Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 11 Dec 1959

Vol. 178 No. 9

Adjournment Debate—Government Policy (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Dáil at its rising on Friday, 11th December, 1959, do adjourn until Wednesday, 10th February, 1960.—(An Taoiseach).

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

When the Minister for Agriculture claimed last year that the Fianna Fáil Government had been given a blank cheque by the electorate in the last general election, I suggested that, if so, the blank cheque had been obtained in return for some fairly substantial promissory notes. I want to suggest now that a number of these promissory notes are still outstanding and unredeemed. Speakers on this side of the House have said sufficient on the question of unemployment to convince anyone, including the Taoiseach, that the promissory note given to the electorate, as far as unemployment is concerned, is still unredeemed and is approaching the position where it will be practically unredeemable. The redemption date has long passed and only a short period exists for this Government to do anything to redeem that note.

When I was speaking yesterday, Deputy Booth seemed to be in some doubt as to whether the Fianna Fáil Party, at the general election, had entered into any commitments with the electorate so far as the cost of living was concerned. I do not intend to delay the House for any length this morning. I suggested yesterday that the Government have failed all along the line and I listed eight or nine items in regard to which I thought they had failed. I do not intend dealing with all those. I dealt with unemployment and I want to say a few words about the cost of living. Deputy Booth, as I say, seems to doubt that any commitments had been entered into by Fianna Fáil with the electorate. I want to remind him and the House of some statements made in the course of the general election campaign by the Taoiseach and the former Taoiseach, now President of Ireland.

Speaking at Waterford on the 28th February, 1957, as reported in the Irish Press of the 1st March, the Taoiseach had this to say:—

Some Coalition leaders are threatening the country with all sorts of unpleasant things if Fianna Fáil becomes the Government— compulsory tillage, wage control, cuts in civil service salaries, higher food prices and a lot more besides. A Fianna Fáil Government does not intend to do any of these things because we do not believe in them. How definite can we make our denial of these stupid allegations? They are all falsehoods.

The day before yesterday I got a reply from the Taoiseach's Department which told me that out of 197 items used to calculate the cost of living index figure since Fianna Fáil came back into office, there have been increases in 149. There have been decreases in only 42, and six of them remain unchanged. I want to suggest to Deputy Booth that the Taoiseach, when speaking at Waterford, handed out a very definite promissory note to the electorate in the general election that there was to be no increase in food prices if Fianna Fáil got back to office. In his usual positive, assertive manner he emphasised and underscored that commitment by asking: "How definite can we make our denial of these stupid allegations? They are all falsehoods." Within a period of less than three years—partly under the leadership of the man who went on record to deny in advance any intention of the Fianna Fáil Government to increase food prices—we find the cost of living has increased and that out of 197 items, comprised in the cost of living figure, 149 have been increased in price.

It did not rest only with that commitment made by the Taoiseach at Waterford. Speaking at Belmullet the former Taoiseach said this, as reported in the Irish Press also on 1st March, 1957:—

The Coalition Parties were urging the people not to vote for Fianna Fáil because there was hell around the Fianna Fáil corner. You know the record of Fianna Fáil in the past. You know that we have never done the things they said we would do. They told you that you would be paying more for your bread.

Taken in the context of the sentence which went immediately before that, would any simple voter listening to the former Taoiseach not be justified in assuming that what the former Taoiseach had just said to him was: "If Fianna Fáil get back into office you will not be paying more for your bread"? I suggest to Deputy Booth that that was also a commitment by the Fianna Fáil Party leader to the electorate in the last general election.

It did not end there. The Minister for Justice was reported in the Irish Press on the 1st March, 1957, speaking at a meeting in Dublin, as describing as a “blood-curdling story” the warning by Deputy Norton in an election broadcast that Fianna Fáil, if elected to Government, would withdraw the food subsidies. The Minister for Justice said that “the Coalition groups, having no further promises to make for themselves, had switched to making sinister promises on behalf of Fianna Fáil.”

Deputy Mrs. Lynch, speaking in Dublin, is reported in the Irish Press of the 23rd February, 1957, as saying:

A Fianna Fáil Government is the housewife's choice. It must be; there is no alternative. The housewife, the mother of a family, has been the greatest victim of Coalition bungling. Housewives, use your intelligence, your practical experience and your sound reasoning. Vote in strength for the Fianna Fáil candidates.

There we have a selection from the many speeches made on behalf of Fianna Fáil during the general election campaign on the topic of the cost of living. Of course those speeches were merely the culmination of the propaganda which had been going on for months, if not for years, before that, all giving the impression to the voters that at any rate Fianna Fáil would not increase prices if they got back to office. Whether or not it was implicit in that that prices would be reduced I am not claiming, but I do claim there was a commitment not to increase the price of food and that commitment has been broken by the Fianna Fáil Government. Fianna Fáil have failed on the cost of living; Fianna Fáil have failed on unemployment; Fianna Fáil have failed on emigration. It is quite clear that they are in the process of failing in connection with the balance of payments. They have failed on the question of illegal activities. I do not want to say anything which could be misinterpreted or which could embarrass the Government, but I think it is due to the House and to the country that the change of policy in relation to that matter should be explained at some stage.

I believe that the Government are now on the right lines. I think they were right to drop the policy which they pursued when they came into office first and changed just before the Presidential election. I think it right that these matters should be dealt with under the ordinary courts of the land in accordance with ordinary legal process. If there is anything on which I feel I can compliment the present Government it is on having jettisoned their own policy and adopted the policy pursued by the inter-Party Government in relation to that matter. But I think some responsible Minister should explain the Government's change of policy and the reasons for it.

I think the Government have failed in their treatment of agriculture. They have been a disastrous failure in the field of external affairs and when we hear Ministers or Government back-benchers talking about confidence in the Government—as I said already it is necessary to distinguish between confidence in the Government and confidence in the country; there is every reason for confidence in the country and very little reason for confidence in the Government—Ministers and Government back-benchers must realise that sooner or later—possibly much sooner than any of them expect —they will have to render an account of their stewardship to the people. They remind me in their recent speeches of frightened schoolboys whistling to keep up their courage when passing a graveyard when they talk about confidence in the Government. There is no evidence of any confidence in the Government among the people. The sooner the Taoiseach and Ministers realise that, the better for themselves and the country and the more realistic will be their approach to the country's affairs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am slow to call Deputy McQuillan at this stage in view of the fact that public business is being interrupted at 12 o'clock in order to facilitate the Deputy.

Mr. McQuillan

Public business is being interrupted at 12 o'clock in order to take a drainage motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The position of other Deputies must also be considered by the Chair. I am calling Deputy Desmond.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Carroll stood up also.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not see Deputy Carroll. If Deputy Carroll offers, I shall certainly call him because an Independent is due to speak at this time.

Mr. Carroll

I stood up last night.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Carroll in view of the fact that no Independent has yet spoken.

Mr. Carroll

I shall be very brief. I should first like to apologise to you, Sir, for my interruptions yesterday afternoon. It is something I do not think I have ever done before and something I do not admire but I felt it almost impossible to refrain.

Deputy Booth yesterday submitted that the building industry had improved to such an extent that a builder was so busy that he was unable to take on tenders for, or be interested in, any building work in 1960. I wish Deputy Booth would use the same privilege and let us know what builder in this country, no matter how busy, would not be in a position to tender for work. Deputy Booth spoke of people making irresponsible statements. I have no doubt regarding his integrity and sincerity but I did not think he was so credulous or gullible, assuming that somebody made that statement. It is true that the industry has improved throughout the provinces.

In a recent statement the Minister for Industry and Commerce was reported as saying that Cork was to be the future centre of industry. I have no doubt that is correct. I might say that the only contract in which I am engaged outside of Dublin at the moment happens to be in Cork. I hope the Minister is correct in his forecast because I have come to like County Cork very much in the last couple of weeks. Deputy Booth also stated that Deputy McQuillan would not know whether people leaving from Collinstown or Dun Laoghaire were emigrating. Surely it is not suggested that the huge numbers returning by Aer Lingus for the Christmas holidays and the many thousands coming by boat are tourists? They are emigrants returning. Most of them are members of the building trade who have been obliged to emigrate.

I am not here just to criticise the Government. I believe that it is the desire of the Government to have the best possible conditions and to bring about an improvement. Another Deputy said last night that the Government should find £10,000,000 and, irrespective of whether it was productive employment or not, use that £10,000,000. Laughable as it may seem, I would suggest that the Government should raise, by some means, £100,000,000 to bring about an improvement. I say that in all sincerity. I feel that the Government and the men of this country and of this century have done as much for the Twenty-Six Counties and for Ireland as a whole as they could have done and if we were to undertake such a debt and leave it for the next generation no one would say one word of disparagement about it.

I do not know anything about agriculture but, apart from the subsidies given to farmers, I think the Government could set aside one million, or a few millions, to increase by 50 per cent the wages of agricultural workers. Their low standard of living is undoubtedly responsible for their leaving the land and I can give an example of that from my own experience.

A Dublin building contractor goes down to carry out a contract in a rural district and he is obliged to pay £7, or possibly £8 a week, to labourers. Within a few days he finds he has applications from local agricultural workers and, where he is obliged to employ local labour, he employs them. Is it not to be expected that those workers will be loath to return to the land for half the amount of wages they have been enjoying during the short period of the building contract? Another instance is the agricultural worker who comes to Dublin. Once he finds employment with a builder, his classification is changed in the labour exchange and after one or two weeks he can then have the passport, the freedom, to emigrate.

I do not blame the Government for the increase in the cost of living, I do not think it is the desire of the Government that such an increase should take place. I think it is due to the exigencies the post-war world is going through, and the wage demands that will be supported by each one of us, whether they be for judges, Deputies, or for people in the building industry.

There is only one other point to which I should like to refer, namely, the fishing industry, which was mentioned by Deputy Booth last night. I raised this matter before and asked that some inquiry or commission should be set up to find out why fish cost so much. I think I am in order in bringing this matter to the attention of the House by virtue of the cost of living suggestion already made. I am informed, whether truly or not, that fish caught in Galway is brought to Dublin, sold in Dublin, and then returned to Galway and other centres. Be that as it may, it does appear to me that the price quoted for fish in this week's papers is far beyond the means of the people who, we wish, should buy and eat more fish.

I trust that the Government will put every effort into improving present conditions, particularly in Dublin. I want to state that I would not be a party to criticising the Government just because they are the Government. Neither do I contribute to the charge that there is general pessimism, or feel it is justified that such criticism should be levelled solely with the desire of effecting a change of Government. As Deputies, we are representatives of the people, messengers of the people to this House, to do what we can to alleviate the burdens and the distress of those who sent us here, and it would be a far more admirable approach if all sides would recognise the exigencies we are passing through and, by collective effort, try to surmount them.

Mr. Desmond

I understand that though time is limited many speakers are anxious to contribute to this debate, so I shall speak as briefly as possible. According to Press reports, during the weekend, the Taoiseach struck a new note when he stated it was now time to get out into the country rather than, as it were, spend time discussing so many problems here in the Dáil. The people in rural areas apparently thought that this was a new note in relation to the possibility of future activities, but, having regard to answers given to questions in the Dáil, even during the present week, it would be well to remind the Taoiseach of the importance of this Chamber in order to correct erroneous impressions given to the people. This Chamber at least is a safeguard for people in rural areas to prevent them being misled by some members of the Government, including the Taoiseach.

If the Taoiseach does go out into the country, I hope he will help to straighten out one important matter in regard to a question asked in the Dáil this week. According to Press reports, a member of the Government last night considered it his duty to correct Deputy Dillon on statistics. I know that members of political Parties can use statistics to suit their own views, if they so wish, but I am afraid I must now say to the Taoiseach that, in the Dáil on Wednesday last, he went out of his way to use statistics in reply to Question No. 4 to give an answer which I am convinced is completely at variance with the facts. According to that reply on the question of employment, he stated:

On this basis a better idea of the post-November, 1958, position would probably be gained by comparing insurance stamp purchases in the six months ending 30th September, 1959, with the corresponding period of 1958. Stamp purchases were 11,719,800 and 11,276,400 respectively, showing an increase of 443,400 in the 1959 period.

According to the Taoiseach's answer, this is equivalent to an increase of 17,052 in the average number of insured workers per week in April to September, 1959, as compared with the similar period in 1958. It is strange that the increase here is mentioned as 17,052. It seemed good to the Taoiseach to give an answer on that line; it did help his Minister for Industry and Commerce who fastened on to that answer in the debate last night, and it did help the political correspondent of a newspaper to be able to take that line this morning, but what are the facts?

Exactly 12 months and one day ago, on 10th December, 1958, in Seanad Éireann, a representative of the Government, in the person of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, speaking on the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1958 on Second Stage, explained to the members of that Chamber that with the putting into operation in January, 1959, of that Act—and, of course, it has been in operation since January— the ceiling for insurability was lifted from £600 to £800 per annum, that raising of the ceiling would bring in roughly 18,000 persons. From that statement, we know that approximately 18,000 more people have come into insurability, people who, prior to the introduction of the amending Act, had not the advantages of insurability because of their earning over £600 per year. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the passing of that Act brought in approximately 18,000 people. Is that not a clear and unequivocal answer to the question as to how the increased sale of insurance stamps came about? Is that not a clear and unequivocal answer to the statement of the Taoiseach that there are approximately 18,000 more people in employment?

Let us be frank in our approach to these problems. Let us be honest about our efforts to solve them. Perhaps I have gone out of my way on many occasions to bring responsibility home but, so long as I remain a member of this House, I shall continue to do so. The problems of unemployment and emigration are problems for which successive Governments must take a certain amount of the responsibility. It only aggravates an already bad situation when statistics are misrepresented, the more so when we remember how the Taoiseach went out of his way, when in Opposition, to attack the inter-Party Government and assert that unemployment was running at a dangerously high rate and emigration was a scourge to the country. Of course unemployment and emigration are scourges in any economy.

On Wednesday, the Taoiseach replied to a question and, in my opinion, his answer to that question holds out no hope for the people of a realisation of the plans and promises made by the Taoiseach when he was in Opposition in this House. I do not intend to quote now statements made by anybody at a general election or at any other time. Time is limited in this debate and there are other people who wish to speak. We have proved, I think, that there are not 18,000 new people in employment this year as compared with last year.

As far as emigration is concerned, we have the statistics given by Britain. The Taoiseach, of course, makes statements outside this House. He does not make them here because he knows they can, and will be contradicted. In the months 1st January, 1957, to 31st December, 1957, the number of insurance cards issued to Irish nationals from the Twenty-Six Counties, who had emigrated in search of employment to Great Britain, was 58,496; in the year 1st January, 1958, to 31st December, 1958, the total number issued was 47,869. In those two years, the tragic total of cards issued to people from the Twenty-Six Counties entering employment in Britain for the first time was 106,365. Is that the reason why the Taoiseach goes out into the country, away from the Dáil, to tell the people about the progress made in the past two years, or so, and the benefits that have been derived from this Government?

I am not accusing Fianna Fáil or the present Government for the disastrous situation. As I said, we all have a certain responsibility. Perhaps all of us have fallen down in some degree on the job, but the misrepresentation and misinterpretation of statistics will help neither the people nor the State. I accept the official statistics given in replies to Parliamentary Questions for many weeks back. It is important that we should accept these figures as accurate official figures. It is important that the Taoiseach should represent the true position. It is important that he should realise that things are not as they should be. They are certainly not as those of us on this side of the House would wish them to be.

Time is limited now, but we may be able to go into these matters more closely after the Recess. Meanwhile, I suggest to the Taoiseach that it is important for him and his Government to be accurate in assessing the true overall position in relation to emigration, unemployment and the cost of living. It is more important to concentrate on fundamentals rather than endeavour to establish a new hierarchy, a political hierarchy which will not in itself give the satisfactory results which the Taoiseach and his Minister for Industry and Commerce claim it will give.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

There are a few matters to which Deputies have addressed themselves in this debate with which I should like to deal. As I have often said in the past, much of the discussion that takes place here tends to be repetitive. The present debate has proved no exception to the rule, and many of the points mentioned by different speakers in relation to agriculture have been thrashed out here during discussions on the Estimate over the years.

There are some few urgent matters affecting the country, and agriculture in particular. One of the first priorities is the task of clearing our livestock of bovine tuberculosis. The leader of the principal Opposition Party asked what were we doing about the eradication of bovine tuberculosis? Were we really serious in the way in which we were going about the task? I gave a reply here yesterday to a question addressed to me by Deputy Manley. It is not easy to understand why any member of this House, having heard that reply, should subsequently want to know about the Department's efforts in this regard.

I was asked to state the extent of the purchase of new reactors over the three years 1957, 1958 and 1959. The figures I gave were 8,797 in 1957; 18,512 in 1958; and 68,113 in 1959. That latter figure of 68,000 odd does not include a further figure of almost 15,000 store reactors purchased in the clearance area. The extent of the compensation paid for reactors under the scheme in the period mentioned in the question was as follows: 1957, £306,000; 1958, £726,000; 1959, £3,334,000. I do not think it would be difficult to satisfy any reasonable person, having heard these figures, as to the anxiety of the Government in regard to this matter. I have heard some other criticism, not only in relation to the anxiety of the Department or the Government to deal with this problem, but of the measures being taken to secure that end.

I have heard some Deputies suggest that we were not sufficiently careful so far as the clearance area is concerned; in other words, that our controls were inadequate to prevent those who might tend illegally to take in untested cattle from other parts of the country from doing so. We have controls. I suppose they are limited; I suppose they are, in a sense, inadequate, that is, of course, if we are not to receive the co-operation of the people in the clearance area itself.

When I hear, not only from Deputies but from responsible, intelligent people outside who talk to me and write to me and tell me what is happening in certain instances, I ask myself the question: is it a matter of our being expected to have a policeman standing at the shoulder of every individual who is the owner of land in those parts of the country? After all, there is an onus—and if we are to be successful, there certainly must be an onus—on the individual who is a land owner in those parts of the country to see to it that at this stage of the development of the scheme in buying stock and effecting replacements he will purchase only animals that have been tested and are regarded as free and in respect of which evidence is available that they are free from this disease.

We have made provision for those who want to move livestock in those areas. We have made provision in that regard too, inasmuch as we give to those who engage in that trade or business a per head payment to enable them to carry out the necessary tests before they attempt to move cattle into that territory. I appeal to people who make use of public meeting places, county committees of agriculture, county councils, clergymen of all denominations and people who are anxious to give whatever assistance they can in this regard, to be reasonable and to help us to put the onus on the people concerned, and to ask for their co-operation in seeing to it that this area will be classified as accredited in a very short space of time.

Mr. Dillon

May I ask the Minister to define the area more closely? Is it west of the Shannon?

Mr. Smith

That is right. That would be helpful, not for the purpose of relieving the Department or myself of any criticism which may be levelled against us and I want the House and the country to realise that this is a tremendously difficult task——

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith

——and has been found to be such in every country in which it has been attempted, and in countries where it has been successfully concluded. Not only have we the Shannon frontier to contend with but we also have the Six County frontier. In addition to the western areas that are in part bounded by the Shannon, we have the counties of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, which are now clearance areas, and in a short space of time we hope to add Longford.

We have the land frontier with the Six Counties and their scheme is different from ours. The farmer there is given certain inducements which are different from ours and which I say are not as attractive as ours. The farmer there up to a certain point—I think it is up to the point where he has 50 or 60 per cent. of the herd tested by his own effort with, as I say, certain assistance which it is not necessary for me to explain—is obliged to get rid of all reactor animals that appear in his herd. It is easy to see how difficult it is, having regard to our agreement with the British, and the movement of livestock as between the two territories, to prevent the movement of livestock that have been found to be reactors from those parts into our clearance area. What we expect and hope is that these areas in the Six Counties to which I have referred will become areas in which the reactor animals will be taken up as the reactor cows are taken up here on a valuation basis.

It is, as I say, only a small part of the country but when you look at it, you see the difficulties with which you are confronted and the need there is for co-operation if we are to get speedily to the end of the road. People who speak in public should realise the importance they should attach to their words, having regard to the danger of saying something which will discourage or deter those upon whose co-operation we must rely. I have made this plea or these pleas before— whether wisely or not, I do not know —and I do not think one derives much benefit from too much repetition but as the matter has been raised here, I thought I should refer to them again.

In addition to our efforts in regard to the area to which I have been referring, I was anxious to encourage, to the maximum extent, the export of store cattle. For some months, I have been working on a scheme to enable those engaged in that trade to go ahead freely, to go ahead unimpeded, by offering to take what are described in the western areas as green tagged cattle in the clearance area. Green tagged cattle are cattle that have passed two scheme tests, cattle which the British would not accept as accredited or attested because of the fact that the area itself was not accredited or attested. They insisted upon what was a much more severe test—a 14-day test—and there was a probability that a fair percentage of these green tagged cattle would fail the 14-day test and, therefore, traders and others would have them on their hands and find it difficult to dispose of them. Their money was locked up in them. I saw that that could impede the movement of trade which it was necessary to put into motion after a very bad summer last year.

It was no time until we discovered, after the scheme had been introduced, that either it had weaknesses or that it was being abused. We were fortunate enough to detect the weaknesses fairly early ourselves. I suspended the operation of that scheme, but I want to assure the House that we have since been working on an alternative scheme which I hope to announce in the course of a day or two in order to meet that problem.

If you look at the figures I have given, not only is it clear that we are serious about this matter but the organisation which we have built up has been tremendously successful so far and, as I think I said on a previous occasion, if we could only get the fullblooded and wholehearted co-operation of the people in those nine counties, there is no doubt, because of the very low incidence of the disease in our livestock there, that we could have that very substantial area cleared in a very short time.

Deputy Blowick mentioned the fact that it was wise to concentrate on this area. Of course, it is. If we could secure a clean bill of health for an area like this, it would be a tremendous encouragement to take other areas and by degrees cover the whole country.

I think that in our treatment of this very important matter, we have not shown at any time any desire to have a fixed and rigid mind or to adopt a fixed and rigid approach. That is as it should be. I had a deputation with me yesterday from Cork dealing with a scheme which we introduced for five Munster counties and one Leinster county. I think it came into operation on 1st October. The people from Cork apparently were not or are not satisfied with the way it is worked. I was very anxious to give that scheme a trial because from the very begining I should like to see the man who owned the livestock selling this livestock, whether they be reactor cows or otherwise, in his own way by the employment of somebody else or by himself and that whatever the State would give by way of encouragement in regard to reactor cows should be given as a cash payment after he has done his best to secure the commercial value of the animals concerned.

I am very far from being satisfied with the arguments advanced to me by this Cork deputation because, strange to say, I have not had any complaints, I might say, from any of the other counties. The Cork deputation complained that, because of the lack of competition in the fairs and marts, they were not getting what, in fact, was the commercial value of these animals. Yet, as I say, apparently farmers in the other counties who were disposing of animals under the scheme were able to do so. The scheme did not get off to a good start inasmuch as we were asked to purchase, within a fortnight of the new scheme coming into effect, 12,000-odd animals, which had the effect of choking up the canning factory machinery and providing for a sort of flow-over from 1st October and into the end of that month.

As we see it now, the number of cows purchased in that area is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000. I feel satisfied that these things will rectify themselves and that the scheme itself will prove quite beneficial. It does, as I say, give that freedom to the individual to which I referred and it relieves us of employing inexperienced people—I want to qualify that by saying that it is not their fault—to go out valuing this livestock and find, as a result, that the standard of values applied is very uneven as between one valuer and another and, therefore, a good deal of criticism results between farmers who, when they are assembling their stock, are inclined to compare animals, prices and so forth.

I would ask for the co-operation not only of all members of the House but of all members of local bodies. I would appeal to them that, when discussing such questions as these, they should endeavour to make themselves aware of the facts before giving publicity to something that might be harmful and might be found at a later stage to be entirely inaccurate. I think it must have been the Leader of the principal Opposition Party who, when speaking about the cattle trade——

Mr. Dillon

Before the Minister departs from the question of bovine T.B. eradication, the Minister speaks of asking for co-operation. Is it possible to particularise? What does he want the people to do? Is it just to refuse to buy any but green tagged cattle? Are there any specific things that would assist?

Mr. Smith

I am very particular in regard to the clearance area. It is a very simple thing. Some of our critics say: "You are not protecting the frontier." You have not a Maginot Line there. What I am saying as Minister is that I cannot give that sort of protection to that area. No Minister could; no Department could. I shall try to give what is reasonable. However, even after giving what is reasonable, I know that those who want to beat the law can get into that area, if they try, with untested cattle. When animals in Ballaghaderren, Mohill, Carrick-on-Shannon and Sligo are offered for sale, they can be sold in the main only to feeders. Unless the farmers and feeders in the area I am talking about show concern not to purchase animals that have not been tested, I do not think we could ever build a protective wall around them that would save them from this trouble. That is my belief.

In an area where you just have free testing, things are more lax. They have to be. However, in an area where our work has reached a very advanced stage, we must get the co-operation of the land owners or we cannot finish it. That is what I am talking about. I am saying that public men can, in their utterances in all the places I have mentioned, stress the importance of that.

Some reference was made by the Leader of the principal Opposition Party to the cattle trade. Extravagant talk is very foolish. It is extravagant talk for any of us, whether Deputies, Ministers or leaders of Parties, to say, for example: "The cattle trade at the present time is in a more catastrophic position than it was during the Economic War."

Mr. Dillon

That was never said—"A more catastrophic position than at any time since the Economic War."

Mr. Smith

Is that true?

A Deputy

Too true.

Mr. Smith

We shall see. I think Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture in 1956—or am I fooling myself? What were the prices for fat and store cattle in 1956 as compared with present prices? Would the Deputy like to correct himself now on what he actually said? I have here the price of fat cattle on 25th November, 1959. It is given as 118/9d. and for 2nd December, 120/-. In 1956, the prices for the two weeks in question were 91/6d. and 90/6d. For stores, the prices in the same years were 127/- and 128/- and 91/6 and 88/6 respectively. Would any person tell me that any advantage is to be gained in a political or any other sense in our talking like that? I would not have to consult these figures at all and thousands of farmers and producers would not have to look at them as they would know that what I am saying is true. They remember the facts. May I give a wee bit of advice? When we talk like that, we reduce this Assembly to a laughing-stock.

The price of cattle at present is lower than it was last year but it is higher than that of the previous year and of the year previous to that again and for some years before that. I shall not contend that the Deputy was not perfectly right in saying that in many cases those who fed cattle all this summer lost money. I admit that. Would a man, a Deputy, a Minister especially, not be a tremendous fool if he did not?

Mr. Dillon

I think he would.

Mr. Smith

I think he would because the Minister knows——

Mr. Dillon

He ought to know.

Mr. Smith

Yes. We know the facts and give the facts. No wonder some of us when we hear of a debate on the adjournment or of a debate dealing with agricultural matters always feel that there will be an air of unreality about it. Deputy Dillon and I have been long enough in the world to know —I have far more reason to know it than he has—that there has not been, is not now and scarcely ever will be complete security for those engaged in farming, those producing turkeys, those producing most commodities on which they depend for a livelihood. There is an element of a gamble in it.

We are told that the cattle trade has been ruined so many times during my life; that the farmers have been ruined; that our exports have been declining; that the balance of payments is against us, and so on. We hear a lot of that sort of reasoning in this Assembly. The man outside hears about it and reads reports of it in the newspapers. He is tremendously disappointed he is not getting a profit on the cattle he bought last April and May and has fed since then. We all have sympathy with him. We all get the same knock. With irrefutable evidence of the kind I have referred to, we should not have the sort of display put up yesterday by a former Minister for Agriculture on two occasions and the Leader of the principal Opposition Party who, just for the sake of lashing out some claptrap that everybody knows is foolish, made statements of the kind to which I have been referring. How do you think you will get political advantage out of that? If I could only get some of you into a place for a month where I could teach you something about politics and the sort of politics and politicians that will be accepted by the people——

A Deputy

This is interesting.

Mr. Smith

The people outside are intelligent. They know honesty and they know tomfoolery. The Deputy to whom I have been referring had something to say about turkeys. That was the best performance of all. It took the hardest neck any man could have to make the reference he made in regard to turkey prices. In saying that and in proceeding to prove that I was justified in thinking that last night and that I am justified now in publicly saying it, I admit he could not do one thing about it. In 1956 I never said a word to the then Minister because I knew he could do nothing about it. The fact is that in 1956 the price of turkeys was 5d. per lb. less than it is in this very bad year, and Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture could do nothing about it, nor can I.

I was taxed here with having received a report from the Advisory Committee dealing with marketing of turkeys and it was said that having received that report early—that means a couple of months ago—to enable me to take advantage of it, I had not been very active in that regard. Before ever a committee was set up to deal with poultry and turkey marketing, there was a tremendous amount of information in my Department on that subject and when I receive a report dealing with the marketing of turkeys or any other commodity, I shall study it carefully as I did in this case. I shall consult my colleagues about it, as I did in this case, and I shall have the fullest possible discussion with my senior officials and advisers, as I did in this case.

In this case, too, I called in the members of this Committee and spent the greater part of a day in order to procure from them what I thought I should have, further evidence to justify some of the major recommendations contained in that report. I am afraid I must admit to the House that I did not get that additional evidence and while a White Paper has been promised and will appear in the course of a very short time dealing with all these reports, I think I can say in this regard that I was apprehensive as to the wisdom of giving effect to some of the major recommendations in that report. Deputy Dillon, of all Deputies, should not be, if he did himself justice, too far from my line of thought in this regard.

I do not like to make changes just for the sake of making changes. I have no flair for establishing boards unless I can see that there is work that only a board can do and do better than it has been done already. I do not like this scheme of things where a board set up to market turkeys would proceed to employ wholesalers, who are now engaged in that business and have been all down the years, to make their purchases, to do the plucking, to engage in the packing, to do the financing, to look after the employment side, the board fixing a provisional price in August or September. What was the provisional price to be? Was it to be one that would inspire confidence among producers? If the provisional price were exceeded in the realisation of the birds, what was the machinery by which the surplus would be distributed and at what cost?

Mr. Dillon

It is operating satisfactorily in Cootehill.

Mr. Smith

It is too local for discussion as far as I am concerned. That is an individual co-operative business.

Mr. Dillon

Covering a pretty wide area—Monaghan, Cavan, and North Longford.

Mr. Smith

How were they going to do all this business and how were they going to control the price at which turkeys would be bought for the home market? Of the turkeys we normally sell, only 600,000 are exported and the balance is consumed here.

Mr. Dillon

The export price would be very low.

Mr. Smith

If the export price is a provisional price, as it must be, where is the guidance then for those who buy for the home market? I have examined that report very carefully with all the people I have mentioned. I have set up a body to watch this year's trading, a body representative of the main interests concerned. They have been helpful so far in trying to give the maximum information as to market conditions and the most recent information would seem to indicate that the tendency is for the market to firm somewhat.

My reasons for refusing to accept the recommendations in their entirety are sound and valid. Whatever the leader writers or the public men have to say, I would have no hesitation in going before any jury fairly composed and justifying to the hilt my decision in that regard. If there is anyone in this House who thinks I shall just accept a recommendation because it is made by members of a body behind whom I can shelter, let me say that is not the part I shall play while I am in this Department. If our agricultural effort can be assisted in any way by the establishment of an organisation such as that recommended or by the future efforts of this ad hoc committee, I shall welcome it. But I suspect that with a board of five, set up in the city of Dublin, with a staff, an office and a phone, phoning to Cootehill and to Bantry, relying upon wholesalers who have been in this trade all their lives, employing them to do their work, fixing compensation for the use of their premises, plant and staff and then giving them a margin of profit—I know the sort of wrangling that would go on between the board and the trading interests concerned—in the end, you would find the turkey producers paying for all that paraphernalia and getting very little in return. Without having any prejudices one way or the other, I shall have to be satisfied there is a reasonable chance of effecting an improvement before I will set up a board. I do not regard boards as cure-alls for everything.

We should talk in a reasonable manner about these important subjects. I do not say that because I want to stave off attack. I do not mind. As Minister for Agriculture, I can take it either way. However, I think it is foolish to attempt to prove what intelligent people outside know is nonsense and untrue, that things were never in such a catastrophic state since the Economic War ended.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will agree they have lost money on turkeys?

Mr. Smith

I could not say that. I know it could not be a profitable business this year. When Deputy Dillon was Minister in 1956, he had to pass through a period worse than this, to the extent that turkeys were 5d per lb. less. I did not think he was responsible for that and I never accused him of being responsible for it; but he can keep on saying until the cows come home that I am responsible now. It does not change my opinion, nor does it change the opinion of the intelligent people in counties Cavan and Monaghan who can look at the Six Counties and see that the prices there are exactly the same as they are getting, because there are no supports for turkey prices there. I am doing better than I thought.

Mr. Dillon

That is the trouble with the Minister. He always thinks he is doing better than he is.

Mr. Smith

I am proud to think that many people agree with me.

Mr. Dillon

That is what is called the grand illusion.

Mr. Smith

It has lasted a long time and I think I may be excused for feeling proud about it. I have not the slightest doubt that the people who come in contact with me, whether cattle traders, shipping agents, Deputies from Cork or any other place dealing with bovine T.B., go away with the feeling that I know what I am talking about and that I know what I am doing.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Corry will faint.

Mr. Corry

You come from neighbouring counties. I shall not interfere between you.

Mr. Wycherley

I thought the Minister would do better for the turkey producers than Deputy Dillon did.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Your hopes were dashed.

Mr. Smith

I was thinking of taking them back to school and appealing to Deputy Dr. Browne for the right to take a cane with me. If I could not do better than Deputy Dillon, I would whip myself.

We had the matter of parish agents trotted out as if we had never heard it before. I am entirely in favour of providing the farming community with all the scientific advice and assistance they require; but, on this again, I am entirely unlike Deputy Dillon, who in regard to the parish plan apparently went off at a tangent. We had the parish agent plan without a thought. It requires a little more than that. The Minister, the Department and the Government have to ask themselves in a matter of this nature: what form will our advisory services take? We already had the county committees of agriculture and their staffs. Were we to depart from that and go on the basis of an agent for every two or three parishes controlled all over the country by the Department of Agriculture? That is the first question that has to be answered.

You cannot have two services, dealing with the same people and the same problems, growing up alongside each other. There are only about 20 parish agents altogether and we discovered long ago the confusion caused by the lack of co-operation between them and the people employed by the county committees of agriculture. Does that not clearly show to any thinking person that that first question has to be answered before we can embark on any of these schemes? This matter of trying to be spectacular lasts for only a few months. Whatever little advantage you get will all disappear.

Debate adjourned.