IRISH FREE STATE.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17886, 5 December 1929, Page 9

IRISH FREE STATE.

DAIRY PRODUCE. STATE REGULATION. (From a Correspondent.) DUBLIN, October 22. At the moment there is a distinct disposition for popular opinion to lean towards the school of laissez-faire, as distinct from that of State regulation. Recently the “free” creameries said so with no uncertain voice. JThese “free" creameries are some 25 per cent, of the whole who have refused to join the marketing pool. In some cases they are among the most progressive units in the co-operative movement, and they cling desperately to their independence. How. far in such matters it is wise to coerce and force the pace is a problem which bristles with difficulties. Only a few years ago it seemed —at least, to those in authority—so simple. It was argued that a few defaulters were corrupting the efficient and well-dlsposea mass; lorce them to rignt thinking and right doing and all would be well. On these lines the regulation of the egg, dairy, and livestock industry lias proceeded, and even the most optimistic are hardly satisfied with the results. In spite of two years’ rigid regulation and inspection Irish creamery butter is quoted at 15s a cwt below Danish and New Zealand, and the market price of Irish eggs does not reflect the distinct improvement in packing and grading. Even more significant is the fact that in certain districts the farmer who makes bad butter at home is satisfied, at least in ills own mind, that he is getting a better price than that paid for milk at the local creamery.

Roluctant Farmer. The Minister of Agriculture, who is a clever and energetic administrator, has seen the danger from the outset, and he has been ever intent upon the day when the State might relax its grasp and turn over the entire regulation of agriculture to the organised farmers. The difficulty, however, is that the farmers as a body are reluctant to agree or organise for their own needs, but they are ever ready to combine to criticise the Government. Mr Hogan may, therefore, have to continue to hold the baby for many years to come, and so long as he dr&s he will b c liable to be held to blamVf for misfortunes entirely beyond his own control; and, still worse, so long as the State keeps the structure together the farmers will be less inclined to shoulder the responsibility themselves.

The Denmark Example. A favourite argument among critics of rural Ireland is to point out the results achieved in other countries, notably Denmark and, in more recent years, Finland, and to ask blandly why Ireland cannot, do the same. The obvious answer is to be found in markedly differing national traits. But even accepting the very wrong assumption that all mankind is alike, the whole co-operative ouLloolc in Denmark and Ireland is different. In Denmark co-operation is a spiritual force. Its foundation was laid more than seventy years ago . by Bishop Grunlwig, and the nation, through its schools, and even its churches, has been taught to regard economic selfhelp as a public duly. On Ibis foundation, lias been built the more sordid superstructure of business and technical efficiency. The result is that the average Danish farmer has long since ceased lo question the ethics of cooperation. He accepts it almost as a religion, ho sends his produce to his local creamery or bacon factory with no vestige of suspicion, and in full and certain confidence lie will get all the market can afford. In the same way a retired fanner may render voluntary part-time service by collecting, marketing, and forwarding pigs to a local factory.

In Ireland this spirit is lacking, except among a few enthusiasts, most ol whom arc cither organisers, doctrinaires or men of leisure. The average co-operator is drawn into the movement by “cupboard love.’’ If all goes well lie is satisfied; he may even be proud of his society; but if things are untoward l.c will lapse readily into indifference or even opposition. 1 heard only recently of the case of a large farmer who was a director in a certain co-operative factory, and when asked why lie sent none or his own produce to that factory replied that he could not afford to do so. To a Danish farmer this would be unthinkable.

Feotlna Lento.

To the student of rural economics and political philosophy the position at the present moment in Ireland is one of interest. • It would probably be t.*;>.e to say that our theory is years in advance of our practice. It is very little use inspecting and coercing a small farmer to clean and purity bis cow byre if he himself Is living on the border-line of subsistence in a miserable hovel, on a dieL of bread and tea, and steeped in debt. The Minister would be wise, even ;f he may have to cut certain losses, to hasten the day when co-operation can return to its original beliefs, and farmers are made responsible ior the failure and success of their business. This does not mean that Ihe State shall remain a passive onlooker. It has plenty to do in its own determined sphere of education, but it should abstain from direct finance or control, and so escape responsibility for results.