I move:—
That the Seanad is of opinion that the Government should take immediate steps to complete the purchase and transfer to co-operative ownership of all existing proprietary creameries, including those managed by the Dairy Disposal Company, Ltd., with a view to the more effective regulation and control of the dairying industry.
It is not possible to discuss this motion at any great length, and I do not propose to delay the House for any considerable period in what I have got to say. There can, however, be no discussion of this motion at all without taking into consideration the wider implications of the co-operative movement as a whole. I should like to say at the outset in moving the motion, that I am fortunate in dealing with a Minister who, throughout his association with the Ministry of Agriculture or the industry of agriculture, has given definite proof of his sympathy for the co-operative movement, and has shown a recognition of the work it has done, the value of it, and the necessity for it amongst the farming community. In suggesting that the Government should take immediate steps to complete the purchase and transfer of the creameries that are still in the possession of proprietary companies as well as those managed by the Dairy Disposal Company, I appreciate the fact that I am raising a number of problems that cannot be solved, right away, and that many questions can be put to me which I am not at the moment competent to answer.
I have come to the conclusion—in fact I never had any other point of view—that the co-operative movement in this country despite its many critics, taking into account the difficulties through which it has passed and the obstacles in its path at the time of its establishment, has grown into a wonderful institution and I often wonder what agricultural Ireland would be like to-day but for its existence. I think that all who have had association with it should be very proud of its achievement. It can be truthfully said that it has built up as fine a business institution as can be found inside the country or outside it, despite the many obstacles it has had to face and overcome. I think that it is also true to say that we have reached a stage now when we must make up our minds in regard to the future, whether the co-operative movement is to be kept on and, so to speak, to cultivate new fields or whether we are to accept the point of view that it has grown to its full stature and that nothing more is possible by way of new achievement for it.
I do not accept the latter point of view at all. I believe that the fuller development of the co-operative movement is essential to progressive agriculture in Ireland. I believe that a great many of our most progressive farmers are children of the co-operative movement. They have grown to manhood in an atmosphere in which they were nurtured in co-operative ideals and the great bulk of the most successful farmers we have got in the country are men who have been brought up in the co-operative school of thought. I think that the success and progress of the farming community in future are dependent to a very great extent on the continued growth and expansion of the co-operative movement, on a fuller and more complete development than we have yet seen.
I believe that we have reached a stage now when we must take stock of what we have accomplished so far to see what we are going to do with regard to the future. Now, the co-operative movement has critics I know. There are critics of it in the co-operative movement itself and there are a great many outside it. There were a great many in the country who were very fearful of it and the consequence when the movement was initiated away back in the 90's, but the fruits that have been reaped from the activities of the early co-operators must be applauded by all, even by the critics of those days. And if we accept that dairy farming in this country could never have survived without the bringing into existence of and the progress of the co-operative movement it obviously follows that the measure of success we achieve in the future is to a great extent contingent on the continued development of that movement.
We have to admit that for a number of years we cannot point out with truth that there has been that development of co-operation which most of us would like to have seen. Back in 1927, in the days of the predecessor of the present Minister for Agriculture, it was found necessary to introduce an Act we might say, to rationalise the dairying industry. Now it would be rather interesting to go back to the atmosphere of those days and look at the point of view expressed by the Minister who found it necessary in 1927 to introduce a Co-operative Act or Creamery Act as we call it. He told the Dáil that amongst the reasons that urged him to introduce it was that intense competition between proprietaries and co-operatives for milk supply was making the position of the creamery industry as a whole impossible.
The Minister of that day said:—
"The extreme case is where a co-operative and a proprietary central are situate in the same district practically alongside each other, and where each has anything from three to ten auxiliaries existing side by side with those of its competitor, all competing for the same milk supplies. This is not uncommon; while in other districts there are co-operative and proprietary groups touching and competing with each other at various points. This is always the position where there is a proprietorial and co-operative competition. When a proprietary creamery is operating without co-operative competition, the temptation to give what will be regarded by farmers as poor prices for milk is overwhelming, and rightly or wrongly, farmers spurred on by the example of co-operative creameries in other dis tricts will always insist on erecting creameries themselves, so as to provide an alternative outlet for their milk supplies. In this way, as long as there are both proprietary and co-operative creameries in the same province, there always will be redundancy. Redundancy means increased overhead expenses, and the exact position at the moment in the districts where proprietary and co-operative competition is going on is that the farmers of these districts are paying always twice, and often three times the overhead expenses that are required for efficient production."
He went on to indicate what the position was:
"In every agricultural country in Europe and America farmers' organisations were provided with suitable credits, and from a very early stage their developments were guided by co-operative legislation. Here they were left without either. It used to be the fashion here to talk loosely about the inefficiency of farmers and farmers' organisation. Everybody heard of a few co-operative creameries that failed, and sweeping deductions were drawn from these comparatively few failures, very much to the discredit of the industry as a whole. The fact is that the existence, in spite of all the disadvantages, of 400 co-operative creameries out of a total of 580 is an extraordinary tesimony to the pioneer work of the I.A.O.S., and to the capacity and loyalty of the Irish farmers. In no other country had farmers' organisation to grapple unaided with the same difficulties, and they are entitled to ask from the State now the facilities which have been refused them for so long."
Following the introduction of the Act there was to be another Act called the Co-operative Act in which he was to have the co-operative creameries affiliated to one central body and in addition there was to be introduced another Act that would enable them to find credit. Other things happened in 1927 and here we are now in 1941. In 1927 out of 580, there were 400 co-operative creameries. To-day the position is that we have approximately 450 co-operatives, 21 proprietary concerns, and in the hands of the Dairy Disposal Company we have 18 centrals and 106 branches approximately, so that the position after almost 14 years is that we have a co-operative movement with about 50 added to the number. We have outside the co-operative movement this other large group in the hands of the Dairy Disposal Company and 21 creameries in the hands of proprietaries. Now if it is asked why more progress has not been made by the co-operative movement— the people who put that question are frequently blind to the progress that was made up to the year 1921 or 1922 and blind to some of the progress that was made up to the year 1932 or 1933 —I think the true answer is that the co-operative movement is in an impossible position.
Dairying is the foundation of Irish agriculture and side by side with our co-operative creameries all over we have creameries in the hands of proprietaries and these other concerns in the hands of the Dairy Disposal Company. The net result is that we have never been able to get that strength collected under the banner of co-operation which is essential to the progress of the co-operative movement and the bettering of conditions for Irish farming. The number, undoubtedly, is smaller, but the conditions are just as they were then. There is a co-operative creamery, perhaps, on one side of the road and a proprietary concern on the other, both plying in the same area for a supply of milk which is just adequate to keep one creamery working efficiently. The overhead expenses, obviously, on the farmers are much greater than they ought to be; the price of milk to the farmer is correspondingly low. The co-operative movement is suffering from the depression of intense competition which it should not have to face. The co-operative spirit, generally, cannot prosper and grow strong and go on to further development under such crippling conditions. That is the fact with regard to the undoubtedly limited number of proprietary concerns. I think it is true to say that a number of the co-operative creameries in these areas have for long been prepared to purchase these concerns but somehow it has not been possible for the co-operatives to get possession of them. If the milk which at present is supplied to the proprietary concerns were passed over to the co-operative creameries, the net result would be a better price for milk, lower working expenses and a cheerier tone in farming circles in these areas generally.
With regard to the Dairy Disposal Company, that, I know, is a much more difficult proposition, but there are, I think, reasons why this problem has to be faced up to and tackled in a way which, up to the present, anyhow, we have not given evidence that we were prepared to try in order to solve the situation. Until the problem is solved satisfactorily it is going to leave the co-operative movement a very unfinished project in this country. It is interesting to refer to the point of view of the late Minister for Agriculture in reference to the policy of the transference of the creameries from the old Newmarket Dairy Company, which was then to be a holding body, and which has since grown into this Dairy Disposals Board and Dairy Disposal Company. To-day, as we all see it, it is very largely a Government concern, run by men—competent and able, no doubt; I am not questioning that at all—but whom we regard as civil servants. I think from the point of view of the State, that policy was thoroughly unsound and very dangerous. This is what the late Minister for Agriculture said with regard to what his intention was:
"I hope that nobody will make the mistake of regarding this transaction as the beginnings of a policy under which the Government proposes to run the creameries of the country. The exact contrary is the fact. The purchase of these creameries has no justification other than it is a necessary preliminary to the efficient working of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Co-operative Act. The Co-operative Act will regulate and define the conditions under which existing societies may operate, and new societies be established."
That was the point of view expressed by the then Minister for Agriculture. I was a member of the Oireachtas at the time that measure was going through. All of us believed, when that statement was made by the late Mr. Hogan, that five years, at the outside limit, would be a sufficient period to enable the transfer from these creameries to co-operative ownership to take place. I think it is true to say that no progress whatever has been made in that direction nor is there any evidence of any possible progress in the near future towards that end. Those of us who pin our faith to a wider development of the co-operative movement see no possibility whatever of that wider development until the organisation under the aegis and control of the Dairy Disposal Company and those other organisations in the hands of proprietors are transferred from these authorities to the ownership and control of farmers in the co-operative movement.
I realise, of course, the difficulties and the complexities that face the Ministry of Agriculture in attempting this but I suggest to the Minister that the first step in this country towards putting the dairying industry on a sound basis is the introduction and passing of a Co-operative Act, making it obligatory on every co-operative concern in the country to be affiliated to one central organisation, putting the responsibility then on all these co-operators to do, if the necessity arises, what the Dairy Disposal Company have had to do in certain districts in the country. The unfortunate position that a number of our co-operative creameries is confronted with in certain areas is that, in their relations with the Dairy Disposal Company they are in an exactly similar position to that which they formerly occupied in relation to the old Newmarket Dairy Company, or Cleeve's. It is true to say that while under the Creamery Act and regulations made under that Act, all our creameries are prevented from doing certain things, the Dairy Disposal Company, that ought to be bound by these regulations like any co-operative creamery, is in fact in certain districts going outside the regulations, breaking the regulations, and doing what a co-operative creamery cannot do. One of the regulations is that a creamery cannot take from another creamery a supplier who passed over to that creamery from one of the redundant creameries because in fact the redundant creamery was bought and paid for by these co-operatives and there was an obligation on that farmer to put up a certain amount of share capital. A long loan, no doubt, was the means by which this was done, but while the co-operative movement and the co-operative creameries are prevented, and have been prosecuted in some instances for breaking these regulations, there are instances where the Dairy Disposal Company are actually accepting milk from suppliers of transferred creameries which they are not under the law entitled to do.
It is suggested, too, that in certain other districts the Dairy Disposal Company, where they are in competition with co-operative creameries—and they are in competition with co-operative creameries in certain districts in the country—are in fact paying higher prices in those districts than they are paying in other districts in the country where they are not in competition with co-operative creameries. I think all that is very tragic. In fact, from my point of view, it is disastrous for what we have all come to look upon as a semi-State organisation to be in the position of paying farmers a certain price for milk in one district and paying them a lower price for milk in another district. There is not that equity about that transaction which we would like to feel would be the dominant consideration in a semi-State organisation or in any commercial organisation, in its relations with those with whom it carries on trade. But, there is something more about it. I am not disputing the fact that you had to have the holding body, the Dairy Disposal Board, brought into existence to take over and to transfer these creameries, but I say that while it was essential as a medium to do a certain job, its existence as a trading organisation in the dairying industry to-day has the effect of paralysing the movement to a degree which is not at all being appreciated. Unless we can make up our minds that we are going to build up the co-operative movement as the biggest instrument the farmers have created, and the biggest instrument for the welfare of the farmers, we are preventing that development by the existence of this semi-State trading body which, to say the least of it, we have no reason to believe is in any way sympathetic to the interests of co-operators.
We are satisfied there is criticism of the co-operative movement in the existence of the Dairy Disposal Company for so long, but there is the other consideration as well. The law provided that our transferred milk suppliers to co-operative creameries were obliged to subscribe capital to the creamery by which they were taken over. A loan was raised, no doubt, to enable this to be done, but there is no evidence that the same law applies as regards the creameries that are being operated under the Dairy Disposal Company or that the same obligation has to be borne by the farmer-supplier to this institution at all. Now, you cannot have one regulation for a farmer going to a co-operative creamery and another for a farmer going to a proprietary creamery or a Dairy Disposal Company's creamery, and believe at the same time that the co-operative movement can go on to further strength under these conditions. I believe we have reached the point when we have got to make up our minds whether this institution is to continue as an essential element in the dairying industry in this country or whether something else is to be done with it. At the moment, if one might make any criticism, one might say that instead of the co-operative creameries getting possession of these creameries, as it was anticipated they would, a certain number of the co-operative creameries have, in fact, gone over to the Dairy Disposal Company. I know that there were reasons for that. I can be asked what could be done if the Disposal Company was not there, but I will put this to the Minister, that his policy in the matter ought to be the immediate introduction of a Co-operative Bill, putting the obligation on every co-operative creamery to come into a federation or organisation where they would, so to speak, be under a vocational scheme organised, controlled and managed as a branch of the industry. If there were lame dogs inside that vocational scheme, they would have to be helped along. Let the whole organisation help them along, let them bear the cost and responsibilities of guiding, helping, controlling and managing their business, until they have grown to manhood's estate and can manage it for themselves.
If a Co-operative Bill had been introduced immediately after the passing into law of the Creameries Act, the position would be entirely different to-day. The creameries concerned would now be able to manage for themselves. The Department would have been able, as it ought to have been able, to put the responsibility on the co-operative movement to manage their business as co-operative creameries in districts where their competence and experience might justify them in believing they were able to do it efficiently for themselves. We have proof and evidence in the co-operative movement of the business ability and capacity of our committees to look after their affairs successfully, and from what we know of them, it cannot be alleged against the movement as a whole that they are not capable of doing much more for the industry generally than has been done up to the present. They have conquered and won in certain territories. Some of them will have to win against intense competition, and win in development even when the competition has passed away. They have given ample evidence of greater efficiency than any proprietary concern or the Dairy Disposal Company can show. I have not the slightest doubt that, in the areas where creameries have passed out of existence and under the control of the Dairy Disposal Board, these creameries could have been managed efficiently by a co-operative federation, if that were established under and in accordance with law, where all men in the co-operative movement would have obligations and responsibilities which they could not evade or avoid. I believe that in the bigger area being operated by the Dairy Disposal Board in Clare the same thing would apply.
The time has come now when we must make up our minds as to whether the present position will be stabilised for years to come, or whether we are to do something else. I urge on the Minister that the time is ripe. In the days when the Creamery Act was being passed through the House there was goodwill from all sides. The Minister got help, assistance and co-operation. He was spending a great deal of money belonging to the State, but he was doing the right thing and was saving thousands of farmers from bankruptcy and from being smashed by competition that was financed partly outside the country and partly within it. He was saving them from the consequences of being smashed by the trading organisation and from the depression that would inevitably follow. It was deemed wise and right in those days to spend the State's money and it would appear, to a certain extent, in our time to be almost revolutionary, but had not that been done what would be the condition in the dairying industry where these concerns operate? We went so far on the road: are we going to continue the advance or be satisfied with the present position for another ten years? I do not think we can be satisfied.
In certain creamery districts there is intense feeling, which I know is restricted, as the area is somewhat smaller than it was. The feelings are not just what they were in the old days. Nevertheless, there were a number of creameries affected and there were difficulties which had to be solved. An immediate solution is necessary. The first consideration in my mind is in regard to the Dairy Disposal Board, and it is that it is obviously wrong to have a semi-State organisation like that in trade without that responsibility on the part of its officials which those engaged in a co-operative or an ordinary concern would have to the committee of management. You have a certain number of unquestionably competent people, but there is the State behind it and the State's finances have been drawn on to keep it working. To what extent these finances have been drawn on I do not know, but that is something which the country would like to know. In itself, that position is unsound. If the Minister regarded it as essential for the whole future of the dairying industry that that institution should continue, it would be better to set up something like the Electricity Supply Board or the Agricultural Credit Corporation and make annual grants to keep it in operation, rather than continue the present conditions. The more quickly the Minister extracts himself and the State from connection with that sort of business the better, and the more sound it will be for the State as a whole.
In addition, we must make up our minds that the further growth and development of the co-operative movement is positively essential to agricultural progress. In order to get strength, every creamery and dairying organisation should be brought within the folds of the co-operative movement and whatever steps are necessary towards that end should be taken by the Minister. I know that much of the State's money is locked up in the Dairy Disposal Board. To have that work passed over to the farmer to do is an obligation which, perhaps, some farmers are not prepared to accept voluntarily. However, I believe that ultimately it would be better to impose the obligation on the farmer, as the present conditions prevent a general development of farming, which we must have in order to maintain that higher standard which the farmers and the country require.
Action must be taken with regard to finance, to enable the farmers to become the owners of the creamery organisations at present operating in the territory managed by the Dairy Disposal Board. I do not think that creates any problem at all. These creameries, in the hands of farmers and of men whom the farmers will put into the work of management—and probably they are many of the men managing them to-day—will be just as efficient as they are at the moment. There will be the added advantage that, for the first time in the country's history, the dairy industry as a whole will be co-operatively owned. Steps can be taken then to bring into operation the Co-operative Bill which has been promised for some 15 years or more. Under that Bill, every unit of the co-operative movement will be brought into a federated organisation where all will have their obligations, responsibilities and rights. Then you will have taken the first steps towards putting the co-operative movement in a position when it will be able to cultivate new fields. There is no doubt whatever that but for the existence of this sort of competition and but for the struggle and fight waged by a great many farmers, the constructive work done in these areas by the co-operative concerns could not have been attempted.
I suggest that the time is ripe now for the Minister to tell the country not alone what he will do but that he will do it. No doubt there would be certain objections to the changes in the present position from certain interested parties in certain areas. Politically, it will not bring the Minister any great kudos. I know it did not bring his predecessor any considerable support, but that did not deter him from doing what he thought right. In a question like this, where I believe the interests of the agricultural industry as a whole are so bound up with the development of the co-operative movement, we must do the right thing, regardless of the individual interests that will be affected by it. The Minister could be busy day after day hearing from deputations as to why farmers should not be asked to take over these responsibilities. What hope is there for a country or a people not prepared to shoulder responsibility? One cannot have any great respect for a group of men who will go to a Minister, a Deputy or a Senator and say they do not want to take this on or that they are not competent. I do not know whether some of them would urge that they are not competent. There has been evidence of incompetence and failure, but there is overwhelming evidence of competence and success, and this can be pointed out.
If we are to make our people what we would like them to be, we must put responsibility on them in local districts around their own homes, and teach them to build up in their own parishes and local areas that kind of organisation and those institutions which are the factors in social and economic life that can help in economic development and social progress. That can be a medium for educating and strengthening them economically and helping the industry on to better times. If there are men who plead they do not want this done, and do not wish to take on the financial obligations which it entails, one answer is that, in more difficult days, in days when farmers were more poverty-stricken than they are to-day, the pioneers of the co-operative movement went out and put their money and their faith into the work of building creameries where, in many cases, there was poor land and poor prospects. They are proud of that to-day, and their sons are proud of it. If these people are not prepared to do what others attempted in more difficult times, it is our obligation to teach them to have more confidence in themselves. If the obligation is put on them, I believe they would be astonished at what they can do; and when they have discovered their own strength and capacity to do these things and the pleasure that ownership gives and can give—whether it be ownership in full or in part—in successful commercial institutions, the seed will have been sown which will produce good fruit. New developments will take place in those districts, which never would be attempted under the conditions which exist to-day. While those conditions exist, one cannot hope for real progress in agriculture.
As I said earlier, I realise that there are many difficulties confronting the Minister, if he is prepared to do this. One or two questions which the Minister should put to himself are: Did the late Mr. Hogan do the right thing when he introduced this first Act? Should the work which he started be completed or not? If it be not completed, are we to be content to leave things as they are, and what will the consequences be? Few will disagree with the statement that the late Mr. Hogan was right, that his aim was right and that, had he not done as he did, conditions would be very different to-day in many of our dairying industries. The Minister will have obstacles to surmount and difficulties to contend with, even from his friends. However, he has pursued this policy and I have no reason to doubt—and I have no evidence—that his policy was not the same as his predecessors in relation to the co-operative movement. If he is prepared to pursue this policy, he will have the backing of very many people and will win the admiration of a great many people who, perhaps, to-day are rather lukewarm towards such a proposition.
He also will inculcate in districts where the standard of citizenship is not as high as it should be, a new outlook on life and a new approach to problems. In this respect there is an obligation on him, and on everyone who can help him, to try to inculcate a better understanding of true citizenship than exists in many places at the moment. The atmosphere and conditions in many parts of the country at the present time are favourable for such an attempt as this. We cannot stay put, we must go on to new things and make new efforts. In a way, this is not a new effort, but the completion of work begun by somebody else. It should be completed by the man who succeeded Mr. Hogan in the Department of Agriculture. If the Minister tells the House and the country that he will go on with this and put the co-operative movement into practice by completing the transfer of all these creameries and by the introduction and passing of a Co-operative Bill, the Minister will have left, when he passes out, a monument to his efforts that will last and an Act that will, through its operation, enable the farmers to do a great many things for themselves which they are expecting him and the Department officials to do for them at the moment. I am conscious in a way, of my incapacity to deal with this problem in the manner which I should like. I am not as intimate with it as are a number of the southern representatives but I have heard a great deal about it over many years. I know that it is a difficult problem but it is one of the problems which ought to be tackled and solved. I believe that the time to do that is now and I hope the House will accept the motion.