Notice of their intention to raise the subject matter of Questions Nos. 50 and 51 was given by Deputies Donnellan and Cogan. Perhaps the Deputies could ration the time between them.
Private Deputies' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Decline in Live-Stock Population.
When a similar situation arose last week, I allowed ten minutes to the other speaker.
I have asked the Deputies to divide the time evenly between them. I have no power to enforce it.
It is not a popular thing to raise a matter on the Adjournment, and it is over eight years since I was responsible for bringing a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary into Dáil Éireann on the Adjournment. On this occasion, I was compelled to do so for the reason that, as I indicated in my question, the foundation of our national economy was at stake, in view of the fact that in the past 12 months our live-stock population has declined by 97,100. I thought the Minister would take this matter seriously in his reply, but I have to state here that he did not grasp the position, and did not realise the seriousness of the situation when he replied that the figures for 1951 and 1952 were not of a magnitude to give ground for alarm.
When our live stock, our chief and, indeed, our only export, and the only income that we have worth speaking about, have declined to the tune of 97,000, surely the Minister could not have been serious when he told me that the figures did not give any ground for alarm.
In reply to a supplementary question, he said that if I would look at the statistics for some years back—I think he mentioned 100 years—I would find similar reductions. Surely the Minister is not serious in suggesting that I should go back 100 years. If I went back to the time of the famine, more than likely I would find some similar reduction, if it were possible to get the figures.
I do not propose to go back to the time of the Famine, and neither will I go back to the time when we had compulsory tillage in this country, because at that time there was bound to be a reduction in the live-stock population. Neither will I go back to the time of Deputy Dr. Ryan as Minister for Agriculture, the professional calf slaughterer of this country because everybody knows we were bound to have a reduction in live stock at that period. I will confine myself to this year and last year and to the reduction of 97,100 which has taken place. It cannot be said, I hope, that I raise this matter for any political reason because a serious matter of this kind should be treated above politics and that is the way I intend to treat it to-night. I hope that that is the way the Minister will treat it, because one matter in respect of which it is dangerous to play politics is a reduction in our live-stock population.
Looking through the Trade Journal for September, 1952, I find that in milch cows and heifers in calf alone, there is a reduction of 23,800 almost 24,000, in the foundation stock of our industry. I need not point out that the milch cow and heifer in calf constitute the foundation of our live-stock industry, and according to the Trade Journal there is a reduction as compared with last year of almost 24,000 in these cattle. Surely the Minister and every member of the House must look on that as alarming. There is no use in telling me that there was a reduction at the time of the Famine, during the period of compulsory tillage or at the time of the slaughter of the calves. We have none of these conditions at the moment, but we have a reduction of 24,000 in our foundation stock and the Minister must do something to rectify that situation.
Again, I find in the Trade Journal a reduction of 58,500, or 6 per cent. of the total population in cattle under one year. Does the Minister not realise what that means? Does he not realise that the cause of that is the reduction in our foundation stock? In the case of cattle of one year and under two years, there is again a reduction of 14,800, or 1.5 of the population. Does the Minister not realise that that shows that things are going from bad to worse? It is his job as Minister to do something about that situation. If we add up all these figures, we find a total reduction of over 91,000 in the past 12 months. Surely that is something which must be dealt with as something apart from politics?
I have to refer now to something which shows a different trend, but I do not refer to it for any political purpose or from any wish to make a case for the Minister's predecessor. In the same issue of the Trade Journal, I find that cattle of two years and upwards increased by 26,400. I ask the Minister to pause for a moment and ask himself what is the cause for the increase of 26,400 in the over two-year-old live stock in the country? I presume it is because the foundation for that live stock was in sufficient numbers and it is that that has caused the increase for that year. I tried to get the figures for each county but I was unable to get them for the past year. Here, however, I find that in County Galway in-calf heifers have gone down nearly 1,500 in one year. Surely the Minister will agree that in a county like Galway, which is comparatively small in so far as the cattle trade is concerned, it is a serious position to have the foundation for our live stock decline by 1,500. In County Cork, it has gone down by over 7,000.
The Minister must realise that if that trend is permitted to continue the position will become very serious. Losing over 97,000 of our live-stock population is very serious. That is the number we lost last year. If we lose that number next year, or perhaps more than that, we will find ourselves in the position of having neither a live-stock trade nor a dead meat trade. I am putting the case as fairly as I can. I am not seeking propaganda. I do not need it. I do not raise this for political kudos. I raise it because it is such an important matter for the country generally. Yet the Minister told me to-day that the decline was not of a magnitude to give ground for alarm.
May I point out that there are very few minutes left?
If the Deputy will allow me to make my case, I will make it.
I gave a Labour Deputy time last week.
I am sure Deputy Donnellan will give Deputy Cogan time.
Surely the Minister must realise that a decrease of 97,000 in the live-stock population is of sufficient magnitude to give ground for alarm. The Minister must have seen the Irish Independent yesterday. There is an article in it on the decline in cattle stocks. That article states:—
"It has been stated that one of the prices being paid by this country for the expansion of the export trade in dead meat is a marked reduction in the number of cattle. How far this is supported by the figures can be judged by a comparison of the returns of live stock over the past two years.
In the summer of 1951 the total number of cattle in the Twenty-Six Counties was estimated to be 4,376,000. In June of the present year it was less by 70,000. Except in the case of cattle of two years and upwards the falling-off was to be observed in all groups. This year milch cows are fewer by 24,000; cattle less than a year old are fewer by 59,000; and cattle over a year but under two years are 15,000 fewer.
These figures are far from reassuring. Whether the decline can be wholly ascribed to the new industries is another affair. Unfortunately, it cannot be attributed to more tillage, because this year the total acreage under corn, root and green crops was in fact slightly less than last year's total."
Surely a loss of 97,000 in our live-stock population plus a decrease in our tillage gives ground for serious alarm. I know that the Minister is concerned about agriculture, and I am certain that the civil servant who wrote the reply to the question I put down, stating that there were no grounds for alarm did not express the Minister's view.
The Minister is responsible for that answer and nobody else.
It is not his answer.
The Minister is responsible for the answer. That must be clearly understood.
Nobody is disputing that.
I am sure the Minister did not realise the gravity of the reply he gave. I am sure he is as concerned about agriculture now as he ever was. I am sure he will take steps to remedy the position. It is not for me to give advice. It is his job to remedy matters. If he does not remedy them, I will have to do all I can to drive him out of the position he occupies, and put someone there who will take the necessary steps.
I am sorry Deputy Donnellan did not have the courtesy to follow the precedent I established last week in dividing the time fairly on a question in which two Deputies were interested. The Minister replied to-day to two questions set down by Deputy Donnellan and me. Whatever Deputy Donnellan's motives may have been in setting down the particular question, I can assure the House that I, at any rate, had no political motive. As an Independent farmer Deputy, I am primarily concerned with the agricultural industry, and I have always taken a deep interest in the progress of that industry.
Deputy Donnellan stated with considerable emphasis and frequent repetition the number of cows shown by statistics for the present year have declined by 24,000 as compared with last year. He failed to mention that last year the number declined by 50,000 as compared with the year before. When Deputy Donnellan referred to the reduction in the number of young cattle in the country he must have realised that these non-existent cattle were the progeny of the non-existent cows of the year before.
What about the three years old and over? What about that increase?
I am not concerned with this matter from a political angle.
What the hell else are you doing?
If Deputy Donnellan were not concerned with it from a political angle, he would have referred to the fact that the decline was steeper than last year. My concern is for next year. I am anxious to ensure that the dangerous trend which was set on foot by the former Minister for Agriculture, when he announced his intention to reduce the price of milk, will be reversed. I trust that that dangerous trend which was started, as I say, by the Minister's predecessor, will be arrested by the present Minister for Agriculture in the coming year.
It is true that those trends correct themselves to a certain extent by the operation of the law of supply and demand, but, at the same time, we are anxious that the Minister will take whatever action he can take, and which it is in his power to take, in order to right this matter. I am sorry I have not time to develop the matter more fully.
I took Questions Nos. 51 and 52 in the names of Deputy Cogan and Deputy Donnellan, together, and I stated in my reply that "the fluctuations shown in the numbers of dairy and young cattle in the preliminary census statement for June, 1952, as compared with June, 1951, are not of a magnitude to give ground for alarm. The total number of cattle in 1952 was the third highest in the last 30 years".
I think that Deputy Cogan has struck the right note. There has been a decline for the past two or three years.
You have upset his apple cart.
Mr. Walsh
There has been a decline there, but that has happened over the past 100 years. The first census of the cattle population was taken in 1851. If any Deputy looks up the records of the censuses or the statistics over that period he will find that, down through the years, there were periods of fluctuation: there were periods when there was a rise and there were periods when there was a fall in the numbers of dairy and young cattle.
Deputy Donnellan said that the decline was not due to compulsory tillage. Even in the years when we had compulsory tillage in this country our cattle population was not as low. What was the position when we had compulsory tillage? It might be of interest to Deputy Donnellan to know that in no year since 1944 had we as many young cattle as we had in that year—and we had compulsory tillage at the same time. Therefore, apparently, compulsory tillage does not affect the cattle population.
Or vice versa.
What affected it last year?
Mr. Walsh
Take the year 1952. I might point out at this stage that there is a certain mortality in the cattle population. It has been there every year, as has been proved in the past 30 years since this State came into existence. We have had these fluctuations all the time. Any Deputy who looks up the statistics over a long period will note these fluctuations. Let us examine the position. In 1952 we had 918,700 cattle under one year old. That figure was less than the 1951 figure but it was greater than the 1948 figure when we had 852,725 cattle in that category. In 1947 the figure was 850,000. Therefore, it will be seen that the figure for 1952 is higher than the figure for 1948. As I have said, there was a reduction from June, 1950, until June, 1951, of 50,000 cows. Why was there that reduction? Deputy Cogan has said that the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, went to Waterford and told the people there: "We will give you 1/- a gallon for milk for the next five years." That had an important bearing on the whole question. What was my attitude towards the problem? How did I endeavour to keep more cows on the land? I increased the price of milk by 2d. That encouraged the farmers.
You also increased the costs.
You promised 1/9.
Mr. Walsh
That was the way in which I helped to maintain the cattle population. On the other hand, the Coalition Government adopted quite a different attitude. They were going to fix a lower price for five years.
We raised the price by 1d. a gallon.
Mr. Walsh
The previous Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, started the present downward trend. That is proved by the fact that we had 50,000 less cattle in 1950-51. That has not been arrested yet but we shall arrest it, please God.
In 1944 the population of one to two-year-old cattle was 1,000,000. Experience has shown that a drop in any particular year is not significant.
Of that magnitude?
Mr. Walsh
The drop in 1950-51 was greater than the drop in 1951-52. I will give the figures. In 1950 we had 1,322,340 cows; in June, 1951, we had 1,269,497—or a drop of 52,843. This year we had a further drop of 24,000. Was there any question on the Adjournment in June, 1951, before this Government came into office, asking the then Minister why there was a drop of 54,000 in that year?
How does the Minister account for the increase in two to three-year-old cattle?
Mr. Walsh
That fluctuation is there over the years, due to mortality and to many causes. For instance, the drop in the number of heifers and cows can be attributed to one or two causes. The first cause is the high price for beef. A number of farmers who had heifers did not allow them to go in-calf but sold them as fat heifers. That was one way in which they were got rid of. To-day, that is changed. Springers are going up in price. Farmers are holding on to heifers now. Consequently, you had a drop in 1949-50 of 20,000 heifers. That has been happening over the past 100 years. The cow population rose from 1,055,000 to 1,350,000. There are certain years in which there is a fall in the numbers and there are other years when there is an increase in the numbers. We have been trying to arrest the fall by our attitude in regard to the price of milk. As I say, we increased the price last year. We are endeavouring to arrest the fall also by other means. We are endeavouring to do so by artificial insemination, for instance. That was part of the answer I gave to-day. There are also higher prices for dressed meat going out of the country and there are higher prices for live stock. All these things are tending to encourage people to keep more cows, to produce more calves and, consequently, to produce more live stock for export on the hoof and in the form of dead meat. That has been our policy and we have been carrying it out.
If we have lost at the rate of 97,000 cattle per year over the past 100 years, I submit that we have lost over 9,000,000.
Mr. Walsh
The Deputy is wrong. We have not been losing at the rate of 97,000 cattle per year. The Deputy's figures are wrong. The first figure he gave was 91,000.
They are official figures.
Mr. Walsh
Then, in his supplementary question, Deputy Donnellan raised the figure. I quote from Deputy Donnellan's supplementary question to me at question time to-day:—
"Mr. Donnellan: Do I take it from the Minister's reply that he thinks this decrease should not be viewed with alarm? Does the Minister seriously suggest to the House that a decrease of 97,100 in the number of live stock in the country which includes 24,000 cows that you might say are the foundation of the industry is not a serious matter?"
To-night the Deputy has given us three or four different figures. We have lost 70,000 cattle in the past 12 months.
You may thank Deputy Dillon for the increase of 26,400.
Mr. Walsh
To-night the Deputy has changed his figures three times.
The Minister cannot take credit for the increase in the cattle population brought about by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture.
Mr. Walsh
As I have said, Deputy Donnellan has given us different figures. What are we to believe? Are we to believe anything that the Deputy has said?
On a point of order. The Minister says that I have given three different sets of figures.
That is a matter of fact. It is not a point of order.
I have given the figures in the following cases. I have given the figures in respect of milch cows, of cattle under one year and of cattle over one year and under two years, making a total decrease in our cattle population of 97,100.
Mr. Walsh
I have said that the Deputy has given us three sets of figures to-night, as will be seen from the Official Report.
And they were correct.
Mr. Walsh
Which figure was correct—the first, the second or the third figure which the Deputy gave to-night? The Deputy was speaking from memory at times.
I was not.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20th November.