On Friday afternoon I was offered by the Opposition an opportunity to conclude the debate on the Estimate. Unfortunately arrangements made for me precluded my acceptance of the courtesy extended.
I have dealt with some of the matters raised by way of direct question and have given my views on problems which I consider to be of particular importance. There remain some matters in regard to which interest has been expressed. Deputy Moher condemned the system of bull inspection. It is compulsory under the Livestock Breeding Act, 1925, to hold such inspections. It is true to say that conformation of the animal exhibited is first taken into consideration. When records of ancestry are known these are taken into account and in the dairying districts an attempt is made and will be continued to verify claims of high yielding ancestry. The fact that records are not kept generally or evidence brought forward to support claims too often narrows the matter for decision to one of conformation. I think licensing regulations are essential if we are to eliminate the scrub type of animal and I think that defects exposed in the system will gradually disappear as we make progress in other aspects.
Deputy Corry raised the question of subsidy to Irish manufacturers of fertilisers. I have ascertained the facts to be as follows. On the 5th October, 1956, the then Taoiseach stated in a policy speech:—
"The Government have decided as a further inducement to farmers adequately to fertilise their land to arrange for the supply of superphosphate to farmers in Ireland at world prices while ensuring that the entire output of the Irish fertiliser industry will be taken up at prices which will enable them to continue operating at their full capacity."
The steps taken to implement this decision were (1) the customs duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem on imported superphosphate (which had been imposed in 1932) was suspended and (2) arrangements were made to pay a subsidy to the home superphosphate manufacturers to enable them to sell their output at prices competitive with prices of imported duty free superphosphate in any part of the country.
The price of home produced superphosphate has been controlled by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the recommendation of the Prices Advisory Body. The price of home produced superphosphate was fixed at £11 15s. per ton ex-factory for 1955-56 and was increased by 25/- per ton to £13 per ton for the 1956-57 season. For the 1956-57 season the landed price of imported duty free superphosphate at those ports where the Irish superphosphate factories are situated was determined to be £12 5s. per ton.
On that basis, the ex-factory subsidy to the Irish superphosphate manufacturers has been 15/- per ton, but transport subsidy is also payable to the home superphosphate manufacturers on deliveries to centres where imported superphosphate could be obtained more cheaply through other ports. The transport subsidy is necessary to enable the home superphosphate to be sold in such centres at prices competitive with the prices of imported superphosphate at those centres.
While the subsidy is actually paid to the Irish superphosphate manufacturers, Deputy Corry may be assured that benefit accrues to the farmer. The fact that superphosphate may be imported duty free without restriction ensures this.
Deputy Moher referred to the Landrace pig and was not unduly impressed by the departmental concern with atrophic rhinitis. I have recently seen in the English Farmers Weekly a report of the 26th outbreak of atrophic rhinitis since the first coming to England of the Landrace pig. The disease has never been recognised clinically here nor has it been established in the laboratories. The veterinary profession regard it as contagious. The disease exists and has existed in Denmark for many years. As a problem there it has been the subject of special investigation and, as far as I am aware, the causal agent has never been discovered. I think the Department is right. I think it is essential that our veterinary people here should take every precaution to preserve our stock disease free as far as possible all round.
Deputy Hughes gave a rather unusual definition of the small farmer. He is, he said, a man not in a position to keep up with progress and who is the backbone of Irish agriculture. If Deputy Hughes is correct in that, Irish agriculture must be in a parlous condition, divorced of its vertebrae. What I think Deputy Hughes has in mind is rather the slipped disc of finance. Crossfire is always dangerous and the question of farm credits has been debated from widely different and obtuse angles, by Deputies Moher and O.J. Flanagan. I use "obtuse" not in any unparliamentary sense. Deputy Flanagan is rather illogical. He seems to want to have things both ways. He says: "I feel that the greatest security one could have should be the land: the best security offered should be the land." He adds: "Is it right that the title deeds of a holding should be held in pawn by the bank or by any other financial institution?"
The question Deputy Flanagan poses embodies, to my mind, the reason why land is not regarded as a good security, or as any security, by the banks here. There is little use in talking economics except on the basis that he who wishes to borrow shall offer as security genuine collateral. The majority of our people are prepared to do so. Those who are not so prepared retain Deputy O.J. Flanagan as their advocate. Mark you, the dictum of Parnell was perfectly right in its time and place: what was wisdom in some things 100 years ago is still wisdom to-day; what was wisdom in other things 100 years ago does not remain wisdom to-day. I think Deputy O.J. Flanagan, having at the back of his mind the slogan "Keep a firm grip on your holdings" has misapplied it and, in the misapplication of that dictum, we are creating a bar to agricultural progress.
Every Irish Government has brought its mind to bear on the problem of farm credits and no Government has discovered a final solution to the problem. I would suggest to Deputies that, instead of using the matter as a talking point in an Estimate debate, they should seek in their constituencies to discover the extent of the problem and propose solutions to it, solutions based on one single economic basis—that everything has somehow some day to be paid for. I think if we had such an attempt made by Deputies to bring their minds clearly to bear on the problem, a real effort might be made to find a solution. It is a problem with which every Deputy is familiar in his own constituency. I am somewhat familiar with it in my own constituency, but that, of course, is a narrow experience, and I have not by any means found the problem insoluble in my own area.
In regard to Irish agriculture, we must try to look at it as a unit and not as a sum total of unrelated parts. There is a special affinity between dairying and cattle. There is a close one between pigs and barley and a true view of Irish agriculture links each one of these in an economic chain. I, possibly because of my local experience, take the dairy industry to be the centre piece of Irish agriculture. I know that it demands our understanding, our goodwill and our support. It is not a business that can be successfully undertaken by either the inefficient or the lethargic. It needs a wide farming knowledge, unremitting endeavours and a capacity to absorb the buffets of fortune.
In Ireland, it is not, and I think it can never be, solely a question of milk production. It supports and is supported by the cattle export trade. We must concern ourselves with a high output of high quality dairy products, but the more one studies the problem of dairying, the better one realises that having such production as our sole aim is not wisdom. I shall try to protect and encourage the dairy industry as far as possible and in return I shall look for a high efficiency in all its aspects.
Finally, I come to pig production. In my view, pig production cannot be regarded as a sideline of farming. Deputy Moher says it is a trade requiring wide knowledge and one affected by many risks. If we are to make it a business of real national value, the food grains essential to pig production must be produced at home. We must try to keep an equitable balance between the grain grower and the pig producer. I hope we shall be able to secure such a balance—to secure, as I said before, acceptance of the view that Irish agriculture must be regarded as a unity of and not as a disparity of interests.
Pig progeny testing, Deputies will be glad to know, will be in operation next month. That is only the first step on the stairway to our progress.
Like the dairy farmer and the pig producer, the Minister for Agriculture must be prepared to meet the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Whatever measure of success or failure I may have during my term of office, I should like to assure Deputies and the country that I can still repeat that I face the future of Irish agriculture with hope and confidence.