Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1958

Vol. 171 No. 13

Private Members' Business. - Price of Milk—Motion (resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That, in view of the national importance of the dairying industry, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the price of milk supplied to creameries should be increased to cover the increased cost of production.— (Deputy Wycherley.)

Mr. O'Sullivan

I commented last week on the terms of this motion. They are moderate. They are of a nature which could very well be met by the Government in view of the commitments entered into, but not honoured, in relation to the price of milk during the course of the last general election and in by-elections, by the present Government. Since that time other factors have contributed to a situation which makes the case to be made to-day even better than it was when those commitments were entered into. I was impressed by the fact that one Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches, Deputy Moloney, spoke here last week on this motion. That is quite contrary to the attitude of his colleagues who had not the courage to speak when the wheat price situation was under discussion. Indeed, one redoubtable warrior where wheat is concerned was known to have decamped hurriedly from the House when the Vote was about to be taken.

I should like to deal with the points made by Deputy Moloney. Since the general election the dairying farmers have experienced a very heavy increase in their costs of production. The cost of living everywhere has risen alarmingly. Efforts have been made to alleviate partially that situation for certain sections of the community. One of the most important sections in agriculture, the dairying farmers, has received no compensation of any kind despite the fact that costs have risen substantially and that they too must meet the rising cost of living.

This Government seem to have gone completely haywire on the question of surpluses. We know what they did in relation to wheat. They have adopted a similar policy in relation to milk. The recent White Paper—a commendable one—emphasises the advantage to our economy of the beef trade. The dairying industry is the foundation of our beef trade. It is the dairying industry which provides the valuable cattle exports, exports which make it possible for people far removed from agriculture to enjoy the standard of living they have. We know the measures that would have to be introduced to save our economy if we had no cattle exports.

We are grateful for the conversion of the present Government to the view that our greatest asset is our cattle population. But they must not ignore the fact that the people who are the foundation of that industry need assistance and encouragement to induce them to continue in the industry. They need assistance and encouragement to increase the number of milch cows. The last Government did much in that direction by way of the ground limestone scheme, the land project and the reduction in calf mortality from 80,000 down to 9,000 per annum. Those calves are to-day providing the beef exports from this country. The last Government are responsible for the fact that farmers now have earlier grass, better housing, improved facilities. It is in that situation that we have to-day an increased gallonage per cow.

Instead of help and encouragement, the present Government have imposed a levy on the dairying industry just as they imposed a levy on the wheat. Milk production is subject to extreme variation. Wheat has a certain stability. Deputy Moloney said he was sympathetic to the remarks made by both the proposer and seconder of this motion. It is somewhat odd that a daily newspaper which conducted a campaign in relation to milk during the time Fianna Fáil were in Opposition did not see fit last week to report as much as one word of what was said in this debate by Deputy Finucane and Deputy Wycherley. That is the kind of thing that casts grave reflections on us. It is something that ought not to be done.

The terms of this motion are moderate and we are not indulging in any extreme demand of the type to which we were subjected when we were in office. There is no demand to-day for 3d per gallon for milk. We were told that was the minimum producers should expect from the then Government. There has been an astonishing anaemia in the campaign in relation to the price of milk since the Fianna Fáil Government came into office.

Deputy Dillon earlier this year asked the Government to meet a fresh challenge. He asked them to assist the dairy farmers in meeting what is required of them to combat bovine T.B. Between 40 and 50 per cent. of the milch cows in the dairying areas are reactors. We appreciate the difficulties but, before steps are taken to reduce the problem to manageable proportions, we suggest encouragement should be given to voluntary participants in the scheme. We have the experience of what has been achieved in England as a result of such a scheme of voluntary participation.

We support the motion because it incorporates in it our argument that the Government should give an incentive of at least 1d or 2d per gallon to the dairy farmers who voluntarily participate in the eradication of bovine T.B. We believe that would assist the Government's objective— a laudable one—of eradicating bovine T.B. Ours is a positive suggestion. The disease is detrimental to future exports. The day the Government made it necessary for the Irish housewife to pay 4/4 for creamery butter was a black day indeed. That has contributed to a contraction in the home market. The Government will have to explain their provision of money to make it possible for the British consumer to eat Irish butter at 2/- a 1b.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling very wide of the motion.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Part of the difficulty dairy farmers have to contend with is the fact that the Government claim they are embarrassed by the provision of subsidies for surplus milk products. The point I am making is that they themselves have contributed to that situation by making it impossible for the Irish consumer to buy butter at a price he can afford and in that way they have depressed the home market for Irish creamery milk.

There was a challenge presented to the dairy industry in the developments that took place in the manufacture of margarine. The increase in the price of butter to the Irish consumer has meant that very many people have gone away from consumption of good Irish creamery butter and are now availing of substitutes because they cannot afford to pay Fianna Fáil's price for a 1b. of butter.

Deputy Moloney was perturbed as to where the Government could meet the requirements of this motion. Is it not a fact that the country has experienced, in the last 12 months, a year such as was practically unknown in recorded history and that the consequences are that no class of farmers have been hit so badly, not even the wheat farmers, and they were hit badly, as the dairy farmers have been? In the South of Ireland to-day—my constituency of North Cork is predominantly dairying —the cattle have to be housed this winter with less fodder and with a poorer type of fodder than farmers have ever had to depend on before. The consequences of that will be that cattle will come out in a semi-starved condition and already the mortality is serious in consequence of the weather experienced over the last 12 months. The result will be that there will be a considerable reduction in the output of milk next year.

The Government know that the commitment to met the subsidisation of an exportable surplus of butter will now not have to be met and the Minister has at least £2,000,000 that he will save because of the weather conditions, in the same way as he has already been relieved to the extent of some millions in consequence of the cheaper imported wheat. If the Government are not careful, they may find that the citizens of Dublin may again have to eat the yellow imported butter. Unless the industry in Munster is cushioned in some way against the impact of the awful conditions which they have experienced over the last 12 months, the results of which will continue this winter and into next year, the farmers' incomes will be depleted, at a time when their herds will also be depleted because of the reduction due to activities under the bovine T.B. scheme. If we never had a bad year, there would be that reduction in the output of creamery milk.

We think the situation can be in some way alleviated if the Government will meet the terms of this motion. We suggest to them that they could not meet it in a better way than by applying at least 1d. per gallon increase to the creamery dairy farmers who will voluntarily participate in the bovine T.B. scheme.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I have had the advantage of reading the debate that took place on the first occasion that this motion was under discussion and of hearing Deputy O'Sullivan's speech just now. I suppose that practically any member of this Party would have great sympathy with the dairy producers but, being a Government Party, we must exercise a little bit of responsibility, unlike the Deputy who has just spoken. We must not only think of the benefits that might go to a certain section of the community for whom Deputy Wycherley has made a case, but must weigh against that the burden that would be placed on other members of the community in finding the money to do it.

I am quite sure that Deputies could make a case for many sections of the community that require more. There are many classes, for instance, living on social assistance, there are many classes like, even Deputies themselves, whose allowances have not been increased for many, many years.

Mr. O'Sullivan

One could make quite a good case.

Dr. Ryan

Against that, we always have to ask ourselves where the money is to come from. The great difficulty about milk is that it is a costly business. A penny a gallon on creamery milk, on present-day production or present-day deliveries to creameries, would cost about £1,200,000. Suppose we were to agree to that, it would mean that, if the consumer had to pay for the home-consumed butter, that would be increased by 2½d. per 1b. and it would make home-consumed butter even dearer than it is at the moment. I do not think any Deputy here would say that we should increase the home butter price. If we pass that over, we would then have to find the £1,200,000 from taxation in order to pay the subsidy, that is, the subsidy both on butter consumed at home and on butter that is exported.

Deputy O'Sullivan talked about the very steep reduction in the production of milk for creameries. Deputy Wycherley gave a figure. At least, he was more particular about the statement he made and gave the figure of the reduction in production for the present year. It is a small percentage. It is not very big. I would not like to say at this stage but there might be other explanations besides an absolute reduction in the production of milk in this country.

However, instead of saving money on exports this year, as Deputy O'Sullivan has said we may, I will in fact be bringing a Supplementary Estimate before the Dáil some time before the 31st March. I do not know what the amount may be yet but I think it will be more than £500,000 for an export subsidy on butter, more than we asked for at Budget time.

Again, Deputy O'Sullivan talked about the decrease in consumption of creamery butter. There is a decrease in consumption of creamery butter. There is an increase in consumption of liquid milk. Taking them all round, it is not a very big figure. The fact is that there has been a very, very big increase in the delivery of milk to creameries in both 1957 and 1958, very much higher than it was in previous years, and the product is largely exported in the form of butter and the export subsidy is fairly high. I am merely telling Deputies what the consequences would be if we were to accept this motion.

If we had to find this money we would have to put extra taxes on the people if we were to pursue the policy of balancing the Budget that every Government here professes to follow. If the money were to be found through income-tax it would mean 6d. in the £ of an increase; if we got it on cigarettes it would mean 3d. on the packet of 20; if we put it on beer it would mean 2d. on the pint. On petrol it would mean another 6d. on the gallon. These are fairly heavy taxes and I am quite sure if I came before the Dáil with the next Budget and proposed these taxes I would get very strenuous opposition from the Party opposite.

We must keep in mind another point which we must watch, the world markets. On the British market the amount of butter available has brought down the price and for the most part this year—luckily during the past few weeks it has improved—we got very poor prices indeed for our butter. That meant we had to pay a higher subsidy in order to compensate the creameries for the butter sent out. I want to make it plain that, at the same time, as far as the Government is concerned, they want to see increased production.

It is difficult to recognise all these factors—that our production has been high for the last two years, our exports have been high and the export subsidy high, in fact, as much as we can get in the ordinary way. Still, I want to emphasise that we want increased production. As we said in the White Paper we hope the increased production will take the form of milk produced for some purpose other than butter. There has been a movement here for some time back, generally known as the single suckling system, and I believe it is developing rapidly and fairly extensively. Personally, I have come across quite a number of farmers who have gone into that system and it is possible that this fact is to some extent responsible for the reduction in milk delivered to creameries towards the end of this year.

It must be remembered that up to the end of August or around that date the amount of milk going to creameries was higher than last year. In September it came down a bit lower and since then it has been lower than last year. That may have been due, I admit, to the very bad weather and the fact that there was not the same nourishment in the grass as we had last year. Or it may be due to the fact that farmers are going into this system of single suckling of heifers and calves. I am sure Deputies generally would agree with the Government on this: we want to see the number of cows increased, but at the same time we want the production from these cows used in a more economic way than in producing butter which is sold at such terribly low prices on the world market.

If I am right in what I say regarding single suckling it would be a great mistake to tempt farmers back from that system by giving them increased prices for milk. We must keep that in mind also. Milk production this year was practically as high as last year. Up to a certain point in the fall of the year it was higher; then it became lower. If that is due to the weather we would naturally expect production to go up again next year and that it would start next year at least as high as this year and that it would go on to August as high as this year, perhaps finishing higher than this year if we are blessed with better weather than in 1958.

The trend, I am afraid, so far as can be seen at present is towards higher production rather than lower. Production in 1956 was slightly higher than in the previous year; in 1957 a good deal higher. In 1958 it was in or about the same. Let us say that increased production has been achieved on the present prices and we can then say that the prices in operation in the last two or three years have not depressed production.

We must look at this objectively. Most of us come from the land and we are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the farmer's case. Our friends and relatives are farmers and we are inclined that way, but in considering a case like this, we must do it as objectively as we can. Compare dairying with any other industry. Take an industry set up for the last 20 or 25 years and let us say it is doing well, increasing production and growing in volume and getting a certain price for its products. If a motion came before the House seeking an increased price for that industry's products I am sure no Deputy would agree it should get it. Would it not be said: "Are they not doing very well as they are? Are they not increasing production?" Taking an objective view, I feel the House would say there would be no justification for an increased price.

From another point of view, let us take the price of milk before May 1st last, before this levy was imposed for export purposes. The price was 18.2 pence, 1/6½. That was the average price at every creamery in the country. The average price for 1939, that is pre-war, was 5.93 pence, say 6d. per gallon, or a little under. Comparing the increase there, with the increase given to wage-earners, for instance, I do not think that wage-earners generally have got more than three times what they had in 1939. Professional men have not got more; as already mentioned the poor T.D.s have not got anything like that. I do not believe that the goods turned out by any industry are selling now for three times the 1939 price.

Looking at this objectively, as we are bound to do here where we must consider every member of the community, I do not think that argument could be made the basis for an increased price of milk. I do not want to refer to the Milk Costings Tribunal except in passing because we have not debated its Report here and it might be unfair to take figures from that, as perhaps Deputies are not familiar with it. But I would say this——

Mr. Hughes

It served its purpose.

Dr. Ryan

I am not asking it to serve any purpose. I am not quoting it at all but the figures are there in the Library and I say that no Deputy will find anything in that Report to give him reason for asking for an increase in the price of milk now.

I want to go back to the 1/6½ because it was the price in 1957. When I brought in the Budget last year I quoted figures—I am not going back over them again as time is limited and other Deputies may want to speak—to show that the total income that creamery farmers were getting had considerably increased in 1957 over the previous year. On that basis I thought it could bear some part of the levy toward payment of the export subsidy. For the year 1958 that will cost them 8d. per gallon so if we take that from the price as already quoted of 18.52d. it means that the price received for milk in 1958, provided of course the butter fat remains more or less the same as it was last year, would be slightly under 1/6 a gallon. Therefore it does give a margin over the years back to the year that was taken by this Milk Costings Tribunal, 1952-3, of about 4d. per gallon.

I wonder if Deputies have seen this Irish farmers' journal. I do not quote them very often and I do not say it is any more reliable than any other paper but their views are interesting on this question. In a leading Article of December 6th last they are criticising the White Paper and saying we are placing too much emphasis on beef and not enough on dairy products. They say:—

"We repeat at present export prices of beef and dairy products—"

I do not want to deceive any Deputy. That means the price we are getting at the moment including the subsidy.

"——an acre of grass used for milk production will give a cash return per acre that is 50 per cent. higher than a similar acre of grass used for beef production."

I am not saying that is not subject to criticism but it is the opinion of the Editor in The Farmers' Journal and I suppose he has based it on some sort of data. I would like to quote the last paragraph:—

"With the prices that could be obtained for high quality Irish butter and cheese marketed by a progressive selling organisation, in Britain, and with a reasonable share of the world market for dried milk and condensed milk, it would be possible to sell, in the form of milk products, much of the increased output of Irish grasslands, with higher profit to the farmer and greater benefit to the State and without the burden of that excessive subsidy that appears to have scared the architects of the White Paper."

The Editor of that paper suggests that by better marketing dairy products could be put on the world market and would give a profit to the farmer even without a subsidy. He may be going too far but he says this export subsidy has scared the architects of the White Paper. It did scare the architects of the White Paper. Deputy Wycherley in his speech quoted the White Paper and said we may reach the stage of having to pay £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 a year on export subsidies for butter if we kept on increasing the cows in the country and increasing the production of milk for creameries and if the creameries stuck to the production of butter. It is not likely that position would be allowed to be reached but it could be if we went on without thinking.

Deputy O'Sullivan spoke of the great increase in costs to the dairy farmer in the last few years. There has undoubtedly been an increase in the cost of living but that does not hit the farmer in many cases as it hits the person living in the town. I know farmers from my native county who usually supply themselves with bread and butter and therefore the cost-of-living increase does not hit them so much. In some places it may hit the farmers who do not produce their own bread and butter. On the other hand as far as farming costs are concerned I do not think there has been a very big increase in the last few years. Rent remains the same on the farms, and rates have not increased in the last couple of years. If the Deputies would like to look at the Estimates for Public Services they will find the agricultural grant has been practically the same which means rates remain the same. In fact there was a reduction in the year before last in the agricultural grant and they went up slightly last year but not higher than they were two years ago. The cost of labour has not gone up very much in the last two years and taken all round it cannot be claimed there has been a very big increase in the cost of farming.

I do not want to keep the House too long because I know other Deputies want to voice their views on this, but I want to say to Deputy Wycherley that while we may have our sympathy with the dairy farmer we must keep all these other matters in mind. I have no doubt Deputy Wycherley is perfectly sincere in his endeavours to get better treatment for the milk producers, and I only ask him to realise that even though he may not like our attitude or may be disappointed, we are sincere also in our approach to this matter.

I would like to warn him also that, in assessing the sincerity of the Fine Gael Party, he should keep in mind that about four years ago or perhaps more, they were in favour of reducing the price of milk from 1/4½ to 1/- per gallon and, as a Party who when they were in power made that proposition to the creameries, they have some courage, let us say, standing up here and asking us to forget all those things and expecting us to think they are honest in expressing the opinion now that the price of milk should be increased. In conclusion, may I say that I agreed on rather short notice to take the place of the Minister for Agriculture who is regrettably unable to be present to-night.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Blowick.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

May I, Sir, draw your attention to the fact that no member of the Labour Party has been called upon to speak and Deputy Blowick is the second speaker from Clann na Talmhan. The time limit for this debate is three hours.

Mr. Blowick

I shall be very brief. I am not in the habit of taking up the time of the House. I am in favour of this motion on the Order Paper in the names of Deputies Wycherley and Finucane. It is a very moderate motion which only asks for an increase in the price to cover the increased cost of production. If I had anything to do with the wording of that motion I would be inclined to advocate that the farmer should get not only the cost of production but also a small margin of profit to which any person engaged in business is entitled. I was more than surprised the Minister did not go some of the way to meet the Deputies who put down the motion, particularly in view of his pronouncements in the past. It astonished me so much that I asked myself if this was the same Minister who now is all in favour of calves as against milk. I could not help throwing my mind back to the time the same Minister was busily engaged with the knife on the throats of the calves of this country.

Dr. Ryan

The Blueshirts made me do that.

Mr. Blowick

That is about as good as the about-face about P.R. I wonder what armed body would the Minister blame for the about-face about P.R.

Dr. Ryan

P.R. is a sore point with Deputy Blowick.

Mr. Blowick

The price of milk when we left office was higher than it was when we entered office in spite of the statement of the Minister for Finance that Fine Gael proposed a reduction in the price of milk. I never heard of any such proposal although I did see a newspaper report of a speech by a Fianna Fáil spokesman accusing Deputy Dillon, who was then Minister for Agriculture, of trying to reduce the price of milk.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

So he did.

Mr. Blowick

He never did. That was a falsehood that was put into circulation through a Fianna Fáil mouthpiece in an effort to damage Deputy Dillon. I was a member of the Government at the time and, as the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware, the policy of any Minister is discussed at Government level. I never heard one word about such a proposal.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

He never denied it.

Mr. Blowick

That is a useful smoke-screen for the present time to make the farmers believe that there is a bad boy hiding in the underbush who is waiting to damage them and who wants to have the price of milk reduced. The smoke-screen will not blind me. I went to the trouble of looking up the Fianna Fáil record in this case. Two very notable facts stand out. During the first period that they were in Opposition Deputies Corry and Ó Brian kept Deputy Dillon, then the Minister for Agriculture, very busy answering questions about the price of milk but from 1951 to 1954 there was not a word about the price of milk.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

We raised it by 2¾d. a gallon.

Mr. Blowick

The moment we got back Deputy O'Malley took up the cudgels in asking question after question about the price of milk. In that he was helped out by Deputy Corry, supported by a Deputy who is no longer a member of this House. Why does Deputy O'Malley or Deputy Corry not raise their voices in the House on this matter now? When our Government was in office they were raising questions all the time about the price of milk but I should like to hear something from them on the matter to-night. As I said, Sir, I shall be brief and I should like to give these Deputies a chance to get in and explain their attitude now.

Is it not time to take off the levy of 17/- per cwt. on the milk producers of this country and give it back to them? That is practically 2d. per lb. on butter if it takes three gallons of milk to produce one lb. of butter.

Mr. Moher

The Deputy must have very bad cows.

Mr. Blowick

Take the case of a small farmer who keeps eight cows. About 500 gallons per cow is the average. He sends approximately 4,000 gallons of milk to the creamery in any lactation period. That is 1,333 lb. of butter and at the rate of 2d. a lb. that farmer is savaged to the tune of £11 2s., if not more. The price of butter has increased in the British market by about 100/- per cwt. since that levy was put on so it is more than time that that levy should be abolished. In fact, the Government should go further and refund to the farmers the amount that he has taken from them.

The Minister went back to 1939 and said that the farmers are now getting three times the price for their milk that they got then. Why did he not go back to 1839 and say what was happening then? The price of milk has increased from the 5d. or 6d. a gallon it was then to the present price but why did the Minister not refer to the fact that everything the farmer has to buy, the cost of living and the cost of labour has also increased? The price of farm tools has gone up by from four to six times what it was.

I should also like to ask about the replacement of cows. We all know how much the cost of replacement has gone up. It is all very fine to say that the price of milk has gone up to three times what it was but the farmer's expenses have gone up at least four times and, in some cases, by six times as much as they were in 1939. As long as the Minister pulled that stick to help himself out in the attitude he is taking with regard to this motion it is only fair to state the other side of the case and the other side of the case is that the farmer's cost have gone up much more than his prices.

I want to ask the Minister what is going to happen about the farmer who has to replace reactor cows. The Minister kept away from that question. The dairying industry is one of the foundation industries of this State. Without it you would have no cows or store cattle. Reactor cows will have to be replaced. The Government is telling the people, in a much talked-about White Paper, that they want 1,000,000 more cows. They are setting about getting them in a very strange way.

The Minister slid over the reduction his Government has brought about in the price of milk. In March, 1957, the price was 18.52d. per gallon, something over 1/6 a gallon. The price to-day is only about 1/2 per gallon. The farmer is getting 1/4 for his milk in the creamery but out of that he has to pay 2d. a gallon cartage. The average farmer has lost at least 2½d. per gallon on his milk price over the last 18 months.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Did he not have to pay cartage then too?

Mr. Blowick

I am taking account of that. Assume that he had to pay 2d. per gallon cartage then. He was getting 1/6½ a gallon when we went out of office. To-day he is getting only 1/4 a gallon and out of that he has to pay 2d. for cartage. That has been done by the Party that stood for giving a better price for milk when they were out of office.

Mr. Rooney

Sixpence a gallon.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

We gave the, 2¾d. from 1951 to 1954.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

You are dreaming.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

And 1¾d. in January, 1953.

Mr. Blowick

Did that give the Government the right to take that 2d. off them in 1957?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

They did not.

Mr. Blowick

The figures are there. The Parliamentary Secretary's figures are contradicting his own Minister. Unless that is the case I do not know what it is. Apparently members over on that side speak just as it suits themselves. I remember an election campaign in North Kerry where posters, dealing with the price of milk, were displayed on the walls of polling booths, stating that Fianna Fáil would give an increase in the price. Those posters were displayed for the man who is now Deputy Moloney.

In the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency it was the price of wheat that was in question during the elections. When Fianna Fáil are out of office they think anything is good enough in order to fool the people and to catch their votes. If there is one broad fact staring everyone in the face about this question it is the fact that the price of milk is insufficient. The proof of that is that we have the highest percentage flight from the land of any country in the world. That is clear proof that the agricultural industry is not being fairly treated. Milk is only one facet of that industry but it is a most important facet. Our land is rapidly being absorbed into big ranches for the simple reason that fathers and mothers, after rearing their families, cannot get one son to stay on the land because the sons refuse to be tied to slavery as their parents were.

In all sincerity I say to the Government that the treatment of the farmers has produced nothing but a flight from the land. Is it not time that we changed our outlook and, instead of cutting down on the farmer, on the farmer's workers and on their wages we should help them? Since the State was founded all our policy has produced is a dying countryside about which people write books such as The Vanishing Irish. Is it not time that an opposite course was taken? I believe it would produce something good.

According to the Minister taxation will be raised if the price goes up. We never grumble when the working man gets an increase in his wages when it is due, nor when the professional man gets a just increase in his salary, and I do not know why our farmers should always be regarded as hewers of wood and drawers of water. People in the cities do not want to see their parents, brothers and sisters in the country converted into hewers of wood, drawers of water, or slaves, not alone for our own country but for England as well. The present system has produced nothing but a flight from the land, and it is about time a change was made and that the farmer was paid for his work. Such a change would stop the bleeding curse of emigration.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Everyone agrees that the production of milk is a very important part of our agricultural industry, and it is a surprise to me that such an important matter should be under discussion here to-night without the presence of a Minister. I say this with all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary who is present. However, I received some consolation from the concluding statement of the Minister for Finance when he made an apology for the absence of the Minister for Agriculture as, up to that, I felt that the Minister was wilfully absent.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

No, no.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I accept that but I, and some others as well, have got the impression that since Deputy Smith became Minister for Agriculture, on the return of Fianna Fáil to power in 1957, he never wants to hear anything about the price of milk.

Mr. Rooney

He stayed away from the milk producers last night.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

A reasonable price for milk has been the subject matter of various discussions in this House since I became a member. So much was that the case that a number of years ago the late Deputy Walsh, God rest his soul, then Minister for Agriculture, established what was then known, and is now known, as the Milk Costings Commission—the greatest fraud ever set up by any Government in this country. At that time the milk producers were dissatisfied with the price of milk, and the late Deputy Walsh said they would set up a commission which would make an impartial observation of the farms throughout the country, taking into account the different types of farms, and the commission would report on what in their opinion was a reasonable and fair price for milk.

Some farmers were satisfied that the Government were sincere in setting up this Milk Costings Commission, and anticipated a report stating that the price of milk should be so much. They expected that report within a reasonable time and, after six years' deliberation, the commission submitted a report. I am not criticising the members of the commission. I said the Milk Costings Commission was the greatest fraud but I think I was wrong to say that. It was the people who set up the commission with fraudulent intent who were the guilty party. The commission produced its report and I must say, in fairness to the members of that commission, that it was to some extent reasonable in so far as the cost of production of milk varies so much in different parts of the country.

In any part of the country, in West Cork, it is much more costly to produce a gallon of milk than say the area which the Parliamentary Secretary represents.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

I do not think so.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am quite satisfied about that and, bear in mind the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is a kinsman of my own.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

I wonder.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Parliamentary Secretary happens to be no stranger to West Cork, both he and his family.

Mr. Moher

He has gone native.

Mr. Coogan

His head is swelling.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The commission reported that in their opinion the cost of producing a gallon of milk in the Republic of Ireland varied from 5d. per gallon to 2/9 per gallon. On that assumption it would seem that farmers in the more favoured places are getting a very good price for their milk. It also shows that many farmers—and these are the farmers in the congested districts—are getting what can only be described as a miserable pittance for their milk.

If the commission states, as it has stated, that it costs farmers 2/9 to produce a gallon of milk in some parts of the country, how can responsible Government, having set up that commission, ask these self-same farmers to sell this milk at an average price of 1/4 a gallon? It is impossible for them to do so. I am here as a representative of West Cork where dairy farming is of such importance but, due to the nature of the land, the farmers are at a great disadvantage and, were it not for their own industry, and their smallholdings, they could scarcely exist at all.

I know this is a national question. I doubt if you have in this country a more industrious body of farmers than those in West Cork. I see them every morning jogging along with their pony and car, their donkey and cart, or their horse and cart to the creamery. Many of them have only a small quantity of milk because their farms are not capable of producing large quantities. Milk production is their main source of livelihood. I was brought up on a small farm myself and I know that the price is completely uneconomic.

I disagree in toto with the Fianna Fáil approach to this question of milk prices. While Fianna Fáil were in opposition, as everyone knows, they haunted the Minister for Agriculture in the inter-Party Government in connection with the price of milk. Quesion after question was asked here in the House; it was said then that it was uneconomic for farmers to try to produce milk at the prevailing price. Fianna Fáil are back in office now. They are fortified by the report of the commission they themselves set up That commission makes it clear that it some parts of the country it takes up to 2/9 to produce a gallon of milk.

Mr. Moher

It is dearer than beer.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Moher may ask what we did when we were in office from 1954 to 1957? How did the Leader of the Labour Party address himself to this question of the price of milk? Deputy Norton then Minister for Industry and Commerce, realising the importance of the agricultural industry and the importance of milk and butter as food for our people, and appreciating the difficulties inherent in the production of milk, took a straightforward course. He said that in these commodities we had a staple food produced at home: "We would like to have butter consumption as high as possible because we appreciate that butter is a sound, solvent food."

In conjunction with the other members of the inter-Party Government a subsidy was put on butter to help the producer and to help the consumer. The price was reduced. That was a marked advantage to both the producer and the consumer. Fianna Fáil on their return to office removed that subsidy. What has happened? The consumption of butter has gone down substantially with the result that we have more butter on our hands for export. The extraordinary situation then occurs in which the Government subsidises the export of butter to enable the British housewife to consume it. The more we export the bigger the subsidy. The inter-Party Government gave a subsidy of 5d. per lb. to enable Irish families to consume Irish butter rather than pay 1/3 per lb. to enable British families to consume it.

The price of milk in my constituency is wholly uneconomic. I am quite positive of that. The Costings Commission has told the Government that. What is their reaction? The Minister for Finance tells us that if we give a penny per gallon that will cost £1,200,000. That, he says, cannot be done. The milk producers have enough. As the Minister mentioned, every section of the community has received some increase to offset the increase in the cost of living. We are as much concerned with the self-employed as we are with ordinary wage earners. We put all in the same category. Even this morning we learned of another section being compensated for the increased cost of living. Over the past six or seven months we have granted concessions to all classes. Local authorities and public bodies unanimously granted these concessions. But when it comes to the milk producer and the small farmer the question of compensation will not even be considered. The only reply is: "Are we going to increase the packet of cigarettes by three-pence? Are we going to increase income-tax by 6d. in the £?" That was the Minister's contribution to-night. Why does he not ask the same question when other sections of the community are being compensated?

There is the strongest possible case for supporting this motion. I am indeed disappointed with the Ministers' contribution here this evening. I had hoped that he would at least hold out a promise that something would be done, even if it were only one penny. That would help to compensate to some extent. It is not my wish to introduce extraneous matters, but I must mention the difficulties in which many farmers in West Cork find themselves due to the variation in the system operated by the Dairy Disposals Board. The Chair may rule that that is not relevant, but it is relevant to the extent that the proposed changes will impose extra costs on the producers in many areas.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understood the Deputy was not bringing that in.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It was specifically written into the undeveloped Areas Act that no help could be given to the agricultural industry under that Act. I have questioned that on a few occasions. It is recognised by all that agriculture is the premier industry. The Parliamentary Secretary, as the only representative of the Government here, could usefully enlist his good offices on behalf of the undeveloped areas. He knows the West of Ireland and the congested areas generally. He knows the conditions that obtain. If he can get some help for the small farmers in these areas under that Act he will be doing a very good day's work.

The Minister's statement will be a source of disappointment to the milk producers. They will be sorry to learn that there will be no compensation for them. It will be a shock to many farmers when they discover the changed attitude on the part of Fianna Fáil as compared with the time when they were in opposition. In those days we heard a good deal about stable Government. That is what they were looking for in 1957. They have it now. They can do what they like. We have had a clear indication to-night that so far as milk producers are concerned they will get nothing from Fianna Fáil. The only consolation they will have is just another broken promise.

Mr. Hughes

I wish to support this motion. It is a very reasonable motion. It requests that the price of milk supplied to creameries should be increased to cover the increased cost of production. The Minister for Finance has told us that it is not possible to give any increase in the price of milk. He said that a 1d. a gallon would cost over £1,000,000 and asked how was that to be found, that he had to maintain some balance, that other people would have to be taxed to meet that increase and that that was unfair.

As Deputy Murphy has said, other sections of the community are able to obtain increases. It is not necessary for the Minister to ask the House how the money is to be found. It seems now to be the policy of the Government that, if the farmers increase production, the price will go down. There was the example of wheat and now there is the example of milk.

There is one matter that has come out in the statement of the Minister, namely, that we are turning away from milk production. Now, the Minister, in his own words, is looking forward to increased calf production. I thought the Minister would at least blush when he told us about increased calf production and the single suck calf. It is not so many years since he was advocating the cutting of the calves' throats.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

We were up against England at that time and we won that fight in spite of the Blueshirts.

Mr. Hughes

He surely slaughtered the calves, anyway, and that very same Minister had the cheek——

Donnchadh Ó Briain

He did not.

Mr. Hughes

——to tell the farmers that they should produce more. He should have some shame. I remember it too well. I had something to lose.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

We were fighting the economic war. Many people had something to lose and they lost it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should get back to the motion.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister told us that the Government did not look for increased milk production. They were anxious to get increased production but it is the policy of the Government not to pay for that production. Every section of the community that demanded their rights got them but the farmer is not entitled to his increased cost of production. It has been proved beyond doubt in this House to-night that there has been a definite increase in the cost of milk production.

There has been a substantial increase in the cost of living and most sections of the people have got some compensation for that. Although the Minister tried to prove that his cost of living did not increase considerably, the cost of food to the farmer is the same as it is to any other section of the community.

There is another very important factor in the present situation. I refer to the bovine T.B. clearance areas. The farmers who are affected will lose a tremendous amount of money if they are to clear their herds of T.B. Compensation will have to be given. The Minister did not mention that matter, but merely told us that there was no hope whatever of increasing the price of milk.

We know what happened in 1952, when the Milk Costings Commission was set up. That was done when there was pressure on the then Minister for Agriculture to increase the price.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

He increased it by 2¾d.

Mr. Hughes

That was the simple way of getting out. The Minister said at that time: "We will have a milk costings boards set up and will arrive at the cost of production and there will never be any more trouble."

Donnchadh Ó Briain

He increased the price by 2¾d. when he was Minister.

Mr. Hughes

There was no report issued for years and years because a report was not wanted. The commission was set up merely to postpone the awkward day as far as the Minister was concerned. There was no sincerity about it, as everyone knows. The price of milk is not left at the prevailing price or even at the price prevailing a year ago, 1/6½d., but has to be reduced by 2½d. a gallon.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It was not.

Mr. Hughes

Was not there a levy on butter?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

There is— ¾d. a gallon.

Mr. Hughes

It has been proved here to-night that that is over 2d. a gallon.

A Deputy

By Deputy Blowick.

Mr. Hughes

And by others as well as Deputy Blowick. The farmers, apparently, are not entitled to the price they had two years ago but must suffer a substantial reduction. Every other section is entitled to an increase but the farmer has to bear a loss. The Government have issued a White Paper asking for increased production. Do they expect to get increased production from the principal producers, the creamery milk suppliers, by this method? If they do, I am afraid they will not get very far.

Mr. Moher

How much time is left for this debate?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There will be a further ten minutes after the Adjournment at 10.30. In other words, there are 25 more minutes of debate on this motion and I take it the mover of the motion will require from ten to 15 minutes to reply.

Mr. Wycherley

Ten minutes to conclude.

Mr. Moher

One of the things I always regret is that when it comes to a discussion on the question of milk prices in this House the discussion always proceeds in a kind of political climate. I do not know why that should be. I listened to Deputy Blowick deny that the former Minister for Agriculture was in trouble in relation to the price of milk. There are all kinds of allegations made from the opposite benches of extravagant promises made by speakers here, there and everywhere, during elections. Representing a dairy constituency, I can say that in the many speeches I made in that constituency I never made a speech on prices. I have made many speeches in other constituencies in by-elections and I challenge any Deputy to say that I ever made a speech on prices.

Milk prices can hardly be divorced from cattle prices. The two branches are interdependent. There is another factor, a very important factor. If any Deputy were to examine the steep variations in the production of herds in a branch creamery area he would realise the enormous differences in income between producers who are low on the scale and those who do the job as it should be done.

Deputy Murphy made a particular case for the constituency he represents. I think we could describe Deputy Murphy, as far as the constituency of West Cork is concerned, as pleading for his own. He can always plead that a special price should be paid as far as West Cork is concerned.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Milk Costings Commission made that statement, not Deputy Murphy.

Mr. Moher

When you talk of milk from the angle of costings, at what point in the costings do you fix the price?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Well, the price of the costings was £40,000 I believe.

Mr. Moher

If you fix the price at the average price you may be certain you will put a high proportion of low producers out of business and I feel that costings at a price-fixing medium constitute a very dangerous medium. I think we must try to maintain a price that will keep all the producers in business and, having done that, if you are to use costings as a price-fixing medium you must certainly go far down the scale to keep the low producers in business.

When the Minister intervened he made the point very effectively about the capacity of the Exchequer to carry the subsidy. The same point was made by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Blowick vehemently denied there was ever a question of 1/- a gallon——

Mr. Rooney

There never was.

Mr. Moher

I have a document here, and when I have finished quoting it the Deputy may be convinced. It may refresh his memory. I recall a meeting of the Federated Creameries held in Limerick to discuss a certain document issued by the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon. I sat and listened to the farmers trying to frame a reply to that document which was issued from the Minister's office on the 22nd March, 1950. When the discussion had continued for hours I finally intervened and suggested that a resolution be sent which would not state a price but which would guarantee the farmer the cost of production with a reasonable profit. That was the resolution finally adopted and sent up.

I shall quote the document to convince Deputy Rooney. It was an extract from a speech made by the Minister for Agriculture in Dungarvan and it was circulated to a number of creameries, I think to 193 co-operative creameries. As far as we know 93 creameries did not reply, 95 others refused to accept the proposal and three creameries agreed to the proposal.

Mr. T. Lynch

What is the Deputy quoting from?

Mr. Moher

I am quoting from a letter issued to the chairman of every co-operative society.

Mr. T. Lynch

Where was that letter published?

Mr. Moher

It was issued from the Minister's office under his signature on the 22nd March, 1950. It ran:—

"I would like to direct your attention especially to the fact that there is no reference to a fixed price for milk. The reason for this is that I am anxious to ensure, if possible, that the co-operative creameries will have restored to them full freedom of action in their own business, without dependence on any production allowance; that there will be no fixed price for milk to which reference can be made where milk is used for purposes other than manufacture of butter. Therefore, I have proposed the formula of a guaranteed price for butter which leaves it open to individual creameries to pay their suppliers whatever that price for butter permits, and, in many cases, this may be materially greater than 1/- per gallon for milk. I will be grateful if you would submit this matter to your committee and let me have the benefit of your advice thereon, at your convenience.

I would be grateful if your committees would bear in mind one vital consideration, i.e., the milk supply shows a marked tendency to expand very greatly, and it is not impossible that before the end of October we shall have manufactured all the butter which the domestic market (assuming all rationing is abolished) is capable of consuming."

Here is the vital paragraph:—

"From then on until the 1st April, 1951, we would be faced with the situation that all butter produced would have to be exported on terms involving the payment of £4 per cwt. to our foreign customers to take it away, and grave consideration would have to be given to the restriction of production. It is, therefore, impossible to forecast with any degree of confidence what price would be paid for butter in 1951, not to speak of the ensuing four years."

Mr. T. Lynch

What date was that?

Mr. Moher

It was issued from the Minister's office on the 22nd March, 1950.

Mr. Rooney

When butter was 2/8 per lb.

Mr. Moher

I wonder if Deputy Blowick, in the light of this document still denies that the Minister was not embarrassed by the call on the Exchequer?

Mr. Blowick

No, I never denied that. What I did deny was that Deputy Dillon, as Minister for Agriculture, tried to cut the price of milk. That is what I denied.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Moher

Until I produced this document its existence was denied——

Mr. Blowick

No, no.

Mr. Moher

——despite the fact that it was addressed to the chairmen of 193 co-operative societies——

Mr. Rooney

But not to producers.

Mr. Moher

——representing producers. The main proposal in this document was embodied in a speech made by the Minister in Dungarvan.

Mr. Blowick

Where is the proposal to reduce the price of milk?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Blowick has already spoken and Deputy Moher is entitled to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. Blowick

But when he misquotes me it is very hard to be silent.

Mr. Moher

This document goes on to say:—

"Under the proposal outlined by me at Dungarvan, this element of uncertainty is completely removed and the only question which remains unanswered is how much more than 1/- per gallon will it be possible for the co-operative societies to pay their suppliers during the next five years."

Mr. Rooney

There is the answer —"how much more".

Mr. Moher

May we not argue that no matter what the conditions are, the farmers have done considerably better than they would have done if they had accepted the proposal contained in this document?

Mr. Blowick

Is that why you increased the price of butter from 2/8 to 4/4?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Blowick has already made his contribution.

Mr. Rooney

Butter was 2/8 a lb. at that time.

Mr. Moher

Continuing, the letter said:—

"I strongly recommend these proposals to the creamery industry, and am bound to inform you that, in the event of their not being acceptable, neither I nor anybody else can with any degree of certainty forecast what the future of the creamery industry may be in this country, as that would entirely depend on the capacity of the Exchequer to subsidise it."

Mr. T. Lynch

You should have kept him as Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Rooney

And you are selling butter now at 1/6 a lb. to the British.

Mr. Moher

The letter finished by saying:—

"As I may have to meet the British Minister of Food in about a fortnight's time, I would be grateful if you would let me have your considered opinion at your earliest convenience."

Three out of 193 creameries was the measure of acceptance for the proposals contained in this document. Ninety-five or 93 of the societies circularised did not even reply, so that all the discussion on the opposite side about milk is hollow in the light of that document——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Moher

——and insincere, and is typical of the kind of political claptrap that we get from that side of the House.

Debate adjourned.