The Minister for Agriculture to conclude.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 46—Agriculture (Resumed)
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsiderations.—(Deputy Dillon.)
I draw your attention to the fact that Deputy Palmer is on his feet.
Seeing that it is intended that the House should rise tomorrow; I shall not interest at all.
The discussion on this Estimates has, as usual, ranged over many topics and, as I think I said on the last occasion when the Estimates was before the House, it is not my intention to take up all the points raised or the suggestions offered or reply to all the criticisms levelled. There is, however, one subject to which a number of Deputies referred, a subject which one hears discussed wherever one goes and discussed, I am afraid I must say, by people who do not appear to have given any very serious thought to how it arises or has arisen. However regrettable this tendency in movement of population may be there is nothing to be gained by just blandy describing some part of the countryside known to us and relating what is taking place there, without at the same time endeavouring to arrive at some conclusion as to the cause.
I am referring to the depopulation of certain parts of the country and indeed the movement of people not only from small-holdings in congested and semi-congested areas but from small-holdings everywhere. Some time ago, I made it may business to look at and compare tendencies in the six north-eastern counties with our own experience and, to my astonishment, notwithstanding British policy and support for agriculture, I found that the movement away from small-holdings on poorer land in these parts was even greater than it is with us. I do not claim to have examined the positions in other lands but I am told that the tendency everywhere is the same.
We may all regret this—as we do— but it is one thing to regret it and quite a different thing to find some means of solving the problem and checking the tendency. If there is one thing that makes me tired, it is when I go to certain functions and find people discussing this subject at great length and usually they are people who themselves have abandoned the land and the occupation of those who live there. I am not saying that everybody born and reared in the countryside automatically gets an opportunity of providing himself with a living on the land but many of those who are critical—rather aimlessly critical— are people who themselves have left the land and in many cases have ensured that their relatives are provided for in more pleasant surroundings.
I think we must look at this regrettable fact that is staring us in the face it is a tremendously difficult thing— to put it mildly—to provide a living for a man and his wife, if he has a wife, and his family, if he has a family, on the small areas of land that we in our younger days knew would support families. We know also that the standard of living is much higher now and that people who live in rural areas know that a higher standards is to be obtained elsewhere: we know that the natural human tendency is to go where the high standard will be provided. As far as I can see, it is not an easy matter to ensure that the inclination will be otherwise.
I think the State has made a reasonable effort all down the years and that it will be admitted that quite an amount of progress has been made in housing, in the provision of grants of one kind or another, not only for housing human beings but for housing animals; in the reduction of rates, meeting the major portion of the rates on all valuations under £20, and all the other attractions that have been provided by the taxpayers long years ago in order to stem the tendency that I suppose, even in those times, it was possible to foresee might develop. I do not think that sort of discussion, whether inside or outside the House, is in any way helpful if we are genuine in our desire to curb this tendency.
Before I go on to points made in the course of the debate, I shall deal with some other general matters. There was a discussion on barley and barely prices. I want to confess quite openly that a matter that some people, even Deputies, would seem to make light of, is to me a most difficult problem. If you were to cater for the wishes of Deputy Corry and other Deputies on every side of the House who think of barley as a cash crop, the price would be much higher than it is, but when one considers barley as being both a cash crop and a crop that is converted into food which to some extent has to be sold abroad in a competitive way, an entirely different situation arises. I certainly have no desire that feedingstuffs should be imported unnecessarily. I long for the day when we could devise means by which we could give reasonable support to our land owners who grow barley as a cash crop and which would at the same time relieve us of the necessity to have the controls that result from giving a guaranteed minimum price for barley. Immediately that minimum price is given, even when it is regarded by those who want to grow barley solely as a cash crop as a low price, provision must be made for the purchase of the crop after the harvest at the price which has been announced. Once you do that, you have to provide the organisation; you have to select the means by which you will do it.
I have seen this task being undertaken by a semi-State body and I have seen the result which, no matter how you tried, you could not explain to the man who feeds barley or other feedingstuffs to animals. You could not explain the reason why when Grain Importers purchased barley at, say, £20 per ton after the harvest, by the following spring, April, May, June, they were selling the same barley to the components for £27 and £28 a ton. I often tried to explain how that came about. I tried to do so in this House on a few occasions. Maybe it was that the Deputies concerned did not want to understand, but I did try to explain and could not.
Of course, when you named the organisation to do the job of work, that organisation had to rely on the buyers of grain and those who had storage accommodation all over the country. They authorised these people to purchase the grain at a price fixed, to dry, and store it, to turn it, bag it and all the rest of it. Every move these handlers of the barley made, every £ they invested, all the interest they paid on the capital necessary to enable them to make the purchases and to provide themselves with the organisation to dry and store the barley was added up and by the springtime of the following year, the price, which was £20 after the harvest, worked out at £27 to £28, or perhaps a little more.
These are some of the difficulties that have to be contended with in implementing the wise policy of encouraging our people to provide as much coarse grain as we require. The difficulty must be guarded against that in the process you do not make the feedingstuffs so expensive as to make it impossible for people to do business on anything approaching a competitive basis.
I said at the outset that there was nothing that would please me better than to find a means by which we could give the necessary support and encouragement to our own people to grow barley, while at the same time giving the maximum amount of freedom to merchants and others engaged in the provision of feedingstuffs, so that as a result of noninterference by the Government and Department feedingstuffs would be produced and sold at the lowest possible price.
I do not think it would secure acceptance by those who have the narrow view as to the purpose which should be served by the growing of barley but anyone in the office of Minister for Agriculture must have regard to the two interests. It is not because I happen to represent a constituency where the amount of imported feedingstuffs used is as great as in any other part of the country; having regard to size and population, it is not because that is their interest and largely their way of life that I would be influenced as regards the desirability of a national policy, consistent with the outline I have given, to grow all the feedingstuffs that we could grow.
The same remarks apply to wheat but the problem is not quite the same. I see no point whatever in our producing more wheat than we determine from time to time we shall use in the production of our daily bread. So long as we decide to make flour with 75 per cent. Irish wheat, we should aim at growing the amount of wheat that will enable us to keep that flour mixture. The difficulty is that when the acreage in a normal year to give that requirement is exceeded there is no means of disposing of the surplus except to sell it for feeding to animals.
Some Deputy spoke on the much-discussed levy on wheat and said that it was my intention to introduce another system next year. I made no such announcement. I have been anxious for a long time to see if there was any other means by which we could have our wheat requirements grown so that unlike last year we would not have too little and, unlike this year, we would not have too much. Last year having regard to the national requirements we were under-supplied, although it was a splend year for wheat, and this year the indications are that we shall probably have too much.
There is no simple way of devising some sort of contract scheme by which the acreage likely to give the required amount of wheat would be grown. Such a scheme might be open to all sorts of abuses, but it is certainly not a useless occupation to strive to devise some scheme that would meet that sort of situation. No real national purpose can be served by growing wheat in excess of the quantity the Government determine from time to time as the national requirements.
Some Deputies referred to the bacon industry. I was astonished to hear some Fine Gael Deputy recommend very enthusiastically the nationalisation of the bacon business. We are about to introduce a marketing organisation to dispose to greater advantage of whatever surplus bacon is produced and I imagine it does not make their task easier when the business is privately owned and operated. At the same time nationalisation of this or any other business would be the last resort with me. It is a matter that has not been discussed by me with any of my colleagues and what I am expressing now is an individual opinion. There are times when nationalisation is essential but it would be difficult to convince me that any business run by a central, semi-State board would be more successful than safe family concerns.
As I think I have indicated in the House in reply to Parliamentary Questions, we are about to introduce a marketing system for the bacon industry. If we get the right kind of board it will probably do good. There would be many difficulties and while up to a point I have great faith in private enterprises and private interests, I think that bacon is the one case where the marketing committee was clearly entitled to recommend the establishment of such an organisation. If the marketing committee had not been there at all, the chances are that we would have taken action along these lines before now but since the marketing committee was there, it would be unfair for us to take steps prior to our hearing their views on the subject.
The question of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, to which I referred at length in the course of my speech, was raised by quite a number of Deputies. I was not here when Deputy Barry made his contribution and perhaps other Deputies, in my absence, gave expression to similar views. Seeing that there is and has been all along, with the exception of a single mind here and there, complete agreement as to the wisdom of endeavouring to complete this task as quickly as possible, I do not think it serves any useful purpose for a Deputy to throw cold water on these efforts. It is difficult enough to get our people to become as keen and as keyed-up as would be desirable without saying anything that might encourage them to remain or to become lackadaisical. I want to assure Deputies who addressed themselves to this question and who were critical, as they are entitled to be, of the plans we have made and are following, that in spite of the other important questions which are the concern of my Department, there is no question the consideration of which would claim the same amount of time in relation to ideas and criticism from whatever source they came. I have had in the Department for quite a long time an organisation for dealing with the problem which is as good as you would get even in the best-organised commercial concern. It is almost perfect. If we receive the co-operation to which we are entitled, I know of no reason why we should not complete this task surprisingly quickly, having regard to the difficulties.
There is nothing to be gained by saying we did not start in time. I know we did not. If we did not, it was because many of our people were slow and hesitant even up to the last day. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate that fact than the rush of applications for accreditation that reached my Department when finally the hand fell and there could be no exports to Great Britain and the Six Counties except of 14-day tested and accredited cattle. Quite a lot of herd owners then rushed about wildly to have their herds accredited. They thought the Department of Agriculture, which was short of veterinary staff, should be on tap to carry out the inspections for accreditation. One would be surprised at the negligence of some people and how critical they can be when they suddenly come to life and realise the opportunities if somebody is not standing by to come to them immediately they crack their fingers.
The western area scheme has been criticised. The southern scheme of six counties, five Munster and one Leinster, has been considered of doubtful wisdom. Having had discussions with outsiders, with Deputies, with public men, with farming organisations, with my officials, I am satisfied we have a splendid organisation now and that with unstinted co-operation, we shall achieve very satisfactory results. There is a type of co-operation which is not the wholehearted type from which one gets results and it is not sufficient here. It is not obstruction. It is a sort of dead and alive co-operation.
I do not want to go into the details of the matter. I have notes here which would enable me to deal with some of the points and to give explanations on some of the questions asked, but I do not think it necessary. One Deputy referred to the urgency of the matter and said that if it is a question of money, the Government should float a loan. I have not been hampered in any way, within reason, as a far as money is concerned. Even with all the generosity of the Government and the Minister for Finance, we cannot resolve this difficulty by money alone. It is helpful and indeed vital. Generous treatment of those whose animals are being purchased in one way or another is necessary. However, this difficulty cannot satisfactorily be resolved without unstuited co-operation and the enthusiasm I have tried to depict.
Deputy Dillon asked what I meant by claiming that I have compulsory powers in the clearance area. I have powers of all kinds in relation to the exposure of animals at fairs and the type of cattle that will be permitted into the clearance area. I have power to oblige a man to have his cattle tested and to dispose of reactor animals. We have not had many prosecutions although we have had some in relation to illegal movement of cattle. A number of prosecutions are pending, possibly in relation to other matters. We did not find it necessary to use these compulsory powers and we were not anxious to use them. When we come to the end of the road in any area or county, there may be a residue of stubborn people who will not line up and do their duty and against whom these powers may ultimately have to be used. They are there and if they were not used, it was because in the great majority of cases there was no need to use them except in regard to illegal movement and so on.
The Minister speaks in an amorphous way of a lack of that kind of co-operation without which results cannot be had. Is it possible for the Minister to indicate by any example what kind of co-operation is required that is not forthcoming? Listening to him with the utmost sympathy, I do not grasp exactly what it is he wants people to do to help him that they are not prepared to do.
We have set out in our advertisements and in other ways all the different things that a herd owner can do to protect himself, to protect his interests and enable us to get along with the work. I am hopeful that they will see the wisdom of doing that now.
Some mention was made of the movement of staff, that is, the taking of staff from land reclamation and other work sometimes for the purpose of the purchase and removal of reactor cattle. That has taken place all right because we could not find any other way of doing so. The men called upon were men with some knowledge and experience. It is not always possible to rush off and recruit men when you want them. We have made some inroads on the outdoor officers employed on those schemes. I was very relucant to do so because if you interfere with a man in his normal work, the chances are that that interference has a demoralising influence on his work. When he goes back to that work, he possibly will not settle down in the same way to it. He will probably assume that he may be taken away from it again. The percentage of the total number of these people called upon is very small. We are hoping we will reach the stage when it will not be necessary to make these inroads on these staffs. I think it is bad myself. I have explained, and I think my officials understand, my attitude on the matter. I feel that it contributes to a form of demoralisation in their normal work and it would be better in every way if it could be avoided.
I was asked some questions about the seed potato trade by, I think, Deputy MacEoin. He asked me to explain how it was that the growers in Athlone were not able to secure the same prices as prevailed apparently in Donegal. As far as I understand, the varieties grown in Athlone are varieties grown not for export but for the home market. Most of the Donegal business is for export. They are an entirely different variety. It is true that some years the Donegal people have the advantage because of the circumstances outside. It is also true, in my opinion, that some years the advantage would rest with people like the Athlone producers who grow for the home market. I do not think there is any means by which you can mend that matter.
The question of the marketing of ware potatoes was raised by Deputy Sweetman. It nearly always happens, as happened on many occasions previously, that when we had a good crop of potatoes, the people across the water had a good crop of potatoes, more than they required. Not only that but in other lands, the same story could be told. The difficulties which arise in securing markets in those circumstances are great. However, the Potato Marketing Company did not do so badly, having regard to all the circumstances. They sold the potatoes in Spanish territories, Portugal, Algeria, the West Indies and Sweden. The quantity could have been far greater if the opening were there for them, but it just was not there.
I think it was Deputy MacEoin who asked about the Agricultural Institute. He asked me to give an account of their activities. I have no responsibility for the activities of that body. I take it that they will publish a report at the end of the year and that that report will be available to every Deputy and the public at large.
What about the suggestion that they were short of money ?
I was asked a Parliamentary Question on that matter the other day. All I can say is that they have obtained from us a grant of £400,000 in the current year. In addition, they have income from capital funds amounting to over £1,000,000. The combined result works out at their having £250,000 more than was made available during the year 1958-1959. That is not too bad, I think.
The question of lime subsidy was raised by Deputy Sweetman. He drew attention to the fact that the provision in the Estimate was so much less than last year. The provision in the Estimate this year is less but the excess over requirements last year was £188,000 and he present provision is based on the usage of 1,200,000 tons. For some reason that I cannot really understand, there has been some slight tendency towards a fall off in the use of lime. It is not a very noticeable one but there has been a tendency in that direction.
Some Deputies would attribute that falling off to the reduction in the subsidy. I do not know what is responsible for it but let me say that I heard a number of people engaged in the industry say that if the farmers expect to get lime delivered and distributed on the land for less than £1 a ton, unless you give it to them for nothing, it is very hard to see what more they could expect. If it is not worth £1 a ton distributed on the farmers' land, I should feel that you might as well throw up your hands and say they just do not want it. One of these producers of lime thought that it was in fact too cheap. It was at a period when there was a steep fall because the weather was very bad and he felt the impact of that fall. He was of the opinion that farmers and landowners had lost confidence in it because it was so cheap. However, as I say, the provision this year's designed to cover a distribution of 1,200,000 tons and if it should prove necessary to seek a larger amount, if the distribution of lime should exceed that quantity, I have no doubt the money will be made available.
Deputy Sweetman asked me why there should be an increase in the amount of subsidy for superphosphate. The main reason is that the home capacity for superphosphate has increased considerably and a very big increase in the sales of home superphosphates is anticipated for the coming year. It is expected that we shall be virtually self-sufficient in superphosphates in the coming year.
Deputy Dillon raised the questions of progeny testing and I shall read the note which I have here:
Bovine progeny testing started in 1955 with five recorders employed by the A.I. and two cow testing Instructors from this Department. Information from this source and from cow testing associations was all the data up to 1959. This was very limited and was of very little use towards testing bulls. In 1959 with the aid of a grant from the Department testing was started on a larger scale. In the spring of that year 23 recorders were put in the field, and as a result of their work under many handicaps, ten shorthorns bulls and three Friesian bulls were fully tested for milk, seven shorthorn bulls were satisfactorily tested and 20 shorthorn and 12 Friesian bulls were partially tested.
This year, 1960, there are 25 recorders working. Negotiations are in progress between the A.I. bodies cow testing associations, and the Department to reorganise milk recording in such a way that as many bulls as possible will be tested each year. It is hoped through this scheme to be in a position fully to test every dairy bull standing at an A.I. centre.
In addition to above a start was made at a number of the A.I. centres with farms attached, to evaluate the progeny of dairy bulls for beefing quantities.
In the spring of 1958, dropped calves the progeny of 14 bulls—nine shorthorn and five Friesians—were taken on to the farms. They are being retained till they are fat, when they will be slaughtered, and an evaluation made on the carecse. The cattle are being weighed monthly and their rate of progress recorded.
In 1960 dropped calves the progeny of 10 bulls (6 Shorthorn and 4 Friesian) were taken on the A.I. farms for testing.
No testing was done in the Sligo A.I. area till 1959 (except through cow testing associations) when one recorder was appointed. He took up duty in July in the Donegal area, and results of his work will not be available till the end of this year (1960).
I was asked by Deputy Jones why the grants towards agricultural schools seemed to be low. The decrease in grants in schools is due to the fact that in previous years Estimates included large sums for specific capital projects —buildings which have now been completed.
There is another note here on pig progeny testing about which Deputy Dillon asked for informations and which reads:
In the selection of premium boars the results of progeny testing and litter recording are considered. At the moment no boar is eligible for a premium if the breeder of such a pig has not been litter recording, and if the dam has not been litter recorded. Preference is given to the sons of progeny tested boars where they are available. However, if a progeny tested boar has done badly on test his sons will not be considered for premium purposes.
Progeny testing gives informations on the performance of sows for characteristics influencing carcase quality. In the selections of breeding stock every effort is made to select future stock from sows that have done well on progeny tests. In this way it is possible to tie up the selections of boars using progeny test results on both male and female lines.
The results of progeny testing to date have shown very few outstanding boars. So far only three really good boars have been tested. The greatest weakness in our pigs is carcase length.
In order to speed up the use of progeny test results, and combine litter recording with progeny testing, a pig accreditation scheme will be introduced on the first of next August. The scheme will give a complete tie up of all results obtained through both schemes and it will help to identify the outstanding pig herds of the country. When this has been achieved it is proposed to multiply the desirable strains rapidly and eliminate the undesirable strains. This scheme will be the basis for the selections of premium boars in the future.
A lot of play has been made of the fall in agricultural income in, 1958-59. I think we had quite a discussion on this last year. Anything I may say now on this I do not intend as a defence either of the Department of Agriculture or of myself. I am just dealing with the argument qua argument, because, whether in this House or outside it, I should regard it as childishness to think that anybody can be fooled by that kind of talk or by the idea that a Minister for Agriculture is obliged to defend such a argument, which seeks to describe the conditions that prevailed in 1958 or 1959 and, listening to the Deputies opposite, would compare everything with 1957, and would not dream of going back to 1956. I do not think all those wise men who, as I say think they are fooling someone with such antics, know their own people.
Anyone with common sense, and every farmer in the wide earthly world, knows that in a summer like last summer you could not expect to get the same volume of milk from your cows as you could get in a more normal year from the point of view of grass. Every farmer in the world would be able to understand why it was that last year was an excellent grain-producing year. Similarly, every farmers would be able to tell you why, and in what way, 1959 was different from 1958. He would be able to tell you that 1957 was a balanced year for everything, and he would be able to tell you that 1956 was really worse than any other year.
It was curious that the net output was up then.
I am talking about the farmers income. I have it here.
I have it here, too.
The farmers' income for 1956 was £118.9 million; in 1957, it was £132.2 million; in 1958, it was £120 million; and in 1959 it was £124 million.
Of course the value of money has gone down which proves——
Look here——
——that it was five per cent. less.
I do not mind what percentage you make it. What I am saying is——
These are the Minister's statistics.
I shall try as long as I can to put some little wisdom into the heads of members of the Opposition and to induce them to believe that when they talk about these matters, they are not registering. They are not ringing one single solitary bell in the public mind.
That is what the Minister thinks.
The public will just think in terms that they are Deputies of the Fine Gael Party who are trying politically to commercialise factors over which they, the Deputies of the Fine Gael Party, the Minister for Agricultural or the Government, have no control in the wide earthly world. I think it was last year I heard Fine Gael Deputies talking about the cattle trade. They talked about turkey prices last year also and they were entitled to in the sense that turkey prices were very bad.
There is no doubt about that.
There is no doubt that if they went back to the figures in 1956 for both cattle and turkey prices, they would see a tremendously different picture. I have here the cattle prices for 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959, and at no time since 1956 were cattle prices so low. It would be complete stupidity on, my part to attempt to say that my predecessor. Deputy Dillon, was responsible for that, because he could not do a single solitary thing about it.
I think the Minister said he should.
There is a different tune now.
The Deputy is putting words in my mouth now. If I said any such thing, I should like to have my attention drawn to it, and to where I said it.
Deputy Giles talked about a common policy. I was not here for all his speech but one point made by him was the desirability of a common agricultural policy. There is one thing on which we can agree, that is that, in so far as we have goods for sale on the outside markets of the world, and in so far as we can enter those markets to sell those goods, we have to sell them on a competitive basis through whatever organisation which may be designed to give the necessary supports and encouragements.
In September, 1956, there was nothing the then Minister for Agriculture could have done to prevent the prices of store cattle from falling to 96/6d. per cwt. When the following Christmas the bottom fell completely and absolutely out of the market for turkeys, he could do nothing about it either. Deputy Dillon or any other member of the Opposition can no longer get away with the idea that they could induce anyone outside the shores of this country to give them better terms for whatever produce we have to sell than those Governments decided it is in their interests to give us.
There are many such facts which we have to face, and whatever we may do, or whatever we may say, we should not resort to the sort of extravagantly depressive speeches which have been made—for examples, concerning the cattle trade. If I made a claim here and if that claim were not in accord with the experience of people in this business outside, or not in accord with what they know to be the facts, they would laugh at me. I shall not be laughed at and, therefore, I shall not claim that everything has been rosy so far as the cattle trade is concerned, but it is not as bad as some Deputies have described it. I do not know much about it but I know a little.
I heard Deputy Donnellan, for example, talking about the cattle trade. Talk about extravagance in the use of language—it was just appalling! For the life of me, I do not know what purpose, personal or otherwise, any Deputy could hope to serve by such a contribution.
For instance?
We shall not talk about it.
For instance ?
I heard Deputies refer to the increase in the cattle population. As I have often said, of course, that is a very important contribution. It is, in fact, what we have been striving for for years. I have often expressed disapointment because our cow population seemed to be statics there might be a change of a few thousand as between one year and another but, on the whole, it seemed to be static between 1,200,000 and 1,250,000. There is evidence now that our cattle population has increased, and increased substantially. We all know that the cattle trade is full of hazards. It has at all times had its ups and downs. When introducing the Estimate, I stated what the situation was as far as the store cattle trade was concerned, but I rounded the statement off by saying that, as far as I knew, and as far as those who were competent to judge were concerned, the position seemed to be safe and encouraging.
Encouraging?
Yes. Deputy Donnellan would like to see, and so would I, a sudden movement upwards to the price obtaining in 1957.
Surely.
We would all like to see that. But I am far from admitting that the store cattle trade will not be a profitable business, even if we do not reach the 1957 price level. I am far from deploring the fact that there is an increase in the cattle population, and particularly an increase in the number of cows and in-calf heifers.
And a goods job, too.
Of course, it is. Is that not what we are aiming at ?
What about aiming at the price?
Order!
I have heard some Fine Gael speakers issue a warning. They have pointed to the writing on the wall. Apparently, as is usual in the case of that Party, they have completely misinterpreted the public mind. One thing that amazes me about the Fine Gael Party is the rapidity with which they forget why and how they went out of office in February, 1957. I suppose it is only natural they should try to forget. Deputy O'Sullivan asked me this evening if there was any tendency to delay the payment of grants, or to withhold grants in my Department? I did not want to interrupt him then, but, had I felt myself free to interrupt at that point, I should have said: "Thanks be to God, that day has gone, and gone for ever. It is no longer necessary to sit on the bills." If the Fine Gael Party really want to know why it was they so mysteriously went out of office in 1957, having been three years in Government, having never been defeated, having a majority in this House, I have here before me three documents which clearly establish the reason they went out and the decision which followed their going out on the part of the electorate.
On a point of order, does the Minister's speech relate to agriculture?
It does.
Let him fire away. The more rope he takes, the higher he will land.
Deputy Sweetman said it was a good job the country had had the experience of two periods of inter-Party Government. In the last experience the country had, the inter-Party Government felt constrained to make two public announcements in relation to my Department in regard to two schemes about which they profess to be concerned. Those announcements were to the effect that certain schemes were suspended because they had not any money with which to pay those who might wish to avail of them.
Because, in fact, we paid more than the Minister's Government have paid since. We paid more in our three years than the Minister's Government have paid in the past three years, and the Minister cannot deny that. Tell the truth now for a change.
Order!
I have the document here.
Publish the other statement, too, that the Minister always fails to table. Tell the truth.
I have two documents here, one dealing with farm buildings and the other with the Land Project.
Tell us the amount that was paid.
Deputy Sweetman might allow the Minister to make his statement.
Deputy Sweetman was Minister for Finance, and he does not like this.
He wants the truth. The Ministers does not know the meaning of the word "truth."
This is an announcement withdrawing the Land Project and the farm building scheme.
Nonsense. Read it out.
I am about to do so.
Farmers making preliminary inquiries about grants under the Farm Buildings Scheme and the Water Supply Scheme operated by the Department of Agriculture are being informed that their applications have had to be postponed. The reason is that the amount of money allocated under the Department's vote for this work has already been earmarked for this year, and a proportions of next year's allocation is likely to be used up in dealing with allocations already in the Department's hands.
Hear, hear—now tell us more about it.
Was there anything about Section "B" of the Land Project being withdrawn?
Now tell us the amount.
We did more in one year than you did in three.
But you did not pay.
We did indeed.
Was there anything about Section B of the Land Rehabilitation Project?
This tells the same story about the Land Project.
Read it out. You were bursting to read it out a minute ago.
"Land Project—curtailment of expenditure 1956/57 (financial crisis.)"
Read it out. That is not published by the Department of Agriculture.
"On the 7th June, 1956 —a minute from the Department of Finance requesting a review of the capital expenditure for inter alia Subhead M. 9 (Land Project) with a view to effecting a saving of at least 5% of the total involved.”
That is not a public document.
If that is to be read it must be tabled.
It goes on—"July, 1956 —Government directions that savings amounting to £5 million should be secured on the estimated expenditure (current and capital) for that year...."
On a point of order, will this document be tabled?
It will indeed.
Good enough. The last time you were asked to table it you funked it and I had to go to my successor to get it from him.
I have another document here and, if I were to search all the spending Departments of the State, I could have a stack of these documents reaching over my head.
Do not funk it like the last time when I had to go to my successor.
Here is one which concerns the Department of Local Government. It is a formidable one and it tells the same story.
Put it in. I have been told a lot about that before.
On a point of order, Deputy Sweetman is being deliberately disorderly and is only anxious to hold up this debate. I suggest the Minister should not be interrupted in this way.
The Minister ought to be allowed to conclude.
If the Minister will give an undertaking to table the documents that will be fair enough.
I am giving that undertaking. I shall put in the two documents from which I am quoting.
Put in the one you are waving.
That is a different matter. I am going to have this over your head as long as you are in politics here. This tells the story of you and your colleagues.
You are not tabling it, and that is how you are funking it.
I am well aware you were not able to meet your liabilities and this tells the story.
Do not funk it now.
This tells the story that you were not able to meet your liabilities.
There is not a scintilla of truth in that. The Minister knows that perfectly well.
The Minister should be allowed to conclude.
He should not quote from anything he is not going to table.
You do not like this whole question?
I should like to hear the truth.
Deputy Sweetman has kept up a running fire of interruptions for the last ten minutes and I think the Minister should be allowed to conclude without that performance.
On a point of order, the Minister is waving documents and he refuses to disclose what they are. Every document from which he wishes to quote should be tabled and put on record.
The Minister has quoted from certain documents and he says those documents will be tabled.
But he has another document which he is holding up in his hand and which he refuses to table.
I could use an umbrella on a rainy day and I would not have to hand it over to my neighbour.
And it is badly you need an umbrella today.
I want to keep this document because it is a real gem. It is a real Fine Gael-Cumann na nGaedheal depressionist gem. It was at a time when, not having taken action in time, they became panicky and, having become panicky, they fell over themselves doing things——
The Minister is now becoming jittery.
They fell on everything that was designed to give employment. They sat on housing schemes, water schemes, all the schemes connected with my Department, all that was in the Board of Works—all the things the members of the Fine Gael Party wished to forget when they went out to face the country, but the true story was present in the minds of those who were going to deal with them in the ballot boxes.
The story of your life would be something.
The story was that you were broke and you were not able to pay your debts.
The Minister is only trying to create a smoke screen to cover his failure as Minister for Agriculture.
I remember a farmer in Ballybay, in Deputy Dillon's constituency, saying to me: "Tell me is it really true that this Government have no money?" I said: "I do not know if they have or not." He said to me then: "Well, if that is true, we are not broke yet." I said: "That is a good job. There is still a chance. You will soon have an opportunity to get rid of them."
Was it from Deputy Mooney he heard that story? He certainly did not hear it from me.
You robbed them of the 2/6d.
There is the story right there behind you.
I put a question here to you to know if you could do anything about them.
Well now, this is the first day we heard you for a twelve month.
I do not blame Deputy Dillon if he is a wee bit disturbed. I am just thinking of a short time before all this came to life, and I can recall Deputy O'Donnell when he was replying to a motion of no confidence in the policy which was then being pursued in regard to Local Government. I can remember myself looking at him trying to make a case——
The relevance of all this to agriculture is, to say the least, remote.
We are not discussing Local Government.
——to defend himself, and when I saw the predicament in which he really was, and about which the public knew nothing, I said to myself if I had known it was as bad as that I would have more sympathy for him.
You are a most charitable man.
The poor man forgets he is Minister for Agriculture now.
He wants the people to forget it because he has made such a mess of it.
He is still in the sewers of the Custom House.
All I want to say is that the Fine Gael Party, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, one of their principal characteristics has always been to imagine that the public mind is even shorter than it is.
It is very long at the moment.
The public mind is not so short as apparently some Deputies in that Party thought.
Hear, hear.
Carlow-Kilkenny.
You will remember Carlow-Kilkenny.
(Interruptions.)
I suggest, Sir, you should adjourn the House until order is restored.
Deputies might allow the Minister to conclude.
The Minister might conclude on agriculture, Sir.
On agriculture.
We have not heard anything about agriculture for the last quarter of an hour.
I am talking about the time when traders had money due to them and they could not be paid, when the farmers to whom grants were due could not be paid, and when the officials employed by the Department of Agriculture on land reclamation works were hiding around corners in villages and towns, trying not to have to investigate the various applications that were coming in.
Rubbish!
You did not know a damn thing about agriculture. That is all there is to that.
All that was going on in 1956/57 and now, when people outside hear the members of that Party express their concern if there appears to be a bit of delay in the payment of a grant for some legitimate reason, they will open their eyes and say: "Is this the old times of Fine Gael?" Fine Gael always thought the public had a shorter mind than it had, than it will prove to have when they meet them in the course of the next couple of years or so. That is all I want to say. I understand that the Taoiseach is about to come in to introduce his Estimate.
You have covered all the ground.
It does not matter.
I am not anxious to prolong this discussion. I believe that there is evidence everywhere that the policy that has been pursued and supported by the Government in relation to agriculture is providing assistance to the small farmers. We have supported the price of milk. We have supported the price of bacon. We have supported the price of wheat and the price of cattle, live and dead weight for export, and indeed for home consumption too. We have relieved the rates on farm buildings erected by farmers now, and about to be erected in the years ahead. We have introduced a subsidy on phosphates, potash and lime, and I have no doubt——
You have introduced a subsidy on lime?
We are continuing it. We shall not take any credit from you. There is so little left I could not find it in my heart to take it from you.
(Interruptions.)
Any person who gives any thought to Irish agricultural policy will see that every step we have taken is designed to relieve the burden on the man who has to discharge the main responsibility and to encourage him to greater effort. No matter what we do people on the land will, I suppose, meet sometimes with adverse circumstances. But any person who travels through this country can see the effects and the wisdom of the policy we have been pursuing in the provision of money for all these purposes I have mentioned.
He will certainly see the results of it—failure.
Question: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration", put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 44; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Carew, John.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgns, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
Níl
- Alken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Noel. T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl, Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Question declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.