Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 1957

Vol. 163 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture (Resumed).

Mr. Dillon

I note the Minister's reference to the Agricultural Institute Bill. I should be glad to know whether the Minister considered this matter. What does he intend to do about it? I said earlier that there is no approach to any problem relative to agriculture in this country too radical if it should prove to be the right one. I hope that in regard to this matter the Minister will not hesitate to be radical if he believes it to be his duty and I hope he would bear in mind most emphatically my declaration of loyalty to the radical principle if justice can best be served thereby.

I agree with the Minister for Agriculture, when in regard to the Department of Agriculture he says it is desirable that, in spite of ministerial changes, there ought to be certain coherence and continuity of policy. I tried to put that principle in practice and I am glad that the Minister for Agriculture expresses the same intention.

I remember on the occasion of introducing my first Estimate for Agriculture my predecessor in that responsible office conceived it to be his duty to speak for six hours on the Estimate. What purpose he hoped to serve by doing that God only knows. Deputies are in possession of an informative White Paper which will give them a very fair review of the activities of the Department of Agriculture. If they want any confirmation they can go down and look at the photographs outside the Library in Leinster House and they will see there further evidence of the useful work the Department has done and is doing. If that fails to convince them, they can repair to the countryside and look on close on 1,000,000 acres of land which a few years ago was producing little or nothing and which to-day is almost all producing abundant crops.

In that connection, I think it is time for the Minister to lay one ghost. Deputy Allen from time to time intervenes in our debates and rejoices in saying that money was wasted in the land rehabilitation project, that on some land £500 an acre was spent. I do not believe that is true, but I know there was one farm in Wexford on which the Department of Agriculture entered during the administration of my predecessor, the late lamented Deputy Walsh. I know that on that farm unexpected circumstances arose which involved the Department in expenditure which they would never have undertaken had they foreseen the nature of the problem that lay before them. Had I been Minister for Agriculture at the time, exactly the same mistake would have occurred, because it was the kind of error that no vigilance on the part of the Minister or on the part of the supervisory officers of the Department could have avoided.

But I have always made this boast: never, while I was Minister for Agriculture did I make the claim that we would make no mistakes. We made many. But I did claim—and I challenge anyone to disprove this—we never made the same mistake twice. That is the measure of my boasting and remember this, and mark it well: if each great project in this country is to be rendered absolutely watertight against all possibility of mistake before it is launched, nothing will ever be launched in this country. You could sit down forever in contemplation of some formidable enterprise and listen to the possibilities of error that could arise and never get anywhere.

I was never afraid of making a mistake once. I would have been ashamed to make it twice. I was always prepared to avow that anyone in this country could put his finger in my eye once. If he did it twice, he was a better man than I was, Gunga Din. A lot of people make the fatal error of trying it on. I rejoice to think that none of them ever came back a third time.

There is no use concealing the fact that I am very proud of the Department of Agriculture in this country. I once drove the know-alls in this country, the boys who never earned an honest day's pay in their lives, almost daft, by saying that I thought our Department of Agriculture was the best in the world. Every agricultural expert in Ireland who never grew a dandelion in his life nearly burst a blood vessel. I have seen more of the world than any of them.

I have seen the work the Department does, has done and is doing and I want to say quite deliberately again that, while the Irish Department of Agriculture is not proof against mistakes— and I have never claimed it was—the experts notwithstanding, I consider it to be one of the best Departments of Agriculture in the world. I want to rejoice again in the recollection I have during last year and many years before in representing this country at international conferences that the very officials of my Department, as at the time it was, who in their own country were derided by some of the numskulls they had to listen to with patience as incompetent, were sought eagerly by every international organisation that I attended.

They were sought to co-operate in the work of O.E.E.C., F.A.O. and many other international organisations of that kind. My embarrassment was that, as Minister, I had frequently to inform international agencies that I could not give them the services of some of the men they wanted from our Department of Agriculture because we had not got the staff to permit of their release from the work they were doing for their own country.

I do think it is time—and I do not doubt that the present Minister substantially agrees with me—that we should get out of the habit of belittling our own. It is a great mistake to overestimate our own importance, our own competence, our own efficiency, but at least we should not cry down that which is Irish and that which is esteemed all the world over. Self-criticism is a very useful thing, but it can be carried too far; it can be carried to the point when it can undermine the devotion and the enthusiasm of the best of men.

We have something of incalculable value in this country. That is a devoted and competent body of public servants who have a great tradition of service. Whatever Government may be in office, their sole concern has been to find out the Minister's policy and faithfully to carry it out to the best of their ability. They are not always right or perfect, but I think they are about as good as any country can boast about. We have every right to be proud of them and it does no harm occasionally to say so.

That is all I have to say on this Estimate this year. It may be that it will appear that I have erred on the side of refraining from criticism. There is a very simple explanation for that. I prepared this Estimate and the Minister has been very circumspect in his speech introducing it; he gave me very few pegs on which to hang my hat.

I have no doubt he will be in office for 12 months. That is one of these sad facts which, being a realist in politics, I reconcile myself to. When I see his first year of administration, we may find ourselves differing more emphatically than we may appear to do now. Politically, that may be a blessing to the Minister; but, in the meantime, I simply want to reiterate at the end what I said in the beginning: I wish him the best of luck. I hope he will be a most successful Minister for Agriculture. If I had to pass over the Department to any member of his Party—which I did with great reluctance—I have the least anxiety in passing it to him.

Mr. Corry

I, too, consider that the Department of Agriculture is a great Department. I think any Department of State that survived two trips under Deputy Dillon's control is a great Department. I often heard farmers in my constituency say that they, first of all, survived the Minister and then survived the Department.

Mr. T. Lynch

And Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy Paddy Smith.

Mr. Corry

Now little city man over there——

Mr. T. Lynch

I am not little and I am not a city man.

Mr. Corry

In considering this Estimate which has been prepared by the previous Minister, I am personally anxious that the mistakes made, not once but several times, by the previous Minister, in his policy would not be repeated. In page 2 of this document, giving details of the Department's activities, we are informed that although the acreage of wheat dropped —as it always dropped under Deputy Dillon's leadership—we got 344,616 tons of wheat. On that 344,000 tons the Irish farmer had to pay £1,500,000 tax. That was a tax imposed by the Minister for Agriculture on the Irish farmer who dared to grow wheat. In the first year it was 12/6 a barrel; it was roughly 10/- a barrel last year, and 10/- a barrel on the 344,000 tons of Irish wheat.

Does anybody here consider that, with the rise in costs on the agricultural community which has taken place each year the Irish tillage farmer could afford to pay that amount of tax because he dared to grow wheat? I do not think so. Neither is there a Deputy present who would dare stand up and say that costs have been reduced and that costs of production have not gone up.

Deputy Dillon alluded to the increased acreage of wheat and barley this year. There was an increase. I saw farmers blessing themselves and thanking God that now that there was going to be a change of Government they could till again with an easy heart. That is the sole reason why you have an increased acreage in wheat and barley this year. I am asking the Minister not to take advantage of the confidence that has been reposed in this Government. Those farmers ploughed and tilled their land, and put in an extra quantity of wheat in the belief that the tax would be removed. I know the financial mess in which the Government have been left. I know the bills that have to be met, but I do not think that the confidence which those farmers reposed in the Government they were putting in should be misplaced. The farmers are entitled to the removal of that tax. The price of wheat for this harvest should be the price fixed by the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Tom Walsh, God rest his soul.

Changes have come about. The days are gone when a former Minister of State stood up here and said: "I had recently the experience of eating bread made from Irish wheat. I took it in my hand. I kneaded it and squeezed the water out of it. I looked at it again and wondered whether it was boot polish or bread." Experiments which have been carried out recently have proved that we can produce the perfect loaf from purely Irish wheat. I believe our present Minister had an opportunity of eating a little of that loaf.

Captain Giles

We should try it on the Deputy first.

Mr. Corry

I hope they do not send the previous Minister any of it. It might choke him. I am suggesting that the time has arrived when we can save the export of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 a year to the foreigner for the staff of life, namely, wheat, which the farmer will be able to grow here in increasing quantities.

The Minister informed me last week in reply to a question that further experiments were being carried out. I hope they will expedite them and that as a result of those experiments we will be able, after the coming harvest, to prepare a programme of laying down sufficient wheat in order to supply the Irish people with bread. I do not think we would be going beyond the bounds in that. It will be a means of reducing our adverse trade balance and of producing something in our own country for which we can pay. If the money remains here it will circulate; it generally finds it way back into the coffers of the State in one way or another.

We are in the same position as regards feeding barley. I note that this report says that farmers were paid 43/- per barrel for feeding barley last year. They were not, at least not in County Cork, or that price was not paid until the farmers had it all sold. Somebody else got it, but the farmers did not. I suggest to the Minister that he would be wise in fixing a minimum price of 43/- and let us start at that.

I suppose it is the wrong time to talk about pigs, but I do not think anyone can claim that the present unfortunate situation in the pig industry is responsible for the reduction in the number of pigs in this country for the past two years. We had a reduction of 155,000 pigs in the year 1955. That was 20 per cent. of our previous pig population and it was followed up last year by a further reduction of 58,000 pigs Deputy Dillon sat as mute as a mouse while his brother-in-arms, Deputy Norton, proceeded to wipe out the pig industry. In some 28 months during which the game was carried on, the Government gained, according to the reply given to me by the Minister for Industry and Commerce recently, £1,091,000. That is the amount the Government extracted from the pig feeders.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy knows, of course, that there is only one year's administration under review.

Mr. Corry

We will take the past 12 months.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the ground the Deputy should cover.

Mr. Corry

We may go, roughly, on a rate of £700,000 a year. The pig industry and the pig feeders were asked to bear a tax of £717,000 on the raw materials of the industry. That is what it comes to.

Going back over the previous Administration from 1951 to 1954——

An Ceann Comhairle

Of course, that is more than a year ago.

Mr. Corry

I heard Deputy Dillon going back to the first time he came in here.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Deputy is making a charge against the Chair now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon, as far as I can recollect, merely referred to that, but the Deputy said he was going into details from 1951 to 1954. Obviously, he may not do so.

Mr. Corry

I am going back——

An Ceann Comhairle

One year.

Mr. Corry

To what did happen under the Administration previously.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may discuss what happened within one year's Administration. That is all that falls for review on an Estimate.

Mr. Corry

For the first time in five years, the price of wheat offals was increased from £20 a ton to £25 10s. There is no excuse for it. It was home-produced offal, produced from wheat, the price of which had been artificially reduced by Deputy Dillon by £5 a ton. If the economic price of wheat offal was £20 when wheat was 82/6 a barrel, what should be the economic price of wheat offal when wheat was 70/- a barrel? That is a fair question.

The sole excuse given for this increase is given here in page 4 of this document, which I will call the agricultural budget. It says that our net imports of offals for 1956 amounted to 26,000 tons. In order to get an excuse for charging the farmer the difference between the economic price of £18 10s. and the £25 10s. that was charged, there were imported 26,000 tons of foreign offals. That quantity of foreign offals, according to the figures given to me by the Minister for Industry and Commerce the other day, cost £25 10s. per ton and the millers were immediately instructed to increase the price of home offals from £18 10s., which was the economic price, to £25 10s. a ton, with the result that 25 per cent. of the sows went in one year, with a resultant loss of some £3,000,000 worth of bacon in 12 months, all in order to collar a tax of something like £700,000——

Mr. O'Sullivan

All the bores did not go.

Mr. Corry

——which went to pay the flour subsidy.

Speaking on this matter about a fortnight ago, I said I did not believe that any Minister for Agriculture worth his salt would allow the Minister for Industry and Commerce to get away with that, and neither do I believe it. I say that here, straight and above board. It was deliberate robbery of the small farmers for whom I have seen Deputy Dillon weeping salty tears when I went to him for a price for feeding barley. He told me that the small farmer in the West with a wife and ten children feeds barley to the pigs on which he depends for his livelihood, and he said: "Am I to increase the price of his raw materials when the big farmer down in East Cork with 100 acres and two motor cars wants to benefit?" That same gentleman, when put into a position of authority, allowed the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tax that small farmer in the West, with the wife and the six children.

Mr. O'Sullivan

When did the family drop by four.

Mr. Corry

He allowed the Minister for industry and Commerce to tax every cwt. of wheat offals which he had to buy to feed his pigs. Let us be clear on this. Despite swine fever and everything else, so long as that tax remains on the raw material of the small farmer, the most industrious farmer we have, so long will the pig population continue to decline.

I notice on page two of these notes the following statement:—

"Following the decision of the Government that Irish superphosphate should be made available to farmers at world prices and following the suspension subsequently of the customs duty on superphosphate, provision has been made for payment to the Irish manufacturers of a subsidy representing the difference between the competitive price ex-quay at main ports of imported superphosphate and the price at which the home manufacturers can economically sell their product ex-factory."

I should like to call the Minister's attention to the statements made at the Prices Advisory Body by Messrs. Gouldings. Messrs. Gouldings alleged that they were selling their superphosphate cheaper than superphosphate was being sold in Britain. They went before the Prices Advisory Body looking for an economic price, and they got it. What is the subsidy for? If manufacturers here feel they are not getting enough for their produce, unlike the farmer who has nobody before whom he can go when his wheat offals are taxed, they can go before the Prices Advisory Body and make their case; and that body, having examined all the facts, gives an increase in price and that increase is passed on to the farmer.

Where is the justification for a subsidy? I want to know what it is. I hold there is no justification. There can be no justification except that these people want to put their hands into two pockets at the one time and extract from both. I cannot see the slightest justification for the statement I have read. I do not know what the amount of the subsidy is, but I advise the Minister that that is some place where he will find money if he goes to look for it. These people are entitled to nothing—not to one brass farthing. They went before the Prices Advisory Body, put up their case and got their price.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. Corry

This is a very grave matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

Nevertheless, repetition is not orderly.

Mr. Corry

If other matters on somewhat similar lines are examined into they will probably account for a lot of money and that money might have a good effect on our adverse trade balance.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is not so adverse now.

Mr. Corry

No, we are straightening things up. When we have them all paid, we shall let you know. Deputy Dillon spoke of the Minister's advisers. I wonder what adviser put this into page 2 here. I hope the Minister will explain to us when he is concluding what is meant by this payment of a subsidy to the manufacturers of superphosphate. The second half of this note reads:—

"Irish superphosphate is also being made available at any given centre of the country on terms competitive with imported superphosphate. In some areas remote from the factories the subsidy payable on the ex-factory basis is not sufficient to make this possible..."

I would call the Minister's attention to that. It would be very advisable for the Minister to have—I am sure it is in his Department; if not, it should be —a copy of the full statements made to the Prices Advisory Body by the two firms concerned, MacDonaghs of Galway and Gouldings. Some extraordinary statements were made and the Minister would be well advised to examine these statements.

I note that under the Grain Storage Loans Act of 1951 the Minister for Agriculture, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, made provision for loans up to £2,500,000 and of that amount £497,000 has already been given. Increased facilities for storage are very badly needed particularly by our co-operative societies and organisations. They are the only protection the farmer has to save him from being robbed. The one hope the grain grower has is competition and there is no hope of competition when the only buyer is the miller. It is only by having co-operative associations with their own storage facilities that we can hope to get anything like a fair price at harvest time.

For example, take the 43/- shown in the notes. The millers started at 40/- and when you took them a sample at 40/-, they looked at it, squeezed it, and turned it nine or ten times and nearly burned it and talked about excess moisture, before they bought it, even at 40/-. The co-operative society in my district started in 1942 and it was not until they started that the millers budged from the 40/-. Co-operatives are essential and the more of them we have, the better. I hope that whatever sparing the Minister may do, he will spare no money in that direction. If we are to increase production of grain, we require, first, somebody to buy it and, secondly, some place to store it.

I am glad to see that the position as regards malting barley is satisfactory. It is as satisfactory as it could be considering the conditions brought about by the previous Government in regard to grain during their years of office. The price of malting barley did not fall: it continued to go up. With hope in our hearts, we are anxiously awaiting the Minister's decision as to whether we will get a few more shillings onto the price of wheat which will enable us to extract a few shillings more from Arthur Guinness in the price of malting barley. The two are tied together. Previously we tied the price to the price of British malting barley and in one famous year succeeded in extracting from Arthur Guinness a bonus of close on £2,000,000 on that basis alone. Unfortunately, owing to the change in the British method of payment, we had to depart from that and the only other anchor we could find was the price of wheat. James reduced the price——

Mr. O'Sullivan

On a point of order, is it permissible for a Deputy to refer to another Deputy as "James"?

An Ceann Comhairle

No. The proper title of any Deputy is "Deputy So-and-So."

Mr. Corry

For fear that somebody would not know who had done it, I am glad to inform the House that it was Deputy James Dillon. Deputy Dillon, having reduced the price of wheat as low as it could possibly go, we said: "We cannot be worse off," and we tied our anchor to wheat. There was an improvement last year and we are anxiously awaiting the big jump. I hope it will come.

I am glad to inform the Minister that I am hoping for some pretty big developments in the line of the production of malt for export. We are on that work at present and hope to make a success of it.

I notice that we have introduced new breeds of turkeys from the U.S.A. I have seen a few of them. They are something like the magpie; they are black and white, white feathers sticking out here and there, and a grey back. With £25 10s. for offals, it would not pay to give too much of them to a turkey, even if it were a white turkey or a piebald turkey, such as we have now, if turkeys are to be only 1/- a 1b. again this year. That is a further reason why the Minister should restore the price of wheat affals. A predecessor of his, Deputy Walsh, God rest his soul, succeeded in holding the price from 1951 to 1954 at £20 a ton.

I should like to know what exactly is the position in regard to water supplies to farm-houses. We are told here that, due to the number of applications, that has been held up. What is the position? Can a man apply now for a water supply to his house and, if so, will he get the money? I know that the former Government had no money and the scheme had to be stopped. I am wondering whether the financial position has sufficiently improved to enable that scheme to be continued. There are some anxious inquirers in my constituency.

I take it there is no hold-up in the farm building scheme. There is a note to the effect that acceptance of fresh applications has been deferred until further notice. I should like the Minister to state definitely how long more that ban will be in operation and when farmers concerned may go ahead with the work.

In regard to the scheme of loans for increased agricultural production, is that a separate scheme from the scheme administered by the Agricultural Credit Corporation? If it is, there might be some hope that somebody would get a few bob.

I hope to get here as soon as possible the total amount of money paid in loans by the Agricultural Credit Corporation during the past 12 months and the total amount paid in salaries. I am sure that is far more than the 10 per cent. of the amount of loans issued.

In view of the increase in milk production I need not advocate Friesian cows for milk. The Pekinese breeds seemed to move ahead under the blessing of the previous Minister. I would suggest to the Minister that it is high time that the bar on Friesians be taken off. It is an extraordinary thing that a county committee of agriculture can give a premium for a Shorthorn bull, for a Hereford bull and for an Aberdeen-Angus bull, but will not be allowed to give any premium for a Friesian bull.

Surely the object of a premium is to improve the breed? What improvement can the Department expect from a premium on a Hereford bull? How many of his progeny will be kept for bulls? In the ordinary course you cannot keep any unless you have pure bred Hereford cows. The heifers cannot be kept for breeding purposes either. In the name of common sense, for what is the premium on the Hereford bull meant? What is the reason for the Department's consistent refusal to give premiums for Friesian bulls?

Compare the effects of the two premiums. The premium on the Friesian will undoubtedly give you a better milking heifer and will give you some improved stock to carry on with. If you get a Friesian, you can keep the bulls. What can you hope for from the Hereford? What lasting influence will the giving of that premium have on live stock? None. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no justification for continuing a premium for a Hereford bull and refusing a premium to a Friesian.

As I said, this Estimate was prepared by the previous Minister. We must wait for a while before we see a new policy develop. There is one other matter to which I would like to draw attention. I note here that amongst the activities of the Department last year was an agricultural production council. Is it the Minister's intention to continue that council? Since we lost my dearly beloved friend, Deputy Dillon, they have not met. I would suggest to the Minister that, when he is calling the next meeting, he would make my friend, Deputy Dillon, an honorary member and bring him in.

Mr. Moher

Is that the quid pro quo?

Mr. Dillon

The things I did for Ireland. I nominated him at the instance of God knows whom.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Corry

The Deputy should realise the fun I would have in having him there.

Mr. Dillon

I can assure the Deputy I had no fun in looking in at him there on the rare occasions he bothered to attend.

Mr. Corry

There were some rare occasions but I must admit that I have got my share of amusement out of the Deputy and I would be very sorry to lose him in any sense whatever.

As I stated, this is a new Estimate. I want to congratulate the Minister on his important office. From what I know of him. I know he will make a success of it.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I regret that I was not in the House when the Minister made his statement, but having glanced through it, I must say I was gratified by the expression and tone of that statement. In the closing part, he expresses a chauvinistic belief in his own people and he looks to the future with confidence and with hope. There are so many people weeping about the future of this country that we could do with a few more people with a chauvinistic outlook. If he continues the attitude of the last Minister for Agriculture, as he has in this statement, in looking to the future with confidence and with hope, as a consequence of the developments in agriculture in recent years, then all of us may look to the future with confidence and with hope.

In his statement, he expresses gratification at the progess made in increasing production in the agricultural sphere. I must inject a comment that that progress would have been far greater if politics, and Party politics, had not been dragged through the programme of the last Government which resulted in this increased output and increased production. Every embarrassment, whether it occurred in the Argentine, whether it occurred in Denmark or whether it occurred in Britain was availed of by the Party now in office at every crossroads and every chapel gate when there was political gain to be derived from it and levelled against the man then in the Department of Agriculture. They have now, in a matter of a few months in office, put on record in this statement recognition of the achievements of the last Government in securing increased production.

The only worry the present Government is faced with is its surpluses in agricultural produce. The fact that it has a surplus in any category is remarkable when one considers the forebodings of that Party and every member of it over the past few years. We have achieved this record number of cattle and it was not achieved without the initiation of a positive policy designed to produce those results. Is it not a good thing that we have those cattle stocks in the country? What now do we hear of the doleful prognostications of the Fianna Fáil Party when they sat on this side of the House and when the price of cattle was temporarily affected on the British market?

How many people were told, down the country, that they would never again see the day when they would get a fair price for their cattle? Is it not a good thing that that trade has now recovered and is in the happy position in which it is to-day? Is it not a direct consequence of the effects of the 1948 Trade Agreement and the improvement of our veterinary services? Is it not a direct result of the return of confidence in that industry? No longer can it be said that there was something unnatural in being associated with agriculture.

To-day industry and every group of people in the country, whether they are professional people, workers or in any other walk of life, realise, after the troubles of last year, how much everyone depends on agriculture, the part of our economy contributing most to our exports, which are so valuable in these times. The Estimates this year were prepared by the last Government and consequently have not invited much criticism. This Estimate, however, we find has been singled out by the Government for the most dramatic reduction, a reduction of £1,900,000.

The point I want to dwell on is that in one single branch of agriculture, the dairying industry, the reduction of £1,900,000 in the subsidy—which was announced recently and endorsed here in this Estimate—represents a challenge to the dairying area in the country. We realise, as the Minister points out, that last year there was a record production in milk and he also forecasts still greater production this year. We agree completely that the increase in production this year may be of quite formidable proportions, a consequence again of the better farming methods and advances made in recent times in improving the lot of our agriculturists.

A still greater increase could have been effected if the organisation that was set up to represent the creamery milk suppliers was not encouraged in the belief that all that was required for every member of the organisation to get an extra 3d. per gallon for milk delivered to the creameries was for one Party to change over from one side of the House to the other.

That organisation was used as a political weapon by the Party now in office. During all that troubled period, that organisation sought one thing, that is, the production of the Milk Costings Report and how often was it claimed that the last Minister had some ulterior motive in relation to the report and that it was in some way embarrassing to him? Consequently, he was accused of delaying the publication of that report. It is for that reason that I put down questions to the Minister, and to the Minister before him, to indicate that that report was not presented to any Minister for Agriculture so far.

The members of the organisation were drawn from different political Parties and also had members with no political affiliations whatever, but that did not prevent its posters from being used in North Kerry for political motives in a by-election, nor from being used and availed of on every opportunity to embarrass the interParty Government during their period of office. It is a remarkable thing that the moment there was a change of Government, so many officers of that organisation tendered their resignations, including a very prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Cork County Council who did not delay in tendering his resignation within a few days of the change of Government.

We are now entitled to ask the Minister, and the Government, what increase they are going to give the farmers in the price of milk this year. We are entitled to suggest that if, as they claimed in West Limerick— Deputy Collins's constituency—nothing less than 3d. a gallon would satisfy the producers at that time, with the increased costs which have arisen since the Budget this year, surely 3d. cannot now satisfy Deputy Collins's supporters. Perhaps the Minister will give us an indication of what the price will be this year and next year. It is important that the dairy farmers should know what the price will be in the coming year. At present, the committees of the creameries in the South of Ireland are very perturbed by the drop in the sales of butter owing to the removal, in its entirety, of the butter subsidy.

Last year, the then Government had an acute problem to face in marketing the surplus production of butter. That position has been very much aggravated by the increased production of milk. In case the position was not serious enough this Government, with the authority of the House, decided to reduce native consumption of Irish creamery butter. There is no provision so far for the subsidy that must be paid to enable the British consumer to eat Irish butter that we would not subsidise for consumption at home. It cost £750,000 to subsidise it for export last year. What will it cost this year? Will it cost £2,000,000? Those engaged in the dairying industry would like to have an answer to that question. It is a pertinent one.

The Minister in the opening paragraph of his statement said that he was a new Minister and, in consequence it was not necessary or desirable to indicate the policy of the Government in detail in relation to agriculture. We realise he is new to office. We realise the difficulty he has to contend with but his Party were extremely active when in Opposition in suggesting that they had a policy for agriculture, as well as for every other aspect of life in this country. Where is there a reference to a single departure from the policy of the last Government in relation to agriculture in that statement? I challenge any Deputy to indicate a paragraph, a line, or a word in that statement which is in contradiction, even in the most minute way, of the policy pursued in relation to agriculture by the last Government.

The Minister said that the developments over the last 12 months had laid the bogey about our capacity to produce. Would the Minister, when he has time, take his colleague, the Minister for Lands, into some quiet corner and read that over to him 100 times if necessary——

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. O'Sullivan

——to see if he could bring it home to him that, in fact there is a section of our people increasing production and that is capable, as the Minister points out, of producing still more? We are very pleased to know the bogey has been laid but we are afraid that there are a few Ministers in the Government who still do not believe it.

We are entitled to ask the Government what they propose to do about the price of wheat. The price of wheat was a very important and relevant subject when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition. It was one which they bandied around every townland in the country where wheat was grown, but which they carefully avoided in the areas where it was not feasible for people to grow wheat. We are entitled to ask why this Government has not increased the price of wheat since they assumed office. After all, they increased the price of wheat once before on assuming office, even though the seed was already in the ground. At that time they increased the price of wheat by 5/- a barrel. Why did they not increase it this time? The lack of validity in their argument is exposed when we remember that there was an occasion when, in response to certain pressure, it was increased. Deputy Corry can provide the Minister with sufficient references to that occasion. Deputy Corry asked to-night, very significantly, what increase will be made in the price of wheat and when will the increase be effected.

The Minister for Finance has, in fact, expressed the view that we have at the moment too much wheat. That is an extraordinary statement for a responsible Minister in a Fianna Fáil Government to make concerning a crop that was sown during the office of his predecessor. We have referred in earlier debates to the action of the Minister in deciding that a certain amount of grain which was accepted at the mills last year for milling into flour has now been subsidised for use as pig feed. We think that an improper thing to do because it weakens the Minister's bargaining powers with the pretty active organisations that are engaged in the buying and processing of wheat in this country.

It would have been far better if he had realised, that in the difficulties of last year his predecessor had achieved a magnificent result in organising the various points of intake, under the extremely adverse weather conditions that obtained in getting last year's crop taken in. It is unfortunate that there was some reversal by the decision to subsidise this wheat for animal consumption.

The Minister also points out that this year's wheat crop promises to be another record. He does not commit himself any more in relation to the 100 per cent. Irish loaf other than to say that the problem looms nearer. He is certainly wise in saying that and in declaring that it is his intention to move with caution, sifting all observations and ascertaining all the facts before coming to a final decision. Some of his colleagues are quicker to advance a final decision and they do not seem to have taken the pains to ascertain all the facts.

In relation to feeding barley, we have now in this country a remarkable development in its production. It is true to say that this year there will be a record crop and the purchasing, storing and drying of it will present difficulties as the harvest approaches, but we must realise that there was no development in agriculture since the State was founded which has made a greater contribution to rendering us independent of outside supplies of foodstuffs, than the development in relation to the growing of feeding barley. It is a very happy situation to have reached. No doubt it will be reflected, as it is already reflected, in the increased number of sows in this country. This will effect a return to higher productivity in relation to pigs and bacon. It will give to our small farmers a source of feeding readily available in this country and will make them independent of the vagaries of external prices. At the same time it will provide many of our grain growers with a reasonably remunerative income.

Unfortunately it is true that much haulage is entailed in getting the feeding barley from the areas in which it is grown intensively to the parts of the country where it is later fed to pigs. In that respect, perhaps an improvement could be effected in bringing home to the growers the advisability of going in for more intensive pig rearing and thus saving, to a great extent, some of the profits that now go to people engaged between the grower and the ultimate consumer.

I would also ask the Minister to indicate the position relating to the future of the Agricultural Advisory Body. There is not a single word about it in his opening statement. No doubt some questions will be asked as to the attitude of the Government and the Minister in relation to the setting-up of an organisation representing all the farming bodies of this country, providing an opportunity for frequent consultation between the Minister and these freely nominated representatives. The absence of any comment in the Minister's introductory statement may not have been intentional but there is no doubt that those members whose numbers have gratifyingly grown so much in recent years in the various voluntary organisations that now represent agriculture will be very interested in knowing whether, in the view of this Government, that body serves a useful purpose and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to resort to those councils on any questions that may arise from time to time between the Minister and the agricultural community.

Deputy Corry was anxious about the future of the water supply scheme and the farm buildings scheme. He did not advert to the fact that these schemes were waiting for a long time to be initiated. No doubt the Minister can point out to Deputy Corry that, last year, in all outdoor work an exceptional amount of work was performed in a very short time. Notwithstanding the fact that huge sums were allocated from the Exchequer towards these schemes, they were exhausted in the shortest time since the foundation of the State. That goes for all outdoor work by all Departments in the past year.

Many people have yet to avail of the splendid facilities for the provision of a water supply and the erection of out-offices. They will now look for a firm statement from the Minister as to his intention in regard to the future of these schemes. In recent years the agricultural community have made considerable progress. They have made a tremendous investment in their land, in their farm buildings, in their farm-houses and in improving the lot of the people who have to work on the land and in the farmyard. That tremendous capital investment is now to the credit of the country.

When people criticise our agricultural community I wonder whether they themselves, in their own avocations, have made the same contribution, proportionally, as the agricultural community in modernisation and mechanisation, in improving their knowledge of the science of farming and in supplementing, to a very great extent, the valuable State assistance that has been forthcoming to encourage them to brighten up their homesteads and in that way to make it possible for people engaged in the most important activity in the State to do so, secure in the knowledge that they can have in their farm houses the amenities which people in villages and towns have by availing of rural electrification, improving their housing and their land and by availing of the facilities under the land project. Very considerable progress has been made in these directions in the past eight or nine years.

The agricultural industry is now geared to the point, as the Minister mentions, where we can look with considerable satisfaction at the situation now prevailing of a record number of gallons of milk being delivered to the creameries, of record stocks of cattle on the land, of a record crop of wheat and a record crop of barley in the ground. Having had that work done before he took office, the Minister is now greatly concerned, as he points out, to cope with whatever difficulties he will have to face in disposing of the surplus which will exist this year. In that respect, it is regrettable that the dairying industry, the foundation of our cattle industry, should, in view of the difficulties it has to face, have to meet the reduction of subsidy on butter which is creating such concern in the industry and which no doubt will present this Government in the coming 12 months with a charge on the Exchequer of the extent of which, possibly, they may not have any idea.

It was foolish to take away the subsidy on Irish creamery butter. Indeed, grave feelings of discontent are developing among creamery suppliers at the way in which they have been fobbed off by the setting up of a commission which was set up only to stave off the day when the Government would have to answer the demands made by the creamery milk suppliers. They now look to the Party which gained office to some extent by the assurances they gave at the chapel gates and when canvassing at farmers' doors that, if another Government were in office, a far higher price could be obtained for the milk delivered at creameries. It is in these circumstances that the Party now in office will have to face the farmers in the months to come.

Mr. Wycherley

Quite a lot has been done by both Governments, since we got our freedom, for the agricultural community. Notwithstanding that fact, there is quite a lot more to be done before agriculture will be on the solid foundation on which it should rest in this country. As we know, the farmers are producing 75 per cent. of our exports. According to the White Paper, we sent agricultural produce to England, France, Western Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Italy, the U.S.A., Canada and Ceylon. The income from our agricultural produce must be a wonderful asset to the nation. Despite the fact that our agricultural produce is bringing in the most of the wealth of this country, it is remarkable that only 10 per cent. of that income is directed towards the development of agriculture. The Irish farmer has seen lean times and, as a farmer, I admit that in recent years he has seen better times. However, Irish farmers are not yet in a position to say they are independent, because the money they made in the good times has been ploughed back into the land for the development of their farms and the provision of amenities. That has been done to increase production, to instal electricity and to provide water in the homes as well as to improve the homestead, the out-offices and the land. The result is that the holdings of the Irish farmers to-day are very much ahead of what they were 25 years ago.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27th June, 1957.