Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 26 Nov 1943

Vol. 28 No. 5

Price of Milk—Motion.

I move:—

That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that a higher price to producers should be fixed for milk in order to encourage such increase in production as is essential to ensure a proper standard of nutrition and maintain the health of the nation.

I should like the House to understand in the first place that, if he were here, the Minister would probably regard me as his pet aversion. I am sure his supporters will not contradict me when I say that, over a number of years, I have put down a number of motions, right from the beginning of the emergency period, which had for their purpose the encouragement of increased production by our people and the making of life generally more tolerable for them. I think the supporters of the Government will also have to admit that they rejected every one of these motions but that, taking the situation on the whole, the objects which I had in view and the requests which I made to the Minister were subsequently enunciated and propagated as articles of Government policy. I might refer first of all to the motion I introduced seeking to have a fixed price for agricultural produce following on the compulsory tillage regulations. Later I sought an increase in the price of wheat, at another time an increase in the price of milk and on more than one occasion an increase in the price of pigs.

We have now come up against a situation which to my mind is much more acute, as far as this country is concerned, than any with which we have yet been confronted. May I say, lest there might be any misunderstanding about my point of view on the matter, that I would enunciate the thesis that I regard the land of this country as a possession which should be used to the full to ensure that all our people will be adequately fed, and as the farmers are in possession of the land, I regard them as having a moral obligation placed upon them to do everything to the utmost of their capacity, physical, financial, and from the point of view of the utilisation of their full intelligence, to ensure that the land will serve its purpose to the full. Having said that with regard to my point of view concerning the land and the farmers who are in possession of it, I go on to say that the community through the Government, in my judgment, have also their obligation. In the first place, it is the obligation and the responsibility of the Government to study carefully the situation— to see how the land is to be used so that the most can be got out of it. There is an obligation upon them to examine what sort of treatment the farmers are getting, and what sort of assistance is provided for them, so that they will be able to do their job of work efficiently. I am not going to say that we have fallen down on the job.

I understand that the Minister for Agriculture is on his way over and will be present in five or ten minutes. Perhaps Senator Baxter would prefer to wait until he arrives.

With your permission, Sir, I move the suspension of the sitting until 11.10.

Agreed. Sitting suspended accordingly at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11.10 a.m.

Before the adjournment, I was trying to point out that, up to the present, in our whole farming policy, we had not given sufficient consideration to the respective values of the various products we raise, from the point of view of nutrition. Our great weakness, right from the beginning—it was not our failing only; it is only now forcing itself on the minds of people in other countries—was that too little consideration was given to the question of how the people were to be fed, if they were to be properly fed. In fact, too little consideration was given in the world at large to the question whether the people were to be fed at all or not. Even in countries where ample food was available, there was too little knowledge as to how the population should be fed, if they were to be well fed. One might say that, in Britain, during the past few years, the knowledge accumulated by Sir John Orr and others has had practical application in the necessities of the times through the efforts of the Minister for Food, Lord Woolton. They have discovered many things in Britain which they might not have discovered for another generation but for the exigencies of war. I suppose that a fair amount of that information was available to us but, up to the present, we have not made use of the knowledge science has placed at our disposal in the way we should. The whole problem of feeding our people must get more attention in the future than it was given in the past. If nothing else will do it, outside forces will compel us to do it.

I have here the report of the United Nations Conference on food and agriculture. I shall quote a paragraph from that report:—

"(1) Malnutrition is responsible for widespread impairment of human efficiency and for an enormous amount of ill-health and disease, reduces the resistance of the body to tuberculosis, and enhances the general incidence and severity of familiar diseases. (2) Mortality rates in infants, children, and mothers are higher in ill-fed than in well-fed populations. (3) Food consumption at a level merely sufficient to prevent malnutrition is not enough to promote health and well-being."

That is the opinion expressed at a conference at which representatives of 44 nations assembled. More consideration ought to be, and must be, given in this country to every aspect of our existence. My motion reads:—

That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that a higher price to producers should be fixed for milk in order to encourage such production as is essential to ensure a proper standard of nutrition and maintain the health of the nation.

A number of Senators may think that that motion represents a contradiction in terms. However, when I ask for a higher price for milk to producers, I am thinking primarily of the people who are sending milk to creameries in the dairying counties, for which they are paid 9d. a gallon. At the beginning of next month, they will receive 1/-. After a period of four months, the price will be reduced to 10½d. a gallon. Of all the foods produced in this country or elsewhere, milk is the most valuable and is closest to being a perfect food. I shall quote from a book entitled Milk and Milk Products, by Professor Reilly. He tells us that a quart of milk is equal in food value to 1/2 lb. of lean meat. He goes on to say:—

"Milk is unique among natural foodstuffs in containing (1) carbohydrates, fats and proteins; (2) calcium and phosphorus compounds, and (3) vitamins A, B-complex, C and D. The major constituents, as well as some of the protective factors are present in fair proportion and in a form suitable for easy assimilation."

I ask the House to remember that a quart of milk is equivalent to 1/2 lb of lean meat. Dairy farmers calculate that practically 2½ gallons of milk go to the making of 1 lb. of butter. A half gallon of milk, according to Dr. Reilly, is equivalent to 1 lb. of lean meat. There are practically five half-gallons in 1 lb. of butter. Senators might try to calculate the difference in the payment for the meat and for the butter, and the food that is in five lbs. of meat as against the food in 1 lb. of butter. I concede that the 2½ gallons of milk are not wholly in the lb. of butter. There is separated milk which contains a certain amount of solids, but farmers themselves receiving that back from the creamery do not put a very high cash value on it. However, the 2/6 for 2½ gallons of milk as against the price of 5 lbs. of meat bears no relation whatever to the true values of the commodities. Of all the commodities produced on the land of this country to-day, there is no price as low in relation to food value as the price of the milk the farmer sends to the creamery. That is very unsound from the point of view of the proper feeding of our people, and all the more unsound since, in our butter, we have to-day a food which is practically unavailable to us in any other form.

It is very hard to make a case for increasing the price of food, and there are antagonisms from quarters one does not expect them to come from. When you compare the increase in the price of food with the increase in the price of other commodities, there is a revelation to all of us and our protestations are not very loud at all. The Irish Trade Journal for September, 1943, says:—

"As regards comparison with prewar, the index figure for all items at mid-August, 1943, is 111 points or 64 per cent. above that for mid-August, 1939, and the increases in the indexes for the various groups are as follows:—Food, 91 points or 58 per cent.; clothing, 202 points or 90 per cent.; fuel and light, 152 points or 84 per cent.; and sundries 125 points or 65 per cent."

Food, the most essential of all, shows the lowest increase of all the essentials necessary for life. I would beg the Seanad to recollect that the food is produced by the hardest work and, if there is oppression, the most oppressed section of the community is the farming community. I am not saying that in a derogatory sense at all: you are oppressed if you are confronted with a task which seems almost beyond you. As a farmer, I know that the problems we have been faced with this year looked to us, right from the beginning, as making an almost superhuman task. I do not know whether the Seanad will agree with me or not, but, in circumstances like ours, when the figures reveal increases in the commodities and services making up the cost of living and show that the increase in our food prices is lowest of all, I think we can fairly claim that we are not being overpaid.

Unless we are able to maintain the production of fats—in the form of butter manufactured at our creameries— at a higher level than for a number of years past, the whole nutritional position of our people will be very considerably worsened and the health of our people will be seriously impaired. Of all the essentials for health—I am speaking with the knowledge of the ordinary man—nothing is as valuable as an adequate supply of fats. I have raised this aspect of the question on previous occasions in this House, but I am going back to it again as I think the situation now is much more acute.

In 1940, we had available here, apparently, 123,000 cwts. of margarine, 60,792 cwts. of lard and 34,434 cwts. of dripping, making a total of fats in that form of over 218,000 cwts. That is exclusive of the butter available or the amount of butter consumed. I think it can roughly be taken that the figures for lard and dripping came from our pig production and that you can put down roughly nine or ten lbs. of lard per pig. In 1941, our pig killings were over 1,000,000, but at that time, so far as I can discover, we had no margarine available at all. In 1942, the number of pigs killed was 591,000 approximately. I calculate the amount of fat available from these to have been 52,776 cwts., as against the 218,000 in 1940. At the end of June, 1943, our pig killings had been reduced to 253,000 and, if you put the same yield of fat against those killings, we were reduced to the abnormal and extraordinarily low level of 22,600 cwts. of lard and dripping available, without any margarine.

Therefore, in 1943, we have only one-tenth the amount of fats in a particular form that we had in 1940. We must consider whether that is adequate, taking into account the availability of butter, for the maintenance of health. I submit it is not anything like adequate. If there were a close, scientific examination of the causes of the considerable increase in tuberculosis throughout the country, that examination would, I assert, show that the shortage of fats—which is not truly and fully revealed—is making a far greater contribution to that unhappy situation than anything else. We have not got into proper perspective the essentials necessary for the proper feeding of our people, and a disastrous and very costly situation is being brought about for the nation later on. That situation should not be permitted to continue, without examination and without satisfactory evidence that we are guarding ourselves against such dangers as this.

We cannot ignore the fact that a reduction in fats from 218,000 in 1940 to 97,000 in 1941, to 52,000 in 1942, and to 22,000 in 1943, is a most extraordinary reduction. I would like to see what is happening in the belligerent countries, and to see whether the reduction in this essential article of food is any greater in their case than it is in ours. There is no evidence so far— I do not think the Minister has any evidence—to indicate that we shall have available, from an increase in pig production, any greater quantity of fats than were available over the past year. I think the situation will be even worse before it is better— that is my opinion for what it is worth.

Let us look at the butter situation. Only from butter and milk can we make up these appalling deficiencies. I have here a paper that was read by Professor Lyons at the University College, Cork, some months ago—a valuable paper that contains a great deal of very interesting information. He gives us figures which are most revealing. He points out that in the last war our exports of butter averaged 718,000 cwts—that was for the period 1914-1918.

I want the House to get a grasp of the fall in our butter production and the complete change in our economy in this respect which is taking place before our eyes—and we do not appear to have any great regard for the consequences. For the period 1920-1925 our exports were in the region of 600,000 cwts. There was a fall to about 450,000 cwts. for the period 1930-1938. In 1942 the export trade had ceased. It is interesting to observe—this is what the Professor tells us—that for over 300 years we have had a butter export trade. We exported butter from various parts of this country to the Continent of Europe, but the exports went mainly from Cork. The countries to which we exported are now great butter-producing areas. Professor Lyons indicated, what we know to be a fact, that our cow population is practically the same to-day as it was in 1851 —it has continued at that level throughout.

We have now reached the stage when we have no butter for export, and we are rationed to 1/2 lb. of butter a week, 26 lbs. per head of the population per year, making a total consumption of 700,000 cwts. I think it would be quite impossible to ascertain exactly what amount of butter is consumed in farmers' houses. I think the total consumption is definitely more than 700,000 cwts.; perhaps it would be nearer 1,000,000 cwts. In 1938 the production of creamery butter was 766,460 cwts. and of farm butter 450,000 cwts., making a total of 1,216,460 cwts. On that production we could be given 14 ounces per week, or 45½ lbs. per head of the population each year. In 1938 we exported approximately 377,000 cwts. and that left sufficient to allow 31½ lbs. per head per year, or 5½ lbs. more than the present ration. If the present rate of production is only sufficient to provide 1/2 lb. per person per week, then production must have declined by 500,000 cwts. since 1938. I do not think it has declined by that amount, and Professor Lyons does not think that the situation is as bad as that. But there is evidence of a decline. I have not figures representing our butter consumption for 1940, or our butter production in the same year, but the picture presented by the whole situation is such that I greatly fear we have reached a stage with regard to our production and consumption of fats where we are far below what is essential for a reasonable standard of health for our people. I think that position will become more acute.

We are confronted this year with an increase of our tillage area. There is no use arguing about it, and the matter is not open for discussion. We must strive to do it, impossible though it seems, or face appalling consequences. I have recently voiced the opinion that the danger of starvation in the world is becoming more real as the war drags on. My opinion has been reinforced by world-wide authorities who base their opinions on information from outside which we have no opportunity of getting. We must do everything we can to protect ourselves. We want protective foods in greater quantities than in the past. There has been a colossal fall in the production of these foods here. If we do not have certain foods, it will not be possible to absorb the benefit we would derive from other foods. The human system will not be able to absorb those other foods in the same way as if it were provided with a reasonably balanced article.

With the demand for increased tillage this year, farmers will have to choose between two types of agricultural production. I have here some figures which are rather interesting. We have what we call traditional tillage areas and dairying areas. I will take the Counties of Wexford and Limerick, and it is very interesting to observe how the farmers in these two counties distribute their activities from the point of view of production. The area of Wexford is smaller than that of Limerick, but I believe they will give us a reasonable picture. The area of Wexford is 512,000 acres, and of Limerick 591,000 acres—I am relying on statistics for the years 1939-1941. The cattle population of Wexford in 1941 was 134,704 and in Limerick 276,701. There were practically twice as many cattle in Limerick as in Wexford, but there is this further interesting point, that in the County Wexford with its 512,000 acres, there were 33,000 dairy cows, plus 3,000 heifers in half. In the County Limerick there were 109,000 dairy cows, plus approximately the same number of heifers in calf.

That is how I look on things at the moment. What is likely to happen in Limerick, Tipperary, North Cork and other dairying counties where they are not as well equipped for tillage as farmers are in the counties of Wexford, Carlow, Kildare, Louth and those other places where tillage has been carried on in the past? They have not the horses, the technique, the machines or the same kind of labour. The Limerick farmer to-day has to do what neither he nor his father did before. He was engaged doing something else and whether he got credit for doing it is another matter. At any rate those dairy men in the County Limerick provided food the superior of which was not to be found in any other part of the world. My belief is that when the Limerick man is confronted with this problem of greatly increasing his tillage area, coupled with the problem of poor equipment, shortage of labour and all the rest, he is going to make a choice between keeping milking cows and ploughing his fields.

Compare the position of the 200-acre Wexford farmer who keeps five or six cows and that of the 200-acre Limerick man who keeps 40 or 50 cows. I believe that what is going to happen is that the Limerick farmer with his 200 acres of land, 60 acres of which he will now have to till, will come to the conclusion that that can only be done by greatly cutting down the number of his dairy cows. That, I fear, will be his feeling after following the harrow and a pair of horses in the field for a week. If the Limerick man, after doing that, has to sit up with two, three or half a dozen calving cows in the week, he will not be very anxious to go out the following day after the harrow. To ask him to do that is asking a great deal. In the harvest time, after a man has been out in the wheat field, the oats field or the barley field all day, it is asking a great deal from him to come in and sit under ten cows, if that number happens to be his share of the 60 cows that are to be milked. I greatly fear it cannot be done. I believe that it is practically beyond the physical capacity and the mechanism available to those men to do it. In the circumstances, they are going to make a choice. The choice, I am afraid, will be that they will do the tillage, since they are being compelled by law to do it, and reduce the number of their dairy cows.

The Minister yesterday, in answer to a point that was put to him, said that the man who is doing tillage could have labour to save his crops, and that there was not much of a labour problem for him. I am not sure that the Minister put it that way, but he gave the impression that there was not much of a labour problem for the traditional tillage farmer. I have before me a statement which was made by the county surveyor at a county council meeting recently in my own county, where the great majority of the farms are in or about 20 acres or under. In that county one would think that there would be any amount of labour and no unemployment if people wanted to work. But the county surveyor when he was questioned about relief schemes or improvement schemes said that there was "a big shortage of labour, as far as he could see, and that there was not much hope of having employment schemes completed." That is the position in a county where we have always done a fair share of tillage, and where we have a fair amount of help. I ask Senators to try to picture to themselves the problem that will confront the men in the dairying counties who keep from 25 to 60 cows. I believe that it will be beyond them to continue to do what they have been doing in the dairying line, and their duty in the matter of tillage as well. In the physical sense it will be beyond their competence to do all that is being expected of them. If we permit that situation to develop, the results may very well be disastrous for the country.

From the point of view of the decision taken by the Minister, I believe that the psychological reactions to it, in regard to the price for milk at the creameries, are going to be very bad. We have been getting 9d. a gallon for milk all the year, and for the next few months that is going to be increased by 3d. In my opinion there is going to be very little milk available for a period. But, when the milk begins to come in again about the end of March, the price is to be reduced. I think that that, psychologically, will be disastrous. When a critical point was reached in pig production, a similar decision to reduce prices was taken. I think that if the Minister were to cast his mind back to that period, he could attribute the present reduction in our pig population to that decision more than to anything else. I think that if the price of milk is to be reduced next March, it is going to have reactions that will leave a lasting mark on our economy for a long time.

I put it to the Minister that he should take into account the difficulties of those farmers who have been trying to maintain the same number of cows on a considerably decreased acreage of grass land, since the tillage campaign was inaugurated. Those who know anything about the matter must be well aware that our cows are not, and cannot be, as well fed as they were before. From my own experience I can say that over the last few years our milk yields have fallen considerably. Our new fresh grasses are not yet available for feeding. They may be available to a limited number of farmers this year, but the actual position is that a great many men are tilling their best land in the hope of getting a crop out of it, leaving the poorer land for the feeding of their stock. The net result of that is lower milk yields. My own opinion is that 10½d. a gallon for milk this year will not bring in any greater income per cow than 9d. per gallon did last year. I think that will be the position. Faced with a situation like that, I feel strongly that the necessities of the position demand a reconsideration of the Minister's policy on this matter. The maintenance of our production of milk and butter is, I think, the most essential agricultural activity that our people could engage in.

I think that, from the point of view of our own future, the result of our tillage policy will be to bring about an improvement in our grasses after a little while, with a demand for more stock. I believe that we can make our fields more fruitful in their carrying capacity, but if we are going to be confronted with a situation in which we have a reduction in the number of our dairy cows and breeding stock, the problem of restocking the land afterwards is going to be all the more difficult.

That, generally, is my approach to this problem. It is in no sense a political problem. It is a problem of health, nutrition, and a better understanding of what is a balanced feeding. It is a problem which demands also an understanding of the payments for the different kinds of food which we ask our farmers to produce. Of all the commodities which the farmer is producing on the land, milk is the lowest paid. Meat, since the economic war, has increased three times in price, while milk has increased only twice. I have a distinct recollection of standing over heifers ready to calve at fairs last year. They had their young inside and they had milk for feeding in liquid form or for use in the manufacture of butter. Had these heifers not been in calf and had they been sold for beef, they would have been worth £5 more than they were worth for the production of milk and the manufacture of butter.

That, in my judgment, is terribly unsound. It is a situation which has to be rectified, no matter who pays for it and no matter how it is paid for. The Minister has to aim at ensuring that we get enough of the right sort of food, and neither the Minister nor anybody else can expect the producer to provide that food unless he is paid for it. Men are to be compelled now to turn from dairying to another type of farming. As the late Deputy Gorey used to say, and as I say again, with all respect to the Minister's opinion: "You can close the gate on your wheat field when you sow it, and need not go back to it until the following August, but you cannot do that with dairy cows." They have to be looked after Sunday and Monday, and if the fellows will not come back from the hurling or football matches, the farmer and his wife must look after them themselves. The problem with which we are confronted with regard to labour, both male and female, in dairying is almost insuperable, and I feel that this is a situation which is serious and grave and on which a balanced opinion ought to be expressed by this House.

I know that there are many who fear that the demand I am making is one which will add to the burden of the already overtaxed poor, and that it will raise the price of a food commodity to a level at which they will not be able to buy it. I took pains to warn the House that if they did not pay more for their pigs, a time would come when they would not get a lb. of bacon for a £1 note. There are people here who will recollect that I used that phrase, and they saw that day. I do not want to see the same situation—and it is not very far off— arising with regard to our butter. If there are people with incomes which do not enable them to buy enough food to maintain themselves in reasonable health, that is another problem, and you will not get the food for those people, if you think the farmer will continue at one type of production for which he is paid at a level which does not justify him in continuing in that production. He has to make his choice. He has to decide whether he will continue in dairying or get out of it and take up another type of production.

It may be asked whether money will keep him in it. It is amazing what superhuman efforts the farmer will make if there is money in it, and I believe that if the Minister decided to keep the price level at 1/-, it would have a remarkable psychological reaction. If the Minister did that, the nation would have a compensation in the matter of better health and in the matter of a sounder basis for our agricultural economy in the future than could be measured in terms of actual cash. The matter is of major importance, and I hope that the discussion by the House of the motion will be approached in a reasonable way. There is no political aspect involved at all, and it is with doing the best for the nation and with how we can get the most and the best food for the nation that I am mainly concerned in moving the motion.

I formally second the motion, so that it be discussed.

Early in October, a motion was put forward in this House asking the Minister to increase the price of butter for that season. The debate was on the lines of suggesting that, by increasing butter by 1d. or 2d. per lb., the return to the creameries in their milk supplies would be considerably increased. The Minister could not see his way to accede to that request and it was turned down. A few months later, the very amount that was then asked for was granted by the Department because, as I believe, the justice of our claim was realised. It was unfortunate, however, that the increase was not given early in the year, say, in May. The increase did not come into effect until some time in September and milk supplies to creameries had very much declined by then.

The last speaker covered a good deal of the ground I intended to cover, but there are a few points to which I want to draw the Minister's attention, with particular reference to the interest which the farmer has at the moment in the creameries. You cannot expect a farmer with three or four cows, who has to send his milk three or four times to the creamery, to harness his horse and continue sending that milk for six days a week and probably at the end of the week have to pay 16/- or 18/- for the shoeing of his horse, not to speak of the wear and tear of harness. In a great many cases, the farmer is not sending his milk to the creamery. Whatever milk he can spare in his home is churned on the home method and sold at a much higher price than he can command at the creamery. It is common sense that butter is the cheapest commodity we have in this country. We do not want to suggest that the people in cities or towns should be charged an exorbitant price for milk—as a matter of fact, I think it is a little too high at present and I have no hesitation in saying that in respect of the City of Dublin and some other towns—but there is no comparison between a price of 2/8 or 2/10 a gallon for milk in our cities and some of our towns and the price of 9d. per gallon which the farmer who produces it and sends it to the creamery gets.

The increase of price which extends over a few months of the year comes into operation in December, and continues until early Spring, but for the last two years at least the farmer has not been in a position to produce winter milk. There is no feeding for the cattle, and if the cattle are not fed there will be no milk, and the few pounds represented by the increase allowed by the Government is no use to the farmer, because the milk is not there. What I think would meet the wishes of the farmer is the fixing of a flat rate of 1/- per gallon all the year round for milk sent to the creameries. Then in the grass season from May to October, they would be probably able to recoup themselves and make a living, as the price would exceed the cost of production. As was stated here, the dairying farmer works the seven days of the week. There is no Sunday off for him, because he has to milk his cows both in the morning and in the evening. Every other class of the community is entitled to Sunday as a free day. If the farmer has to pay help to milk his cows on a Sunday he has to pay extra for that, and in very many cases the farmer is not in a position to do so.

Speaking from knowledge of the matter, I can say that the best of our milch cows and heifers are being exported. We cannot blame the farmers for that, if they get a fancy price. Within the last 12 months, on many occasions I have seen cows sold at prices ranging from £40 to £50. If the small farmer who has a good cow finds he can get between £40 and £50 for it, he is going to sell it. He will keep the worst of the stock and sell the best. Our best heifers are being exported. It is, however, true to say that our dairy herds have not declined in numbers very much. We have about the same number of milch cows as we had some years ago. But, if that is so, we can certainly say that the condition of our herds is much lower than it was some years ago. Cows are not giving the same return in milk as they did six or seven years ago. I have practical experience of that. As a matter of fact, I have gone into the matter very closely in connection with the creamery I am associated with and I have found that the return has been going down steadily for the last four years. If the Minister does not find some method of improving our milk yield and our herds, I am certain that our dairying industry will be seriously affected. I hope the Minister will listen to the appeal which has been made and that he will be in a position to give a substantial increase in price to the producers. If he does that, I am certain that the dairying farmers will make a sincere effort to improve their herds and to continue the work which their forefathers carried on before them.

Senator Baxter concluded a very interesting and informative speech by saying that this was not a political matter. He found support from the other side of the House, and, perhaps, I can fortify his statement that this is not a political matter by saying that I find myself in considerable difficulty about this motion. Senator Baxter deserves great credit for the persistence with which he pursues certain lines and for the care with which he documents his arguments. I was very much impressed to-day by the way in which he put this very difficult problem. But what strikes me is that the problem is a very complex one, while the solution he offers is very simple. I do not think this problem of our production of fats, which is a very difficult one, can be solved by the simple expedient of giving a higher price to the producer and leaving it at that.

I do not speak as a farmer, as Senator Baxter and Senator MacCabe are able to speak. I speak as a city dweller who has, as a great many city dwellers have, considerable associations with farmers. I have had the additional advantage—perhaps indeed it was a disadvantage—of having heard all kinds of farmers in the Dáil over a period of ten years discuss this matter at great length and with a great variety of arguments. From the point of view of the town dweller, the situation is extremely bewildering—no other word can be applied to it. We are told that we have an excellent climate for certain types of farming. We have good farmers. We have done what we were always told would provide a remedy— we have divided the land. Perhaps we have gone too far in dividing the land. The result, so far as the city dweller is concerned, is that every single agricultural product is either scarce or dear or rationed; either rationed by the Minister in the interest of the public— I am not speaking politically—or rationed by the fact that the price is so high that the poorer person in Dublin cannot get these things at all.

Milk in particular is one of these products. It is rationed on me. If I had twice the income I have, I could not get any more milk from my dairyman in Rathgar. That is a fact. Look at the way it is rationed on the unfortunate poorer person in Dublin. The price rations it on him, so that he really cannot get sufficient milk for his children. Milk, as the Minister knows, as a medical man, is essential for children. It is one of the products which, if you have money, is rationed, and, if you have not got money, is very severely restricted indeed. Apart from milk, the position we are in is that potatoes are scarce and dear. Turf is bad and is being sold at an outrageous price. A pupil of mine who took the side of the Minister for Agriculture in 1922 and who tells me I made a mad Sinn Féiner of him in his student days, overtook me recently on a bicycle and said:

"Do you remember talking to us about our natural resources? When this war is over, any man in the city who talks about turf for Dublin will be lynched."

He was Fianna Fáil in politics and fought against the Treaty in 1922. That is the opinion of a great many people. Butter is scarce, milk is scarce, and vegetables are outrageously dear. Meat is also dear. A butcher told me that there are people coming from Galway to buy sheep in Dublin. As Senator Baxter properly pointed out, bacon is impossible to obtain. Relations in the country could not give you a better present now than a few pounds of home cured bacon, but even that is impossible to get. Eggs are impossible to buy almost with any money.

What strikes the town-dweller, with some intelligent interest in this matter, is that, the problem having arisen in this country, it cannot be solved by a Ministerial edict about price. I want to put this to the Minister and to Senator Baxter and the House. Does it necessarily follow that increased production will follow an increased price, or is it not that an increase of production should actually mean a reduction in price to the consumer?

Not only is the problem in Dublin City as I have stated but what seems more extraordinary still is that in a country town in the heart of a dairying area, like Tipperary, which I happen to know well, the price of these things is nearly the same as the Dublin price. A woman living in the town of Tipperary is nearly as badly off as a woman living in Dublin from the point of view of these products. One has to ask why is that the case? One feels that Senator Baxter's motion, which was very ably and very learnedly explained, is not complete by any means and, even if were passed and operated upon, would I think leave the problem, which Senator MacCabe and Senator Baxter deplore, not by any means solved. Perhaps the producers are not getting sufficient — probably they are not. The price of milk in Dublin City, delivered to the house, is 9d. per quart. If you go and fetch it, it is 8d. a quart. Senator Baxter tells me it is only 9d. a gallon at the creamery and the more extraordinary thing is that it is 9d. or 10d. a gallon at the creamery in Tipperary town and 7d. a quart at the door, as Senator MacCabe has pointed out.

Certainly in Dublin City the price is very high, and if it were increased at all — I would like to stress this point — so far from increasing the nutrition which our children are able to get, it would decrease it. Everybody knows that a baby, for example, needs two pints of milk a day. Eightpence a day is very, very high over seven days of the week. I think the average baby in working-class houses in this city is not getting the amount of milk that is required, and if the price were increased at all that situation would become very much worse. But, certainly, whatever the causes are, it is certainly, as far as I can ascertain, not the wages paid to the milk deliverers. They, in common with the farmers and farmers' labourers, seem to be rather badly paid.

But one wonders whether a mere increase in price to the producer is going to give us the adequate result. I very much doubt it. It is quite possible we may have been going on wrong lines. Is there anything in cow-testing, for example? Are we getting a proper yield from our cows? Can co-operation among the farmers and co-operation between the farmers and the Department of Agriculture — a nonpolitical Department doing its best — produce any better milk yield than we have been producing? Can co-operation help us? Can organisation for marketing help us, even within our own borders? All these things, I think, have to be considered as well as the actual amount of money the producer gets.

Then what strikes one, too, is that it should be possible to take our whole agricultural policy out of the realm of politics. We have succeeded, under the stress of this war, in uniting on problems of defence and the organisation of defence. It seems to me that the organisation of our agricultural resources and the distribution of our agricultural products within our own borders, and indeed outside them, should also be a matter upon which we could get unity and should get a long-term policy. For example, I used to hear in the Dáil, the Minister for Agriculture, the late Patrick Hogan, described as a Minister for grass. I can read afterwards in the newspapers his policy lauded, even by his successor who is sitting here to-day. The British, whom we used to regard as an industrial people, who were once talked of as a nation of shopkeepers, have turned out to be the most progressive and most competent agriculturists in the world. Is not that so, Sir? At the present moment, I gather, the British have apparently made more progress in agriculture in this war than we have made in the last 20 years. Yet, we are an intelligent people. Dividing on this motion or merely suggesting that, if you get a bigger price for milk production we are going to solve our problems, is not sufficient.

Grass is relevant to milk. From what I can see, in so far as a person not having technical equipment can read this case, in the English papers, now they are putting immense importance on grass. They regard grass as the most important thing and, as well as regarding grass as the most important thing, they are growing enough food to supply nearly three-fourths of their requirements in war-time, with a population swollen by troops from their Dominions and the United States of America. When we have that example in front of us, at our own doors, surely we must examine our own consciences and see whether political debates or shibboleths or remnants of mistakes that may have been in the old Sinn Féin policy — which was not without mistakes — in the nature of things, may not be hampering us in getting a proper production of fats.

Senator Baxter gave us an extraordinary figure — I am not questioning it, but it certainly justifies his putting down the motion — that our fat production is reduced to one-tenth of what it was some time ago. It seems an extraordinary situation, but surely we could stop the opposition as between grass and cereals, and cattle, and see whether we could not organise the country, without political argument at all, without bringing it out on the hustings, so that we will produce the best grass and the appropriate amount of cereals and the best cattle.

I happen to know that part of what Senator Baxter said is true, that is, that people in places like Tipperary and Limerick, because they have to do a certain amount of tillage, are going out of dairy cows. Surely we can look at the whole country and see what are the best areas to produce certain things and get them produced in those areas and the other things produced in the other places, and give us a long-term policy.

I did not propose to occupy the time of the House this morning on a matter of this kind but I do suggest that the problem is not simple enough to be solved merely by an increase in price, although the disparity between the price the producer gets and the price I have to pay at my door in Dublin seems to me to be quite indefensible, and worse still, the disparity between what the producer gets in a creamery in a town and what he gets at the door in the same town seems to be also indefensible. Certainly, as far as this city is concerned, not only in the case of people who are commonly called poorly paid classes, but in the case of a great many other people, such as the whole lower grades of the Civil Service, primary and secondary teachers, and a great many lower paid people in universities, trying to rear a family, they simply cannot pay any more for milk.

Senator Baxter's answer, I know, is that there will not be any milk for anybody, whatever he can pay, unless we can make some arrangements about it, but surely it should be possible for us to make these arrangements over a wider area and taking into consideration more important and more general things than merely milk production. We should be able, it seems to me, to get a long-term policy. We have had immense harm to agriculture by the use of certain catch-cries in politics — immense harm. We have had immense harm to agriculture by the fact that one type of farmer is put against another type of farmer. One of the things that strikes a non-farming person like myself is that the word "farmer" in fact has a great many meanings. There is one type of farmer here, another type there, and they can be set one against the other and can be defeated, as they have been defeated, and used politically, piecemeal and in sections.

We should be able, I think, Sir, to determine, without politics, and not in the terms of a general election or a political argument of any kind, how we can get the most out of our land and solve for the farmers their problems and, at the same time, leave the town dweller in the position that he will have solved the problems I put to you at the beginning. One of the things that in the old days of Sinn Féin we used to talk about was industrial production and the fullest use of our agriculture. Now, we are in the position that we have an emergency in which our agriculture is necessary to us and we find, as I say, that the very simplest products are either scarce or so dear that we do not seem to be able to purchase an adequate supply of them. If anything can be done about that — and I think something can be done about it — the motion put down by Senator Baxter will have accomplished a great deal, but I think, Sir, in its present terms it does not even correspond to the kind of speech Senator Baxter made about it. As it is phrased here, it talks about nothing but a higher price to producers which, to the ordinary city person and town dweller, implies a higher price to consumers. Senator Baxter, I think, is not in that particular frame of mind at all.

The motion as it stands would need considerable amendment before it would express the view of most of us in this House, but it will have done good if it gets an expression of view from the Minister that we could have a long-term policy in agriculture, and that we could have a solution of these problems which nobody outside is interfering with. We cannot blame anybody outside for them. They are problems which we ought to be able to solve for ourselves, and if we cannot succeed in solving them, it seems to me, it will not make any great difference what kind of Constitution we have or what colours we have in our flag; or what uniforms our soldiers wear, because this matter is as vital for us as our army or guns or anything of that kind. Senator Baxter will have done a good day's work if he has brought us a step further on the solution of the problem along those lines.

With the object of this motion, which is to increase the production of milk so that it would be possible for everybody to have a sufficiency of that essential food — especially the poor — we must all be in sympathy, but the question, as Senator Hayes, in his admirable speech has pointed out, is very complex, and it is quite obvious that if an increase in price to the producer means an increased price to the consumers of milk — especially in the towns and cities — the motion will defeat its own object. In fact, it might mean that milk would become unprocurable or, if not exactly unprocurable, in such lessened quantities as would make it almost impossible for milk, in sufficient quantities, to be delivered to those who need it most — the poor and the children — and if that were to be the effect of an increased price to the producers, it would be disastrous.

When this Government first came into office, it recognised the essential need of providing milk for the poor and the children, and one of the first acts of the present Government was to allot about £90,000 per year for free milk; and I think that about £30,000 of that was to be allocated to the children and the poor of the City of Dublin, where it has been most admirably distributed by the Infant Aid Society, the babies' clubs, and other splendid institutions in this city.

Now, some time ago, I was accorded the honour and the privilege of being asked to contribute to a European symposium on child welfare generally, with particular regard to what was being done for children in this country. My article was largely historical, and I was asked to add an appendix to it, showing what the Irish people, or the Irish Government, were doing for the children and the poor. I was able to get the statistics from Dublin Corporation and from the Department of Local Government and Public Health on the matter, and these statistics surprised even myself, and I may say attracted an extraordinary amount of interest on the Continent, as showing the extent to which we had realised how important it is that milk should be provided for the children and the poor of our country, and how we had faced up to that realisation by making milk available for the children and the poor so far as we could do so.

Now, if, as a result of giving an increased price to the producers, it will mean an increased price for the consumers of milk — especially in the towns and cities — we lesen whatever good might be achieved by giving an increased price to producers. In addition to the free milk grants, it must be remembered that milk is also supplied free to various indigent or needy people, such as old age pensioners, people in receipt of the dole, and so on, but there is only a certain fixed amount set aside for that purpose, and if the price of milk is to be increased, then you decrease, to that extent, the amount of milk that might be available for these needy people. I do not see how that can be done. I think that it would practically amount to a revolution, if you are to give free milk to all these people at the increased price. If the present price of 3/- a gallon in the City of Dublin, or 9d. a quart, is to be increased as a result of this motion — and that would seem to be the result of the motion, at a first reading — it would be disastrous. That is why I agree with Senator Hayes, when he says that it would be disastrous to pass the motion in its present form. I think that if the motion were to be passed in its present form, it would create great antipathy towards the Seanad and, as a result, it would be looked upon with abhorrence. I believe that any Government that would be prepared to accept the motion in its present form would be practically committing harakiri.

I am very grateful to Senator Baxter for bringing forward the motion. The speeches made in connection with it were most enlightening, but we must see that the cost of milk to the consumers will not be increased to such an extent as to make milk a luxury food, or to put it out of bounds for those who need it most. There might, however, be an approach to this matter from another direction, particularly in regard to what Senators MacCabe and Baxter said about the difference in the price to the creameries and the price to the producer. One is puzzled about that difference in price. It would appear that there is a maximum price of 1/- a gallon paid at the creameries to the producers, and yet the price of milk sold here in the City of Dublin comes to 3/- a gallon. As I say, one is puzzled about that discrepancy, but of course I admit that that is probably not the whole story, and that it is not exactly 1/- a gallon all the year round: that 1/- might be a reasonable price at one period of the year, and not sufficient at another period of the year. I am not in a position to give an authoritative opinion about that, but, at all events, it seems to me that there is a great gap between the price paid to producers of the milk and the price that the consumer has to pay, and that that gap might easily be filled. Whether it is that our marketing methods are not all that they should be, or whether the passage between the producers in the dairying counties and the milk distributors in Dublin is too costly, I do not know.

When this question was raised here before, there was some suggestion that milk depots could be set up where milk could be made available in greater quantities and at cheaper rates. Whether that is possible or not, I do not know, but at all events I think we must protest at any suggestion of the raising of the price of milk to the consumers. As a woman, I feel — and that is what made me intervene in the symposium to which I have referred — that we should not do anything that would increase the price of milk to consumers, especially the poor in the towns and cities, or increase the price of milk to such an extent as would make it impossible for them to get anything like their requirements. Everybody knows that the thing that is most severely rationed, unfortunately, in most of our Irish homes, is money — purchasing power, in other words — and we must all bear that in mind in connection with all our legislation.

I should like to put a question to Senator Baxter in this connection. How is it that the current price to the producer is 9d. at the creameries, or 1/- per gallon, when we, in County Dublin, are getting 1s. 11¾d. per gallon? Of course, I admit that we do not get that price all the year round; sometimes it might be only a little over 1/- a gallon at certain periods of the year, but at the moment the price is 1s. 11¾d. I can vouch for that, because I am getting it myself, although I admit that that is due to the emergency, but in view of that fact I should like to know whether or not the Senator thinks that the charge is excessive.

With regard to the point made by Senator Miss Pearse, I think it would be well to explain that the people supplying the City of Dublin would only represent a very small fragment of the total number of producers of milk in the country.

I only wanted to point out that that is what is paid in County Dublin.

Last year, we had a motion somewhat along the lines of this motion. At least, the demand was that the price of milk at the creameries should be increased, and that if the price were increased by 2d. a gallon, bringing it up to 9d.—I think 7d. a gallon was the price at the time — it would lead to increased production. This year we have a motion along the same lines, and again we are told by Senator Baxter that if we do not grant this further increase, there will be no production of milk. He does not even promise, on this occasion, that the present production will be increased or even maintained. Now, during his speech, I took the opportunity of looking up some figures. The Senator tells us that the cow population is much the same as it was for years and years, and, therefore, I assume that butter production must be in or about the same as it was in years past. The amount of milk delivered to the creameries, or the amount of butter produced by the creameries, may finish, according to the Senator. There may be difficulties, of course, but we must admit that the amount of butter manufactured in the homes of farmers, and used by them, has certainly increased, because we must admit that the standard of living for farmers has increased very considerably in the last few years, because farmers are using far more of their own products, such as eggs, butter, milk and so on, than they did some years ago.

I must say that I agree with almost everything that Senator Hayes has stated. We cannot afford to increase the price of milk to the people in our towns although some of us may be inclined to say that the price of milk to the creameries should be increased. What does that mean? That means an increase in the price of butter or that the Government will have to come along and subsidise butter.

Butter, as we know, is already subsidised by the Government and I understand that raising the price from 9d. to 1/- will mean that the subsidy will be almost £1,000,000 next year. If the Government think it right to give an additional subsidy and do not demand a price for butter which that subsidy would entail, they must raise the money on some other commodity, therefore it is six of one and half a dozen of another. Deputy Baxter has stated that butter is a very essential food, that it is practically the only fat our people have. By raising the price of butter and milk you are depriving these very people, for whom it is most essential we should have increased quantities of both milk and butter, of these very essential foods. If Senator Baxter could give a guarantee to the Government that, if the price were increased from 9d. to 1/- or even to 1/6, it would have the effect of increasing the production of butter to such an extent as would justify that course, we might, having regard to the very difficult food situation in which we find ourselves, be prepared to consider the motion, but we have no such promise. We know that that would not be the result and that we should still have here, month after month and year after year, a demand for increased prices. I believe that is not a proper approach to this problem.

In to-day's Irish Independent there appears a report in which it is stated that “in 1923 the Danish milk yield had been estimated at 645 gallons per cow as compared with about 400 gallons for Eire.” Will the increased price asked for by Senator Baxter have any effect in increasing the yield per cow? That is exactly what we want, and if we do not do something to achieve that position, all these increased prices will have no effect. We must increase production in this country in every direction. Senator Baxter put forward the plea that increased tillage will have the result of decreasing the milk yield and also the cow population. It is rather strange, therefore, that in the report in the Independent, which I have already quoted, it is stated: “In comparison with Eire, Denmark had a bigger population, greater agricultural output, more extensive industrial system, larger foreign trade, a lower national debt, a higher income and a better standard of living. Eire adopted a system of animal husbandry based upon grass, causing a decline in cereal and other tilled areas, and an increase in hay and pasture areas with a disastrous result on the population.” Now it is quite evident from that that if we increase our area under tillage and if we have more cereals and more fodder available for our cow population, that is one of the means of increasing production.

That was not the effect in County Wexford.

I think that Senator MacCabe was nearer to a solution of this problem when he mentioned the question of keeping at home our very best heifers. I understand that those are being purchased for export, and that the farmers in England and Scotland are building up very fine herds. I also understand that the prices offered for this type of cattle are very much above what the ordinary farmer here would be prepared to pay. If a farmer has a good heifer and is offered these fancy prices, he is more liable to part with that animal and to retain at home the inferior animal. Something should be done to rectify that position, on the lines of having a quota on the export of such animals, or even giving a subsidy to people who are trying to build up a proper herd here. I think that that would be a better approach to the problem than coming before this House with motions requesting an increase in prices for certain products, when such increases have not the effect of stimulating production, but rather the effect of making articles of food so necessary to our workers in the town and country almost unpurchasable. Senator Baxter mentioned that, although butter was rationed at the present moment, there were many people who were able to get more than their ration, because some others could not afford to buy their ration.

That was not the way I put it.

If we are going to put butter still further beyond the reach of these people, then we are doing these workers an injustice. Senator Baxter also mentioned in his speech that the price of food had not increased in line with the increase in the price of other commodities, but he did not tell us that food is subsidised, that there is a subsidy of £2,000,000 given towards bread and butter in this country. Are we going to yield to every demand that the farmer and every other section in the community make for increased prices to such an extent that there will be no limit to such increases? We have said that there must be a standstill Order in regard to wages, although in certain cases some small increases have been granted. If we are to have a standstill Order, as far as the purchasing power of the ordinary people is concerned, must we still accede to every demand that the farmers make for increased prices?

I think it very unfortunate that a motion of this kind should come before the House. If we are going to have the production that is essential to carry us over the present difficult time and the times immediately ahead, there should be some organisation outside the Dáil or the Seanad to attempt, either by agreement or in some other way, to settle the price of essential commodities. I think it will not have a very good effect if Senators are constantly putting down these motions, because in that way they are more or less setting one section of the people against another. It is not very nice or popular for a public representative to have to stand up and refuse to grant an application for increased prices for farmers at present, but we must bear in mind the effect which such increases will have on other sections of the community. What Senator Hayes has said in regard to the position in Dublin is also true of the position in Galway. Milk, as a matter of fact, is rationed to the extent that your supplier is in a position only to supply the same amount which you have always been getting.

The Senator means the producer.

What is the cause of that?

There are many causes, but the chief cause is that we keep the wrong type of cow in this country. I believe that until you rectify that position, no matter what increase in prices you give, it will have no effect. I think if Senator Baxter put down a motion asking the Government to set up some inquiry or commission to ascertain how that could be brought about, he would have done a better day's work for the farmers and the country as a whole.

I support this motion with rather mixed feelings. The farmers, who have produced so much food during the emergency, and to whose labours may be attributed the fact that this country has been saved from famine, are deserving of the tributes of praise they have received from all sections and also to the increased prices they have got for many commodities they produce. We must recollect, however, that there is another very important section in the community, that section whose members have nothing to sell but their labour. They cannot barter it at their own price. It is notorious that since the emergency the prices for necessaries of life — food, fuel and clothing — have gone up, in many cases, by 200 per cent. Nobody will dare to say that the emoluments, wages or salaries of those who have to purchase those commodities have gone up in like proportion. There is something wrong when that happens. Any increase which will make the burden of those people more difficult to bear will not have my support, as they are finding it hard to bear the present burden. There was a time when at least one service was paid on a sliding scale. According as the prices of necessaries went up, wages went up. According as the price of necessaries came down, wages came down. Is it too late to initiate a sliding scale which would apply to wage-earners so that any service we might try to do one section of the community would not impose an insupportable burden on another section? If it is not possible to initiate such a scheme at present, I suggest that any increase given in price, if this motion be accepted, be provided by subsidy.

I understand that at present milk production is subsidised to a certain extent. It would not be too much to expect that, with a view to avoiding additions to the responsibilities of persons whose means are at present stretched, a subsidy would be provided to meet the increase sought in this motion. If something like that is not done and if the acceptance of this motion would mean an increase all round, I fear that the excellent object at the back of Senator Baxter's mind would be defeated because those people who are finding it difficult to live might cut down their consumption of milk and butter, with disastrous results. I trust that a way suitable to all will be found out of this matter. That is why I say that I support this motion with mixed feelings. In common with many others, I feel under a debt of gratitude to the farmers for the great contribution they have made to food production. I believe that lip service alone is not a sufficient return to them. However, it has not been left at that, because the prices of agricultural products have gone up very much. The only regret I have is that the wages and emoluments of those who have to purchase those products have not gone up accordingly.

I wish to say a few words in support of this motion. Unless the price of milk is increased, I believe you will have the same scarcity of butter as you have to-day. I shall approach this question purely from the farmer's point of view. During the winter months, cows have to be housed and fed on concentrates. The only concentrates we have at present are the foods we produce ourselves, with the addition of beet pulp. If we take the cost of barley, oats and pollard, we shall find that, in addition to the cost of roots and hay, it is costing the farmer £1 per week to keep a cow for the 24 weeks in the winter period when she is housed. During the summer period, if we allow 2/6 per week for the cow, the cost will be £3 5s., making a total of £27 5s. Take a 400-gallon cow, with milk at 1/- a gallon and you get £20. Take a 500-gallon cow — a cow which we have not got in the country at present. We all know that the milk yield of cows has gone down considerably in the past couple of years. In the case of the 500-gallon cow, the farmer is losing £2 5s. The farmer cannot continue in a branch of farming which is not paying him.

The question has been raised as to whether the production of milk and butter would be increased if an increased price were given. I say definitely that it would. We have experience of that in the case of sugar. Two years ago what was the position regarding sugar? We had an acreage of about 46,000. The farmer refused to grow beet because the price was not satisfactory. Last year, when the farmers got what they considered was a satisfactory price, 80,000 acres of beet were sown and there will be a splendid supply of sugar. That is my answer to those people who say that there will be no increase in the supply of butter if we get an increased price. To March, 1943, 611,000 cwts. of creamery butter were produced. In the preceding year, 658,000 cwts. were produced — a reduction of 47,000 cwts. Why had we that reduction? Because the price was not satisfactory and because our people who had good cows sold them. They would not be justified in keeping them, because they were not paying. When a branch of farming is not paying, as in any other business, one must turn to something else. No farmer can afford to farm at a loss. That is why you have a reduction in the supplies of milk and butter and that is why you had a reduction in the supply of bacon. It did not pay to produce.

Our tillage policy is based on dairying. If we have not cows, we cannot have cattle. If we have not cattle, we cannot have manure and if we cannot manure our lands, we cannot produce wheat. That is the position. On some of the big farms, I can foresee a considerable reduction in the cow herds because of the impossibility of getting labour. I know from experience that I can have a man in my employment for a whole week but when Saturday night comes he is finished. Who is going to milk the cows on Sunday morning and Sunday evening? Who is going to fodder them on Sunday? I must turn out myself and do it if I am going to keep in the business. That is the position all over the country. As Senator Baxter said on one occasion, employees will not come back from hurling and football matches to do this work.

I am not concerned, as some of the other Senators are, with the cost of milk to the consumers. My principal concern is that the farmers get a fair price for the milk. I believe that there is no justification for the price charged for milk in Dublin. When you had a strike in Dublin, we were able to supply milk to the people but to-day we are not allowed to supply it. Syndicates are supplying them and the farmers and creameries who might be in a position to supply milk here at a far lower rate than the people are paying at present are not getting the opportunity to do so. I believe that, if the people of Dublin were allowed to take milk from the farmers down the country, they would get their milk at much lower prices. I know the position that existed here ten or 12 years ago. The dairying industry was in a bad position at that time. If it had not been for the policy of the present Minister, dairying would be dead. Butter was being used as car grease, as it was not worth selling. It was being refused until the Government introduced their scheme. I ask the Minister to examine this question. He may rest assured that the farmers are as anxious for the welfare of the people as are any other section of the community and if they get a fair chance they will produce sufficient butter and milk for the people. The only way that can be done is by giving an increased price.

I am not a farmer and can only speak as a townsman. In West Cork, the suppliers were refusing to supply milk at a price which people in the towns could afford to pay. Farmers may not be getting enough money at the creameries but, if you increase the price at the creameries, it will increase all round, not by the 1d. or 2d. at the creameries but by a good deal more. Senator Baxter, Senator Walsh and others agree that the price of milk in Dublin and other cities and towns is too high, or that it is at least as high as the people can possibly pay for it. Of course, at this time of the year, milk is always scarce. If there is any increase in the price to the farmers and the creameries, it will not be possible to prevent the price being raised in the cities and towns.

Reference has been made by Senator Walsh and Senator Baxter to the scarcity of bacon, owing to the prices not being increased at a certain time. If they had been increased then, what were the extra pigs to be fed on? We have hardly enough wheat to make bread for the people and there was no surplus of potatoes or barley. If the Government had increased the price of bacon some years ago, when Senator Baxter and others asked that it be increased, how were the extra pigs to be fed?

Might I make two suggestions to the Minister? On the 4th of this month, on a matter raised by Deputy Bennett in the Dáil, the Minister was good enough to say he would examine Deputy Bennett's proposals, which were very briefly to the effect that certain producers have had to give up their mechanically-propelled vehicles at the request of the Department of Supplies and that in consequence, they had to get additional horses for pony carts, and so on. In addition to that, they have had to get more horses to deal with the increased tillage; and the double increase of horses on their lands is a very severe burden, coming as well as the 37½ per cent. tillage. So far as they are concerned, it would help them in their production — which is the real purpose of Senator Baxter's motion — if some scheme were introduced by which any milk producer who is keeping the level of production to the time when he had the mechanically propelled vehicles, would be given some small compensation for the additional horses he has had to put on his land. It is quite obvious that no grazing or temporary adjustment will cover that particular case, as no one will allow him to put in horses on 11 months' land.

The second point arises from the remarks of Senator Hawkins. I was delighted to hear him mention production in Denmark, but I think he will find that the reason they have a higher production there is that they have more modern mechanical methods, more modern machinery and buildings on the farms, and more modern marketing machinery. One of the reasons for the increased milk production across the water has been the use of dried grass. I do not know whether the Minister has any information on that, or whether any experiments of that kind have been tried here. If he has, we would be glad to hear whether they have assisted him in keeping up the graph of production, as it is the drop in the graph line during the winter months that causes all the trouble.

I do not think the House could agree with this motion in the form that Senator Baxter has submitted it. Would the Senator give us any guarantee that, if the price were increased, it would ensure additional milk for those who want it most, the children of poor people who have to purchase it? Farmers are, at least, 65 per cent. of the population and provide their own supplies of milk, so the increased price would not increase the supply of milk to them; they should have a sufficient supply already. It is to the remainder of the population — 35 per cent., or even less — that the increased price would apply. If it is possible to have any increase in price, I would be anxious to see the farmers get it. Members of the Seanad, however, are not elected to represent sectional interests alone, but must represent all classes of the community, and we have to deal with legislation here as it affects all classes. As the motion is drafted at present, I could not give it any support, mainly on the ground that it would defeat the object the Senator has in mind.

Senator Hayes has covered fairly well the general background of this matter, but there is one particular point I would like to put to the Minister. Senator Walsh has pointed out the very serious fact that the area allowed to supply the City of Dublin is a very restricted area and that one of the results of that restriction is that the daily consumption of milk in the city has gone down. Before Dublin was restricted in that particular way, the daily consumption of milk in the city was 50,000 gallons. The daily consumption at the end of last year, according to the report, was 40,000 gallons. The consumption of the most important item of the people's food has been reduced by one-fifth as a result of the restricted area that is supplying Dublin, and that, in turn, has resulted in an increase in the price of milk in the city. Last winter, but particularly last January, there was a very serious shortage in the quantity of milk available in the city. That is remarkable when you consider, as Senator Miss Pearse has said, that 1/11¾d. is the price paid to the producer supplying the Dublin area. When you cross the border of the Dublin milk supplying area, you find that the price goes down to 9d.

It seems to me that two very useful things could be done. I have indicated that there was a very serious shortage last winter, and quite possibly we may have another shortage during the coming winter. Even at the present time the people of Dublin cannot get a sufficient quantity of milk. I suggest that they would be able to get as much milk as they require if the restrictions that are imposed with reference to the people who supply milk to Dublin were raised, and if, as Senator Walsh has said, others than the favoured few were permitted to supply Dublin. In such circumstances, I believe we would get a substantial increase in our milk supplies in the city, and, at any rate, a certain number of farmers would have the price which they are getting now for their milk increased from 9d. to 1/11¾d. If we cannot solve the whole of the farmer's difficulty with regard to the price of milk, there is a way in which we can solve some of it, and that is by allowing farmers who are not allowed at the present time to send milk into the city to do so.

It has been suggested that there are people unable to buy the butter ration while, on the other hand, there are people using more than the ration. Considering the importance of milk, I suggest that we might restrict the manufacture of butter so as to allow our towns and cities to have a greater supply of milk. Our people could do without butter if they were assured of getting a good milk supply, and apparently it would be much more profitable for the farmers to sell their milk in the form of milk rather than in the form of butter. I should like the Minister to consider that aspect of the question, because I suggest it will help to relieve a serious situation in the city. At least it will prevent the situation from becoming more serious and, at any rate, it would help some of the farmers.

As has been mentioned by some Senators, this is not by any means a political debate. There were some farmer Senators who spoke in support of Senator Baxter's motion, and other Senators did not quite agree with the price charged for milk. I should like to make a comparsion of the position now with the position in the years before the war. Taking the year 1939, the production of butter by the creameries amounted to 718,000 cwts. Production was then declining; it had been declining for at least two or three years. In the following year the production amounted to 658,000 cwts. Within the last two years the total production varied between 610,000 and 615,000 cwts. There was a rapid reduction in the production of butter in the four years previous to the outbreak of war. If any Senator were to study a graph relating to creamery butter production from 1934 or 1936 to the present time, he would be struck by the slow decline during the war years as compared with the years before the war.

Various statements have been made with reference to the increase of prices of various commodities, and we have been told of certain people getting as much as 100 per cent. more than they got before the war. I should like to point out, in this connection, that the creamery supplier has not done so badly. When the war commenced he was getting 5.4d. per gallon, as against the 9d. he is getting now. Next year he will be getting 10½d., and during the winter months 1/-. Therefore, he will be getting twice as much — possibly a little more — as he was getting pre-war. The man who brings his milk to the creamery has no great complaint— comparing his position with any other section of the population — if he gets twice as much as in pre-war days.

The milk producers supplying the towns do not get the same increase. Before the war started they were getting 1/1¼ on an average, and now they are getting an average of 1/8¼ so the increase there is not so good; but admittedly they are much better off than they were pre-war. From the point of view of receipts they are better off, but, perhaps, they are not nearly so well off from the point of view of their expenses. There is also a milk board in Cork and the producers there have 2d. per gallon less than in Dublin. It varies, because the periods for change of price do not coincide. Producers are not guaranteed prices in any other part of the country for liquid milk, but the retail price is fixed for the whole country the same as for Cork— that is, maximum retail price. We may assume that the producers supplying towns other than Cork are getting the same as in the Cork area, and that is an average of 1/6¼ all the year round. I do not know what case could be made by the suppliers of creameries any more than could be made by any other farmers.

It is a great mistake to talk about tillage farmers, creamery farmers and cattle farmers. Practically every farmer does a little bit of everything, though some are predominantly milk-producing, some predominantly tillage farmers, and others take up some other form of agricultural production. If we take wages, the minimum wage, in so far as it has been fixed, has gone up by 33? per cent. since the war started. The rent has not gone up, but the rates have. Taking rent and rates together, they have increased by 15 per cent. If any farmer examines his outgoings, he will find that the greater part of his expenses goes towards labour, rent and rates. Let us say that these have gone up by about 25 per cent., and as against that the price paid him by the creameries has gone up 100 per cent. In those circumstances, he has no complaint against the Government or the community.

Senator Baxter talked about food values. We have never attempted to base prices on food values. If we did, the bottle of stout would be a whole lot cheaper than it is, compared with a pint of milk. We did not go on food values, but we adopted other standards. As a matter of fact it is a thing that I have made inquiries about. It would be interesting to see what is the best food value at the moment, whether it be the pound of steak that was quoted by Deputy Baxter, the pint of milk or the egg. On the result an argument might be advanced, as Senator Baxter advanced it here, on behalf of certain sections of the farming community. It is true, as Senator Baxter has said, that the cost of living has gone up less in respect of food than in respect of anything else, but the food portion of the cost of living is about half of the total. If we take the total number of points that make up the present cost-of-living figure, I think that food has been responsible for driving it up more than, probably, any other section. I may say that in another place I have used Senator Baxter's argument as he has used it here, but, at the same time, I do not want to take away from that argument in any way.

Another point raised was with regard to the amount of butter that we have in the country. As far as we can make out, we are consuming as much fats now as we did pre-war. The amount of butter that we exported pre-war was more than the total of the margarine and the lard produced. I think that if the figures are made up it will be found that there is a difference in the production of butter of 100,000 cwts. more then than now. We used to produce 60,000 or 80,000 cwts. of margarine. I gave all these figures in the Dáil some months ago.

They were the figures that I quoted. The figure of 218,000 cwts. of fats was given for margarine, lard and dripping in 1940. That went down to 97,000 cwts. in 1941.

The consumption of fats in the country is not lower than it was then.

The point is, where are we getting them?

The amount of butter that is being produced is, of course, more than would give a half pound of butter to every person per week if we could get all the butter that is being produced under control, but we are not getting it under control. About 700,000 cwts. of butter would give a half pound of butter weekly to everyone in the country. We are producing 610,000 cwts. or 615,000 cwts. of creamery butter. About 380,000 cwts. of farmers' butter, which is not controlled, are also being produced. The farmers producing their own butter are not rationed, and they can keep as much of that butter as they like. Under the present regulations a person buying farmers' butter, if he does not buy creamery butter, is not rationed either. In the case of farmers supplying milk to the creamery, they are allowed butter from the creamery on a certain basis and at the present time are not being rationed. When, therefore, you take into account those who are supplying milk to the creameries, the farmers who make their own butter and supply their own needs, as well as any customers whom they have in the towns, all these people are unrationed, and, presumably, they are getting more than a half pound of butter each per week. At any rate, we have about 1,000,000 cwts. of butter being produced in the country, and, as I have said, about 700,000 cwts. of butter would give a half pound of butter per week to each person. From these figures Senators can see that a great number of people in the country are able to have much more than a half pound of butter each per week. If we could control all the butter that is being produced the ration could be nearly three-quarters of a pound of butter per week for each person.

With regard to the Dublin milk supply, I cannot understand where Senator Mulcahy got the figure of 50,000 gallons which he quoted. I have not come across that figure before. When the Dublin Milk Board started, the consumption appeared to be about 38,000 gallons. That figure has gone up every year since. This year the average daily consumption is about 43,400 gallons, which in the case of Dublin, would give about two-thirds of a pint per person. Although admittedly that is not enough, because we would all like to see more milk consumed, still it must be said that the figure does not compare very unfavourably with the consumption of milk in other countries. It is as good a consumption as you will find in most countries with the exception of a few such as the United States, where the consumption of milk is very high.

As Senators know, the half lb. of butter, even if we had no more, is at least as good as that provided in any country in Europe. The position in that regard is a whole lot better than it is in most countries in Europe, so that we do not compare too badly with them. I do not want any Senator to believe that we are satisfied with it. We would like to see more available.

When the Minister makes a comparison with other countries and speaks of butter, does he mean butter as against butter, or butter against butter plus margarine and lard?

In Great Britain the total fats allowed is half a pound — part butter, part margarine, and part other fats. Here we give a 1/2lb. of butter per week per person, so that whatever other fats can be got, such as dripping and other things, are outside that ration of a 1/2lb. of butter. They are in addition to it.

The next point that was raised was about cows and heifers. I am glad indeed to be able to assure Senators that the position in respect to the export of cows and heifers, from the point of view of our future production here, has very much improved. Unfortunately, under an Order made, I cannot give the House the exact figure for exports, but I can say this, that if we take the exports of cattle so far this year, the export of cows and springers is less than half what it was last year to date.

You are not letting them out.

As a matter of fact the licences are not being used to the full. They are exported, of course, under licence, but the licences are not being used to the full. That is a good thing, because it means that a licence is not worth anything. The export trade rules, and nobody is getting any advantage out of the situation. The exporters, of course, do derive certain advantages when the licences are being fully used. They get a little more on exports than they otherwise would get. At any rate, I think the figure is a very consoling one — that cows and springers are not going out in nearly as big numbers as they did last year. In fact, the number is less than half to date when compared with last year. There is also a reduction in the number of store heifers, which might possibly be purchased by farmers here for breeding purposes, going out.

The reduction is about 33 per cent., while, on the other hand, the export of bullocks has remained as high as ever it was. The total export of cattle is, of course, down this year, although by the end of the year it may not be very much behind the figure for last year, because exports at the present time are very high.

Senator Baxter said — in fact it has been said by many people in Dublin— that what the dairy farmer in Limerick and other places will do is to cut down the number of his cows. I presume what the Senator meant was that under the tillage regulations the number of cows will have to go down. I do not know that there is very much in that case. Assume that a person was doing no tillage at all before the war started, that he had 80 or 100 acres and was keeping his cows on grass and in hay, such a man was not keeping them very well, because, since he was doing no tillage, they were badly fed during the winter. He now has to till a certain amount of his land, and if he carries out proper husbandry, putting two-thirds or even three-quarters under cereals and the remainder under root crops, and if he has farmyard manure to manure his crops well, he should keep as many cows as ever he kept, because he will have feeding for them in the winter, and he will keep better cows, too, because he will be able to feed them better in the winter and they will go out stronger and milk better during the summer. Any of us who travel through County Limerick and who have seen the class of hay which a great majority of the farmers there have, realise that oaten straw is certainly as good as that hay in feeding value. That man will also have roots and in that way will be able to feed as many cows, and, in addition, to feed them better, and should get better results. Senator Baxter compared Limerick and Wexford for the purpose of showing that Limerick has so many more cows than Wexford.

The density of the cow population was the point I wanted to bring out.

In reply to an interruption, he mentioned what has often been mentioned here — that Wexford had a smaller population per 100 acres, although more or less a tillage county, than Limerick, which is a dairying county. In cases of that kind, we must have some regard to the quality of the land, and Limerick, admittedly, has very much better land than Wexford. The Senator also suggested that heifers in calf were not selling as well as the same heifers would sell if not in calf. I think that is altogether wrong.

In July of last year.

At practically any period of the year, one-and-a-half-year-old shorthorn heifers, as I think the Senator will admit, were selling very much better than bullocks of the same age.

I was talking about two-year-old heifers ready to calve.

For breeding heifers, there was a very good price all the time — much better than the price for the same heifers, if not for breeding purposes.

I do not know why Senators should persist in saying that if such and such had been done, we would have had plenty of pigs. As Senator Corkery has said, how could we have pigs? What could we feed them on? You cannot feed pigs on the psychology of the farmer. It takes more than psychology to feed a pig.

We had potatoes at the time you cut the price. They were going to the alcohol factories.

They were, but the total amount of potatoes which went to the alcohol factories was somewhere around 20,000 tons, which, if we had been put to it, would have fed 15,000 or 20,000 pigs, and no more. Of course, the following year, as Senator Baxter knows, if we had had the pigs, we would have had less potatoes, and we were actually short of potatoes for human food last year in Dublin and other places. If we had had more pigs, we would have been still more short. It was a choice between potatoes for the people of Dublin and potatoes for pigs. We would have had more pigs and less potatoes, and the same applies to wheat. It is very hard to balance the thing properly.

I saw that a terrible attack was made on the Minister of Food in England, on this question of potatoes for pigs, because he did not balance the thing properly. There was a very big debate in the House of Commons in relation to it, because a lot of potatoes were thrown out and wasted, due to the Minister not having set aside the proper amount of potatoes for human consumption and animal feeding. He made a mistake in his calculations, but it was proved in that debate that he had made a mistake in respect of only one day's supply for the whole country. That would feed a fair number of pigs, but it is very hard to be more exact than a one-day supply for the human population.

Butter undoubtedly is a valuable food at the moment. It represents very good value for the consumer, but, as has been pointed out by Deputy Hawkins and others, there is an element of subsidy in it, and if the full price were passed on, it would not represent nearly as good value. We had some discussion about the price of milk at the creamery of 9d. per gallon and the price of 8d. or 9d. a quart in Dublin, but these are extreme cases. I have from time to time met deputations of creamery suppliers as well as deputations of suppliers to the City of Dublin, and I have often said to those representing the suppliers to the City of Dublin that creamery suppliers were getting very much less than they were getting. I must say that the Dublin City suppliers made a very impressive case for their getting a whole lot more and, personally — I am quite convinced of this — if I had a large farm and had the choice of sending milk to a creamery or to the City of Dublin, I would not send it to the creamery. It must be remembered that the price in Dublin at present is the winter price. The average price over the whole year for milk sold over the counter is not 9d. per quart. I think it averages out at something less than 8d., and if consumers like Senator Hayes pay for the luxury of having milk delivered to them, that is their own look out. We must speak of the person who goes to a shop and buys his milk over the counter.

He pays 8d. now?

Yes, now, but for part of the year it is less. The producers in the Dublin area get an average of 1/8¼ and milk is sold over the counter to the poorer people at an average price of about 8d. more, that is, of 2/4, so that the difference is not, as one might be inclined to infer from the prices quoted, the difference between 9d. at the creamery and 3/- to the consumer. The producer gets 1/8 for the milk which is sold over the counter at 2/4, so that the average margin between what the producer gets for his milk in the Dublin area and what the consumer pays for it over the counter is 8d. per gallon. I am not saying that is a fair margin. It may be too high or too low, but so far as we have gone into the matter, we think it is a fair enough margin.

The supplier in the Dublin area certainly deserves a better price than the creamery supplier, because the person supplying milk to a creamery can supply all the milk he likes any day he likes and can stop supplying it any day he likes. If he has less milk in winter, it does not matter, because he need not supply milk to the creamery. The person supplying milk in Dublin, however, in order to keep his custom, must supply practically the same quantity the whole year round. That puts him to the heavy expense in practically all cases of buying cows in the autumn; the dear time, because his supply of milk begins to go down and he must buy cows to keep it up, and, as he points out to me when talking about prices, when that cow is milked out— she may not have been a very good cow —he sells her dry off the grass in July or August, when cows are not very dear and there is a big loss on all these transactions. He has his troubles, and, as a matter of fact, these producers believe that they are not getting enough for their milk. I think they are getting a fair price now.

The next point is: why do we confine the supplying of Dublin to a certain area? Senators will remember that there was a lot of trouble between the suppliers to Dublin and the wholesalers back in 1935 and 1936. The suppliers were getting a very bad price then — something like 8d. and 9d. per gallon, and for any surplus, as it was called — and the surplus was working in a very harsh way against them— they got something like 4½d. per gallon. I was convinced that they could not carry on and that something would have to be done to help them, if they were to carry on at all. I had to consider the point at the time: is it necessary that they must be able to carry on? I came to the conclusion that it was necessary in the interest, not only of these people but also of the consumers in Dublin, because I found on examination that if these producers were not there the City of Dublin would have a very poor supply of milk in winter.

As a result of the legislation brought in in 1936, setting up the Dublin District Milk Board and fixing a price for producers, etc. they actually increased the supply — not a whole lot, but somewhat. They are the mainstay of the supply of milk to the City of Dublin. But we did not cut out anybody — it is a mistake to think that. We cut out nobody. What we did was this: we said we would confine any future expansion to the five counties that were the main suppliers to the City of Dublin, namely, counties Wicklow, Kildare, Carlow, Meath and Dublin. Anybody living in these counties could go into the milk business, but anybody outside these counties could not go into it since 1936 unless he was a supplier before 1936. If he was a supplier, he was allowed to carry on; otherwise he could not come in. That gave security to these people in the five counties and encouragement to go into the milk business. As I say, they have slightly increased the supply of milk since then, but not a whole lot.

At the present time, the average consumption of milk in Dublin is 43,400 gallons. For the greater part of the year only 3,000 or 4,000 gallons come from creameries. But, for the scarce period, as it is called, that is, in January and February, we take every drop of milk we can get from any creamery in the country; yet there is a shortage. Senator Walsh said that if the farmers got a chance they would supply Dublin with sufficient milk. They are not able to supply Dublin with sufficient milk at the time we want it. We have circularised every creamery in the country for a supply of milk for that period. We have got all the milk they are prepared to give, but we have not got sufficient. If it were not for the fact that we had encouraged the farmers and producers in this area to go ahead, Dublin would be in a very bad way for milk. On the whole I think, therefore, that the setting up of the Dublin District Milk Board, the limitation of the area, and the encouragement which farmers were given, was a good arrangement from the point of view of the consumers in Dublin. Probably they would have got milk a little cheaper for, say, six or seven months of the year if there were no regulation of the business. But, on the other hand, they would have very much less for the winter months if it had not been done.

The Minister permits creamery milk generally to come into the City of Dublin during the months of January and February. During the present emergency, when there is, in fact, a considerable shortage in the supply of milk, due to the cow-keepers not being able to continue, will the Minister extend the facilities to creameries throughout the country for a longer period, say, for the months of November, December, January, February and March? That would encourage them to send a greater supply.

I would not like to answer off-hand for the Dublin District Milk Board. I am almost certain that the board will permit all the creameries to send in milk, if it is wanted. I was rather surprised to hear what Senator Hayes stated, that at the moment he is rationed, and that he cannot get any more milk from his supplier. I shall discuss that matter with the board. If there is any application from any wholesaler or retailer for more milk, I am sure the Board will try to get that milk, even if it necessitates going to creameries outside those registered. We are also prepared to register more creameries — that is, for an all-the-year-round supply — and we are getting some applications for that.

The Minister said he never heard about the 50,000 gallons of milk. That was submitted to the Department of Supplies in a statement in March last by, I think, the Dublin Milk Vendors' Association.

I will look into that. I never heard of that figure. I can certainly say that, when the board was set up, 38,000 gallons were returned for the purpose of levy.

That would almost bear out the argument about the 50,000.

Senator Walsh gave some figures for the upkeep of a cow. According to the figures, he was to keep this cow very well during the winter. I do not object to that; I think he is quite right. Any of us who buys an odd cow has the experience that, if you feed any cow well during the winter, and, of course, during the summer too, the average yield will not be 500 gallons per year, but 600 at least. Therefore, the cow mentioned by the Senator will have a yield of 600 gallons.

I give 12 lbs. of concentrates per day and it takes 1/2 lb. of concentrates to produce a gallon of milk. That was not excessive.

That was on the assumption that the cow was giving two or three gallons of milk per day.

She was a three-gallon cow.

Any cow which gives 300 gallons during the winter would certainly reach 600 gallons. No cow would give less, if she gave 300 during the winter. The only other point was that raised by Senator Hayes about a long-term policy. I agree with some Senators who spoke, that it is a great pity that this question of price should be raised here, because it has rather a disturbing effect on producers if they are led to think they are not getting what they should get. I am not referring now to Senator Baxter's motion or what he may think to be his duty, but, recently, whenever the Government fixes a price, whether for wheat, beet or anything else, somebody comes along with a motion asking for a little more. I have often thought over the question to see if we could get some sort of a tribunal to fix prices. It is not easy to do. We did set up a tribunal on a couple of occasions, but the tribunal's findings did not produce any satisfaction.

There is a committee sitting which is popularly referred to as the Postwar Planning Committee. It is composed, to a great extent, of experts, if you like. I was very much in favour of a committee of that kind because I wanted a committee that would have a knowledge, as far as one can, of the conditions in other countries and how these countries differ from ours, and so on, and also who would be in touch with war developments and what is going on in other places and, in addition, of course, who would have a knowledge of farming. I thought that particular type of committee would be the best, at least, to make a report. When we get this report and when the Government has considered it and when it comes before the Dáil and Seanad, then, of course, any amendments to the recommendations of the committee that may be thought wise will be made by both Houses. One report has been submitted by that committee already, on dairying, which has been considered in my Department. They will, in due course, I hope, submit reports on various other aspects of farming.

One question, for instance, asked here was about Denmark. Conditions in Denmark are probably quite different from conditions here. They have, for instance, 65 per cent. tillage. We find it difficult to go beyond 25 per cent. Whether it is that the climate and soil in Denmark are different from the soil here or that the mentality of the farmers in Denmark is different from the mentality of the farmers here, I do not know.

All these things have to be gone into, to see what can be done. I agree with Senator Hayes that there is nothing to be achieved by my Party saying that the Fine Gael Party are grass farmers or their saying that we are scutch-grass farmers, because that does not bring us anywhere. As I have often said in the Dáil and, I think, here also, on all the big fundamentals we can agree. We all agree that we want maximum production. We all agree that we want to remunerate the farmers properly. Our greatest hope was that we might till another 1,000,000 acres — I am talking about peace times, when the Fianna Fáil policy was adumbrated — in order to produce our own wheat and our own feeding stuffs. Even if we had achieved that 1,000,000 acres, there would still be 10,000,000 or 11,000,000 arable acres left under grass and there would not be many less cattle in the country. In fact, I think we used to argue that there would be no less cattle and I think that is probably true.

Some people, in talking about agriculture in this country, advocate more tillage, wheat growing and so on. Others advocate that we should concentrate more on milk production and so on. Others advocate that we should concentrate on the breeding of pedigree cattle. In the end, I think it will be found to be largely true that nearly every farmer in this country will remain a mixed farmer and, whether he has a little more or a little less tillage, or one more cow, he will be largely in the same position as he was before.

In conclusion, I do not think it would be possible to reconsider the price that is to be paid for milk for the coming year. Senator Baxter made one point that I forgot to deal with, that is, in regard to giving a higher price for the winter. He says there will be great disappointment when the farmers have to go back to the price of 10½d. on 1st April. As a matter of fact, up to about two or three years ago, it was the practice every year to give a higher winter price. For some years we tried to encourage winter dairying by giving a little better price during the winter. We are back to that now but the most we hope now, as a matter of fact, from the increased price during the winter is to get more liquid milk so that we will have enough liquid milk during the winter. We may not get more butter produced as a result of that increased price but it will have the effect of bringing us the liquid milk and, for that reason, I think it well to have that increased price during the winter. On the whole, I am afraid I cannot agree with Senator Baxter's motion.

I cannot express myself as very satisfied with the attitude of the House towards the motion. I feel that people like myself, Senator MacCabe and Senator Walsh, when we go outside this House, can only shrug our shoulders and say: "They do not know much about what is happening in the country after all". When the Minister tells us that all the milk suppliers in the country, creameries and all combined, can hardly supply enough milk for Dublin City in the period of the year when milk is short, it gives one some appreciation of how close we are to the danger point. If there is one statement out of all that has been said here to-day in regard to our position that can be regarded as a red signal of danger, it is that statement of the Minister's. No one pretends to argue that milk consumption is anything like adequate, either in town or country. That is an aspect of the case that I did not wish to introduce, but that is my view — that the milk consumption in the country as a whole is not at all adequate. A campaign with regard to the consumption of milk, production of milk, production of cleaner milk and all that, ought to be part of our policy for the immediate future.

But when Senator Hayes, in a very fair examination of the situation, Senator Hawkins, in a less fair way, and the Minister himself, express the desire that there ought to be some other way of dealing with this: that we should leave a question like this out of this Chamber altogether, and that we ought to have some tribunal to which we could go, I want to say that there is no time to set up a commission or to do anything about this. The dairy farmers are going to be out of their cows. There is going to be much less milk produced by them, and much less butter for the people of this country, and much less fat, by this time 12 months.

I did not go to the labour of preparing this motion and holding the Seanad here, and being here to-day, when there are plenty of things I could attend to at home, for the mere sake of saying what I have to say, but because I believe the situation is grave. The Minister has not attributed to me any desire except to do what is right. I think the Minister will agree with me that I was just before him in propositions in this House before, and I was turned down, on his advice, by a majority of the Seanad. As I said, before he came in to-day, in regard to fixing the prices for agricultural produce in the first instance, we were told it could not be done, and it was done.

Then, in regard to the price fixed for wheat, we were told it could not be raised, and it was raised. We were told that the price for beet could not be raised, and it was raised. We were told that the price for milk, butter and pigs could not be raised, and it was raised. This situation to-day is much more serious. People like Senator MacCabe, who is managing a creamery and who is chairman of a considerable concern in the County Cavan, where probably close on a third of the milk of the county is produced, and Senator T. Walsh and myself, who are rubbing shoulders with the agriculturists and doing the work, should know what the real situation is. With all respect to Senators who are concerned about the price of liquid milk in Dublin, I say you are not going to have the milk; you are not going to have the butter. If Senator Hayes tells the House that his dairyman, at whatever price he is paying — even 3/- a gallon — cannot give him his milk, an intelligent person like Senator Hayes must ask what is the reason. It was argued that there is no use giving farmers more for beet seeing what happened before: when they got the price for beet they changed over from potato growing to beet growing. There are 26,000 acres less under potatoes this year and there is that much higher under beet.

Would the Deputy not attribute that more to the fact that artificial manure was made available than to the increased price? I remember the year previous when certain people returned their contract when they found there was no artificial manure available.

The year previous?

You remember that the year previous they returned their contract because the price was not high enough. You may bet that the price, and perhaps the little bribe of the grain of sugar, was the main factor. The price is the dominant consideration. Every day, boys and girls, without permits or anything else, are stepping on trains and going off to the Six Counties. They are in communication with the authorities there. They get letters and all they have to do is to step on the train and they are gone from us. I have to go into the market for that labour against the people across the Border. The dairy farmer across the Border is sending his milk to the creamery — I do not know whether Senator T. Walsh is aware of this or not — and he is getting half-a-crown a gallon. He is not getting the separated milk back — all is taken away— but he is getting half-a-crown a gallon.

I have to go into the labour market and compete against those farmers, and so have the farmers of Kilkenny, Limerick and elsewhere to do the same thing. I know that the whole economy of the world is topsy-turvy, but surely the Minister must realise that people such as Senators Walsh, MacCabe and myself know what is happening in the country. Farmers down through the country do not bring in their animals to a fair or market merely for the purpose of having the calves suck them in the fair-green or the market-place. The idea, generally, is to send the milk to Dublin, and other cities and towns, and if, as a result of not giving a sufficient price for the milk, there is to be a decreased production of milk, to that extent there will be a decrease in the amount of butter production.

I think it was Senator Hawkins who made reference to Denmark. Now, I do not want to go into the question of the difference between the quantities of milk or butter produced in our dairy counties and that produced in Denmark. Everybody knows that in Denmark cattle are produced almost entirely for dairying purposes, and not for beef. I thought of a scheme by which it might be possible to keep tests of the production by dairying cows in our own country, but I do not know any way of encouraging that except by increasing the price paid to the farmers, so as to encourage them to go in for the 500- or 600-gallon cow. Are we certain that, if you increase the price of milk, you will increase the quantity of butter? It may be contended that that might start a sort of inflation process, but I think that if every effort is made to encourage the production of milk, that will automatically tend to bring down the price of milk to a reasonable level again, and I think that that aspect of the matter should not be lost sight of.

Now, with regard to our pig production: how is that to be increased, if we cannot increase the quantity of milk available all over the country? The pig, so to speak, is always hanging by the cow's tail, and if we cannot increase milk production, I do not see how we are going to supply a sufficient quantity of pigs, since milk plays a very important part in the rearing of pigs. So that, even if we were to maintain the price of milk at its present level, or to increase it to some extent, we would be able to do something in the way of encouraging more pig production. If we can produce a larger amount of milk, then there will be more production of pigs, in my opinion. I admit that this is a very big problem — probably bigger than I can explain to the House. I know that we can only discuss it in part and that, as a result, only an incomplete picture can be presented to the House, but I am putting these suggestions forward — particularly in the light of what has been said by Senators Walsh, MacCabe, and others — with a view to pointing out that what will always be the main consideration in the farmer's mind is the question of the price that he will get for his product; in other words, that price will be the determining factor in the production of these commodities.

That, of course, is a matter for the House to decide, but I think that that is what the Government should concentrate on. I admit that, at the moment, a state of emergency exists, and that men and women are hungry in this country. Thousands and thousands of them are not getting enough milk, but the object of this motion is to encourage the production of milk, and I do not see any way out of the impasse unless a better price is to be given to the producers. I feel — just as the Minister has found it necessary, perhaps belatedly, to accept our point of view in regard to this question of an increase of price to the producers— that such an increased price would be an encouragement towards the production of other commodities which we may find essential to our needs.

Motion put and declared lost.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

According to the decision come to by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, this will be the last meeting of the Seanad until after Christmas, and therefore I should like, on behalf of the Cathaoirleach and myself, in adjourning the House, to wish the members of the Seanad a happy Christmas.

The Seanad adjourned at 2 p.m., sine die.

Barr
Roinn