point out the result which has followed the policy that they have pursued at home. Nothing would please me better, or any Minister for Agriculture, or any Government which knew the circumstances here, or be better for the country, than to get a reasonable output for these vital products, these traditional products such as butter and milk products and bacon, eggs and poultry. Nothing would give a Government more satisfaction than to get reasonable prices and a reasonable continuity of availability of markets for these products because they are traditional to us and if at times we have been forced to come to their rescue it is because of their traditional character and because of their importance in the lives of our people. If we could raise them up to a higher plane it would mean more security for those who are living, and whom we hope will continue to live in the country. That is our aim. I can assure the House that is an objective that so far as I am concerned I will keep firmly in my mind in any discussions in which I may be called upon to participate.
Can the Minister say if it is proposed to give further information to the House on the trade talks in London?
I do not think it would be reasonable to do that at this stage.
I appreciate that when discussions are going on it is not always advisable to disclose their course until a later stage.
It is really never advisable and it is never done.
I do not agree. Not giving information can often cause disquietude and there is a genuine desire, not only among the agricultural community but in general, to know what will be the position of this country if the seven-nation arrangement goes through. We know that the Taoiseach has stated that it will not preclude bilateral agreements between this country and Great Britain but nevertheless the general picture created by newspapers—which may not always be accurate—is that we are going to be on the outside looking in and that our position may be worsened.
I do not think the Deputy can get anything more than the assurance I have given. I have tried to give to the House and the country an outline of the general ideas in my mind and in the minds of the members of the Government. These are the ideas that we will pursue in the course of any discussions that will take place, or may take place in future, in regard to these trade matters. I take it that the Deputy does not disagree with the general expression of opinion and policy which I have just given and after that, if you approve of that general line, you will have to trust us to try to do the best we can. After we have done that you will have your chance to give your views on whether we achieved the success we wished to achieve.
Will it be possible to conclude these discussions at some stage?
In every case where you enter on discussions, you always hope for a conclusion. This will be one of those occasions.
I know, but the Free Trade Area discussions have been protracted. Is it expected that the discussions with Great Britain will be concluded?
I certainly hope they will be.
Question: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration" put and declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.