I support the motion to refer back this Estimate for reconsideration. Before giving my reasons, I should like to compliment the Minister on the White Paper which he has distributed in the House. It was very comprehensive and instructive. I am glad to see also that, according to his opening statement, there has been a great increase in the number of gallons of milk supplied to creameries. I should have thought, however, that the Minister would have been more honest in that statement and that he would have given the real reason as to why the number of gallons of milk has increased. Actually, there are a number of reasons for it and the Minister did not mention any one of them. I take it that he has taken the years 1947 and 1948 for the purposes of comparison. That was one of the worst periods on record and consequently the production of milk in that period was lower than would otherwise have been the case. On the other hand, last autumn, last winter and last spring have been very good, and there has been a consequent increase in the milk supply. Another reason which the Minister forgot to give to the House is that farmers are not now making anything like the same quantity of farmers' butter which they used to make on their farms. Due to the withdrawal of the subsidy on farmers' butter they are compelled to go to the creameries. Even though the Minister may desire to put across his point, he should consider giving the whole truth.
While I am on the subject of milk I should like to say a few words regarding price. The price of milk was fixed in 1947. Surely the Minister does not seriously contend that the price which was fixed in 1947 is justified to-day in view of the increase in the cost of production? During the year we have had experience of many deputations from various counties. I understand that one deputation was led by Deputy Madden from West Limerick. That, in itself, is an indication that the milk producers were not satisfied with the price — and they were perfectly right. The price to-day is not justifiable. Costs of production have increased on the land, in the creamery, in the factory. How, therefore, can the Minister justify the 1947 price in present conditions? Wages have gone up on the land and in the creameries. The cost of materials — oil, petrol, paper, box-wood, salt — which are necessary for the production of butter, has increased, yet we still have the price which was fixed in 1947 by Deputy Smith when he was Minister for Agriculture. The best answer the Minister got regarding the price of milk was that which he got from the co-operative creameries of the country. I understand that he circularised about 100 of them but that in only three cases was he told they were prepared to accept his price of 1/- a gallon for five years. Just compare that offer with what Fianna Fáil gave the farmers in 1947— 1/2 a gallon in the summer and 1/4 a gallon in the winter. How does the Minister or anybody else know what conditions will obtain five years hence? We are not living in normal times. Two years ago, when the Minister announced that he would continue the price of wheat for five years, I recorded my objection and gave my reasons. I said it was bad policy and I think even to-day that it is bad for the farmer to accept long-term prices. I was justified in making that statement as a result of what has happened since. Just take, as one example, the increase in the cost of production on the land generally. I am sure that that increase in cost is one of the reasons which influenced the creameries throughout the country not to accept the offer of 1/- per gallon. It actually represented a reduction. Even if they had accepted that price it would be only on paper that they would be accepting it, because they could not pay 1/- a gallon on the amount allowed for costs by the Department of Agriculture. From that point of view the price is still less.
Another matter to which I want to refer is the butter allowance which was made to creamery suppliers all during the emergency. During the emergency, as the Minister is aware, an allowance of butter was given over and above the ration. That procedure has continued since the emergency, even during the present Minister's period of office, up to the 1st of June, when the new off-the-ration butter was sold. Farmers who supplied milk to creameries had 12 ounces of butter instead of eight ounces. It was not an unreasonable allowance when we consider the labour employed by the farmer. He has to feed the people whom he employs and finds all those off-the-ration commodities at the extra price. It is usual that most men boarded with farmers do not bring their ration cards. In particular, the married men leave their ration cards to their own family and the farmer, therefore, has to supply tea, sugar, butter and so forth off-the-ration. They were supplying the raw material for butter, and that is why the creameries made the allowance which has been discontinued as from the 1st of June. These four ounces over and above the ration must now be purchased at the increased price. In other words, the farmer will have to pay an extra 10d. per lb. in respect of these four ounces. That is unfair. These people, at great hardship to themselves, fed this country during the war. There was a great temptation then to get rid of cows because of the lack of labour and because of the increased price of feeding-stuffs, but in spite of all that hardship, they did their duty and many of them kept their herds at the pre-war level. They supplied milk to the creameries so that the people of the country would have butter. This is the recompense they are getting now — they are being refused the few extra ounces of butter over and above their ration. I hope the Minister will make arrangements that the same conditions as those which have operated up to the 1st of June last will continue. Otherwise, it is possible that instead of supplying their milk to the creameries they will go back to the old system of keeping Saturday night's and Sunday morning's milk, separating it and making their own butter. Now, the subsidy is going to be saved, possibly, but it will go further than that, because the possibility is that the people going to the creameries, if they have not a big lot of milk in the winter, will give up going. That is the tendency where there is a small number of cows. If there is to be any change regarding the amount of milk coming in from the small farmers, you will find them going back to the old system of making butter on the farm.
It is the duty of the Minister to look after the interests of agriculture, but what has he been doing? The policy that he has put before the people is not a policy that is going to ensure satisfaction among the farmers. We want better markets. We were promised better markets, better prices and greater stability. Where have we better markets than we had prior to 1948? Where have we better prices than we had prior to 1948? Where have we the stability? I submit we have not better markets. You have no market for oats, barley, potatoes and many of the other things produced on the land. The only thing produced on the land that you have a market for is store cattle. There is, no doubt, a market for store cattle, but that market was always there. However, it is not as good a market to-day, even though the Minister has done his best to boost it, as it was at the end of the 1914-18 war. The price of cattle to-day is around £5 a cwt. and it went to £5 4s. 0d. in 1918, so that actually the present price is not as good. I have practical experience of that.
