86 Agriculture and the Communit}). 



desirable but absolutely necessary, and the nature of the 

 products makes it simple. Both countries developed co- 

 operation in an industry already in the hands of small 

 holders, and the small holders are able to survive because 

 co-operation was developed. 



We should have to start from the other end and create 

 the small holders. If we did so the small holders would 

 have to compete through their co-operative societies with 

 the co-operative societies of Denmark and Ireland and in 

 the same products. The competition would be intense and 

 unless there was a margin in favour of our small holders 

 either in cost of production, in cost of transit, or in quality 

 of produce the result would not be prosperity for the small 

 holders in this country. Unless the intention is to create 

 small holdings by heavy subsidies from the State I cannot 

 see how the cost of production can be less in this country. 

 It would be a very expensive business creating small 

 holdings. According to the Minister of Agriculture, in 

 presenting the Agricultural Estimates this year, the Gov- 

 ernment is finding that the provision of small holdings for 

 ex-service men is proving very costly. The policy now is 

 to restrict the expenditure on one holding to ;^2 5oo for 

 land and permanent equipment alone. He estimated that 

 40 per cent, of the cost would not be recovered from the 

 holders and would have to be borne by the state, and his 

 estimate is probably under the actual figure. Obviously, 

 that policy cannot be continued to the stage of creating 

 such a number of small holdings as will make co-operative 

 societies able tO' compete with the established traders of 

 Denmark and Ireland. But even the portion of the cost 

 falling on the small holders is enough to prevent any 



