Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 8

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 43.—MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.

That a sum, not exceeding £225,743, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture of certain Services administered by that Ministry, including Sundry Grants in Aid.

Vote 43 includes some items for technical instruction, and as these items are very few, with a view to saving possible confusion I had better tick off those items for the benefit of Deputies. There are only six items altogether. Under sub-head (a), £25,950 for technical instruction, was out of a sum of £144,000 mentioned. £25,950 is for technical instruction. That is page 143. Under sub-head (b) £4,500 should be appropriated to technical instruction. Under sub-head (d) £215. Under sub-head (d) (1) £320. Under sub-head (f) (1) there is a pretty substantial amount of £73,420. The whole sub-head (f) (2), towards scholarships, is £900. That is a total of £105,305. If Deputies will subtract £105,000 from £380,470, they will get the gross figure for agriculture, which is £275,470. Deputies will remember when considering this Estimate that the total of £380,775, set out on page 144, includes £105,305 for technical instruction, and that the real gross figure for agriculture is £275,470. Appropriations in Aid are £30,932, or rather the amount is £31,032, of which £100 should be properly appropriated to technical instruction. So far as agriculture is concerned, the proper appropriation is £30,132. £244,532 is the net figure for agriculture. Deputies will note that there are really only six items, and only two substantial items, namely, (a) and (f) (1), which may be appropriated to technical instruction, and these can be discussed on Vote 44, Science and Art.

Are you passing on to Vote 44 now?

No, we are dealing with Vote 43.

I beg to move that the salary of the Minister be reduced by £100.

I cannot take the amendment at this stage; the Vote has not been proposed yet.

I was under the impression that you were passing from Estimate 43 to Estimate 44. You will excuse my inexperience.

Mr. HOGAN

There is an item on Vote 44, £10,215 for the Botanic Gardens. That is the total amount. It comes from very few sub-heads—(a) (1) £9,260, (a) (2) Travelling £40, (a) (3) £25 and (a) (9) £890. The total is £10,215. That is the cost of the Botanic Gardens. I hope it will be included by the next Minister for Agriculture in the Agricultural Vote. There are a few items on which I wish to comment. One is (h) (4). Deputies will notice that the amount voted for 1924-25 is £12,906 as against £13,440 in 1923-24. I wish to explain at this stage that the Vote is to be supplemented by £2,000 payable from the Endowment Fund. From that there will be £14,906, practically £15,000 spent this year and that does not include any of the cost of the Dairy Bill I also wish to comment on (h) (1) live stock. The Grant in aid of the Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account of the General Cattle Diseases Fund was £500. That is the total vote. That will pay for the first few cattle that will get foot and mouth disease in this country, and as the law stands at present if £5,000,000 worth of cattle were slaughtered in this country because they suffered from foot and mouth disease the Treasury should pay. I want to make that clear that that is the position until the law is changed, and moreover that is the intention. Under (g) (1) Agricultural Education Research is £30,400 as against £36,700 last year.

That £36,700 is, in effect, really a book-keeping entry, because at the very beginning of the year it was clear that £5,000 would be deducted from it. The £36,700 was made up as follows:— Grants to County Committees of Agriculture, £25,000; salaries of itinerant instructors, £9,700; grants to Universities for teaching agriculture, £2,000. The County Committees of Agriculture get their grants from us on a most involved basis. First of all, a certain sum is set aside for each county. That is its quota, after making an elaborate calculation on the basis of population, poor law valuation, the number of milch cows, and so on. That sum was reduced last year to £20,000, so that there was a reduction of £5,000. There was also a reduction last year in item No. 2, which is £9,700, of £800. The item, Grants to Universities for teaching agriculture, £2,000, is the same as last year. If you deduct those two sums, £5,000 plus £800, you practically reduce last year's figures to £30,700. as against £30,400. It is proposed to pay a certain amount from the Endowment Fund, leaving the item this year under sub-head (i) the same as last year. I said this was for agricultural education and research, so that Deputies will note our ideas of agricultural education and research. Money spent in that way on instructors and grants to Universities, could be discussed only in connection with the Science and Art Vote. Properly speaking, that is not research, and we are well aware that more money must be spent on agricultural education, and spent in other directions, particularly in the Universities. Deputies can discuss the merits of this question of agricultural education and research, and can only discuss it intelligently, by having full cognisance of our proposals in connection with the College of Science. These proposals will come up under Vote 44. That is all I propose to say in explanation of this item at this stage.

I beg formally to move the vote.

I beg to move that the Minister's salary be reduced by £100 in order to call attention to some matters.

The Deputy cannot move that amendment.

Is it not within the right of the Deputy to move a reduction in some of the items that come under this Vote in order to do what he seeks?

Yes, the Deputy has an opportunity of discussing each sub-head in the Vote and proposing that the sum be reduced. Article 59 of the Constitution says:—

"Ministers shall receive such remuneration as may from time to time be prescribed by law, but the remuneration of any Minister shall not be diminished during his term of office,"

therefore, the Deputy cannot move to reduce the Minister's salary.

I propose that a couple of thousand pounds be taken off the Technical Education Vote.

The Deputy can discuss the matter without formally moving a reduction in the Vote.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the disparity in the amounts, £160,000 spent on technical education, while only £2,568 is spent on the Royal Veterinary College. That £2,568 represents an increase of £90 over what was spent in 1923-24. The disparity between the two sums seems a big one. £2,568 seems a very small amount to spend on the Veterinary College, in a country like Ireland, where the industry is so important. Under sub-head 46, for the Veterinary Research Laboratory, there is £1,400 for 1924-25, and in 1923-24 there was £3,000 spent. These are items that I would bring under the notice of the Minister, not exactly in a critical manner, but more in the way of having an interchange of views on the subject. I look on the Veterinary College and the Veterinary Research Laboratory as two most important matters in connection with the administration of his Department, and these sums that are spent on them, look very small as compared with almost £160,000 spent on technical education. I hope that the Minister will give us a satisfactory explanation as to why these small sums are given for such important matters, while £160,000 is spent on this matter of technical education. The next matter I wish to refer to is the question of the issuing of processes for Land Commission payments by the State solicitors.

That matter does not arise on the Vote at all.

The Deputy can raise this on the Land Commission Vote, which I hope we will reach this week.

Lest the Minister might be alarmed I want to assure him that I am not going to follow the steps of Deputy White in moving a reduction of either his salary or of the general Vote, because if £1,700 a year is a fit and proper salary for a Minister I believe that the Minister for Agriculture is deserving of that amount because I believe he works hard and earns it as well as any other Minister. I want to draw the attention of Deputies, and of the Minister in particular, to a matter which I endeavoured to get satisfaction upon during the discussions of the Estimates for the last couple of years, and that is the huge amount of barley and malt that is imported to the detriment of the people who are engaged in the agricultural industry, and particularly those in certain counties who have to rely upon the growing of barley for the principal source of their revenue. I have not got at my disposal, nor have I been able to get, although I tried, all the figures I would like to give the Dáil, but in 1923, the amount of raw barley imported into the Saorstát represented 105,920 barrels, or equal to an acreage, taking the average yield of barley for the past couple of seasons, of 7,100 Irish acres. That is barley imported from foreign countries. The number of barrels imported from cross-Channel was 11,840 barrels, equal to the yield of 720 Irish acres. In regard to malt the imports represented 134,970 barrels from foreign countries, equal to a yield of 9,000 Irish acres, and from cross-Channel in 1922, 433,320 barrels of malt were imported, equal to 29,000 Irish acres. In the case of oats the position is not quite so serious, I presume. The number of barrels imported in 1923 was 75,000, equal to the produce, on an average year's yield, of 5,000 Irish acres. Now I claim in this matter to express the views of the people of a constituency which is a barley-growing one, and this is a matter in which agricultural labourers are deeply concerned.

I claim to express the views of the majority of people affected in that constituency who have to rely almost entirely on the revenue that they derive from the growing of barley. I have received deputations both from farmers and brewers in the area, and the brewers are as much affected as the barley growers themselves. I am assured, for instance, in the case of one small brewery that is in the area that I represent in the County Leix, that three years ago they were asked to buy 30,000 barrels by Guinness & Co. This year, I am told from the same source, they only expect to purchase 12,000. I make that point to show that the increase in the number of barrels imported is the cause of the decrease in the amount which these people are asked to buy from the local farmers to supply Messrs. Guinness & Co. I am not sure whether the Minister will admit this point or not, but it was expected that last year a higher price would have been paid by Guinness & Co., who controlled the market in this matter, for barley that they bought from the Irish farmer than they actually did pay. I am told that even though the price was low last year, there is a likelihood that the price this year will be much lower. I say that if any attempt is to be made by the Government and by the Minister for Agriculture, who in this matter is primarily responsible for the policy of the Government, to put the agricultural industry on its feet, some steps must be taken immediately to see that something is done to help the farmers who are in the position that I have put before him. Counties like Leix, Offaly and Wexford are mostly affected. I know that the farmers of these areas are in a very bad way, and that another bad year will be the last through which they can carry on. In other words, I can see quite plainly that a number of farmers who, in some cases have increased their acreage under barley this year to the extent of 15 per cent., if they do not get a better price for the barley this year, will be absolutely driven out of the business.

On previous occasions here I have advocated a tariff on imported barley as the only remedy for the situation. I know that the Minister will tell me that the effect of that will be to increase the price of bacon to the Irish farmers themselves As far as I know, and I am not quite certain that the situation has altered in the last five or six years, the average Irish farmer and the labourers whom he employs are not fed upon Irish bacon, but mostly on American bacon, and I think that the figures of the imports in regard to that particular commodity will bear out what I say.

Therefore, if the farmers themselves and those whom they employ are fed on American bacon as against Irish bacon, I fail to see what bad effect a tariff on imported barley would have on the price of bacon in this country. The Minister may have good reasons to advance against the remedy which I think is the only one to stop the import of barley to the extent that it is being imported, and being imported in an increasing degree for the past number of years. Guinness and Co.—and this is acknowledged—both in the malting industry and in the production of beer and stout are making profits that could not be justified in any country in the world, and I think that the least that might be expected from those who control the barley industry, or who control the prices, is a fair and reasonable profit to the people who produced the barley. If they are not prepared to do that, and by doing so to keep on their feet the people who have to rely on this as the only source of their revenue, it is the duty of the Government, as a last resort, to take the matter in hands themselves, to face it courageously and say that the only remedy is a tariff on barley. I would like to hear the views of those who claim to represent the farmers. I am sorry that Deputy Gorey is absent. Although he does not represent a barley-growing county, if he claims to be the leader of the Farmers' Party in the Dáil, it is up to him to say what is his remedy for the situation that exists. If he is not in favour of a protective tariff against imported barley, then he should tell the Minister what his remedy for the situation is. Unfortunately, there is no direct representative of the farmers from the constituency of Leix and Offaly. I do not know what the cause of that is——

A DEPUTY

You are the cause.

——but I do know this, that a very honourable member of that organisation opposed me in the last election, and I am not going to claim to speak for him. But I do know that he stumped the constituency advocating a protective tariff on barley.

A DEPUTY

That is why he was beaten.

No, it is not. I advocated it for the same reason, and I am here in this matter expressing the views of the small farmers particularly.

You are not here as a farmers' representative.

I claimed in the last election—I dare say that Deputy Heffernan will not contradict it, but at least he can make inquiries, if he has any doubts—that the vast majority of the small farmers in Leix, and those were all I asked, supported me. This is not a matter that affects the small farmers particularly. It also affects agricultural labourers, who in a great many cases are dependent on the farmer getting a good price for his produce. If the small farmer is not able to survive then he cannot employ labour, or if he does he cannot give them a living wage. This is not a matter that may be looked upon purely from a farmer's or a labourer's point of view, and I put it in all seriousness to the substitute leader of the Farmers' Party while the leader is absent, that he should take the place of the leader in this matter and state definitely and frankly to the Dáil what his view of the situation is, what the remedy to be applied should be, and if he is not in favour of a protective tariff to tell the Minister on this occasion quite frankly what is the farmers' remedy for the situation that undoubtedly exists to-day and which, if allowed to go on in the way I have stated, will undoubtedly bring ruin to the people engaged in the production of barley in this country.

I am quite in agreement with a good deal of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Davin. If the markets for barley are to go on the way they have been going on for the past year, they will drive the people engaged in that industry out of business altogether. In the county which I represent there is a considerable quantity of barley grown. It is one of the staple products they have, and I know from experience that if these men do not get a price sufficient to pay them for the growing of that crop, they will have to cease growing it. Deputy Davin has touched upon one point, and that is the profits this combine in Dublin is making. If they can make excessive profits, I think at least some of these profits should go to the people who produce the raw material for that industry. I do not know whether it would be a good thing to put a protective duty on barley, but, at the same time, if the people who are making excessive profits out of the farmers of the country generally do not give them a fair price for their produce, the Government will have, in the end, to put on a duty that will save the people of the country from ruin.

There are so many advocates of the farmers that I think it is useless for anybody who speaks as a Farmers' Deputy to get up at all.

I want to remind the Deputy that I am speaking here as a farmer.

Thank you. I am not going to wade into the question of Free Trade and Protection. I think that is a matter which will be debated at its proper time. I am going to refer generally to the Vote for Agriculture. We are spending this year, according to the Estimates, £32,000,000 on services, and the Minister is satisfied with £275,000 out of this £32,000,000 as the amount of money which is needed for the development of agriculture. Now, on the face of it, there is something wrong. He places all his cards on the development of milk production, and his Estimates to-day are £500 less than last year, and they are half of the amount which the Government of Northern Ireland can afford to develop cow-testing in the Six Counties. We will say the Minister of Finance is not omnipotent and that he has not the power. Has he come down here to the Dáil, to which he is directly responsible, and asked them if they are willing to increase that amount or not?

He is not in agreement, then, with the development of that line. I heard him specifying on several occasions that if there is to be any development it must be development of the milch cow, and yet out of £32,000,000 his estimate is only £275,000, and the dairy cow is cut to the extent of £500. £30,000 is allocated for research. It means that that money will be spent by the various bodies, £9,000 of which is for itinerant instruction. How they are passing their time I do not know, but results there are not. I believe that the reorganisation of the Department of Agriculture, which was promised two years ago, and which is still being reorganised, should be effected by now. I believe that in the Governor-General's speech it was stated that various schemes and various Bills were to be brought forward, post haste, and here we are, at the end of the session, and not one of the Bills necessary for the development of agriculture has been passed. We are only in the Committee Stage of the Dairy Produce Bill. We have heard nothing about the registration of cattle this year, and the Eggs Bill has been merely introduced. There is the quota of legislation for this country, which is an agricultural country, and that is all that our Department of Agriculture has been able to put before us. I am inclined, with Deputy White, to move a reduction of this Vote. I am inclined to point out the necessity for a reduction of it, and that is the only way we can make a protest. We have been too long waiting for results. We are getting no results. Sufficient attention is not being paid to agriculture. I do not quite follow Deputy Davin on the question of the barley tax.

What is your remedy?

The Minister could give a subsidy for barley. He could make a price for barley. The State is big enough to say to these men: "Fix a price for your barley." We know the extent the country is dependent upon Guinness. We know that Guinness's profits are made not in Ireland, but that their market is abroad. We know that the profits they receive are derived largely from abroad, and that if the price is increased these profits will diminish, and they will be beaten out of the foreign markets. I may say that I am not in agreement with some of my confreres on this point. It is a very knotty point. The barley counties want a tax, and the people who do not grow barley do not want a tax. That is the position, and the result is we are getting nothing. I believe help, in the way of a subsidy can be given, and my opinion is we cannot do so much in the way of taxation as we would do by giving a fixed price—if we could fix the price—of barley.

In order to place myself in order I move that Vote (a) be referred back for reconsideration.

On a point of order, I am rather uncertain as to what Deputy Wilson wishes to do. Does he wish to reduce the Vote or to increase it?

He moves to refer the Vote back for reconsideration.

I may say I am in agreement with Deputy Davin in the statement he made in regard to barley growing in the country. Perhaps Deputies do not realise the importance of that industry and how it affects different areas in the Saorstát. In the County Kildare, as well as in Leix and the adjoining county, barley is grown very extensively. I have a better knowledge of Kildare—and in South Kildare——

It would be better if Deputy Conlan confined himself to sub-head (a), which deals with salaries and allowances, as this is to be referred back.

Cannot the Deputy deal with barley unless barley is mentioned under one of the sub-heads?

When an amendment is moved to a Motion the amendment must first be disposed of. The question dealt with by Deputy Conlan would be in order later.

One of the reasons I agree with the amendment is because nothing is done to protect the barley growing industry.

On a point of order, may I ask does the Deputy mean to increase the salaries under sub-head (a) or to reduce these salaries? There is nothing under sub-head (a) except salaries down to that of an extra-clerical assistant, and, I submit, it would be better we should know what the amendment really is, whether it is going to increase salaries or to reduce them. They are all salaries under sub-head (a).

I submit that Deputy Wilson's amendment is to increase the total Vote.

I would like to know the terms of the amendment.

The amendment is only following out the Standing Orders, when dissatisfaction is expressed on the subject of any Vote that it should be referred back for reconsideration.

The whole Vote?

An item of any Vote.

Let me explain what it means.

The amendment is quite clear.

As I was endeavouring to explain, in South Kildare the land is altogether tillage land not suited for grass growing, with the result that it is mostly in tillage, and the farmers have to rely altogether on the barley crop.

I am quite serious about my point of order. I want to know what is the amendment? Are we discussing a sub-head only or the entire Vote? It seems to me we are wasting time and I want to know where we are.

It should be quite clear to Deputies that the amendment is to refer back for reconsideration sub-head (a), which includes salaries, wages and allowances.

Perhaps I had better explain my amendment. I expressed great dissatisfaction at the regime carried on by the Agricultural Department, and in order to show that expression of dissatisfaction I want this Vote referred back in order that it may be reconsidered and by doing so to show that we will no longer agree to the methods that appertain in that department.

Does the Deputy want the whole Vote referred back or is it simply the item under sub-head (a) he wants referred back?

I think the better way is to refer the whole Vote back, but my amendment means to refer back Vote (a).

On the point of order, the amendment has no reference to (a), (b) or (c). It has reference to a certain sum of money and I submit an amendment to refer the Vote back for reconsideration is quite in order, and has been accepted hitherto as the only method by which general dissatisfaction with the conduct of a department can be discussed apart from (a), (b), (c) or (d), because we are precluded from moving a reduction in the salary of the Minister. This method has been adopted by general agreement by the Committee on Procedure and accepted in the House, instead of moving to refer back specific items. We cannot, under the Constitution, move to reduce the salary of a Minister, for which, no doubt, the Ministers are greatly relieved, but we have adopted this method of moving to refer the whole Vote back for reconsideration with a view to increase.

What is the amendment?

That the Estimates be referred back for reconsideration.

That is the whole Vote?

Then we know where we are.

May I ask Deputies if they have further points of order to raise them now, before I go on with my speech.

As I was saying, barley growing is a great tillage crop in parts of the country and if the growing of it becomes profitless the area under tillage will go out of cultivation. The farmers will be ruined, and as a consequence the labourers. The farmers will be put into such a state that no Land Commission annuities will be derivable from them. The present position is, that for the last two years farmers have been growing barley at a dead loss. They have been paying certain wages to their labourers. I do not say that they have been paying them too much. In fact a good many farmers wish they were in the position to pay the men more. At the other end of this situation you have the monopolist making a profit of £13,000,000 a year on the manufacture of beer from barley. He charges the consumer an exorbitant rate for the drink he manufactures. The position then is that the farmer is producing barley at a loss, the labourer is barely paid a sufficient wage and the middleman is making a huge profit. I may say that several of my colleagues do not share my view on this subject. The reason for that is that they are living in parts of the country where barley growing is of no importance. Apart from that, I think their point of view must have changed recently because we had the Government bringing in and passing a measure for protecting certain articles without giving the farmer any corresponding advantage. I think it is only fair that we should claim now that one of the most important branches of our industry should get some protection or some subsidy from the Government. I therefore support Deputy Wilson's amendment.

Perhaps this would be a good time for me to raise the question as to when the Minister for Agriculture will be in a position to try and get the Land Commissioners into proper working order, so that the terms of the recent Land Act may be fulfilled.

That is a matter that can be raised on the Land Commission Vote.

I do not agree with Deputy Wilson in having this Vote referred back, and I intend to vote against it. If we require good and efficient service it is necesary that we should pay the people who possess the qualifications to render the service. I do not agree with the idea that we should not pay a man a salary of £1,000 a year. I am certain that Deputy Wilson's amendment is not moved for the purpose of increasing the salary of the Minister or of anybody else, but with a view to decreasing their salaries.

On a point of order, I desire to point out that Deputy Wilson, in moving the amendment, did not draw attention to the salary of the Minister at all. His arguments were directed at the policy of the Government, and I suggest that Deputy Lyons ought to confine himself to that question and not be dragging something into the amendment that is not there.

I quite realise Deputy Gorey's point. It is a well-known fact, however, that there has been circulated throughout the Saorstát by all classes of people that, to repeat the phrase used, "the people in big jobs up here in Dublin do nothing at all for the salaries they receive." I feel certain that the amendment is put down only for one purpose, and that is to reduce salaries and wages. I am in agreement with Deputy Wilson to this extent, that some of the work done under the Ministry is not at all satisfactory. In some directions they have not given the necessary protection at all. I suggest that if it is necessary to protect barley, it is equally necessary to protect wheat. To give protection to one particular commodity results in increasing the cost of living on some other section of the community. If protection is to be given to barley, I think the Farmers' Party should seek protection for wheat. I agree with protection if it helps to bring down the cost of living, but I do not agree with the protection that we had some time ago, because it was only given to two or three articles and resulted in raising the cost of living on those who did not come directly under the protection that was then given. The same thing, I fear, will result if protection is given to barley. Deputy Wilson referred to Guinness as the only person who was making huge profits. I would ask the Deputy to remember that Guinness employs a huge number of workers, and perhaps some day soon the Dáil may be considering a Bill in order to knock some of these people out of employment. If protection for barley means a reduction in the price paid for the liquor made from the barley, then I am for protection. The only nourishment that a working man can get at the end of a hard week is a bottle of stout or a pint of porter, and I am certainly not in favour of anything that would tend to increase the price of that. I was very glad to hear Deputy Conlan say that the wages the farmers were paying the labourers were not sufficient.

What I said was that I wished the farmers were in a position to pay their labourers more.

I can asure you that there are more Deputies than the Deputies on the Farmers' Benches who would be glad to be in a position to pay more to their workers. I am sure that if they did pay more to the labourers they would be able to make more profit for themselves. I am against this amendment, and if a division is challenged on it I will vote against it. I desire to say, in conclusion, that I hope the Minister for Agriculture will soon be able to do something with regard to a division of the ranches that we have in the country, so that the position of the uneconomic holder may be rendered economic.

I do not agree with some statement made by the last Deputy. He said that there were people filling big jobs in Dublin, drawing large salaries and doing nothing for them. I believe that the Minister for Agriculture is the hardest-worked and worst-paid man in the whole Cabinet—

On a point of explanation, I did not say that. What I said was that that was what was said through the country. I did not say that I thought so. But that is the talk that is going on in the country amongst the farmers and others.

I know that the Minister for Agriculture is well able to defend himself and defend his salary. At the same time, in the hope that when my proposals and suggestions come before him I will get a bit of sympathy, I think it well to pay him that compliment. Under the heading of H (2), page 144, there is an item of £2,500, "Tuberculosis in Cattle." I do not understand what that means. Does it mean compensation for the slaughter of cattle suffering from tuberculosis?

I notice that £3,000 was paid the previous year. That is a reduction of £500 in this year.

When this amendment is disposed of the Deputy can raise any question he wishes on the sub-heads.

Does not that come under the sub-heads?

It is part of the general policy of the Department.

The amendment is that the estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

On the question that that £2,500 be referred back for consideration it comes in, because the chances are that he did not pay enough to the owners of the slaughtered cattle. I consider that there should be a higher valuation for the cattle that will be slaughtered in the coming year. That comes under the amendment. I think I have already drawn the attention of the Minister to the starving of the Royal Veterinary College. That college is a most important factor in a country like ours, where agriculture is the staple industry, the industry that everybody is living on. Even Guinness is living and making profits on agriculture. There is a sum of £160,000 for technical education, and £2,568 is appropriated for the Veterinary College. It is almost a scandal, that only £2,568 should be spent in one year on the Veterinary College.

It is one of the most important colleges, and veterinary science is one of the most important professions at present in this or any other agricultural country. I would specially draw attention of the Minister to that and suggest that at least £10,000 should be spent on the equipment of the college and payment of the professors and other matters connected with veterinary research. Even that would not be sufficient. I would go farther and ask that as much as £20,000 or £25,000 should be spent on the veterinary college, because it is the most important subject in the country, and more attention should be devoted to it. As a matter of fact, I maintain that a Co. Council scholarship in every county should be earmarked for a boy intended for the veterinary profession, so as to enable boys of humble parents to get a chance of joining this great profession.

When I looked at this Vote first, and when I saw money for the service of the Ministry of Lands and Agriculture, I thought it was a misnomer. But on second thoughts, which are always best, I understood at once it was a vote really for the salary of the Minister and for the "Department of Agriculture," as heretofore known. It was not in the main inaccurate, and this money is really for the service of the Department of Agriculture. In it, I think it is right to criticise both. At the outset, I realise perfectly well that the Ministry of Agriculture can do very great things for agriculture. But, at the same time, I must say that I feel very strongly that agriculture must be saved by the persons engaged in the industry in the primary sense, and that it is only in a remote and secondary sense it can be assisted by the Ministry. All that the Ministry can do is to provide educational facilities for the agrarian community. That is the great work and chief function of the Ministry of Agriculture. Unfortunately, owing to the very low state of primary education, notwithstanding the very great efforts and the wholehearted earnestness of the agricultural instructors down the country, I am afraid only very poor results have been produced. That is not, I repeat, due to any want of effort on their part, but it is mainly and chiefly due to the low standard of education, and to the apathy of the people.

The agrarian community, I regret to say, have not taken to heart the need for improving their business. It is a regrettable thing to say, but it is undoubtedly true. I for one do not believe in shirking the truth. They have not adopted business methods, and while they remain so, and while they are content with that position, they can only expect to remain in poverty. It has been put up here that protection might be of some service to the farming community. Speaking in the abstract, personally I favour Protection, but it must be complete Protection. It must not be a one-sided measure, same as we were favoured with recently. I am wondering what would the effect of Protection on barley be. I can see very well that it would be a temporary advantage to those people engaged in barley growing. But, then, when you consider the implications, what will the results and the reactions of the measure be?

resumed the Chair.

At first the barley growers will get an increased price for their barley. But the question is—Will they retain their markets? It is true, if you put 15 per cent. duty on imported barley in the country, it will raise the price of Irish barley, but what will the effect of such a measure be on the maltsters here? They may have to buy for a season in the home market. But might it just not happen that the malsters might shut down business? Remember that Guinness is the chief buyer of barley. What the distillers and the others buy is relatively negligible. He buys nearly all the barley.

At his own price.

But is it not better at his own price than to have it left on your hands? Remember the bulk of Guinness's trade is with Great Britain. I do not know that there is 20 per cent. of his business in Ireland. Probably not more than 12 or 15 per cent. of the porter brewed by Guinness is consumed in the Free State. He has, therefore, an export trade of about 80 per cent. If the cost of production is raised, what will Guinness do? He will migrate to some other land with his plant and capital, and what will happen then? Protection will be of no use to the barley growers then, because malted barley will be unsaleable and the growers of barley will be obliged to sell it for pig feeding. On this question of Protection, it is not fair to single out one industry, even the agricultural industry, as has been done in the Dáil, and seek to make capital out of it.

I support the amendment to refer this Vote back, because I believe that sufficient money has not been voted for agricultural education. That is my main reason for supporting this amendment. Deputy Wilson pointed out that 32 million pounds are to be spent up to the 31st March next, and out of that sum it is no exaggeration to say that two-thirds must come from the farming community in the natural course of events. Is a sum of £275,000 a sufficient sum to give as a stimulus to the agricultural industry? I do not think so. What are we in this country? If I wanted to be downright cynical, I would say that we are only furtive creatures behind our cows. If our agricultural prosperity declines, where are we? Have the people, I wonder, ever looked upon the implications and the results of decay in agricultural prosperity? I doubt it. As a matter of fact, it is agriculture that is maintaining the exchange in respect of all the imports here. That fact must not be forgotten. If your exports are lower in quality, quantity or value, where are you? I consider that it is by agricultural education rather than by legislation that the agricultural community will be saved. I am, perhaps, at variance with some of my colleagues of the Farmers Party on this point. They favour certain Bills going through the House at present ——

The Deputy refers to agricultural education, and says that he is at variance with the Farmers' Party on that point.

Not on that point.

On what point, then?

The Deputy is explaining the point on which he is at variance with them.

I did not say I was at variance with them on agricultural education, but I said that on legislation I was at variance with them.

We are not concerned with legislation on the Estimates.

Is not the general policy of the Department under review?

Not so far as it concerns legislation.

Does not the Minister's salary come up?

That does not make any difference. Legislation is not in it and cannot be brought into it.

I hope you will make it clear, A Chinn Comhairle that the Minister's salary does not come into it either.

I believe that it is by voluntary effort alone that agriculture can be saved. It is only by raising the educational status of the people and by imparting the most up-to-date and most efficient scientific knowledge that the Department can effect that. I am strongly supporting this amendment, because I think the money devoted to agricultural education is altogether insufficient for an agricultural State like the Free State.

With all respect to Deputy Wilson, I think it would have been better to defer this amendment until the Vote had been discussed. This is a very extensive Vote for the Ministry of Agriculture and we, with less knowledge of the subject, would naturally look to the Deputies of the Farmers' Party for criticism, so as to enlighten us. What happens now is that Deputy Wilson gets up and says that the whole "cabouche" is wrong, and he moves to refer the question back.

On a point of explanation, what is a "cabouche"?

I thought Deputy Figgis knew everything.

I do, with the exception of "cabouche."

I am glad there is a subject still left to exercise Deputy Figgis' brain in getting a solution.

Will the Deputy please get back to the Agricultural Vote?

I would venture to suggest to Deputy Wilson and the Farmers' Party that we would make more progress and get more enlightenment if this barrier were removed, leaving us free to discuss the items as they come. I would naturally say offhand, without any special knowledge of the subject, that £347,743 was a lot of money. I would also say that I would be quite in agreement with Deputy Connor Hogan that a great deal of the work outlined here as being done by the Ministry of Agriculture might be better done by the farmers themselves. In respect of the extension of education that we have heard about, I suggest that it might proceed on the lines of relieving the State of some of the money paid in connection with the Ministry of Agriculture. But I again bow and look for light and leading to the Farmers' Party, as they are more familiar with the subject than I am.

After making a few remarks, would I be in order in moving that this amendment be put? Before saying what I have to say I desire, in any event, to give notice that that is my intention.

I would like to say a word or two before the other Deputies finish.

There is a point of order involved in this. Does the Minister propose to move that the question that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration be put?

Yes, in order to get to business.

I will certainly take a motion to that effect after 9 o'clock.

On a point of order, the discussion so far has come from one quarter of the House, and this is the Motion on which the general policy of the Department is to be discussed.

And there has been no reply.

A discussion of the general policy of the Ministry is not confined to such a Motion as this. That question could be discussed if the Motion were carried, when the Estimate would come up again, as it must come up again. It could be discussed, too, if the motion were defeated.

Is this not the only form in which, having regard to our Constitution, the general policy or lack of policy of the Department can be challenged?

Especially when it is desired that there should be an increase in the amount.

It can be challenged by moving for a reduction of the total amount. It has been done before. I did not hear the whole of Deputy Connor Hogan's speech, but he could challenge the Vote on the question of technical education by moving a reduction of that Vote. I realise that only members of a particular party have spoken so far, and I will not take the motion "that the question be now put" at the moment.

I wanted to bring the discussion to the general policy of the Department and to try to draw from the Minister a statement as to whether the Department is aiming at the development of a dairy industry through the country, with the addition of an export trade in live cattle, or whether there has been any change in the outlook of the Department regarding the character which they would wish to give to Irish agriculture in the future. It has been charged against the policy of the Department of recent years that it has concentrated too much upon the production of beef cattle and that as a consequence there has been a decline in the milking qualities, and that the advantage has all been with the exportation of stores. I would like to have some general statement from the Ministry in regard to their present line of policy. What is the attitude of the Ministry in the way of encouraging tillage for the feeding of live stock? What is the attitude of the Ministry regarding dairying generally? Whether dairying is to be supplemental or subsidiary to a live stock trade, and generally the view of the Ministry regarding the two lines of policy, so far as they were divergent, dealt with in the Majority or the Minority Reports of the Agricultural Commission. We have had before us a Dairy Produce Bill that indicates the intentions of the Ministry regarding the butter trade. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he has considered the future of that dairy industry and the direction which he thinks it ought to take. Is he laying all stress upon butter production? Does he think that the best advantage for agriculture in Ireland will be derived from a concentration upon the exportation of butter, as contrasted, say, with cheese, cream, or whole milk?

It has been pointed out in the minority Report that by relying upon the butter market in England, we are voluntarily entering into competition in that great market for butter with Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Siberia and possibly Canada, and we do not know what other countries will develop the butter-making industry. With modern transportation facilities, cooling chambers and the like, it is evident that the butter trade in England is going to be well supplied from overseas and it is suggested, I think with force, that the advantages which Ireland might have from her closeness to that great market, if we are going to lay stress upon butter, is to a great extent lost. We get butter into the market in forty-eight hours. Denmark also can get its butter into the market in forty-eight or sixty hours and the two makes are in competition on equal terms as regards freshness.

I submit it is very well worth considering whether more attention should not be paid to the possibilities of developing trade in fresh cream or in whole milk in that English market, taking advantage of our closeness to that market which no other country has. I do not know how far examination has been given to the question of the transportation of whole milk, but I think that it is quite within reasonable possibility that milk could be delivered in the North of England cities as fresh from Ireland as it is delivered in London from many of the distant sending stations. I think if milk were prepared in Ireland with care, cooled and sent in proper vessels, for a great part of the year at any rate, if not for the whole year, you could get a much higher price, a much better return, even though it were a little lower to the consumer for whole milk in the British market than you could get by any other method of sale of milk or milk products. But apart from milk, there ought, I think, to be within the range of possibility, and I would ask the Minister if his Department has dealt with it, the question of the sale and the method of transportation of cream. It seems to me, if we are going to rely upon butter, we are practically cutting off some of our advantages. There is a question that has more than once had the attention of the House and which I think is a question on which we would desire to obtain some information from the Minister; that is the trade in beef. Is he prepared to press upon the agricultural community the desirability from a departmental point of view, taking in view the general national well-being of developing trade in dressed meat?

The question of the cost of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease was touched upon slightly by the Minister. He pointed out that if there were such an outbreak of any contagious disease it would mean slaughter of many cattle, and that the cost of compensation would have to come out of the central fund, or that it would have to come out of voted monies or out of the general Exchequer; and he spoke of thousands of cattle, and the possibilities of many thousands, perhaps millions, of pounds. I think it is well that he should talk in big figures, because we are in the position now, being self-dependent, that if there were a wide outbreak in Ireland the cattle-raising industry would be crippled, if not killed. We are relying upon that export trade in live cattle. If there was even a very light outbreak, the position in England now is such, they have had such an experience, that I believe there would be very stringent measures taken against importation of cattle from Ireland for quite a long time. If there were a virulent outbreak there would be no hope for the Irish cattle trade. If it were merely as a matter of insurance there seems to me to be a very urgent measure that should be taken, and that is to set moving at once the machinery for a dressed meat industry, not in one place alone but in several. I say that the very sense of the need for self-preservation should impel the agricultural community, led by, assisted by, and pressed forward by the Ministry. Otherwise there could be no conception, I think, of what would happen to the country and the general agricultural industry. We had a little while ago some references to Continental trade. No doubt direct contact with the Continent in many respects is desirable but that will lead to certain increased risks to the cattle trade—the risk of contagion. That added risk seems to me again to call for urgent steps being taken to establish an additional outlet rather than the live stock export trade. The only additional outlet that it is reasonable to think about is the dressed meat trade, with all the advantages that such a trade will bring.

Then again I would like to have from the Minister a general statement regarding his attitude in respect to pork and bacon curing, as far as the production side is concerned. There is, I think, good grounds for contending that one of the troubles in the pork production and pig rearing industry is the variability in prices. That being so, with greater stability, even if it were on a lower level, people would know where they were and there would be less gambling. Unfortunately, in the pig trade, it is very largely a gamble. I believe with organisation and understanding between the various elements comprising that industry, some of the elements of the gamble could be removed and greater stability attained. With that greater stability of prices, there would be more general satisfaction, more general prosperity and greater pig production.

There is a very great range that one might touch upon, but these three items are of great importance, and I do not think that at any point, either in introducing this Vote or in any previous discussion, we have had stated the policy of the Department respecting these things. If the proper administration of such departments of the agricultural industry, as I have spoken of, involves a greater outlay, then I think there should be a greater outlay agreed to by the Dáil. Unless there is a reassuring statement from the Minister I am inclined, and I am quite prepared, to vote for the reference back of this Vote with a view to reconsideration for the purpose of getting a larger Vote, with the assistance and support of the Minister for Finance.

There are just a few items in this Vote which I wish to refer to. One is the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act. Whilst I must congratulate the Veterinary Branch of the Department of Agriculture on their vigilance, since the advent of foot and mouth disease into England, in keeping the disease out of this country, I must say that there are other branches under that Department that could be better administered. Take the matter of swine fever. Swine fever has not been coped with properly, although the Department are dealing with it since the Local Government Act was passed in 1898. Even the city of Dublin is at present, and has always been, reeking with this disease. The rural districts, I may say, are practically immune from it. Some years ago the late Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture obtained a grant for research purposes. It was merely a grant which was spent by the Department, and they did not go any further. This is one matter that the Veterinary Branch should pay some heed to. The present system is altogether wrong. It encourages people to cloak the disease. Suppose the disease breaks out in a place, and it is reported to the police. They wire to the Department and a Veterinary Inspector is sent down. Compensation is only allowed for the pigs that he orders to be destroyed. No compensation is allowed for those that are already dead. The premises affected are closed up for a period of 56 days, I think, and a lot of restrictions are placed on the owner before he can replace his stock. Owing to that system, many people cloak the disease instead of reporting it, and the consequence is that the disease is spreading. There is another item I wish to refer to.

The Deputy is speaking to an amendment that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. Would it not be better if we could keep the discussion on this amendment to the question of policy and leave the criticism of the administration over until the Estimate comes up again after this has been disposed of? It would be better if we could confine this discussion to the question of policy, and take the details of administration, which are in the past, and which the Minister cannot reconsider, later on.

I thank you, sir, for keeping me right, but it is somewhat hard to keep in line. There is an item with regard to statistics. I thought that Deputies had a right to deal with these different headings—A, B, C and so on.

Yes, but a member of the Deputy's own party wants the whole Vote reconsidered. He wants to get a discussion on the Minister's policy; for example, that the Minister is not giving enough money for agricultural education, as had been mentioned by Deputy Hogan. Deputy McKenna will not be prevented later from discussing every single one of these sub-heads.

Then I do not wish to delay the Dáil. As each item can be discussed separately, I think it is unwise to take up the time of the Dáil.

I am not sure if I am in order, because I wish to discuss, not so much the Minister's policy as the alternative policy which Deputy Johnson suggested as a reason why we should vote for the amendment. Deputy Johnson is so convincing that I am filled with fear that the Farmers' Party will go home to their creameries, where they have creameries, and decide to scrap all their machinery and embark on the whole milk and cream trade instead.

Now, I think that if there was a great future for a whole milk and cream trade in the British market the Danes, who are active and enterprising farmers, would have discovered and captured it.

They are a further distance away.

Yes, but there is another factor which affects both them and ourselves, and which Deputy Johnson seems to have forgotten, and that is that both in their case and in ours there is a sea passage, and you cannot guarantee that the sea will be smooth at any season of the year. I venture to think that a wholesaler in England hoping to buy whole milk or cream from this country or Denmark would be disappointed if, when opening his cans, he found butter. That is what would happen very often if we embarked on this trade. It is a precarious enterprise, and not even Deputy Johnson can command the movements of the sea. I think he suggested that we would need a special apparatus, but unless you had a special arrangement, like the hanging gardens of Babylon, which would hang in the ship and not be susceptible to motion, it could not be done.

I wonder if the Deputy ever sat on an ass's cart carrying milk to a creamery?

I did not quite gather whether Deputy Johnson asked whether I had drawn such a cart to a creamery, or whether I had seen one. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. Undoubtedly milk does get bumped about before it arrives at the creamery, but there it is pasteurised and made into butter and the evil effects removed. I do not think that we could supply milk to Manchester or Birmingham when out of eight months of the year the sea passage would cause deterioration. I think this is not the first time that Deputy Johnson is unduly pessimistic. If we cannot, with all the advantages of our position, equal the Danes and beat the Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians in the British market the sooner we ask for admission to homes for imbeciles the better. We have as good pasture as any other country, and we have as good breeding stock and cattle, and if we do not make the most of the advantages we possess, and if we are not in a position to do so, then the sooner we get out of business the better.

I rise to make a few remarks on the general policy of the Department of Agriculture, and, first of all, I want to draw attention to the small amount of money spent on the key industry of the country. The amount of money put aside for this Vote, as compared with that given by other agricultural countries of anything like our size is altogether inadequate. Some Deputies object to this amount of money being devoted to the development of the industry, but when it is remembered that goes to a country dependent on this industry it will be seen that it is not at all adequate for its purpose. Every other country which has a system like we have, recognises this and does its best to foster and develop this particular industry. We have not got on the road to doing as much for agriculture in this country as other countries are doing. We have not, as we should have, a Faculty of Agriculture in our Universities. We have no Research Departments. We have no means of meeting the cattle diseases, which cost almost a million a year in this country. We depend on the research work of other countries in this respect, and the only thing we have is that the heads of our Departments take advantage of the experiments and knowledge derived from other countries in this respect. That might be said to have been all right in the past, when we were part and parcel of another country which had it own research departments in Universities dealing with these problems, and which could be utilised also for this country. We have, however, passed that stage, and it is up to us to put our agriculture on a proper basis. As Deputy Hogan said, it is a matter of education. This is the beginning of education and there is need for a Faculty of Agriculture. Deputies refer here to the barley question. Some Deputies are in favour of a tariff, some in favour of a subsidy, but everyone, I think, is agreed that the people who are growing barley are, like other elements in the community, in a very bad way. I do not believe in subsidies, because if you start a subsidy in one particular commodity you have to follow it down the whole gamut and the whole scale of our agricultural produce accordingly.

It would mean that barley, in a year or two, would have to subsidise the growers of other produce. Some other method will have to be arrived at, whether it is in the form of protection or in the form of putting on—I do not know what word to use—a penalty to the buyer of foreign corn and distribute that penalty to the grower of Irish barley. Some Deputies here seem to have very nervous qualms about what would happen the brewers in this country, especially one big industry in this city, but anybody who knows the history of this big concern must remember that they started with small capital, and they never called in new capital, but the capital is much more now. We have had, I do not know how many, redistribution schemes in that firm within the last twenty years. If I said that there were four or five of such schemes, I do not think that I would be exaggerating, for I myself have seen two or three in my time—redistribution after redistribution out of revenue and drawn from reserves.

Some people must be getting more than a fair deal out of this concern, and they are not the people who grow the barley or the people who drink the finished article. Somebody is getting a very unfair share of the profits of this industry, and that does not require much telling or proving. Anyone who takes up the balance sheets year after year, and reads the history of this firm for the last forty years, knows that these reserves have been growing after paying dividends. They have paid their taxes and super-taxes, the bonuses and the rest, but still the reserves have been growing. I think this is a matter for the State. These people have not been treating those who grow the raw material in anything like a fashion according to the ideas of fair play. A Deputy said that if we had not this particular industry here we would have to sell our barley for pig feeding. We had to do that, and the difference of the price of the barley, between that for pig feeding and for malt, is practically nothing. Men have had to buy barley, for pig feeding, and I did it myself, and the price was 12/- or 13/- a barrel, and even 10/- and 8/-. These people are not the wonderful saviours some people think they are. I think it was Deputy Hewat referred to the amount of money that has been expended on the agricultural industry, and he asked if it would not be better if the farmers themselves developed agriculture, and not have it a State matter at all. I think if Deputy Hewat would read the budgets of Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Argentine, he would get a lot of information, and would get to know what is at the back of the minds of the people who are at the head of these companies.

I would be glad to get the figures from Deputy Gorey.

I am not here as a distributor of literature to Deputy Hewat. If Deputy Hewat wants literature, the least he can do is to make himself wise at his own expense. Deputy Johnson has asked for a good deal of information with regard to our agricultural policy, and with regard to cattle and by-products, and he instanced the case of dairying and the live stock trade. If we have dairying we must have a live stock trade, or kill the young animal at its birth. I leave the Minister to deal with that. The English market is the market for milk. There is a very extensive market there for milk, but you are rather faced with two or three aspects of the case you have to think about. The milk has to be transported in large quantities, and the cost of that transport has to be taken into consideration. That is not an important matter. The important matter is, in what condition will the milk arrive, and, more important still, let me start a purely milk trade and I will have no milk to rear calves. The milkman raises no calves. He has not the milk to do so. Where you have cattle you must have a butter or a cream trade. Anyone in the trade knows and understands, and most Deputies know enough to understand, that that is a cardinal principle which you cannot get away from. We cannot have an exclusively, or even a fifty per cent. milk trade here. I am not prepared to quarrel with the Ministry of Agriculture. I think they have done reasonably well with the amount of public money at their disposal. What I do quarrel with is the attitude of the Executive Council and the Government in not putting anything like enough money at the disposal of agriculture. It is a plain proposition that this country is dependent on agriculture, and can scarcely do enough for its agriculture. There is a very old maxim about killing the goose that laid the golden egg. My idea is to preserve the goose that laid the golden egg and make her lay two golden eggs, because agriculture is not the property of the people in the State, it is the property of the nation, and until you develop it properly you are not on the right track. I suggest to the Dáil and also to the Minister for Agriculture, if he is so inclined, as I believe he is, to increase this Vote, which is necessary if agriculture is to be developed.

One aspect of this I would like to call attention to. At the outset I would say that the amount of money set aside for this particular Vote is not in my opinion what it ought to be. Deputy Hewat, I think it was, objected to this money being devoted to this particular industry, and hinted that it was the duty of the farmers themselves to find this money. I think that Deputy Hewat— and I am afraid some other Deputies on the farmers' benches—are looking at this from a wrong angle. This particular Vote we are considering is really a question of education. It all, I think, amounts to that in the end. Comparisons have been made on the farmers' benches on the amount devoted to technical education, and the amount devoted to agriculture, but I look at this Vote as being in the nature of an expenditure on technical education in this particular industry.

I, therefore, say to Deputy Hewat that the position, to my mind, is that we had to spend a certain amount on technical education as a whole, and this Vote is for agriculture, and the £160,000—or whatever it is—on technical education is for the benefit of the other industries of the country. That is the way I look at it, and, in this connection, I point out to Deputy Gorey, who spoke of the small amount expended on the key industry of the country, that it is not expended exactly on the industry, but is really spent by the country as an extension of its educational activities. I look on this Vote as part and parcel of the educational activities of the country. I must express surprise at the statement made by Deputy Wilson at the very beginning of the discussion, because he seemed to me to rather deprecate the expenditure of money on agricultural instructors. He said: "They were passing their time, I do not know how." If that is the way Deputy Wilson looks at this particular Vote, I am afraid he is looking at it from a rather wrong angle. If this Vote, or any money which is expended under it, is to be made effective, it must be done through the medium of instructors appointed by the Department to carry on the educational work for which the money is made available. I believe with Deputy Gorey, that it is the duty of the State to educate the people, and to provide for the technical education of the people engaged in these industries. I say that the amount set out in this Vote for that particular purpose, seeing that our agricultural industry is the mainstay of the nation, is a comparatively small amount. For that reason I am prepared to support Deputy Wilson's amendment.

I have supported the motion of Deputy Wilson, largely from the point of view of having a discussion on the general principles of this Vote on agriculture. I would say that it is not meant in my case as a vote of censure on the Minister's policy or on him individually. From my point of view, it was a vote of censure largely on the administration of the Department of Agriculture. If I am within my rights in speaking on that, I would like to let that govern my remarks. Deputy Wilson referred to the reorganisation of the Department. I would say, as a matter of policy, that the question of the reorganisation of the Department of Agriculture ought to be taken up. I am not satisfied that we are getting the value from the Department that we ought to get. I am not satisfied that the Department, as conducted under the past regime, is the best organisation to carry on the present system.

With regard to this Vote, it is difficult for us to criticise it adequately. The Vote is not self-explanatory, and we cannot tell from it the exact state of things. We cannot tell what the administrative departments are costing at headquarters, apart from the expenditure in the counties. Before we are in a position to discuss the policy of the Department in a general manner, we ought to have placed in our hands a statement showing the full cost of the Department of Agriculture. It should include the cost of everything connected with agricultural education and technical education, under the heads of the Department, and also the counties. Then we will be in a position to tell the exact amount devoted to agriculture throughout the country, and we would be in a position to criticise this Vote.

Mr. HOGAN

Would the Deputy mind, for the sake of clearness, saying exactly what he wants? Does he wish to know the amount spent by the County Committees of Agriculture? I presume he does. What, in addition?

Yes, and I would like to know separately the exact amount spent on the different colleges at Ballyhaise, Clonakilty, and Glasnevin. As far as I can see, the Vote only contains the salaries of the instructors and the teachers in the colleges. There is nothing to show what is the total cost of the maintenance of those colleges. Perhaps the colleges pay for themselves. I hope they do.

Mr. HOGAN

They do not, and are not supposed to.

That is the point. I am not justified in any close criticism, because I confess I do not know my facts as I should like to know them. At any rate, the idea is that the Department is top heavy. There is too much money spent at Headquarters, and too little in the counties. The main object of the Department is education. The greater part of its activities can be regarded, in one measure or another, as educational. I am sorry to say I cannot agree with my colleague, Deputy Wilson, in his statement regarding the instructors in the counties. I would rather reverse the idea that appears to be in Deputy Wilson's head. I am inclined to think that the work done by agricultural instructors in the country, considering the circumstances under which they have to work, is very good in most cases. Certainly, it is in any case that has come to my knowledge. I believe those instructors are hampered by lack of funds and by having large areas, too large to cover, and also by wrong methods imposed on them by Headquarters. On that account they are not able to do themselves justice. I would like to see a complete change in the present system, and I would advocate decentralisation. The money voted here is not sufficient, but I certainly think it could be devoted to better purpose if more were given through the country and less in connection with the big Headquarters staff. We would then get more efficient work. The areas covered by the instructors are all too large. It is impossible for the instructors to attend to their duties adequately.

My constituency corresponds with the area of the agricultural instructor in my county. I come in close contact with him. It is physically impossible for him to carry on that work, to lecture, and to carry out his experiments. The result is that his work cannot be adequately done, and the results are ineffective. Now, I do not know that the matter of barley growing really comes into this matter. I think it does not, except that it has been already discussed. It does not affect the policy of the Minister. The Minister has nothing to do with the giving of a bounty on the production of barley. If the Ceann Comhairle allows me to talk on this matter I will.

Mr. HOGAN

That can be discussed again.

It can be discussed on the items. Is there any item on which it can be discussed?

Apparently it has been discussed before, so I had better say a few words on it. I come from a county which is the second or third largest barley-growing county in Ireland. I have not advocated, up to the present, the granting of protection to barley. My reason was that I did not believe in the policy of Protection at all, and I did not believe in inserting the thin end of the wedge by favouring the giving of protection to barley.

Did the Deputy advocate the policy of Protection at a meeting he addressed at Birr?

What is the use of that question?

I was hoping at that time that the Government would not introduce protective tariffs. Since then the Government have introduced protective tariffs. The Government say it is only at an experimental stage. I believe that is all eyewash. There is no such thing as an experimental stage in protective tariffs. Once protection is started one is committed definitely to it and cannot get away from it. That being the case, when industries that only comprise 25 per cent. of the wealth of this country get a protective tariff, I think the least we could claim for one of our industries, which is perishing, is that it should get protection. I am a Protectionist as far as barley is concerned now, but if the Government say, "We will withdraw the protective tariff next year," I withdraw my claim for protection for barley. That is the stand I take. I represent farmers. Deputy Davin says that we claim to represent them. I know that I represent them. We have many claims made here to represent the farming industry, and some of the Deputies on the Labour Benches claim that they represent them. I think they do represent, at least, some farmers.

The farmers say they have no representatives.

I notice that Deputies who sit on the Government Benches claim to represent farming, although they show very little interest in the industry.

On a point of order, I wish to put Deputy Heffernan right. On these benches we do represent farmers, and we represent Labour and every other industry in the country. The Deputy who spoke now seems to think we represent farmers and no one else in the country. If that is so, I would like to know it.

I would like the Ceann Comhairle to take a note of the Deputy's point.

I do not mind. I am quite satisfied. I know that those on the Government Benches claim to represent every possible interest. I do not know if that was the intention when Proportional Representation was introduced. I thought the idea was that every class was to be represented by its own people.

The policy of the Minister for Agriculture from this on.

To a certain extent I am in agreement with points that were raised by Deputy Johnson. I think it is advisable that we should have alternative markets for our agricultural products. We should not have all our eggs in the one basket. If there is a possibility of conveying whole milk to the English consumer, I would be in favour of having it, as part of the policy of the Department. I do not think it is feasible, to a certain extent, principally from the point of view of conveyance. I think the experiment was tried, and was not found successful. At one time, I believe, milk was shipped from Rosslare to England, but I believe the project fell through, and could not be, I think, considered as a successful proposition. I want to remind Deputies who compare this country with Denmark, that we are not in the same position. We have a different climate, a different soil, and different conditions. We have many other industries besides the dairy industry. In Denmark the dairy industry is the basic industry, with its subsidiary industries of bacon and poultry. In this country, although the dairy industry is an important one, it is not by any means the most important. We have several other important subsidiary industries, such as bacon, butter, cheese, poultry, eggs, cattle—which is still the most important industry—sheep and horses. Although I consider the dairying industry very important, and that it should be included in the Minister's policy, he should not overlook the other industries. I am strongly of opinion that the dairy industry is the one that promises most in the future. I agree with Deputy Johnson that the energies of the Minister and his Department ought to be concentrated on the improvement of that industry.

As to the general policy of the Department, it is considered that the amount of money contributed by the Department towards cow-testing associations is not adequate. These associations are starved, and the results are not what they ought to be. I wish to support Deputy Wilson's amendment proposing to refer the Vote back for reconsideration with a view to increasing the amount. I regard the proposal to refer the Vote back as a vote of censure on the Department. I believe that the Department is not all that it ought to be, and that it will not be until we have a committee of inquiry set up. The Department deals with the most important industry in the country, the basic, preponderating one. We are not satisfied that it is doing all that it should do, and the the people of the country are not satisfied. In order that they might be satisfied it is time that there was some reorganisation, and before we can have reorganisation the proper method is to have an inquiry, not into agriculture, but into the methods of the Department.

I congratulate the members of the party to which I belong in not having shown their interest in agriculture by copying some of the contributions that were made to that subject to-night. This motion raises the question of the policy of the Department, and, in addition, we have to consider the general policy. I am afraid I will have to deal with this question of barley and the particular policy of the Department in that respect. First of all, I want to remind Deputy Wilson that the total Vote under 43 asked for is £240,000. In respect of the Land Commission there is practically £700,000, and there are some other items in connection with agriculture in Vote 44, which bring the total for agriculture up to £1,000,000. We are not exactly discussing a recurrent expenditure of £240,000, but a recurrent expenditure to the tune of about £1,000,000. I merely state that in the interests of accuracy, as the motion is based on the alleged inadequacy of a sum like £240,000 for agricultural purposes.

In addition, and as the Vote did appear, this sum of £1,000,000 is the total expenditure for the year. A considerable amount of it is non-recurrent. It is proposed to spend close on £30,000,000 within the next five years on agriculture. These figures are merely for the purpose of giving a certain amount of perspective to the subject. Deputy Johnson raised the general policy of the Department under five or six different headings. I do not propose to spend any time discussing criticism on the lines simply that more money should be spent. That is no good and leaves us nowhere. I may, or I may not, agree with the contention that more money should be spent, but I certainly am not going to waste time discussing it when there is no suggestion made as to how the money should be spent.

Cow-testing.

Mr. HOGAN

Further, when the general statement is made that more money should be spent it is made on the assumption that the amount that is being spent is £240,000 whereas in actual fact £1,000,000 is being spent. Deputies raised specific questions, questions of policy, and I would like to deal with them at some length. Deputy Johnson asked me what is the attitude and policy of the Department in regard to dairies, in regard to livestock, in regard to tillage, in regard to the production of food at home, for consumption by the live stock and so on. He has asked me to say what exactly should be the relationship between the butter industry and the livestock industry and with regard to the dairy industry itself whether we have any scheme for the development of the whole milk, cheese and agriculture. He pointed out, rightly enough, that he was raising a very big question and that we have never had a full dress debate and have never been able to arrive at a definite decision on these questions in the Dáil. I agree, and I must remind Deputy Johnson, however, that in a very big question of policy, the question as to whether we should concentrate on our livestock or on our dairy products, whether we should have butter or beef, has not been raised here. Probably that is the most important of the matters at present at issue in connection with agriculture, and although it has never been raised here before, it was put very specifically by me to the Agricultural Commission, but I cannot promise to give any definite decisions in the matter to the Dáil this evening. I can only justify myself by saying I have both reports of the Agricultural Commission, extending over twenty-eight or twenty-nine pages, and they have not found themselves able— at least in detail—to give anything like very definite decisions or any definite leading on that question. They have confined themselves to making observations on the issue, and I intend to confine myself to that procedure also, because the fact is, and every farmer knows it, it is an issue on which nobody at this stage could be dogmatic. You cannot attempt to pretend to have a cut-and-dried policy in respect of the exact weight that you are going to give to dairying, live stock and tillage, and the various heads and sub-heads of these three aspects of agriculture. You cannot be dogmatic; you cannot give decisions at this stage on these questions. Of course, dairying is undoubtedly the foundation of our agriculture. It is the dairy farmer who produces not only butter, not only bacon, as a side line, but produces the beef of the country as well; and, in that sense, dairying is, of course, the foundation of Irish agriculture.

Dairying is also the foundation of Danish agriculture, and they have not found very much difficulty in deciding what exactly they should concentrate on. They have dairying, and nothing else except a side line, such as pigs and poultry. They have not the big problem we have. They have not the misfortune of having the problem that we have the misfortune of having—a very important livestock industry, and having a country that is suitable not only for dairying, but suitable also for breeding livestock. They could never produce livestock as we do. The land and the climate are not suitable. I was going to say the breeding stock is not suitable. But, of course, that is something they could alter. Their climate is not suitable, and they could not produce livestock against us. They have concentrated on butter and our problem as against Denmark has the tremendous disadvantage that we must produce butter and beef—butter and livestock, butter to compete with Denmark, produce and beef to compete against the best beef that Scotland produces, and produce them from the same cow, if you like, while Denmark, through the misfortune of its bad climate and its bad land can concentrate on producing butter.

A bad climate means greater prosperity!

Mr. HOGAN

Now, there is a specific problem—how can it be done? This problem Deputy Johnson very lightly asked me to solve; how can that be done? We sell butter in England. The buyer has Danish butter on offer as well; he says, "this Danish butter is better." It is no answer to say: "Oh, yes, but we produce good beef as well." He will buy Danish butter. On the other hand we produce beef at a certain price. We will not produce beef as cheaply as if we were breeding beef and nothing else; we must get a certain price for that beef in England in order that it will pay, and if a purchaser of beef in England can buy Scotch beef cheaper it is no use for us saying to the buyer: "That is all right, but we produce good butter from the same cow." That was the problem which I have already stated to the Agricultural Commission and which has been stated hundreds of times in this country and it is a problem upon which you could not be dogmatic in any fashion and you could not afford to be dogmatic as to its solution. My policy in the matter is quite simple. You have areas in this country, very large areas and areas where a very large proportion of the population live, where the land and climate combined are not good enough to produce beef and the problem is simplified there. There you can concentrate on the breeding of stock from which you can get the best butter and there you will have to concentrate on the breeding of that stock. To put it in another way, there you have the choice of keeping a Kerry cow, a Shorthorn cow, an Aberdeen Angus or a Hereford. It is extremely easy, given any one particular district, to decide what sort of live stock you can foster there and do it.

You have other areas in the country like Meath where you have the problem simplified in the exact opposite direction. The duty of the Department of Agriculture is simplified there. It is a simple problem, and it is easily carried out. They are endeavouring in the way of subsidising the right class of breeding stock in these districts to solve the problem in these particular districts. Between these two districts you have various stages. I could not say at this stage, nobody could say, looking at the country as a whole, that you are going to concentrate on dairying at the expense of beef, or vice versa. I have only one thing more to say. Deputy O'Connell, Deputy Gorey and Deputy Hogan all agreed, that the essential purpose of the Department should be education. I dare say Deputy Johnson would agree with them on that point.

May I say that I specifically disagreed with the majority of the Agricultural Commission that that was the only policy that the State should follow with regard to agriculture. The Minister seems to be repeating the argument of the Majority Report that the State policy regarding agriculture should be confined mainly to education. I specifically disagree with that.

Mr. HOGAN

No, I was not thinking of the Report of the Agricultural Commission. I spoke of Deputy O'Connell, Deputy Hogan and Deputy Gorey, who stated that the functions of the Department of Agriculture were education, and nobody, I take it, will disagree with that. Certainly I do not. Before we can get any great distance in the development of our policy in the solution of the problem which I tried to put before the Dáil now, we must have educated farmers who will co-operate with us. It is a very difficult problem to solve which I have put before you. It must be solved in a different way in every district. It is a problem which must be solved in a different way not only in every district, but by every farmer in every district, and unless farmers are organised and better educated, we cannot possibly develop our live stock or our dairying policy side by side. It would be much easier to develop one by itself. We possibly could do that, but if we are to succeed in developing our butter industry on the other hand, to compete with New Zealand or Denmark, or our beef industry on the other, to compete with Scotland, we must have very intelligent co-operation not only from farmers, but from organisers.

Deputy Johnson asked me were we to concentrate on butter and whether the Department has thought of the question of finding another outlet for farmers' milk than dairy produce by turning it into butter or cheese. That subject has been considered not only recently in the Department but by a great many committees and commissions set up during the last five or six years. The first thing that occurs to one in connection with it is this, that if the farmers of the Twenty-Six Counties who do sadly need an alternative market for their milk, are not able to capture the limited market here in Dublin, a market which they ought to capture because the conditions are most favourable to them, there is very little chance that anything we could do to organise a market for them on the other side of the water, where there is very much keener competition and where prices are lower, would succeed. That is the first point. I hope the Trade Facilities Act will be passed soon. There we have the power at least, if a water-tight scheme is to be put up by the farmers, by farmers anywhere, around Dublin or elsewhere, of reducing the financial difficulties that may confront them in such a scheme to a minimum. We are anxious to discuss that scheme, to give advice on such a scheme, and to go more than half way to meet farmers who will put up such a scheme. But we cannot go into trade, and we cannot do any more than what we have offered to do without going into trade. If the farmers did succeed in putting up such a scheme for Dublin, I would regard it not so much as valuable for the little gain it would amount to but as a precedent for much more ambitious schemes in England and elsewhere. If we could get such a scheme for Dublin where everything is in our favour we would gain valuable knowledge, and we certainly ought to be able to tackle the other question of finding an alternative market for our milk in England, with more optimism and with better chances of success. There is no doubt whatever, both in this milk question and in this question of beef, alternative markets are urgent. I know that the English market is the best market we have, and is likely to be the best market that we will have for a great many years. But things happen; they may be non-recurrent; that market may be closed by fortuitous circumstances for a short period, but quite long enough to throw the whole industry out of gear, and this question of alternative markets and alternative methods of dealing with our raw material is a real live question from that point of view.

I have not been able to get reliable figures for the consumption of milk in Dublin. I have got approximate figures, and I have been able to compare them with the amount of milk that is supplied by the southern farmers to their creameries, and it is perfectly obvious to me that even if the farming community proper succeeded in getting the milk trade of the whole city of Dublin it would amount to a very small proportion of their total trade. From that point of view it is interesting to consider whether, taking long views, farmers should not begin to think as to what would be the advantages of having not one Dublin in the country, but two or three or four or five, as alternative markets. It is when considering that question of milk and butter, with the question of the necessity that looms in the distance, and not so far away from us, the necessity of getting alternative markets, that one begins to think that it would be worth while, even from the agricultural point of view, to make some sacrifices to provide an alternative market. I think it is quite clear, and nobody suggests that the whole milk trade should be in substitution for the beef trade; it could never be more than complementary. In spite of the fact that Denmark, for all purposes connected with the butter trade, is as near to England as we are, nevertheless we should always be able to hold the English market against all comers. The milk trade can never be more than supplementary in view of the fact, as some farming Deputy pointed out, that a considerable amount of whole milk and separated milk is required in Ireland for live stock. Now I come to tillage for feeding. I wish I was as clear on the policy of the Department as regards tillage for feeding, as I am of my own views as an individual farmer on the conditions of producing food at home for feeding. I believe that we must change our policy in regard to tillage. I think that is being realised more and more as the years pass. We are tilling in Ireland as if we were living in the East of England or in the South of England with a different climate and totally different conditions. To come to the point, apart from cash crops like potatoes and barley and other cash crops of that sort—I said cash crops, not catch crops—the policy of the Department, as far as I can control it, is to turn away from roots for feeding and experiment with a policy of silage instead. For that purpose silos have been erected in two of the agricultural colleges, and experiments have been going on in connection with the question whether silage is not an efficient substitute for roots for all purposes.

Coming to deal with trade in dressed meat. I observe that Deputy Johnson has been too pessimistic in thinking that if foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Ireland in the future, the restrictions in regard to the export of cattle to England would be much more stringent than in the past. They would be something more stringent, but I do not think the difference would be quite as much as Deputy Johnson appears to think they would be. In any event, it is a good bit more than a problematical contingency that in two or three years, or perhaps sooner, there would be an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country; it happened before; it might happen again, and it might last for months. Everybody who realises, and I suppose every farmer realises it, realises also that from that point of view alone the development of a dressed-meat trade in this country is necessary. On the other hand, we have the failure of the attempts that have been made already, but we have the Waterford Scheme under way at the moment. What is the policy of the Department in the matter of this? We will co-operate in regard to any scheme put up—we will give any technical knowledge we have, and we will make any researches and investigations, that we can, into this particular question that very few people know very much about. But again we cannot do it ourselves. We cannot go into trade. I hope that the Waterford people who have brought their scheme, I understand, a step further within the last few days, will come to us with a scheme that the Department of Agriculture can support and can guarantee to the Ministry of Finance under the Trades Facilities Bill.

My own view on that question, if that is what Deputy Johnson is looking for, is that there is very little chance of the development of the dressed meat trade in this country except on the lines of the killing of the meat on ships specially prepared for that purpose—a new development in the matter. In that way we would get over the transport difficulties, and be able to change our past. Deputy Heffernan said that generally the farmers were discontented with the organisation of the Department of Agriculture, and with the amount of money that was being spent on it, and generally, that the farmers did not believe they were getting value for that money. Well, farmers have the same doubt about everything. But he went so far as to say that he himself thought more money should be spent on the counties. That is hardly enough to justify the sweeping statement that he made. I am quite sure that farmers are not contented with the Department of Agriculture. I would be quite surprised if they were. No Department is perfect.

But as the discontent of the Deputy has not been concentrated on a particular item, with the exception of that one item I mentioned, and which will be discussed on another occasion, I do not propose to say any more on that question. He asked me how much of the Department's Estimate was spent on Headquarters and how much in the counties. Well, it would be easy to answer that question approximately, but it would be extremely difficult to answer it in detail. If he will look at the Estimate he will find that the total is £245,538; salaries, wages and allowance, £118,000; hence the difference between salaries, wages and allowances, that is the first item, and the total, namely, £245,000, makes over £100,000, and that is spent in the country; and that portion of £118,000, which represents the staffs at present working in the country, is also spent in the country. That will give him an idea as to how much of the Estimate is spent at headquarters and how much in the counties. He asked another question, which I think I will answer, as it is a question of policy. He wants to know do the Farm Institutes pay. Of course, they do not pay, and I hope they will not pay. Department farms should not be run on commercial lines. They should be run for experimental purposes, and they are run on these lines, and not to make money. They are run to gain knowledge and to disseminate knowledge, and that costs money.

There is just one other point, namely, this question of barley, and so as to avoid its having to be dealt with again I will deal with it now. Deputy Davin suggested a tariff on barley, and some Farmer Deputies supported him——

And legislation will be required to do that.

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, legislation will be required to do that.

And I supported it last year and no legislation was brought in.

Mr. HOGAN

I want to point out, first, that last year there was about one million acres under corn in Ireland, and only about one hundred and fifty thousand acres of that was barley. I give these figures just to get the perspective. There are close on four million acres of tillage entirely; that is to say, corn and roots, and only one hundred and fifty-one thousand acres under barley. Now, barley is extremely important to the farmers in Leix, Offaly, and Wexford, where it is grown as a cash crop. But it is not a national question of such tremendous importance as Deputy Davin seems to think. Now, it is grown as a cash crop; that is, for immediate sale, and it is grown in large quantities in these counties. I agree with Deputies Gorey and Hughes that the price which farmers have been getting for their barley for the last few years is a starvation price, in the circumstances. I am not going to answer the question. I could go into it at length. But I ask the Deputies will their suggestion of a protective tariff get a better price, and, if so, why? I prefer not to go into that question now, but I suggest that the Deputy should think about it.

If mine is not a correct one, and if the responsibility is the Minister's to produce a correct one, will he tell us what it is?

Mr. HOGAN

Very well. I could very well go into that question, but I prefer not. The farmers will have to take what price Guinness gives them until they find an alternative market.

To set up another brewery?

Mr. HOGAN

No. It is a very simple principle of economics that if you want to sell, and if you have only one customer to sell to, that you must take whatever price that customer offers. Until you get another customer which may be yourself, you will be in that position, tariff or no tariff. That is my view, and I have given it considerable consideration. You know that this fact of there being only one customer for barley is taken full advantage of.

Is the suggestion that we should have another brewery?

Mr. HOGAN

No. There is an extremely bad price at the present moment for pigs, and yet barley is worth nearly 20s. a barrel for pigs as pork at this moment. In the year 1922 barley was worth 7s. 6d. to 10s. per barrel as pork more than as raw material for the making of stout. There is no question whatever about that.

Is the Minister taking into account in making that calculation what it would cost to get the barley from where it is grown to where it is turned into pork?

Mr. HOGAN

I am not going into that. Certainly in 1922 barley was worth 7s. 6d. per barrel more as pork than as raw material for malting. I agree with Deputy Baxter that it is quite easy to say that. You cannot change people's methods of farming in a year or in a day. These people grow barley as a cash crop, because their fathers did it before them. They are going on doing what their fathers did, and they never make other arrangements. If they continue in that way they cannot help being in the hands of their only customer for barley. There is no way out of it. Most of the farmers have agreed that a tariff is no good. I do not want the names. There is no other alternative. If a tariff will do no good, the farmer must himself find an alternative market. I am indicating the alternative market. The market was there in 1922, and it is there at present. I agree with Deputy Baxter that farmers cannot suddenly change their methods of farming. There would have to be some delay. They would have to put up pigsties and make other arrangements. That may be coming down from high politics, but at the same time that is a thing the farmer will have to face himself when dealing with a question like this. But if on the one hand, a protective tariff is not going to increase prices, and on the other hand there is only one customer who rules the market, the farmers ought to find an alternative market and ought to find it in the way I indicate.

I just want to say one or two words. The Minister left me no time for replying. Perhaps he did not know that I had a right to reply.

I doubt if the Deputy has a right in the matter.

My reason for referring back this Vote is because I indicted the Department as being worthless. "By their fruits you shall know them!" What have they done? They have bred pigs, and 50 per cent. of the pigs bred in Ireland are of the wrong character. The Department are twenty-four years telling the people how to breed pigs. That is it. The Minister says the milch cow is the standard for the construction of agriculture, and he reduces the Vote that produces that milch cow.

Mr. HOGAN

No, he does not.

It is £500 less this year than last year, and the whole amount is only half the amount which is spent in Northern Ireland for six counties. I was told that these itinerant instructors were very valuable. I would refer the Dáil to the fact that this country is stocked with schoolmasters, and that we are the worst educated people in the world, and that the itinerant instructors are there, and that they are doing nothing. Schoolmasters do not give you education. Neither do these itinerant instructors. The Minister said that £700,000 is spent on the Land Commission. Now every penny advanced to the farmer by the use of State credit is paid back again. £700,000 for what? To restore the ownership of the land to the people who should have it. Now you are in competition with people in Canada, who have virgin soil and no indebtedness. That is the point that he has neglected. He has no right to put that £700,000 on our shoulders. We pay our advances. The transfer has taken place from people who stole the land, and it is going back to the owners again. I contend that that money is not spent for advancing agriculture, and that the only money spent is this £240,000, and that is mis-spent.

Amendment—"That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration"— put and negatived.

It being 10.30, Progress was ordered to be reported.

Top
Share