Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 May 1931

Vol. 38 No. 16

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Agriculture.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £289,976 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Talmhaíochta agus seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin, maraon le hIldeontaisí i gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £289,976 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and of certain services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

I propose, in laying before the Dáil the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture for the year 1931-32, to indicate as briefly as possible the reasons for the more important variations between the figures for this year and last year under the various groups of sub-heads. In view of the detailed information as to each sub-head supplied on former occasions, it will not presumably be necessary or desirable that I should cover again the same ground, and I shall, therefore, refer chiefly to some of the more important matters coming within the scope of the Estimates. It will be seen that the gross Vote of the Department of Agriculture is £596,330, and the net amount £434,964, this latter figure being obtained by subtracting from the gross figure the amount of the Appropriations-in-Aid, i.e., £161,366. Particulars of these Appropriations-in-Aid are set out on page 219 of the Estimates; but as I mentioned last year, the grants amounting to £54,650 from the Local Taxation Grant, the Church Temporalities Fund and the Estate Duty Grant are not, strictly speaking, receipts which arise naturally from the Department's work. Accordingly, this sum of £54,650 should be added to the net figure of £434,964 in order to ascertain the total net expenditure on the services covered by the Department's Vote, which will give a total estimated net expenditure of £489,614.

The initial group of Sub-heads A, B, C and D, cost in round figures £130,500, as compared with £131,400 last year, showing a decrease of £900. This group includes, in addition to the salaries and expenses of the staff at Headquarters, which is mainly administrative, the general technical and outdoor staff of the Department, together with other central expenses which cannot conveniently be allocated amongst other sub-heads.

Passing now to the sub-heads which follow, I propose again, as in the past, for convenience sake, to divide these into two main groups, i.e., Agricultural Education, Development and Research work, and the administration of Acts and Statutory Orders. Experience has shown that it is extremely difficult in practice to mark off by any definite line a sphere of research work from that of agricultural education and development. Sub-heads E 1 to F 7, together with Sub-heads K 2, L, M 1, M 2, and M 3 may conveniently be taken together under the heading of Educational Services. The total cost of this work will be £137,600, a figure which is slightly under the corresponding figure for last year.

The grants given to county committees of agriculture as an addition to the funds obtained by those bodies from rates for the purposes of the various live stock and other important schemes administered by them will be found under Sub-heads H 1 and H 2. The total of these sub-heads is £84,100, a net increase of £550 over last year. It is estimated that about £65,200 will be the sum contributed from rates to the work of the county committees of agriculture, giving a total of over £149,000 available for the carrying out of these local schemes.

A good deal of the Department's educational and development work which is carried on centrally by the Department itself resembles in many ways the work done through the county committees of agriculture. Central work of this nature may be grouped under Sub-heads G 1, G 2, G 3, I, J, K 1, K 3, and M 4. The estimated expenditure under this group is a little over £115,000 gross, or £72,000 net, as compared with £113,000 gross and £71,000 net last year. The making of advances to co-operative creamery societies was discontinued last year, but it is anticipated that a sum of £9,800 in partial repayment of advances of this nature already made will be received this year as an Appropriation-in-Aid.

In regard to Sub-head M 5—Purchase of Creameries—the estimated amount required for this object during the current year is £60,000, as compared with £100,000 last year, of which latter sum £72,500 was actually expended in connection with this purchase scheme, which has already done so much, and will in the future, it is hoped, do still more towards placing the dairying industry in this country upon a permanently satisfactory business basis. It is obviously, as I have previously pointed out, a matter of considerable difficulty to arrive at anything like a precise estimate under this sub-head, seeing that the expenditure in any particular year must so largely depend upon the opportunities which may arise for the purchase of creameries under proprietary control, where such purchase appears necessary in the interests of the reorganisation of the industry. The total number of creameries purchased to the present date is 185, of which 79 have been closed as redundant; 43 have been transferred to co-operative societies, and 63 are temporarily retained pending suitable arrangements for transfer. Before leaving this important group of sub-heads, which I have described generally as educational, it may be well to refer to some of the variations in the provision made for the current year as compared with last year.

Sub-head E 2—Veterinary Research. —The increase of £401 is mainly due to the fact that the salary of a veterinary inspector employed at the Laboratory has been this year transferred from Sub-head A to this sub-head, to which it more properly belongs.

Sub-head E 3—Subscriptions, etc., to International and other Research Organisations.—The large decrease under this sub-head is due, as will be seen, mainly to the fact that last year a provision of £1,900 was made in connection with expenditure at the World's Poultry Congress in London. New items of expenditure appear in this sub-head in respect of expenditure in connection with the forthcoming International Dairy Congress at Copenhagen, and the International Seed-Testing Congress in Holland, and also a sum of £100, which it is proposed to contribute annually towards the funds of the Imperial Forestry Institute as the Saorstát share in a scheme to provide that institute with a sufficient income to enable it to undertake the preparation and circulation among all contributing members of information relating to forestry, and to provide facilities for dealing with inquiries from these countries relating to silviculture and management, etc.

Sub-head F 2—Grants to Private Agricultural Schools, etc.—The appointment of an extra teacher, and the furnishing of places for five additional resident pupils at the Swinford School of Rural Domestic Economy account for the small increase shown.

Sub-head F 5—University College, Dublin: Faculty of General Agriculture.—Additions have been made to the staff of this faculty, which has not yet reached its full development.

Sub-head F 6—University College, Cork: Faculty of Dairy Science.—Out of the sum of £82,000 provided for capital expenditure on the purchase of land, the erection of farm buildings and the erection and equipment of a creamery and of a dairying institute, etc., for the Dairy Science Faculty, a little over £70,000 has been already spent, and it is probable that the balance of £12,000 will be paid over before the end of the current financial year. On the completion of the institute and creamery buildings, it is anticipated that this faculty will be fully organised.

Sub-head F 7—Educational Tours for Agricultural Instructors.—The provision under this sub-head has been doubled, as it is proposed this year to organise tours in other countries to enable some of the instructors in agriculture to study farming methods, and instructors in poultry-keeping to study poultry methods elsewhere. As most of the poultry instructors were afforded the opportunity last year of visiting the World's Poultry Congress in London, no special provision for an educational tour for these officers was considered necessary.

Sub-head G 2—Improvement of Milk Production.—The decrease of almost £2,500 under this sub-head arose from the fact that an investigation carried out by the Department into the methods of working of a number of cow-testing associations rendered it necessary, owing to the discovery of certain irregularities in some of the associations, to reorganise this work by the elimination of certain unsatisfactory associations and the amalgamation of others. On the other hand, a sum of £400, which did not appear last year, will be required for one of the courses of instruction for supervisors of these associations, courses which are given every second year.

Sub-head G 3—Improvement of Live Stock.—The increase of £500 is due mainly to increased railway charges for the carriage of premium bulls and boars.

Passing over Sub-heads H 1 and H 2, which I have already dealt with, I come to Sub-head I, Special Agricultural Schemes in Congested Districts, under which an increase of £4,691 is shown, an increase due to the development of special schemes for the Gaeltacht area. The main items of expenditure under these schemes for the current year are estimated as follows:—Salaries and travelling expenses of additional staff, £2,529; Demonstration plots to be supervised by additional staff, £700; Special scheme for location of sows, £550; Special poultry scheme, £445; Shelter belt scheme, £160. In regard to the poultry station scheme, under which grants are paid to selected applicants for the erection and stocking of poultry stations, I may say that this helpful scheme was inaugurated last year in the Connemara district, and is now being extended to the Rosses district of County Donegal.

Sub-head K 3—Grant to Bloodstock Breeders' Association of Ireland.—This is a new sub-head in the Department's Vote. The Bloodstock Breeders' Association of Ireland have organised a scheme of advertising and publicity with a view to bringing under the notice of possible purchasers abroad, in a way which has not hitherto been done, the merits of Irish bred horses. The funds of the Association for such purpose are limited, and I believe that in the general interests of an important national industry, the State should, at least as an experiment, make some contribution towards the expense of such a scheme. It is therefore proposed this year to bear half the cost of such publicity, up to the limit of £300.

Sub-head M 1—Miscellaneous Work. —The increase of £740 under this sub-head is due to increased expenditure under the Farm Finances Scheme, including the salary (£150) of an additional costings officer, the payment of honoraria to farmers for keeping and furnishing accounts, and of supervising allowances to county instructors in agriculture and to assistant agricultural overseers for extra duties done in connection with this scheme. As Deputies are aware, greatly increased attention is now being given in all progressive agricultural countries to the important subject of farm costings. As the appointment of the additional costings officer has not yet been made, the revised scheme has not as yet come into operation.

Sub-head M 3—Printing of Special Departmental Publications.—The increase of £400 arises from the fact that the sum of £600 is provided in respect of a volume of the Register of non-Pedigree Dairy Cattle, which will be a much larger publication than the Register of Purebred Dairy Cattle, for which £200 was provided last year.

Sub-head M 4—Loans for Agricultural Purposes.—The reduction here is due to a falling off in the applications for loans for hand sprayers and agricultural implements.

I come now to the second group of sub-heads, relating to the administration of Acts and Statutory Orders (Sub-heads N.1 to 0.7), which may be classified under the general heading of "Control," as compared with the educational and development sub-heads with which I have already dealt. The total estimates for this group amount to £68,800, against which must be placed estimated appropriations-in-aid of £31,850, leaving a net expenditure of a little under £37,000. The titles of the various sub-heads in this group indicate fairly clearly the nature of the work done under each. Before referring to the particular sub-heads in which variations from last year's figures occur, I shall deal with the Sub-head 0.7—Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930. This Act, in so far as it applies or relates to beef, veal and the offals of cattle, pork and the offals of pigs, and mutton and lamb and the offals of sheep, came into operation on the 1st September last. The eight temporary veterinary examiners are employed at the larger factories, and are distributed as follows:—1 at Castlebar, 1 at Dundalk, 2 at Tralee, 3 at Waterford and 1 at Wexford. Provision is also made for the remuneration of thirteen part-time veterinary examiners, whose remuneration varies from a fee of two guineas per day of necessary attendance at the slaughtering premises, to a fee per 100 animals examined. There are at present twelve of these part-time veterinary examiners employed, one each being allocated to premises in the following places:—Cavan, Claremorris, Dromod, Enniscorthy, Killeedy, Kingscourt, Monaghan, Rathlee, Roscrea, Sligo, Waterford and Youghal.

In regard to the figure of £6,600 provided to cover contributions to local authorities in respect of the salaries of veterinary examiners, I may point out that Section 39 of the Act empowers me to authorise a veterinary officer of a local sanitary authority to carry out the powers and duties imposed by the Act on a veterinary examiner. The provisions of this section have been availed of in the County Boroughs of Cork, Dublin and Limerick, in which cases the salaries of a number of officers are, in accordance with this procedure, refunded by the Department to the local authority. The provision thus made covers the work of veterinary examination in thirteen registered slaughtering premises. The two temporary marketing inspectors, in respect of whom a sum of £520 is provided, carry out inspections at slaughtering premises and also at ports and railway stations concerning the condition, packing, loading, etc., of fresh meat and offals. Turning now to the appropriations-in-aid anticipated from receipts from licences, etc., under the Fresh Meat Act, it will be seen that a sum of £9,600 is anticipated from this source during the coming year, as against last year's estimate of £2,800, which was, of course, for part of a year only. There are at present thirty-two registered slaughtering premises, and the number of licences held by exporters is 46, of which 5 are beef exporters' licences; 32 are pork exporters' licences, and 9 are mutton exporters' licences. In the four months ended 31st December last, the following numbers of animals were presented for veterinary examination at the registered slaughtering premises: Cattle (including calves), 3,856; pigs, 320,068; sheep (including lambs), 16,717. The Act has now been in operation for over eight months, and I am glad to say continues to work smoothly, the difficulties which are inevitably associated with the bringing into operation of an Act covering so wide and important a field being happily surmounted with the minimum of friction.

Passing now from this sub-head in the control group, I shall deal briefly with the figures of some of the other sub-heads in that group.

Sub-head N 2—Bovine Tuberculosis Order.—The estimate for the current year is £6,500, representing an increase of £1,000 on the estimate for last year. The actual expenditure, however, last year was £6,465, so that the present year's figure shows practically no change from that of last year.

Sub-head N 4—Live Stock Breeding Act.—The increase here is due to the necessity for an increase of £45 in salaries and £200 in travelling expenses, owing to the necessity for the making of special investigations in districts in which evasions of the Act are suspected by the Department. These increases are partially set off by the decrease of £60 in incidentals.

Sub-head O 1—Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Acts.—The decrease in this Estimate is due mainly to anticipated economies in travelling expenses. In connection with this sub-head I may remind Deputies that the Amending Act passed last year will be in operation this season. With the additional powers given by it for the control of the export trade, it is hoped that the quality of Saorstát eggs will be still further improved. In particular, the power given by that Act to an inspector to order the return to a shipper of any consignment of eggs, five per cent. of which fails to comply with the requirements of the Acts of 1924 and 1930, and the regulations made thereunder, will, I trust, prove a most useful factor in convincing those members of the trade who still unfortunately attempt to export eggs of inferior quality, that the highest standard must be maintained if they are to be in a position to send their eggs out of this country.

Sub-head O 2—Dairy Produce Act— The increase in this sub-head is mainly due to the necessity for providing for additional temporary inspectors, which the Department's experience has shown to be required to assist the permanent staff in coping with the abnormal pressure of work during the export season. It may perhaps be of interest to mention, in connection with this sub-head, that in the immediate future an order will be made requiring factory butter to comply with certain definite standards before export will be allowed. I hope that it will be possible for this order to take effect as from the 1st August next.

It will be noted that for this whole work the total estimate is £68,000, whereas the appropriations-in-aid are £31,000, leaving a balance of £37,000 as the net contribution made by the State. That is the net contribution made in connection with the Livestock Breeding Act, under which we control the breeding of livestock in this country, and under which we license all the bulls and now all the boars in the country. It includes also work under the Dairy Produce Act, under which the production of butter was completely controlled, work under the Agricultural (Eggs) Act, the Bovine Tuberculosis Order and under the Fresh Meat Act. When we consider that under these four Acts we attempted, and successfully attempted, and I will add with very little friction, to control the things I have mentioned—livestock, eggs, butter, etc.—at a cost of £31,000, I think I am entitled to say that this State is getting extremely good value for that expenditure. It will be seen that on page 201 of the Estimates an item of £15,700 appears under the heading of "Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer," in respect of the repayment of loans advanced by the Department to agricultural co-operative credit societies. I continue to receive evidence from various quarters that this scheme of State advances to these small societies, to enable them to make loans to farmers, chiefly in the districts which some years ago suffered severely from fluke disease and from flooding, has proved to be a most beneficial one, and has done much to enable the small farmers in a number of districts to re-stock their land. The advances were made to 63 societies to the extent of £87,495, of which £50,156 has been repaid to 31st March last, leaving a sum of £37,339 still outstanding. No further advances are, of course, being made under the scheme, which was put into operation for a particular purpose, and for a limited period of years.

To conclude this necessarily brief survey of the numerous sub-heads in the Department's—Vote, I may summarise the Estimates for the current year in round figures as follows:— Headquarters Staff and Central Administration, £130,500; Education, Development and Research work, £137,600, or a net figure of £116,100, after making allowance for appropriations-in-aid of £21,500; grants to county committees, £84,100; central work analogous to that of county committees, £115,300, or after allowing for £42,700 as appropriations-in-aid, a net figure of £72,600; purchases of creameries, £60,000; control work, £68,800, or after allowing for appropriations-in-aid of £31,800, a net figure of £37,000. After allowing for receipts amounting to £65,200 (as follows:—Repayments by Creameries of loans, £9,800; Miscellaneous, £750, and Grants from the Local Taxation Account, etc., £54,650, which are not applicable to any of the above groups), these figures give a total Vote of £596,330, and a net Vote of £434,964, referred to in the opening portion of my statement.

I beg to move:—

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

The Minister in his opening statement did not give us any very clear or general review of the result of the working of his Department as he did in previous years. On previous occasions he was inclined to tell us what were the effects and the good results of the various Acts that had been passed under the wise administration of his Department. It would appear that he was not very much inclined to go on that line in presenting his Estimate this year. There is one item which the Minister mentioned which appears for the first time. That is the grant to the Imperial Forestry Institute. I just want to get that out of the way first by saying that it should have more properly appeared in the forestry estimate because before one could criticise or agree with the Minister in making that grant one would have to go into the question of forestry on this Vote and we would be only repeating, perhaps later on, on the Forestry Vote, what would be said on the subject here to-day.

As regards the various Acts passed for the purpose of increasing live-stock and live-stock products, for export principally, the four principal Acts— the Live-Stock Breeding Act, the Agricultural (Eggs) Act, the Dairy Produce Act, and the Fresh Meat Act —the total cost is £43,000. Against that it is true that there are appropriations-in-aid but if one is to inquire into what they are costing the country, and costing the agricultural community in particular, one must admit that those fees and appropriations-in-aid are coming from the agricultural community, so that even if the Department can claim that they are administering these Acts at a less cost than a total of £43,000 they are doing so at the expense of the agricultural community. If they are getting fees for licences under the Livestock Breeding Act, the Eggs Act, the Dairy Produce Act and the Fresh Meat Act they are certainly coming indirectly, if not directly, out of the pockets of the producers, so that we may take it that the cost of these Acts to the producers amounts roughly to the appropriations-in-aid, that is something in the region of £30,000.

Many people who tried to improve livestock in this country for years before the Minister took office, many creameries that were producing butter of good quality, many egg exporters who had a good record in the export of eggs believe that these Acts have not had the good effects that the Department claims for them. There are specific complaints in relation to these Acts which I should like to mention. Some of these complaints were mentioned before, and the Minister, I think, tried to meet them, but there are still some complaints. Under the Livestock Breeding Act there is a serious complaint, particularly in the dairying districts, that the number of bulls passed by the inspectors is not sufficient. In reply to a question by Deputy Crowley, of Limerick, some time ago the Minister gave the number of bulls presented for inspection in many centres in County Limerick and the number passed by the inspectors. The number passed worked out between 20 and 25 per cent. That is a very serious state of affairs, because I do not think the farmers would be inclined to keep the young bulls unless they felt there was need for them. Even if they were not altogether up to the standard, the inspectors should have had a little more consideration for those who keep herds of cows in these counties and should have passed at least half of them. It will take some years before we can make the live-stock of this country absolutely perfect and we should take our time in this matter and not put the people to such great hardship and inconvenience as they are being put to at present. Not only in Limerick and Tipperary, but in other counties, such as Wexford and Wicklow, I have heard complaints that the scarcity of bulls has led to the prevalence of abortion in cows. There is no doubt that that disease has become much more prevalent during the last four or five years than it was before the Live Stock Breeding Act was brought in.

There is a great deal to be said for the argument that where many herds of cows have to do with one bull the danger of the spread of this disease is greater than in former times when every farmer with a large herd of cows kept his own bull. It has in some districts also, I am assured, led to the abuse that the Minister is trying to stamp out. People have been put to such inconvenience that they have risked keeping a bull that is not licensed. The result is that bulls are being kept in some parts of the country which are a hundred times worse than the bulls presented for inspection and rejected. If these regulations were relaxed a little, and if inspectors were instructed to pass some more of the bulls presented, this abuse would not arise.

As to stallions, there are complaints that the view of the Department in the selection of the breed of horses to be kept in the country does not coincide always with the view of the people who are breeding horses. I have been told in different parts of the country that it is very hard to get the Department to sanction the heavy breed of horse, that they are too much inclined to go in for the thoroughbred horse. In counties like Wexford where they have been breeding very good hunters for many years, they feel that after some years the hunter trade will be completely done away with, because if horses are to be more pure-bred than they are at present they will be of a lighter type. The people there hold, whether rightly or wrongly, that a good hunter cannot be got by breeding from a thoroughbred mare with a thoroughbred stallion; that you must have a half-bred mare or a mare that is even less than half-bred. They hold that in order to get a good hunter you must have a mare of a heavy type with a thoroughbred stallion. If the Department continue to exclude the heavy type of horse from which mares could be bred suitable to produce hunters then the whole hunter trade will be destroyed. In addition to that people have complained that the Department are very much more favourable to the applications of veterinary surgeons and people of that type for stallions than they are to the applications of the ordinary farmers, even though they may be large breeders of horses.

I have also heard complaints on three or four occasions during the last few months that eggs have been rejected by the Department's inspectors, and that they have refused to give any information to the exporters as to the cause of the rejection. That is a very unfair way of treating the exporters. One of these exporters has assured me that he has exported a large quantity of eggs since the Act was passed, and that this was the first occasion on which one of his consignments was rejected. Even though it was the first time a consignment of his was rejected, he was refused information as to the cause of the rejection. Even from the Department's point of view, if they want to have the eggs exported improved in quality, if they find a particular consignment is not up to the standard, they should tell the exporter what the trouble is in order that he may be able to remedy it in future.

The general result of these Acts which have been passed with regard to eggs, butter, fresh meat, etc., is that it is impossible to export anything but the best from this country, and people are more or less getting suspicious that the best article is always exported, and that only the second best is kept for home consumption. In order to reassure our own people upon that, because the home market is much more important than the export market, I think the Minister should get the Executive Council, if it is no part of his own business or of his own Department's, to see that corresponding Acts were passed, in order to ensure a clean food supply for our own consumers as well as a clean food supply for the export market.

Perhaps the most disastrous thing that occurred in agriculture in the last twelve months was the fall in the price of butter. It is not difficult to explain, perhaps, why butter should have gone down as it did during 1930. It was not due, as some people may hold, or as some people have held, to the depressed condition of the British market, because we find on examination that the British imported more butter in 1929 than in 1928, and more butter in 1930 than in 1929. It was really due to the fact that there was more butter placed upon the British market, and there was so much at the disposal of the British buyers that they were able to bring down prices of the imported article, and, of course, of the home-made butter, whatever it might amount to in Great Britain as well.

For instance let us take the four largest exporters of butter into the British market—Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and the Free State. I think they are still the four largest; they were the four largest in the years 1928-30. In these two years Denmark increased its exportation of butter to the British market by 290,000 cwts. and New Zealand by 287,000 cwts. These two figures taken together would be more than the total export of butter from the Free State in either of those years to the British market. So that the amount of butter placed by the Free State on the British market is really almost insignificant; that is, it is smaller actually than the increase put upon the market by Denmark and New Zealand in these two years. Australia continued to export in or about the same quantities in the years 1928 to 1930. The Irish Free State also exported about the same quantity.

We often hear the statement that price depends upon supply and demand. If we were to believe in that axiom here we would expect that Denmark and New Zealand, when looking for extended markets in Great Britain during those two years 1928 to 1930, would find that the price of their butter would go down, but that that of Australia and the Free State, which held the same quantity of exports all the time, would be able to hold also the same price. That was not the case. Even though Denmark and New Zealand had very large increases amounting to 14 per cent., in the case of Denmark, and 23 per cent. in the case of New Zealand, the price comparatively of Danish butter and New Zealand butter did not fall as much as Free State butter.

The price of Danish butter fell 19 per cent., New Zealand butter 15 per cent., Australian butter 16 per cent., and Irish Free State butter 22 per cent. So that although the Irish Free State was only holding the market that it had in 1928, still it supplied a bigger decrease in the price of butter it exported than any of those other three countries, two of which made a big increase in the quantities they exported. On that matter the Department of Agriculture ought to be able to give an explanation at least of what the cause of this disaster to the Free State butter trade has been. From 1929 to 1930 the average price of butter exported fell from 166/10 to 124/7, and during the two years 1929 and 1930 the average price received by the supplier for his milk in the Free State fell from 6.54 of a penny per gallon to 4.9d. per gallon, a fall of over 1½d. per gallon, which was a severe loss to the suppliers of the creameries in the Free State.

The Minister may be able to put up a very good case that he could not help that. Perhaps he could not. He may be able to give a very good explanation as to why the Free State butter should fall in price even more than the butter from countries sending in larger quantities but if he has this explanation to offer he should at least let us know what it is, so that Deputies and the public generally throughout the country may be in a position to try to solve the difficulties, and to see if something could not be done. There is no great good in passing Live Stock Breeding Acts and Agricultural Produce Acts even although the daily Press and the supporters of the Department of Agriculture tell us that there is a remarkable improvement in the cattle of this country and in the milk yield as shown by the Milk Testing Associations, and that there is a remarkable improvement in the quality of the butter exported, if in the end the Irish farmer is getting worse prices in 1930 for his produce compared with other countries than he was getting in 1928. It is only price that matters with the farmer. I think I heard the Minister for Agriculture himself say that. Whatever we may do in the way of passing Acts if we are not able to get better prices for the Irish farmer compared with other farmers I think he will not thank us for the Acts we may have passed.

Sub-head K 3 mentioned by the Minister, a grant to the Blood-Stock Breeders' Association of Ireland, amounts to £300. The Minister explained in introducing his Vote here that the blood-stock breeders felt they were not getting properly in touch with the world market with regard to the sale of blood-stock in this country; that they had outlined a scheme for advertising the blood-stock of this country, that it would cost about £600, and that the Department of Agriculture thought they were justified in giving them a grant of half this amount. That may be quite true. Perhaps the Department is quite justified. But there was a proposition put up here in this House at the time that the butter tariff was going through. It was mentioned here by at least three or four Deputies that the amount of tariff collected on the butter by the Minister for Finance should go to a scheme for advertising Irish butter in foreign markets.

Surely Irish butter is a more important thing to the general community in this country than blood-stock. And even though £300 is only a small amount it is an indication of the mind of the Minister and of the Department on a subject such as this. They are much more influenced by the people who breed live stock in this country and much more ready to listen to a case put up by those people than they are to listen to a case put up by the people in this House in favour of the ordinary farmer and in favour of helping the marketing of the ordinary butter produced in the Saorstát. The case was put up here that the Minister for Finance was going to derive an income from imported butter and he was to suffer no loss. It was a windfall that he did not expect when introducing his Budget and he was asked would he apply the money produced from that tariff to the advertising of Saorstát butter in the foreign markets. He refused. But as we see here under sub-head K 3 the application of the Blood-Stock Breeders' Association of Ireland was acceded to and they got their grant of £300.

Apart from what was asked for on that occasion in the House when the butter tariff was under discussion there were various other things pointed out too, and when we were discussing here the Report of the Tariff Commission on the application for a tariff on butter, quotations were taken from the Report that was issued by the Tariff Commission and it was pretty plainly shown in that Report that the reasons why Denmark was able to get an average of 23s. per cwt. more for her butter on the British market as compared to the Saorstát butter were principally two. In the first place, Denmark was able to maintain her butter supply on the British market all the year round. That is to say the Danish suppliers were prepared to do winter dairying.

Winter dairying in this country would imply tillage and tillage is like a red rag to a bull to the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture holds, or at least he did hold some years ago, that the farmers in the dairying districts who milked their cows on the grass, as he mentioned at the time, from the 1st May to 1st January, were in a position to make a very good profit out of the dairying industry.

The Minister said it was impossible to expect any farmer, or group of farmers, in this country to compete against these men in the dairying industry, or to do as well as they were doing in that industry. But if there had been some little encouragement given to the various tillage districts in this country, where tillage farmers do not know what they are to turn their hands to, something might have been done to help the farmers. The tillage districts in the Midlands in most of the Leinster counties need encouragement badly. If some encouragement were given to those farmers in the Leinster counties to feed their grain and root crops and so on to dairy cows during the winter months, so as to have a winter supply of butter, it would get them over their present difficulties, and it would also help the farmers in the grazing areas, because by supplying our market, whatever it may be, with a supply of butter in the winter as well as in the summer, we would go to a certain distance that the Danes have gone in the prices that they are getting for their butter in the British markets. That is, perhaps, one of the reasons why we are so far behind the Danes in the British market. The fact that we lose our market in Britain about November in each year, and that we have to come in in the month of April in the following year and try to recapture that market again, is a very big reason why we are behind the Danes in the prices we get for our butter.

There was another reason advanced by other people in the dairying industry, and that is that in certain districts in Great Britain the Danes hold the British market because they make their butter from ripened cream. Under the regulations of the Department here our creameries are not allowed to use the ripened cream processes in making butter. As a matter of fact, if we were not looking to the British market at all in this matter, but to our own market, I would be inclined to agree to allow our creameries to use ripened cream in the making of butter. Because butter made from ripened cream is more like farmers' butter in colour and taste, and the Irish people in the provincial towns, whatever the city may do, are much more inclined to buy butter of that kind than the ordinary creamery butter that is turned out at present.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

I would ask the Minister to consider those two points in particular with regard to the creamery industry—the production of butter the whole year round under winter dairying and the reconsideration of the regulations that forbid those creameries here from making butter from ripened cream.

There is a sub-head here, sub-head N.5—The Purchase of Creameries, about which I want to speak. In the first place, we were told by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement that the value of the creameries that are held at present by the State has been written down by £160,000. I believe myself that we should have had some explanation or some statement on that matter from the Minister when introducing his Estimates. We thought he would at least refer to it and that he would tell us what was the cause and what the cost of the purchase of creameries was to the State and whether the Department considers the creameries worth less now than they were a year or two ago.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy must be referring to the subsidy that has been paid up to the present surely?

Mr. Hogan

I do not see the point then.

The Minister for Finance in his Budget statement said that the creameries at present held by the State have been written down by £160,000.

Mr. Hogan

Perhaps this would explain it—we bought something like £460,000 worth of creameries and up to the present what the Minister for Finance has put against the closing of redundant creameries would be £160,000. We did not sell them; we closed them. We cannot have two creameries side by side.

Seventy-nine creameries were closed. That is not very much— only about £2,000 each.

Mr. Hogan

At any rate the Minister for Finance's figures were in respect of closed creameries.

Speaking about redundant creameries, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in some parts of the country with regard to the administration of the Department and the closing of some of the creameries. I came across a paper published in Limerick—the "Limerick Leader"—and I read a report in that paper of a meeting held in a place called Nicker. The report of the meeting appeared in the "Limerick Leader" on 9th May. Amongst those present was Deputy George Bennett, of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. He gave the benefit of his presence to the meeting. He was on the platform. The meeting was presided over by the Rev. P. Ryan, P.P.

Mr. Hogan

Who were the other speakers?

I will refer to them afterwards. Resolutions were passed at the meeting, and I could not do better than tell the House what the specific complaints were. The resolutions were passed unanimously by those present, including Deputy Bennett.

This is what the report says:—"The Rev. Chairman then put the resolutions to the meeting, and they were passed unanimously."

Might I intervene on a point of explanation? I expressly intimated before the meeting started that I was not in accord with the resolutions to be proposed. Whether that was reported or not, I am not concerned.

I think Deputy Bennett ought to protest to the paper for misrepresenting him. The report says that the resolutions were put to the meeting and passed unanimously. Surely Deputy Bennett, who was on the platform—I presume sitting on the right-hand side of the Chairman— must have heard what the resolutions contained, and must have heard them put. The resolutions were as follow:—

"That we would direct the attention of representative men and the public generally to the following facts:—

(1) The closing of dairies took place in a haphazard fashion, and without due regard to the convenience and wishes of the people affected, the extra expense thrown on suppliers far outweighing the alleged economies.

(2) The additional journeys in the average case involved an annual expense of £1 to £3 per cow, apart from the debt shares of roundly £3 per cow.

(3) No credit whatever is given to former suppliers of redundant dairies who held shares in co-operative creameries.

(4) Suppliers of redundant dairies have been compelled to meet the debts contracted by the committees of dairies which this Act has practically forced them to supply.

(5) Invidious distinctions have been made in the allocation of debt shares.

(6) Small suppliers owing to the high proportion of expense involved in the longer journeys have been hardest hit and may have had to give up dairying altogether.

(7) The shutting down of creameries has in many cases inflicted a great hardship on the poor people in villages and other centres by depriving them of a milk supply.

(8) Cartage for long distances seriously injures milk.

(9) The prices paid for the dairies approaching three-quarters of a million, about twice the original estimate, were unwarranted and extravagant and have, while injuring all taxpayers, specially penalised those who are forced to bear a large proportion of the cost of a scheme which the Minister of Agriculture stated was for the benefit of the industry as a whole."

The charge in No. 5 is a very serious charge. The whole document puts the case very well.

Mr. Hogan

Do you agree with that?

I would not like to disagree with a representative body of Limerick and Tipperary creamery suppliers. I do not know much about the redundant creamery question, but Deputy Bennett evidently agreed with the resolutions and he made no protest.

I did make a protest.

Deputy Bennett at the meeting declared that he would tell Mr. Hogan all about it.

So I did.

The Deputy said that he would inform Mr. Hogan that there was considerable dissatisfaction in that district as a result of the working of the Creamery Act. The Deputy said: "I will give him an account of this meeting and will neither exaggerate nor minimise what has been said." I notice that Deputy Bennett has not the same opinion of the Minister as some other members of his Party have. He said that the farmers' grievances were brought about by a fall in the price of milk and in the price of other agricultural commodities "and neither Mr. Hogan nor a Heaven-sent Minister could have prevented that." There are many members of the Party who would have left out the "nor."

Although the creameries find it very hard to get a market for their butter at a decent price, they have not to any extent gone into any of the other industries that they might try. For instance, there has been no great attempt made in this country to supply the home market with cheese. I notice that the position of a cheese-making instructor is vacant. Surely a time like this, when the creameries find it hard to find a decent market for their products, is not the time when we should give up making some experiment for the production of cheese. For there is a market here for a certain amount of cheese, and though the market may not be very large, it would, at any rate, go some way to relieve the bad times that we have fallen on in the creamery industry.

With regard to bacon, we appear to be now coming to the time when we are going to meet with the same difficulties in the bacon trade that we have already met with in the matter of the butter industry, and the very same thing is happening in the world market in regard to bacon that has already happened in the matter of butter. If we take the two years, 1928 and 1930, we find that the amount received by the Saorstát for bacon exported during that period fell almost by £1,000,000, while there has been an increase of over £2,000,000 in the case of Denmark. There are other countries also increasing their exports of bacon by enormous sums to the British market, while the Saorstát is not able to hold the same place as an exporter of bacon that she held up to the present.

What is even more serious for the Free State producer of bacon in this country is this: that while we find it hard to keep up our export of bacon to the British market, we, at the same time, find the price decreasing. If we take the four months' returns from January to April inclusive dealing with bacon going into the British market, we find that the Danish exports during these four months of this year exceeded by 37 per cent. the exports of Danish bacon during the four first months of 1930, while during the same period the exports of Free State bacon decreased by 28 per cent. Prices, of course, have come down. The price of Irish bacon has always held the lead on the British market. We were getting an average of 100/- in 1928, an average of 103/- in 1930, but for the first four months of this year our average has only been 88/-, which represents a very considerable fall in prices. The prices for Danish bacon are going down at a corresponding level. In 1928 the price was 87/-; in 1930, 85/-, and for the first four months of this year, 62/-.

So much for the export trade in bacon. If we consider the home trade in bacon, the imports for the first three months of this year—we have only received the returns for these three months from the Department of Industry and Commerce—have slightly increased. We find that the factories that are buying pigs in this country, and trying to produce bacon for the home market, are having a very bad time. I was told by the manager of a bacon factory in this country three months ago that on the day he paid 51/- per cwt. live weight for pigs to produce bacon for the Irish market Polish bacon was selling in the same town at 46/- per cwt. He told me that he could not possibly sell the bacon made from the pigs he had paid 51/- per cwt. live weight for at less than about 88/- per cwt. At the very same time Polish bacon, as I have said, was selling in that town at 46/- per cwt. While that is going on we are not even protecting the consumers in this country by at least giving them the benefit of getting cheap Polish bacon at the proper price. We are not protecting the Irish consumer by compelling the importers of bacon to mark the bacon with the country of origin. An importer can if he wishes import Polish bacon at 35/- or 36/- per cwt. wholesale, and sell it to an innocent consumer—the consumer, as a rule, is not a very good judge as regards the shopping part of the business—as Irish bacon at 75/- or 80/- per cwt.

During the autumn session a motion was brought forward in this House asking that at least all meat coming into this country would be marked with the country of origin. That motion was rejected. Not even that part of it dealing with the marking of imports with the country of origin would be adopted by the Government. The Government told us that they did no approve of tariffs or of the other matters that were referred to in our motion, because, as they said, they were looking after the interests of the consumer. But here is a case where, if the Government were sincere in their protestations that they are looking after the interests of consumers, they could put that interest into practice, and could give, at least, the benefit to consumers by giving them the foreign bacon cheap, if they wanted to buy it. What would be better still would be to try to protect the Irish market for home bacon.

I have no doubt now that the bacon trade has fallen on evil days; that the Minister for Agriculture will change his mind about protecting the home market for bacon, as he did for butter when it was practically too late. There are those who will argue that it will pay farmers in this country to produce pigs, even if they have to sell them at a much lower price than at present, because the price of feeding stuffs is so low. It has been the proud boast of the Minister for Agriculture that he has defeated Fianna Fáil every time they tried to deal with the cost of feeding stuffs in this House. In his speeches through the country he has told the people about things that never happened, about the proposals of Fianna Fáil to put a tariff on maize. It is possible there are people in the country who believe that, though it is not very probable.

Mr. Hogan

Does the Deputy deny that that was one of the proposals put forward by the leader of his Party?

I never heard it.

Mr. Hogan

I read it three times.

Where? It must be by Reuter.

Will the Minister give the quotation?

Mr. Hogan

I will get it.

If the Minister is so keen on cheap feeding stuffs, why does he not see that the farmers get bran and pollard, which are two of the most important ingredients in any mixture, for the feeding of pigs at cheap rates? The price of these two articles last year was on an average 7s. 10d. per cwt. If the Minister is sincere in his desire to get raw materials at a cheap rate, why does he not admit that the best thing that could be done for this country would be to put a tariff on flour, so that we could have our total requirements brought in as wheat, and milled by our own millers, with the result that we would have twice the amount of offals that we have at present, following which the price of offals would come down to the benefit of farmers feeding pigs?

I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, May 28th, 1931.
Barr
Roinn