On the last occasion on which this motion was before the House, the Minister suggested that it should be withdrawn because some time had elapsed since the motion was put on the Paper. I cannot hold with the Minister in that. Even though some time has elapsed and certain changes have taken place in the cost of production of milk, these changes have taken place without a corresponding increase in price. For that reason, I support the motion in its entirety and the Minister, if he were as sympathetic to the dairying industry as he so often professes to be, would have taken a different stand from that which he has taken.

A costings commission was set up quite a considerable time ago, but that body has not yet reported. Could the Minister, even at this stage, give us any indication as to when the report will be available, or if there is anyinformation available which he could give us before the report is furnished?

By March or early April.

We are supporting this motion because we believe the cost of production of milk is not at all in conformity with the price being paid, and one of the results is the alarming drop in the number of cows in the dairying districts. That is an established fact, according to figures which the Department has given. Deputy Finucane, when speaking on this motion, said that, in quite a number of cases, whole herds have been disposed of and farmers have gone over to some other method of farming, and that, in other cases, the herds have been reduced in numbers.

To pinpoint the cause of the trouble, I believe that, not alone in the dairying industry, but in other spheres of agriculture, the cause is that those engaged in agriculture are not being remunerated properly, and, secondly, the conditions in the industry are not as attractive as the corresponding conditions in industrial employment. These are the two principal causes of the flight from the land and we have just as much flight from the land in the dairying districts as we have in the non-dairying districts. In fact, I think I am safe in going so far as to say that we have even a greater flight from the dairying districts. Coupled with that, we have the drop in the average production per cow. In that regard, I want to ask the Minister to take the earliest opportunity in this House or outside it to make a statement on the 1925 Live-stock Breeding Act, because, since the passage of that Act, according to statistics, the average gallonage per cow has fallen.

The Deputy has said we have fewer cows and he now states we have less milk per cow. Yet, we have not had so much milk since 1935 as went to the creameries this year.

What does the Minister think of the 1925 Live-stock Breeding Act and the host of evils which it has brought in its train? If the Minister's figures are correct, one wonderswhy we had a milk strike here some time ago, and if the dairy farmers of the South of Ireland have gone mad or are they standing behind a racket of some kind? Is that what the Minister is trying to tell us? I do not believe that. I believe that the milk strike we had here last summer had a very good foundation and, knowing the dairy farmers as I do, I know that they will not be roused easily and will not follow a false lead. It was not for fun that they decided to stage that strike and to carry it on in the way they carried it on. The reason is that they were asking for a better price, and they have not yet got it.

The policy of the Government in regard to every phase of agriculture, dairying included, is a kind of stopgap policy. When an outcry of any kind is raised, the Government just throw something to stop it. That is not a reasonable or rational approach to the subject at all, and the net result of years of that type of Government action is showing up now. The Minister has said that we had more milk this year than in any year since 1935. If that be the case, why is it necessary to import 500 tons of foreign creamery butter? Why is it necessary to import any butter?

Because we are exporting more chocolate crumb, more condensed milk and more cheese.

And eating more margarine.

We are denying our own people our own butter, then. We are not converting our milk into butter for our own people, but we are sending it out in another guise and importing from the other ends of the earth 500 tons and 1,000 tons of creamery butter. I do not think that is good policy.

It is good business.

I do not think so. Without going deeply into the matter and taking it to small pieces, I do not believe it is good business. It is a very strange kind of good business. The first feature of good businessshould be the feeding of our own people first——

We are doing that.

——and then to export any surplus we have, but the Minister's policy seems to be to deny our people our own butter and to send it out in the guise of condensed milk, dried milk, chocolate crumb, and so on. I do not think that is good business. It cannot be.

During the week, the Tánaiste gave advice pretty much on the lines of that given by the Minister for Agriculture, that costs of production must be decreased. I should like the Tánaiste or the Minister to elaborate on that statement here, to give even a slight indication of how that can be effected. We would all like to reduce the costs of production in all branches of life— not in the dairying industry alone. Will the Minister take an early opportunity to tell us what exactly the Government mean by that and how they think the farmers as one section of the producing community could bring about that production?

The Government, in my opinion, seems to treat this whole question in a very cynical way, because, at the same time as the Tánaiste tells us to decrease the cost of production, the Government are increasing that cost of production to the farmer as fast as they possibly can. They have cut the agricultural grant; they have by a system of legislation increased the rates in every one of the Twenty Six Counties; and they have cut down on Local Authorities (Works) Act drainage. One of the first means of increasing production on the land, and particularly in dairying districts, is the drainage of the land for the dairy farmer. Drainage, as the Minister knows, is not a job that can be undertaken by an individual farmer. It can only be undertaken on a broad national scale. It is beyond the power of the average farmer to do drainage except in a small way.

They are doing more of it than was ever done before.

Does the Minister think that we are all stupid, including hisown supporters? How can there be more drainage with £400,000, the amount which the Government granted this year, as against the £2,000,000 granted during the last year of the inter-Party Government? What does the Minister mean by his statement?

We are spending £2,200,000 a year on drainage.

The Minister is speaking of arterial drainage.

He is talking about the Dillon scheme.

I am talking about my own scheme.

The Minister is mixing up three schemes and throwing the net produce of three schemes into one basket in an attempt to bamboozle the House.

Not at all.

The Minister will not get away with that. The Government has cut down from £1,900,000 to £400,000 on drainage. The land rehabilitation scheme on which by now should be spent £3,500,000 for the rehabilitation of land is now only getting £1,500,000. The Minister is content with that.

No.

We are dealing with milk prices.

I am discussing milk prices and the cost of production of milk.

You cannot go back to drainage, soil analysis and all the other things.

I submit that I am perfectly within the rules of order in talking about all the things the Government were responsible for which increased the cost of production of milk.

The Deputy cannot go into a detailed discussion on drainage on this motion.

A discussion on drainage, Sir——

Would take up the whole time.

I am not going into the question of administration.

The Deputy cannot discuss drainage in detail on a question of milk prices.

I submit I am perfectly in order——

The Deputy is not.

——to discuss——

I am not going to discuss the matter any further with the Deputy. My ruling is that he is not in order in discussing drainage. He should proceed to discuss milk prices.

We will turn to another matter. The price of every single thing that the dairy farmer buys has doubled and even trebled in price inside the last few years. I mentioned rates, and the cutting of the agricultural grant. Now we come to every single thing that is purchased by the dairy farmer, including medicines and chemicals. They are used to a very considerable extent on every dairy farm. The price of sacking materials has gone up. Wages have increased —although in that regard I want to say that wages are not by any means what we would like to see them even yet. They were brought to a fairly decent level during the period of office of the inter-Party Government, but they have remained stationary ever since.

No, they have not. They have gone up by 12/6.

They have not gone up any more than the old age pensions have gone up. The Government cannot clap their hands for that increase. The present rate of agricultural wages is not at a correct level even yet and as proof of that the dairy farmer is finding it increasingly difficult to get the requisite labour on his farm.

Even the price of the ordinary tools used by the farmer has doubled in price. Take the price of ploughs. I think there is a strong case at the present time for having an increase in the price of milk—a very strong case. In speaking on this matter last night, the Minister said that increased production was the solution to the whole problem. We would all like to see that.

We do not fix a price for milk but for butter.

That is just begging the question.

That is true.

That is a very different stand of the Minister for Agriculture from the stand he took in Kilkenny when he seconded a resolution that the farmers should get an increase to 2/-when the cost of production was not anything like it is to-day.

One and sixpence not 2/-. At that time the Government fixed a price for milk.

It is in black and white.

The Government fixed a price for milk at that time.

The present Minister seconded a resolution proposed by a Mr. O'Mahony——

For 1/6.

——that milk should be 2/-.

That is an exaggeration.

It is not, because I crossed swords with the Minister on that subject here during the course of the debate on his Estimate on one occasion and he denied it. Later I discovered that I was right and he was wrong.

Never right.

This thing of the Government fixing a price for butter is beside the question. If I were allowed, I could say a good deal about the price of butter but I do not intend to gointo that. I am keeping to the price of milk. The price of fertilisers has increased.

No.

Very much, indeed.

There is a tariff on them.

There is not.

Of course there is.

There is not.

Of course there is a tariff. In 1951 the price of fertilisers was £9 10s. per ton. What is the price this year? Could the Minister tell me where one could buy fertilisers at £9 10s. this year?

You could not buy them anywhere.

That is dishonest on the part of the Minister.

The Minister will not get away with that attitude. Just because he says a thing he tries to convince himself it is right. That attitude of allowing the principal industry of this country to go down the drain will not cut ice. That is what the Minister is at and what every member of the Government is at. Whistling past the graveyard, that is all the Minister is doing. Last night he told us that increased production was the solution of the whole problem. I would like to see production increased. At the very outset of my remarks I asked the Minister to give us his views some time in the near future on the Live-stock Breeding Act. Is it a fact that in pre-1925 days the average gallonage per cow was 700 and that to-day it is only in the region of 370 to 380 gallons? Is that so?

No.

What is it? What is the average gallonage?

Does the Minister know what it is?

I will make as good a guess as Deputy Blowick.

The Minister should not make guesses. He is one Deputy in this House who should not make guesses but ought to know well. He should give the House accurate information and not depend on guesses.

But when I am taking part in a guessing competition.

If the Minister says that the average gallonage per cow is not 370 or 380, would he tell us what it is?

That is a six-mark question for all the Minister.

It might be a 26-mark question for all the Minister knows about it. When he spoke in Kilkenny he advised the farmers to hold fast for 2/- at the time when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture.

Not 2/-.

In passing a resolution amongst the dairy farmers in Kilkenny, the Minister was engaged in the pleasant task of leading the farmers up the garden.

I gave them the 1/6.

You did not give them the 2/-.

I gave them the 1/6.

How many farmers to the Minister's own knowledge are getting 1/6 a gallon for their milk?

Very few. They are all getting 1/8.

Indeed, they are not.

That is just another of the Minister's misstatements.

Very few are getting 1/6, and the Minister knows it.

1/4.

Deputies should make themselves conversant with the price paid for milk at the present time before they come into this House.

The Minister asks farmers to face up to increased production.That means that the dairy farmers are to take off their coats and work hard so that by some means best known to themselves they may be able to get the cows to produce more with a higher butter content. At the same time the Minister and his colleagues are very busy cutting down on everything that would help to increase production, such as arterial drainage, the land rehabilitation scheme and the agricultural grant. I suppose the Minister will tell me the Government has increased the agricultural grant. Do, take a chance on it. One more misstatement from the Minister along with all the rest will not make much difference. He told us when all the electioneering was going on about the Bill that has just been introduced in the House but did not get a second reading.

We cannot discuss such Bills on this motion.

I thought we could discuss the causes of reduced milk prices.

I think I heard the Minister state he was going to discuss it to-morrow.

I now want to refer to Deputy J.J. Collins's speech of last Thursday night here. Deputy Collins seems to be taking a remarkable interest in Deputy Finucane coupled with an interest in the dairy farms in particular. We will see what stand Deputy Collins will take on this motion to-night.

He will probably do what the Deputy did in 1950.

He is conspicuous by his absence. Deputy Finucane wants nobody to defend him.

You voted against an increase in 1950.

He was conspicuous before by his absence when Deputy Finucane was particularly concerned about the price of milk. Deputy Finucane does not need Deputy Collins to defend him and if he did look forsomebody on that side of the House to defend him, I do not think he would choose that particular Deputy. I want to point out that the conditions affecting the dairying industry to-day are affecting every branch of agriculture by virtue of the Minister's bungling and mismanagement, not alone of the dairying branch, but of the whole industry.

Better prices and more production.

A better price for turkeys. I suppose the high prices the farmers are getting for turkeys now will mean——

The price of turkeys cannot be discussed on this motion.

The Minister introduced that, Sir.

I did not mention turkeys.

The Minister's acrobatics are certainly the cause of amusement, but the Minister might treat this motion a little bit seriously, as all the Deputies who have spoken so far have done. I was not aware it was the subject of a joke, and even if it were a joke I think the Minister at least should realise his responsibility and introduce a note of realism into it. He is the only Deputy in the House who is inclined to make a joke of the whole motion.

I did not mean to be discourteous.

The dairy farmers are not so foolish. We will see what their action will be when the next general election comes along. We will see whether they will be satisfied with the price of milk as it is. By that time the Minister will have completed a period in office and he will have to face his own constituency. No doubt many of the Deputies of his Party will be hearing things from the dairy farmers all over the South of Ireland. I am wondering will the Minister be inclined to make a joke on the priceof milk then as he is trying to do to-night. I do not think he will.

There is no joke being made.

This kind of stop-gap handling of the dairying industry is typical of their handling of every branch of the farming industry. There is no use in saying that there is more milk produced this year than ever before and at the same time announcing that 500 tons of butter have to be imported. That is not the way to handle the situation. The Minister will find the number of dairy farmers in the industry is dropping year by year. He will find that the number of herds are being reduced. The figures issued by the Minister's Department are all wrong, or does he stand over them?

You say the number of people engaged in dairying is falling?

Yes, and the number of herds are being reduced. Anyone who buys the southern newspapers and looks at the advertisements will see whole herds being sold out and not being replaced.

Who buys them?

Some of the canning factories. In 1952, there were 1,159,200 cows, a drop of over 40,000 cows in two years.

Did you get the in-calf heifers and add them to this?

No, I will not do that.

Complete the story.

In a year's time if the Minister can prove that in-calf heifers have added to the number of milch cows in the country I will accept his figures but not until then because we have no guarantee that all the in-calf heifers will ultimately find their way into the milk producing herds in creamery districts. The Minister knows that quite well.

Finally I want to make an appeal to the Minister even at this late hour to face up to the whole situation and put the dairying industry on its feet once and for all.

I have gone a good bit of the way.

The Minister has not done that.

You are importing more butter and margarine than ever.

It will cost some money to put the industry on its feet. I also want to point out that if the Minister's counterpart in Germany, in Japan, the United States, France or any other industrial country treated the principal industry of their country as the Minister is treating the principal industry of this country, they would be in the dock.

Apparently I am in the dock now.

In countries with responsible Ministers in charge of the most important industry in their country they stop at nothing to see that that industry is thriving. We see that in England the factories are regarded as of the utmost importance. The same applies to France and Germany. In this country we are told from every platform by everybody, even by people who know nothing about agriculture and would not have anything to do with it that agriculture is our principal industry. Yet the only thing the Government see fit to do is to increase the costs of production, to ask the farmer to work harder and by some magical means increase output while making it as difficult as they possibly can for him to effect that increase in output.

I want to tell the Minister without any political rancour or bias that if he does not face up to the situation very soon this country will consist of Dublin City, a few other big cities and towns and an absolutely uninhabited hinterland in between. That is the way the Government is treating what is supposed to be the thriving agricultural industry. I want to warn the Minister not to allow himself to be browbeaten as he must be by his colleagues, particularly the Minister for Finance, not to allow himself to be shoved about from post to pillar as he is. He is responsible for safeguarding our principal industry, and he is not doing it. The dairying branch is one example ofhow it is being let down. The Minister then comes into this House and tells us that butter must be imported. That situation cannot continue without serious repercussions on the economy of the country.

I would not like to have a surplus.

Deputy Cogan and Deputy Rooney rose.

Deputy Cogan.

I protest. This motion was put down in the names of Deputies Lehane, Finucane and Cogan. I have waited two hours for an opportunity to speak on it. On Thursday night last, Deputy J.J. Collins, in the course of his speech, said that he was speaking for Deputy Cogan. Now Deputy Cogan comes in to prevent other Deputies from speaking.

The Deputy is now chastising the Chair.

Deputy Rooney may not make a speech.

Deputy Cogan comes in to prevent a debate on this subject.

Is he not entitled to speak?

His Minister has already spoken and is he going to do any better than the Minister?

Cannot any Deputy speak on it?

I am calling on Deputy Cogan because his name appears on the Paper as one of the sponsors of the motion. Deputy Cogan.

I wish to point out that we have not a quorum.

Is there anything else wrong?

I wish to point out that there are many more Deputies in the House now than there were during the afternoon.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present.

I am sorry that the House has been deprived of hearing the words of wisdom that would have fallen from Deputy Rooney.

He is not here now.

We have heard a speech from Deputy Blowick and it is difficult to realise or imagine that he is the same person as the person who voted in this House in 1950. At that time the price of milk supplied to the creameries was 1/2 per gallon. To-day, it is 1/7 or perhaps more. Deputy Blowick voted against an increase in the price of milk when it was 1/2, and now when it is 1/7 or 1/8 he wants an increase on that. We had a statement from him about agriculture. I think that the greatest exhibition of acrimony that we have ever seen in this House was given by Deputy Blowick on this matter. I am prepared to ignore him and to ignore the antics of Deputy Rooney, and to treat this matter in a serious way.

This motion was put down as far back as November 1952. By its terms, it suggests that the findings of the Costings Commission might not be available for a very considerable time. That was one of the main objectives in putting it down, and it asked at the time for an interim increase pending the result of the costings inquiry. The sponsors of the motion at that time knew perfectly well that the costings investigation could not be completed within 12 months, because if you are carrying out an investigation into milk costings you must take a period of at least 12 months, since milk production is an all the year round operation. We knew at the time that it would be at least 12 months before the inquiry would have been completed, and that a further period would elapse before the findings of the commission could be presented. We have the position now when the costings will be available within a very short time. We also have the position that, since this motion was put down, an interim increase in the price of milk has been granted, so that the demands put forward in the motion have already been conceded.

That is the position as it stands atthe moment. As far as I am concerned, I think that this motion is completely out of date. That is a situation that can arise in regard to any motion. It was not the fault of the sponsors of the motion that the motion was not dealt with at an earlier date. That is due to the procedure of the House which provides that each motion must be taken in the order in which it is tabled. It must wait until it is reached on the Order Paper.

The position is that the very reasonable requests put forward in this motion more than 12 months ago have been conceded. The interim increase that we asked for has been granted, and the report of the Costings Tribunal will, it is expected, be delivered early in the New Year, before the milk-production season will have opened. Therefore, the position, as far as I can see it, is that there is not the case for this motion which we could have made for it if parliamentary procedure had allowed it to be taken in November, 1952.

A motion of this kind provides an opportunity for farmer-Deputies, and the House generally, to discuss the very grave question of dairying and milk production. I have no sympathy whatever with the viewpoint expressed by Deputy Blowick that it is wrong to export chocolate crumb at a remunerative price and to import butter at a lesser price. I think that is ordinary good business, and I do not see anything wrong with it. I think it would be much worse if we had the position to-day that we had some years ago, where we would have no exports of chocolate crumb at a remunerative price, and where we had to export surplus butter at a very unremunerative price, and then endeavour to relate that price to the cost of production here. I think that a sound policy in regard to dairying would be to try to avoid having any further surplus butter, by exporting it in some more remunerative form. That, of course, is difficult to do without running short in our own supply. Yet, ordinary common sense would indicate we could not endeavour to conduct the agricultural industry on the basis of exporting butter at prices that wouldnot go anywhere near covering the costs of production.

I am one of those who consistently over the years requested—and even demanded—the setting up of a costings investigation for the dairying industry. That demand was brutally turned down by the former Minister for Agriculture. It was treated in this House from time to time with scorn and ridicule, but if that costings investigation had been set up when it was demanded three years ago, we would have avoided a lot of trouble and unpleasantness in the dairying industry. However, the demand, as I say, was ruthlessly turned down, and I had to wait until the present Minister came into office to get this inquiry. To his credit be it said that almost immediately after taking office he set up this costings investigation. Also, immediately after taking office, he provided for an increase in the price of milk. That increase given in 1951 was supplemented by further increases last year, with the result that the farming community are getting 5d. a gallon more for their milk than they were when Deputy Blowick voted against a proposal to increase the price of milk.

I think those who have the interests of the dairying industry at heart and those who have the real interests of the national economy at heart should seek to secure a fair remuneration for those engaged in the dairying industry not so much by increases in prices now but by a reduction in production costs. I think that the time has come when there must be an all-out attack on production costs.

I think I agree with any Deputies who have questioned the whole question of breeding policy in regard to live stock in this State. I think it was the first Minister for Agriculture who introduced the Live-stock Breeding Act in 1925. But after going out of office, he had to warn his successors that that Act might do great harm to the dairying industry, and I think his warning has been justified to a considerable extent.

I think it is very difficult—perhaps it might be impossible—for the Department of Agriculture to impose a live-stockbreeding policy on the farming community. The farming community is a highly-intelligent and well-informed section of the community and I think we would do better, now that we have the A.I. system of live-stock breeding and since we have available to farmers the very best of all breeds of cattle, to leave it to the intelligence of the farmers to breed the best for their purposes and it would probably mean that the best type of cattle would be bred in the national interest.

I think it is foolish for people like Deputy O'Sullivan who in enumerating the various costings in regard to milk included the price of whiskey. I was under the impression that Deputy O'Sullivan used to imbibe another liquid from the bottle rather than whiskey. Of course, if you are to have freakish suggestions of that kind such as the increase in the price of whiskey and the fall in the price for maize, suggested as items which increased the cost of production, I think you will get nowhere. I hope the commission investigating costings will not adopt this absurd basis.

I was one of those who discussed at very great length with the promoters and organisers and those responsible for the milk stoppage in 1942——

I think the proposer of the motion should get some few minutes to reply.

What time does the debate finish?

10.30 p.m.

I will be very brief. I was going to make the suggestion that Deputy Blowick said the milk strike occurred in the summer. I never heard of the summer occurring in the month of January, but things like that do happen with Deputy Blowick. With regard to the stoppage, I found there was a general feeling that those engaged in the dairying industry and agriculture generally, should be consulted to a greater extent in regard to agricultural policy, and I found there was a demand for a national consultative council in regard to agriculture which would be representative of the various organisations engaged in agriculturalproduction and that they should have a fairly substantial voice in framing agricultural policy.

I think the Minister has indicated that it is his intention to set up a central body. He has already set up a number of consultative councils, but I think that the whole industry, so to speak, should be integrated into one national agricultural council which would survey every aspect of agricultural policy and see how it can be advanced and improved. Our main objective should be to bring down the cost of production, and I think by utilising modern means of breeding from the very best proven bulls the best type of live stock, and not having any fads and fancies in regard to particular breeds, by setting out deliberately to find and utilise the best for reproduction purposes, in that way, we can hope to bring down the cost of production and make the dairying industry more remunerative. I strongly recommend to the Minister that he should seek to have all agricultural organisations fully represented so as to give a truly representative body, and that he should take these people into consultation on all matters concerning the shaping of agricultural policy. It would be better if we could get away from Party strife and conflict on those matters.

I agree with Deputy Cogan in his desire to keep this debate divorced from Party feeling and Party spite and I suggest to the Minister and to the Opposition that Party force should not be imposed on any Deputy when he comes to vote on this motion.

The Minister has complained that this motion is outdated. That is not the fault of the proposers of the motion because the motion was put down at a time when this was a matter of general public importance and at that time the movers of the motion asked for an opportunity to discuss it but the Government did not see their way to facilitate them.

At column 1692 of the Official Report of 3rd December, 1953, the Minister, when speaking on this motion, pointed out that the Government do not fix aprice for milk. In the same column he also said:—

"We remember the price which was offered in Dungarvan—1/- per gallon.... When we came into office we rectified these things by giving an increase to the dairy people."

If, as the Minister says, his Government gave an increase when they came into office, then the Government have something to do with fixing the price of milk.

Not since last March.

In the next column, column 1693, the Minister stated:—

"It is conveniently forgotten that £1,500,000 went into the pockets of the dairy farmers."

Of course, no such thing happened. No £1,500,000 went into the pockets of the dairy farmers. What happened was that in 1951 there was the Dillon increase in the price of milk. After the election in 1951 there was the Walsh increase and this year there was the "strike" tuppence. But that money did not go into the pockets of the dairy farmers because at that particular time the costs of production were increasing very considerably. The cost of manufacturing butter was increasing. The Labour Court were awarding increases in salaries and wages to personnel employed in the creameries. There was an award in favour of creamery managers. The costs of boxes and cartons increased and all those increases have continued progressively. In addition to that, the farmers' production costs increased and many of these increases were the responsibility of the Minister and the Government.

I do not want to go over the points I made when moving this motion. I pointed out then that there were charges imposed on agricultural production which seriously affected the costs of milk production. I quoted a number of them. I was surprised to hear the Minister state, then, that that £1,500,000 went into the pockets of the dairy farmers. The Minister may say that if these increases in the price of milk had not been granted the milk producers would have got £1,500,000 less and they would nothave been compensated for some of the increased costs that have been imposed on them.

Again, at column 1693, the Minister gives as a solution the better breeding of cattle and the use of fertilisers. I give the Minister and the Department credit for establishing the A.I. centres and for accepting bulls that were described in this House as being of the "pekinese" breed. Simultaneously the Minister and the Department continued to enforce the Live-stock Breeding Act and the Minister knows, as well as I do, that the only bull that can be licensed at the ordinary licensing inspections is the bull with the beef characteristics. That has the effect of reducing the milk yield. There is no use in saying the farmer can reduce his costs by improving his breeding when the Minister and the Department stick to an out-of-date Live-stock Breeding Act.

The Minister has denied that there is a tax on fertilisers. There is a tariff on superphosphates and the Minister knows that that is so. Why then does the Minister say that there is no tax on fertilisers? The Minister has suggested that there are only two ways in which to deal with this matter. One is by increasing taxation and the other is by increasing the price of butter. I suggest that if the Minister would remove as far as he is concerned the factors that are hampering production and use his influence with the Government to get his colleagues to do likewise that would go a long way towards remedying the situation. Deputy Blowick was not quite right when he referred to the numbers of dairy cows. Actually the number of milch cows, while below the pre-war number, is higher now than at any time since 1939. The figure for 1939 was 1,260,200; in 1950 it was 1,208,500; in 1951 it was 1,189,400; in 1952 it was 1,159,300 and in 1953, it is 1,268,600.

The Minister has said that his actions do not affect the price of milk, but nevertheless the Minister is forcing milk into butter production, and he maintains that it is the price of butter that governs the price of milk.He is compelling milk to be turned into butter when it could be turned into a more profitable product. I want to quote now from the Farmers' Journalof November 21st, 1953. In the leading article it is stated:—

"A firm with an extensive British and world trade in cream, chocolate, condensed milk, etc., has established a milk factory in Letterkenny. The farmers of the locality have formed a co-op. to provide milk for this factory. So far so good, and the factory has done well in the manufacture of condensed milk. Now, however, the Department of Agriculture has refused them a licence to produce tinned cream and to produce chocolate crumb. The co-op. supplying milk to the factory has been warned that if milk is received from shareholders in certain localities its licence will be withdrawn."

That is not true. This is a proprietary concern coming in to do a job that should be done by the co-operative creameries.

I suggest that milk is being forced into the production of butter and prevented from being used to manufacture a product that will enable an economic price to be paid for it. The same thing is happening in other creameries.

I would like to remind the Deputy that this is not a co-operative creamery.

Take Mitchelstown Creamery; they must turn so much milk into butter.

No, that is wrong.

And the only milk that can be turned into other products is that which was normally converted into cheese in previous years.

No.

We have heard a great deal about food prices. The published figures of world food prices show that we are considerably lower in the matter of food prices than other countries. In the spring of 1952 weimported £2,000,000 worth of butter. In the spring of 1953 we imported £1,750,000 worth of butter.

And have exported about £5,000,000 worth of chocolate crumb.

We are exporting thepeople from the countryside and we are importing butter. It would be much better to produce that £2,000,000 worth of butter within the country instead of importing it and exporting the money to purchase it.