Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Oct 1924

Vol. 9 No. 5

LIVE STOCK BREEDING BILL, 1924—SECOND STAGE.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. P. Hogan)

The principle of this Bill is approved by the Agricultural Commission by, I think, all the County Committees of Agriculture, and by, I think, every organisation or association of farmers throughout the country. I hope, therefore, that the Dáil will be able to give it a Second Reading. The Bill is quite simple. Section 1, sub-section (1) states:—

On and after the appointed day it shall not be lawful for any person to keep or have in his possession any bull to which this Act applies save in so far as such keeping or possession is authorised by a licence or permit granted to such person under this Act and for the time being in force.

I shall in my remarks take the vital paragraphs. Section 3 reads:—

The Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this Act in respect of any bull which appears to him—

(a) to be calculated to beget defective or inferior progeny, or

(b) to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is kept or is proposed to be kept, or

(c) to be affected by any contagious or infectious disease, or

(d) to be affected by any other disease or defect prescribed as a disease or defect rendering a bull unsuitable for breeding purposes, or

(e) to have been inadequately prolific.

Section 7 is the next important section. Sub-section 1 of Section 7 reads:—

The Minister may grant to any person on payment of such fee (not exceeding two shillings and sixpence) as may be prescribed a permit to keep and fatten off for slaughter subject to and in accordance with the prescribed conditions a specified bull to which this Act applies.

That is in the event of a refusal of a licence.

The next section I draw attention to is Section 12, which reads:—

Where the Minister refuses an application for a licence under this Act or revokes or suspends a licence granted under this Act, or is of opinion that a bull to which this Act applies is not suitable for breeding purposes the Minister may serve on the owner, reputed owner, or other person keeping or having possession of the bull the subject of such application, licence, or opinion a notice in the prescribed form requiring such person within the time (not being less than seven days) specified in such notice to do, at his own option, any one of the following things, that is to say—

(a) to take out a permit under this Act in respect of the bull, or

(b) to have the bull slaughtered, or

(c) to have the bull castrated.

Section 13 makes provision for the establishment of a panel of referees, and the first sub-section of Section 13 reads—

There shall be established and maintained for the purposes of this Act a panel of referees consisting of such number of fit and proper persons as shall from time to time be found necessary for the purposes aforesaid.

Section 14 of this Bill provides for a requisition to the referee.

It reads, in the first sub-section:—

Where the Minister—

(a) refuses to grant a licence or permit under this Act, or

(b) refuses to transfer a licence or permit granted under this Act or to grant a new licence or permit in lieu of such transfer, or

(c) revokes or suspends a licence granted under this Act, or

(d) serves a notice under this Act requiring that either a permit be taken out in respect of a bull or the bull be slaughtered or castrated,

the owner or any person keeping or having possession of the bull to which the application, licence, permit, or notice relates shall be entitled on application in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time and on payment of the prescribed fee not exceeding two pounds and two shillings, to have such bull inspected and examined by a referee.

The last sub-section of Section 14, sub-section (6), provides that—

Where the Minister reverses or cancels under this section any such refusal, revocation, suspension, or notice as aforesaid the fee paid on the application for the examination and inspection of the bull by a referee shall be returned to the person by whom the same was paid.

Section 19 provides that—

This Act shall apply to all bulls of such age as shall be prescribed for that purpose by regulations made under this Act.

That is to say, bulls about the age of nine or ten months and over, and Section 20 provides for the appointed day. I am satisfied that the operation of this Bill will be to increase both the quality and quantity of our live stock and live stock products. Our live stock, especially our trade in cattle, is at the present time, and must always remain, the most important item in the Free State production. In addition to about 200,000 cattle which we utilise at home, we export about 700,000 cattle per annum in stores and fats. If by improvement in the quality of our cattle we could increase their value by about £1 per head, it would mean an increase in national production to the extent of one million pounds per annum.

I have very little doubt myself that, within, say, five or six years, we could increase the quality and thereby the value of our live stock by a figure which would be much nearer to three pounds per head, or an aggregate of £3,000,000 per annum. But I do not want to overstate the case. I want to confine my estimates to figures which even a pessimistic farmer—and farmers as a rule cannot afford to be too optimistic—will agree with. I formulate as our modest ambition in this matter improving the quality and thereby increasing the value of our live stock exports by £1 per head, or one million a year. I confine myself to that figure, because I believe that that particular ambition is one that can be realised immediately.

We export in round numbers from the Free State about £7,000,000 worth of butter from about one and a quarter million milch cows, with an average milk yield of something less than 400 gallons per lactation period. I am satisfied that with reasonable organisation we could increase this average by at least 200,000,000 gallons per annum, and this after making the necessary allowance for heifers and strippers. An increase of 200,000,000 gallons of milk at 7d. per gallon would represent, for a little over one million cows, £7,000,000 per annum, a sum equal to the total value of our exports of butter.

These are startling figures. Assuming that half that increase in milk went for home consumption, and considering the consequent result in our standards of living, in the value of our bacon, and in the value of our calves, and assuming that the other half went to swell our exports of butter—and that is a fairly reasonable assumption — we would have increased our production of butter by 50 per cent.

We have made that increase in value without taking into account in any way the gain that must come as a result of more efficiency in the technique of butter-making which we are endeavouring to bring about through the operations of the Butter Bill. There are two further considerations necessary to complete the picture. I am satisfied that we can bring about this improvement in our beef products without in any way sacrificing the milk-yielding qualities of our cows. On the contrary, I believe we can easily bring about this improvement side by side with improvements in the milk yield of our cows. Moreover, intelligent breeding of this sort cannot, of itself, bring us to the standards which we desire. You must combine with it efficient, careful and economical feeding, and with that combination—a combination of intelligent breeding with more efficient, more careful and economical feeding—I do not think there is the slightest doubt but this increase would represent a net profit to the country, and particularly to the farmers of the country.

Now, I think that is a reasonable proposition, understated, which is worth the attention of the farmers of the country, north, south, east and west. I would like to have this Bill discussed in the light of these figures. If there are any over-estimates I would like to have them pointed out. I know that farmers are chary and suspicious of statistics, especially coming from benevolent persons who consider they can show the farmers the way to run their own business better than they run it themselves. But I think this is a proposition which holds water, and ought to appeal to the ordinary hard-headed farmer minding his business. Further, I want them to note that this proposition, this increase in our national production of about eight million pounds— an increase, moreover, which represents, or ought to represent, a net profit to the farmer—can be brought about within a reasonable time, by reasonable work and reasonable organisation, and entails no radical change in the existing system which tradition and experience have shown to be the most suitable system for this country. This is not a proposition like the growing of potatoes for the production of alcohol. It is not one of those propositions which may be right or wrong, sound or unsound. The aim of this Bill is to increase the production of the country, to increase the profits, in particular, of the farmer by an amount which would make a difference between poverty and comfort, and to increase those profits, and to increase that production, without making any change in the essential foundations of our farming, which experience has shown to be the most suitable foundations for our industry in this country.

Already, as a result of voluntary schemes of the Department of Agriculture, there are something less than 900 bulls, between premium bulls, county bulls and leased bulls in the country. All these bulls are of approved standard in quality. There is a total of 33,000 bulls in the country altogether. The contention that a very large proportion of these bulls are what are called "scrub" bulls is very much overdone, but at the same time the proportion of high-class bulls is far too small, and the process that is going on at present is that improvement at the top is neutralised by deterioration at the other end of the scale, or almost neutralised. We must stop that process short. We cannot afford to allow individuals, or groups of individuals, to injure the trade of the country as a whole. Voluntary means have been tried, and have effected a certain amount, indeed a lot in the circumstances, but they are too slow. Our rivals, the Canadians, the Scotch and the Danes, are not wasting any time. It is no good for us to be just a little behind our competitors all the time. We must not only be just up to their level, but a little in front of them. That makes the difference in business between success and failure. We cannot afford to remain a little behind and more or less comfort ourselves by saying how very near we were after all and finding other extraneous reasons for our misfortunes. We must aim at producing as good live stock as that produced by our rivals, and we must aim at doing that within a reasonable time. This is a hard world, especially in business. We do not get long to make good. If we are to effect our purposes we cannot depend entirely upon voluntary schemes. Voluntary schemes would not do the work within the time necessary. If we are to effect the purpose we have in view we can only do it by the licensing scheme embodied in this Bill.

The Department of Agriculture, in the past, endeavoured to persuade the British Government to pass through the British House of Commons a scheme of this sort, but without success. Now we do not wish to make up for lost time by rushing the administration of this Bill. We propose to administer the Bill sensibly. We do not propose to rush it, but we propose to administer it deliberately and fairly, and I think we are entitled to the co-operation of the farmers of the country, and we certainly expect the co-operation of the farmers of the country, and particularly we expect the co-operation of the organisations and the associations of the farmers. We expect they will take the policy of this Bill and give it to the individual members of their associations and organisations, and that they will see to it that these individual members are carrying out, in their own spheres, the general policy of the Bill, in the full realisation that they are doing their own business most efficiently when combining in the general interest.

I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. GOREY

We welcome this Bill. We, in the Farmers' Organisation, have been asking for this Bill for some years, and now we have got it in front of us. The Bill may not be perfect in all its details. It may not work out in a perfect fashion, but it is a step in the right direction. It is only when we come to work the Bill out in practice that we can discover the weak points in it. When we discover these weak points we can remedy them, and in my opinion, time will perfect any defects that may be in the Bill. Anyone who is living by agriculture, and particularly those in the cattle trade, must welcome this Bill. It is only the people engaged in that trade who know the field for improvement there is in this side of the agricultural industry. Our cattle trade is largely composed of the shipping of stores, and, to a lesser extent, in the finishing of our cattle at home. It may be taken as an absolute certainty that, in the shipping of our stores, the best of our cattle are always leaving this country. The feeders in this country are not as keen as they ought to be to get a hold of the best and to keep the best at home. There are many reasons for that. One is that the ordinary feeder is not so fast on his feet as the dealer's tout, who is always anxious to secure the best there is in the country. The result is that the best we produce are sent across the Channel. The cattle that are left here to be finished are those that, for three-and-a-half years, have been eating our grass and they are usually of a coarse and inferior quality. The people across the Channel will not have the worst. They insist on getting the best, and they are ready to pay for the best. The reason for that is that the best pays the best. The higher the quality of the beast the better the return you get. As I have said, the coarse and inferior cattle are all left here in this country. They have been eating our grass for three-and-a-half years, and sometimes longer, and they give a very poor return indeed for their feeding. This inferiority in coarse cattle can be traced back to indiscriminate breeding in the past from bad cows and bad bulls. Bad bulls are not the only trouble, because we have also had bad cows. While these bad bulls are disposed through the country and allowed to serve, you will always have bad cattle and poor returns.

In discussing this Bill I do not want to discriminate or to talk in favour of one breed of cattle as against another. What I do urge is that we in this country must get as near as possible to the best type of dairy cow, consistent with flesh-forming qualities. If it is the intention of the breeder to have a good beef animal, let him go direct to the best and most paying cross in beef, and if he wants a good milking strain let him go to the best strain in milk. I do not think that the people I speak for have anything to fear from the operations of this Bill. I do not think that anything harsh or unreasonable is going to happen as a result of it, and I do not think that the Ministry of Agriculture, which is responsible to the people of this country, is going to do anything unfair. Section 1 of the Act states:—

On and after the appointed day it shall not be lawful for any person to keep or have in his possession any bull to which this Act applies save in so far as such keeping or possession is authorised by a licence or permit granted to such person under this Act and for the time being in force.

Anyone who shows a reasonable case, to my mind, will have no difficulty in getting a permit to keep a bull. I see nothing to fear from this Bill. It is a necessity and a very urgent one. I was in England about a month ago making inquiries into the cattle trade and into the class of beast that is marketed there. Anyone, even a person without having any knowledge of agriculture, could see the difference between the cattle that were offered for sale there. I saw Irish stores in Scotland of the Aberdeen Angus cross, which were one year and ten months old, and they were sold for £32 10s. Side by side with those Irish stores I saw a three-and-a-half year old beast, one of these indiscriminate crosses, sold for £26. The weight was altogether in favour of the big, coarse beast as against the small, compact and good quality beast. The difference between the two was shown in the price. The one-year-and-ten months old properly bred beast realised £32 10s., while the wrongly bred beast only brought £26. These figures show the big field we have, even in beef alone, in which to operate, and the results that we may expect to obtain when this Bill comes into operation.

Now, let us come to deal with the question of milk. We had good cows in Ireland when I was a boy. We had no methods at that time of testing or weighing the milk, but we knew when a bucket was full and when a bucket was only half-full. We were not perhaps as blind as many people would think we were at that time. When I was a boy, and when I began milking, it was no uncommon thing for one of these cows to fill a big bucket with milk. As a result of the crossing of our cows during the last 25 years, that level was brought down to less than an average of 400 gallons a year. That is not economical. Very few of these cows are a paying proposition. In other countries they have graded up the cows to a level of a thousand gallons per cow per annum, and surely, with a system of grading in this country, we ought soon to be able to reach at least the 600 gallon level. If we cannot succeed in doing that, then we had better scrap our whole stock in the country and get in a new stock. In my opinion, it is not impossible for us, with a proper grading system, to get up to the 600 gallon level. We can do it if we put our hands to the plough and go forward steadily and fearlessly. As I stated earlier, we think that we have nothing to fear from this Bill. It is a step in the right direction, and it is what we have been asking for. We think that such a measure is absolutely necessary, and that the system I refer to can only be made effective by law and by force in some cases. For that reason we welcome the Bill, and we think that it is only by legislation, such as we have now before us, that the problems I have been referring to can be effectively and properly dealt with.

Major COOPER

I agree with the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and with Deputy Gorey that this Bill is a necessary measure if we are to maintain the credit of our stock in the markets. Some measure to regulate our bulls, and some measure to see that our bulls are of such a character as to produce good stock, is due, and I would say overdue. If anyone goes to a fair about the country he will see in some corner of the fair, huddled away as if the owners were ashamed of them, as they have a right to be, three or four miserable creatures described as bulls.

Mr. GOREY

Twenty - three or twenty-four would be nearer to the mark.

Major COOPER

Deputy Gorey has more of these bad bulls than we have in the West.

Mr. GOREY

It was in the West that I saw them.

Major COOPER

As I am always anxious to understate my case, I would still say three or four. The three or four bad bulls in every fair are quite enough to do a great deal of harm. I do not think they are very often sold. I never remember having seen any of them sold, but I presume the owners get what they can for serving a cow. While this Bill is necessary, and while I welcome it, we should not shut our eyes to the fact that it does confer tremendous powers on the Ministry, and that it is our duty to examine those powers and to let the public know clearly what the Minister will be able to do when the Bill becomes law. I do not know if there is any precedent for the Bill, or whether in Denmark they have a measure of this kind. I am pretty sure that nowhere nearer than Denmark has any power been taken compared with the powers that the Minister is getting, and although the farming community as a whole stand to gain by this Bill, we must expect a certain amount of complaint and outcry from these particular people, who own bulls, who will be affected under the scheme, and also we must expect a certain amount of complaint, I am afraid, from the average farmer when he finds he has to pay fees, fill in forms, and take out licences. Therefore, we ought to know beforehand, as far as possible, exactly how this Bill will work, and what its effect will be.

The Minister gave us many interesting figures as to the advantage to be gained from the Bill. There was one figure he omitted, and which I hope he will give us when he winds up the debate: how much it is estimated that the Bill will cost. He said, I think, that it was to apply to 33,000 bulls. If all these 33,000 have to be inspected by a person of some technical knowledge, who is to tell whether a bull is likely to be prolific or not, it will not be entirely an easy job. That is one of the grounds on which the Minister can refuse his licence, that the bull is not likely to be prolific. It is going to cost money. The provision for an appeal to a panel of referees is going to cost money. The two-guineas fee that will be charged will not do much more than pay the referee's travelling expenses in a good many cases, and we, as the Dáil, are entitled to know what the Bill is going to cost. I do not think the cost will be excessive. I think that on the whole it will be a profitable investment, whatever the cost may be, but still we ought to know what it will be.

Now, I come to what appear to me to be two serious omissions from the Bill. This Bill is concerned with bulls. There is no definition at all in the Bill of what a bull is. There is not even the lucid definition that the Minister gave on the Dairy Produce Bill, that butter was a substance generally known as butter. In this case the only animals that are defined are the inspectors and the Minister:—"The expression ‘the Minister' means the Minister for Lands and Agriculture; and the word ‘Inspector' includes any person authorised by the Minister." These are all the definitions. There is a sort of half-definition of what a bull is, and at what age a calf becomes a bull. Section 19 says:—"This Act shall apply to all bulls of such age as shall be prescribed for that purpose by regulations made under this Act." I suggest that the Minister knows at what age he intends to rule that a calf becomes a bull; I think I heard him say, though he said it in a very low voice, that it was ten months. If he does know it ought to be in the Bill. If he does not know, we ought not to give him a free hand. If it is desirable that this matter should be left in a flexible state he ought to state so, and give us good reasons why it should not be defined, because otherwise a court might hold that any calf of the male sex was a bull, that as soon as a man had left the cow delivered, before washing his hands, he would have to hurry off to write to the Minister for a licence. Of course, that would be preposterous, but equally preposterous things are sometimes said in courts of law. Having in mind the great importance of the subject, the Minister could put down an amendment, or persuade Deputy Duggan to put down an amendment, defining exactly at what age a calf acquires the requisite degree of virility—which is the wrong word— I should say, "bovility"; at any rate, at what age a calf acquires powers which make it necessary for him to come under the Bill.

That is one omission, and the second is this: The Minister takes the power, whether wisely or not, to refuse his licence because a bull is of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which he is kept, or proposed to be kept. That power is a power that may inflict very serious injury, particularly on the owners of pedigree bulls, and there ought to be some appeal from such a decision. There is no effective appeal whatever in the Bill. If the Minister has once declared that a particular breed is unsuited to a particular portion of the country there is no effective appeal at all. The only appeal shall be to a referee, and if the bull is an Aberdeen Angus and the Minister has said that Aberdeen Angus cattle are not suitable for this part of the country your appeal fails. It would be no use in going to a referee and saying, "Oh, you are mistaken in thinking that this is an Aberdeen Angus; it is a shorthorn, and his horns are so short that you cannot see them." I would suggest that there should be some other appeal in that case, as anybody knows that once a breed was condemned in a particular district it would mean that the owner of a pedigree herd would not only find his bulls completely useless, but all his cows and heifers as well; if he could not get a bull to serve them he would have to get rid of them, and would practically have to sell them for what they could fetch.

In any case, I am a little doubtful as to the effect of this provision, because it may even mean seriously limiting the market for a pedigree bull. If a man sends his Aberdeen Angus or Hereford yearling bull to Ballsbridge in March he may find that in perhaps a large portion of the country the Minister may say that nobody may buy and nobody may keep that bull. I am pretty sure that both the Minister and Deputy Gorey will agree with me that on the whole it has been to the advantage of the country, and the cattle trade of the country, that people have started pedigree herds. It has involved the sinking of a certain amount of capital; the return on that capital is not excessive, and it has been of benefit not only to the owners of the herds, but to the districts in which the herds are situated, because the general stock has been improved in those areas. I would suggest to the Minister that persons who have sunk their capital in starting pedigree herds are entitled to some consideration, and that such consideration can best be given either by eliminating this provision, allowing the Minister to rule out some breed or type as unsuitable for a particular district, or, at any rate, by giving an effective appeal. I scarcely think that that provision is necessary unless there is some particular evil that the Minister wishes to guard against. As a matter of fact, the breed or type that is unsuited to a particular district does not survive in that district. Jerseys and Guernseys are not suited to the Irish climate, and except in particular areas you do not find people starting herds of Jerseys and Guernseys, though in places to which they are suited they are most excellent. So that unless there is a real danger I would suggest to the Minister that on a further Stage he should reconsider this particular clause. I have criticised these two points because I believe they weaken the Bill, and I do not want the Bill weakened; I want the Bill to be a really effective measure for removing what is a serious evil, and for creating better livestock and better dairy produce than we are producing and exporting at present.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I would say, as a Deputy coming from a county where a great many cattle are bred, that although I do not welcome this Bill I realise that it is a necessity, and that, being a necessity, I accept it. I am in agreement with the Minister that the time has come when something has to be done with regard to the improving of the condition of our cattle. Any of us who have been accustomed to attending bull sales in the different towns is aware that a large percentage of bulls are exposed for sale that are quite unfit for breeding purposes. We very often find from 50 to 70 per cent. of the kind of bulls exhibited in public bull sales quite inferior and quite unfit to be used for the propagation of good quality stock. In my county that also applies to a certain extent to the sale of springers. Springers are put up for sale at certain times of the year, and farmers buy these springers. They are in calf, and in calf to what bulls nobody knows. Very often these springers are bearing calves to bulls of a very inferior and very low grade, with the result that the calves when born are sold, go out into the country, and eventually come in amongst our store stock, and we see the result in all our fairs. We see in our fairs in the South perhaps 25 per cent. of really good shorthorn stores, 25 per cent. more of a lesser quality, and 50 per cent. of an inferior scrub type of cattle, and I agree with the Minister that the time has come when some compulsory measures are necessary to have the scrub type eliminated.

I think it would have been better if the farmers, without this compulsion, had been able to eliminate bad cattle, but apparently they have not been able to do so, and such being the case, I suppose there is no way out of it but compulsion. The Minister has talked about the milk yielding qualities of cattle and Deputy Gorey has talked about the milk yielding qualities of cattle, but from the information I have got and from my own personal knowledge, I believe that the average milk yielding quality of the cattle in this country has decreased within the past twenty or thirty years, and I want to remind the Minister that that result is not the fault of the farmers. It is the fault of the Department of Agriculture. The Department introduced the shorthorn bull, the beef shorthorn bull, with the result that the crossing of that short-horned bull has considerably diminished the milk yielding qualities of the cattle of the country. I will acknowledge it has improved the beef yielding qualities, but it has certainly decreased the milk yielding qualities. I agree with Deputy Cooper in saying that it is difficult to understand exactly the means by which the Minister intends to carry out the measures he proposes in this Bill. A great deal of it is left open to regulation by the Department and by the Ministry. That may be necessary, but I would like to see the means which he intends to adopt rather more specifically stated in this Bill. There is no indication of what measures are to be taken to enforce this Bill, what system of inspection will be, what the cost is to be, and who are going to be appointed inspectors. There is no clear indication of how it is to be done. I would hold out a suggestion to the Minister with regard to the inspection, and it is that agricultural instructors in the counties might be used to a certain extent. If their services were utilised —of course, in addition, the services of a veterinary surgeon will be sometimes necessary—a good deal of expense might be saved.

I also take exception to Section 3, Clause B, of the Bill, with regard to the type of cattle which are to be bred. The Minister is taking power—I believe the farmers are willing to give him that power and are willing to support him in that power—to change the grade of the cattle and to see that we have no inferior scrub type of bulls, but I certainly say the farmers will altogether resent any attempt by the Ministry to tell them what type is to be kept in any particular section of the country. That is going altogether too far in the way of bureaucratic control. The farmers are not prepared to acknowledge that cattle breeding can be controlled by the Minister or the Department of Agriculture. For my part, I am determined to make a strong fight to see that that clause is eliminated, and I think the Minister will find that the general opinion is altogether contrary to its retention. Farmers themselves should know their business, the majority of them do know it, and if they want to breed a pure breed of cattle they like to breed cattle that are suitable to their farm and to their district, and they should not be told by the Minister that they must not breed Aberdeen Angus, Herefords or Kerrys.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Is the Deputy speaking of pure pedigree stock?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Yes, I am now.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

It makes all the difference, you know.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I was speaking of both kinds, as a matter of fact. For instance, a farmer with the shorthorn milking type might introduce a Hereford cross or the Aberdeen Angus cross for the purpose of producing a crop of calves merely, but he does not want to be told that he is not allowed to do that. He does not want to be told he has got to have a dairy shorthorn. The Minister has power to forbid him using the Hereford bull for the purpose of getting these suitable fat calves.

There is only one other suggestion I would like to make. The Minister takes power to apply the Bill to boars. I would wish to see the application of the Bill to boars. I would say it was more necessary even than to bulls, and my party would be with me in that. We would like to see this measure applied to boars at once, because I believe the quality of pigs in the country is not at all what it should be. I know from my own experience, from seeing young pigs that are brought into the fairs, that a very large percentage of them are of a very inferior type, and I believe the application of this Bill is practically as necessary in the case of boars as in the case of cattle.

Mr. WILSON

I also welcome the Bill, and when I say that, I speak as a farmer who represents farmers in the constituency I come from. It is unnecessary for me to say that. The Commission of Agriculture has foreshadowed this reform, but the machinery which that Commission has advocated is not being used by the Minister. I believe he has taken his machinery more from the North-Eastern Counties than from the model advocated by the Free State Commission of Agriculture. We all hope that the rosy predictions which the Minister has given as the result of the Bill will be fulfilled. I believe that three-quarters of the breeding of our cattle goes in at the mouth; that is, the feeding of stock plays a more important part in the results to be obtained even than the breeding. Therefore, I wish to point out a factor which may discount the good results which are to accrue from this Bill. It is urged, or it is stated that we could very readily increase the milk-yielding power of our cows by 200 gallons. I see no hope of that at all. Where you see a farmer who refuses to join a dairy-testing society, absolutely refuses to join it, I have no hope, and the only hope I have is to see the farmers getting sufficiently educated to know that it is necessary to test their dairy cows. You can do something by breeding, but results can only be obtained by an increase of cow-testing associations. I believe the Minister knows that.

Another point which has been missed is that 33,000 bulls will have to be certified by a certain date. Where are the farmers going to get the money to buy these 33,000 bulls? It will mean that each farmer will have to sell his National Loan to buy a bull for his stock. The price of bulls will rise, and I cannot see where the money for these 33,000 bulls is to be found.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

What 33,000 bulls does the Deputy refer to?

Mr. WILSON

The Minister says there are 33,000 scrub bulls which will be displaced by the operations of the Bill—unregistered bulls. We have 900 pure-bred bulls.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

It is hardly necessary to remind the Dáil that I said exactly the opposite.

Mr. WILSON

I must be getting deaf. The Minister says there are 900 pure-bred bulls registered under the various schemes of the Department. There are 33,000 other bulls in the country. These will have to be inspected and, if there is any necessity for this Bill at all, they will be cast.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

What I did say was that the contention that a very large proportion of these 33,000 bulls were scrub bulls was very much overdone.

Mr. WILSON

The Minister did say that. I am assuming that it is not overdone, and that the 33,000 bulls are to be cast. Deputy Gorey says it is easy to rectify the milk strain. I am pointing out what are real difficulties in the matter. It will be necessary to have these 33,000 bulls inspected. Certainly a considerable number of them will not pass the test. Take the case of a small farmer who has six or seven cows and a bull. He is up against the proposition that he will have to buy a bull which will suit the requirements of the Department. Where is he to get the money? That is one phase of the subject that ought to be considered.

Another question which is agitating the minds of farmers is that they ought not to be compelled to pay two guineas for the referee who may be brought in. They consider it is sufficient if they get their bull registered and pay 5/-. If the bull is cast, and they have to pay two guineas before they can have a referee appointed, they consider that is not fair to them. The fee for the second inspection of the animal ought not to be placed on the shoulders of the farmer.

On the whole, the Bill ought to effect some improvement. It will effect some improvement. But the dairy strain will not be improved except (1) the cow-testing associations are taken up very much more by the farmers; (2) the winter feeding of our dairy stock is very much improved; (3) the referees to be appointed under the Bill are men who will understand the requirements of the district where they are sent.

Mr. C. HOGAN

It has fallen to my lot more or less to utter the first critical note of the principle underlying this Bill. I represent a minority of farmers, and, bowing to majority will, I do not propose to oppose the Bill. At the same time, I feel it incumbent upon me to criticise both the principle of the Bill and the various details. This Bill involves principles of the very first magnitude. I might say it is epoch-making. For the first time the State is taking an active control in our main national business, and I do not believe, with such a prospect, that we ought, lightly, to let the principle which underlies the Bill, go unchallenged.

I stand—and I think I have expresed it once before in this Dáil— very much against State control of industry. I stand for individualism in business. It is given to men to look into the past, and reflecting and knowing from experience how very little business has benefited from State control, I am rather sceptical as to the virtue in this measure. In Great Britain during the war the State controlled industry. It is a common complaint amongst manufacturers to-day that their business has been killed. Although I believe in individualism in business, I am not a whole-hogger in the matter. I fancy that while the man has the more direct interest in the solvency of his own affairs, the State could be of very great assistance to him; that their functions, as it were, are dovetailed, complementary to each other. In that respect, I believe it is more by education than by direct coercive methods that the State can achieve the ideal which we are all so very much interested in—putting our business on a right foundation.

I contend that the farmer having the primary interest, seeing that his gains and losses are determined by his own management of his affairs, must, of necessity, and by the very operation of his own reasoning faculties, do his utmost within his limitations to achieve the best results for himself. I am afraid that the entry of the State in a large measure will have the effect of making him less self-reliant, of making him look to the State more and more— looking up to it, as it were—and that he will not be as efficient as heretofore. Therefore, I contend that freedom in the exercise of business is essential to progress, and that it is a retrograde step for the State actively to intervene in the control of industry.

To me liberty or freedom is not an incorporeal abstraction, but something which impregnates every feature of our life. I divide liberty into social freedom, political freedom, religious freedom, and business freedom. I maintain that they lie in the same plane, that they are identical in composition and that in all essential matters they are one. I still maintain that we are not engaged on the right course when we take this retrogade step of putting the State in supreme control and in effacing as it were, the individuality of the farmer. That is what this Bill amounts to, in a very large measure—subjecting the individual to restraint.

I know that my colleagues have, somehow, adopted the other view and I have never been able to understand it. They must have been studying some of the nineteenth century political philosophers, and had just a rudimentary acquaintance with some of their theories. For instance, Ruskin put out the idea that liberty existed only in the savage and that civilisation itself was incident on restraint. I cannot defer to this ready-made idea. I absolutely refuse to accept it. I realise that this is a majority demand and as such I am not actively opposing it.

Turning from the general to the particular I ask, has the State in this country such a consistent and uniform record of success that we farmers can afford to efface ourselves largely and hand over our affairs to the State? I do not think the Department of Agriculture has any such record for complete success. I know very well that it has failed in many directions. Deputy Gorey spoke of the decay of the milk strain amongst cows. Was that not largely the effect of the policy of the Department of Agriculture? They sent down bulls to dairying districts of a beef-producing type. They did not study the needs of the locality. It is a well-known thing amongst farmers that each locality has its own needs. The needs of one locality—I will not say they are inimical—are often at cross-purposes with those of others. With a knowledge of the activities of the Department for many years I am not disposed to let a chill-blooded bureaucracy assume control of my business. I am not prepared to admit that the Irish cattle trade or Irish farming conditions in general are in a very bad way. If they are in a bad way it is owing to economic pressure and the result of bad markets rather than any slackness in business methods. I do not think my friends in the Farmers' Party are very wise when they want to put the Department of Agriculture in a dominant position with regard to our main industry. I know they are well intentioned but I am under the impression that they have not a complete knowledge of the anatomy of political institutions. They have not.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Is that in order?

Mr. C. HOGAN

Perfectly in order.

Deputy Heffernan has referred to Section 1, Sub-section 3:

In any prosecution for an offence under this section the burden of proof that a licence or permit had been granted under this Act in respect of the bull and was in force shall lie on the person prosecuted and unless and until the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that no such licence or permit had been granted or that if such licence or permit had been granted it was no longer in force on the day on which the offence was alleged to have been committed.

I contend that when a Department institutes a prosecution against any person the onus of proof is thrown on the Department to show that the man had not the licence required by the section. I am afraid it is a bad principle to admit that the onus of proof is thrown on the defendant. It is quite wrong.

Section 6, sub-Section 2, says:—

Every person who, knowing the name or address of the owner of a bull to which this Act applies or of the person by whom such bull is kept, refuses when so required to give such name or address to an inspector or to any member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or of the Gárda Síochána shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding two pounds.

That is another sub-Section to which I must take rather strong exception. A man is necessarily only responsible for his own actions. Under this sub-Section it is quite possible for an inspector who sees a bull in a field to ask the nearest passer-by the name of the owner. He may or he may not know it. I do not see why the man should give the necessary information. After all it is bringing him down to the position of a common informer.

Mr. GOREY

Spying on the bull.

Mr. C. HOGAN

Spying on the bull. Section 12, sub-Section 6, says:—

Where the owner of a bull is not known, a notice under this section in relation to that bull may be addressed to "the owner of a bull" without naming him, and in any case a notice under this section may be served by delivering it to the person to whom it is addressed, or by delivering it to a person over sixteen years of age on the lands or premises on which the bull to which it relates is then kept, or by sending it by post to the person to whom it is addressed at his last known place of abode or the place at which the bull to which it relates was last known to be kept.

But he is not known! I am afraid the draftsman perpetrated a neat little joke on the Department. How can you find the owner of the bull when his name is not known? I think the Minister will have to strike out that sub-section.

Deputy Heffernan drew attention to Section 3 (d)

to be affected by any other disease or defect prescribed as a disease or defect rendering a bull unsuitable for breeding purposes.

I am in complete agreement with him as to the need of striking out that sub-section. Speaking as a farmer, I know very well that the quality of cattle in any locality is largely the result of the kind of soil, the treatment, and the conditions under which they have been kept. If you have, for instance, inferior land, the cattle begin to deteriorate. In other words, the high qualities in them become not effaced but almost suppressed. If they were shifted to better pasture there would be a restoration of their good qualities, and they would become just as good as they were before. The same is true of the progeny of these animals. There is an apparent deterioration, but it is unreal when they are removed to better quarters where their dominant qualities —we know there are dominant qualities in live-stock—at once assert themselves. In other words, cattle react to environment. I do not think that that subclause should be allowed in the Bill. After all, it is a matter of expediency, but if the Minister were to insist and be adamant on the question, we agrarians would become more or less conscripts without minds or wills of our own. I think there is very little more to be said, but a last moment thought has struck me in dealing with this measure. Somehow or other all of a moment I recall Alexander Selkirk's soliloquy on the desert island, and I believe that the opening lines might be very appropriate, perhaps, to some Minister for Agriculture in the future, as when he goes down the country he can say, with pardonable pride:

"I am monarch of all I survey, My right there is none to dispute;

From the centre all round to the sea, I am lord of the fowl, the beast, and the brute."

Mr. D'ALTON

I wish to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I think it is very necessary, but at the same time I agree with some of the speakers that there are clauses in it which the Minister might consider could be amended with advantage at a later date. There are, however, very few Bills which any Minister could introduce which, after careful consideration, and, above all, after the very studied opinions of those who read these Bills, a Minister would refuse to amend. I am sure that any reasonable amendments which are considered necessary in this Bill will be accepted by the Minister. I believe there are certainly some necessary in this Bill, but they are not so drastic as some people consider them to be. Deputy Connor Hogan says that he objects to the State taking control of the work that should belong to the private individual. In this particular instance I am aware that for five and twenty years the farmers in my district have been clamouring for something to be done. They have discussed it amongst themselves, and complained that strong action is necessary to prevent the breed of cattle from deteriorating. They complain, especially, against these scrub bulls to which Deputy Gorey has referred. The Committees of Agriculture, of which I am a member in my own district and which are comprised mostly of farmers, have been clamouring for such a Bill. They see the necessity for it. They say that there is no use in talking about the injury which a certain type of animal, bred in this country, is doing. They see the necessity for improving the milking strain without in any way depreciating the fattening qualities. I agree that that is possible, and I need not go into the question of the various breeds whether they are Shorthorn, Polled Angus, or any other kind. I think it was stated by Deputy Wilson that the Minister was retaining power to say that in certain districts certain bulls were not adaptable to those districts and should not get a licence. I do not think that the Minister retains to himself such power. Where you have pure breds, Shorthorn or otherwise, and where they are of a type which private owners may breed largely, I do not think that there is the slightest intention of interfering with them as long as they are pure bred. The bulls to be interfered with are those which are supposed to be dangerous to the interests of the country. They are neither good for milking nor for meat production, and that type of bull is to be found throughout the country in every district.

Deputy Wilson referred to the danger of these bulls being put aside by inspectors. In other words, he says there will be a shortage for farmers, and that small farmers will not be able to pay the price for the high-class bulls which we all wish them to have. In my district very small farmers milk only nine or ten cows, especially in Ballycoy, but still, year after year, they win prizes in Limerick and Tipperary. I believe that the judges said that the best cattle they saw this year were those shown in Tipperary, and these came, not alone from Tipperary, but from Wexford and Kilkenny. I have asked some of these men why they do not breed more bulls of the type for which they get first prizes at auctions, where there are very often from 150 to 200 bulls on sale. They say that they would do so if they were certain of a market, and in one instance a man told me that out of eight bulls he had six as good as those for which he got prizes. These small farmers breed that splendid type of cattle to which I refer and feed them in winter as Deputy Wilson so strongly and wisely recommends. If they got a market for those bulls they say that they would make it a trade to breed the proper class of animal. They say that they have sold quite as good calves as those for which they got prizes and which were afterwards exported and proved so valuable. I think there is very little danger from that point of view. This matter will come up again in Committee and I hope that Deputies will put reasonable amendments before the Minister. If I find they are reasonable I will support them. I again say to Deputy Hogan that the farmers in my district are very keen that such a Bill as this should be passed. They have been looking for it for years, and the members of the agricultural community generally see the necessity for it. There will be a loss to this country, as Deputy Gorey has pointed out, by keeping cattle which are not up to the standard and by putting on the market a type of bull which does not pay the farmer as I wish it would.

Mr. HEWAT

My taking part in the discussion in connection with an Agricultural Bill may seem strange, but as regards the Bill before us I acknowledge and admit that it is put forward by the Minister for Agriculture with the approval of the bulk of the farmers, and, I think, of the Farmers' Party as a whole. At all events, the bulk of the farmers in the country consider that it is necessary. It is a proposition to deal with what is called the scrub bull. I have no great or intimate knowledge of the scrub bull, but I am told that he is a grave offender. That being so, the Bill seems to be quite justified, but from my point of view it is an unfortunate state of affairs that it is justified in any way, because the Minister is adopting principles which are very much more far-reaching than those which apply to the particular matter with which the Bill deals. I have always looked with envy upon the farmer as being the man who, perhaps, of all others, is more independent and self-contained than most of us can be; in other words, he has in the past always decided for himself what he was going to do in his own interests, whether it was to set crops or breed cows. Acknowledging the importance of the agricultural industry a Board of Agriculture was set up. That Board has in the past been a fairly costly businesss.

I would like to say at this point that I think it is an enlightening criticism of the work of the Department, and the co-operation of the farmers in the work of the Department, that such a Bill as is indicated here, and other Bills in connection with dairy produce, should have been necessary. One would have thought that the Department of Agriculture would have particularly concentrated on getting the co-operation of the farmers in dealing with any problems that might arise in connection with their industry. At this stage it seems that both parties are willing to agree that various Acts of Parliament should be put into operation controlling what they are to do and how they are to do it, and, generally speaking, putting up a bureaucratic control of an important industry to the country, but I have some hesitation in subscribing to any such doctrine. The Bill says that farmers are not to have a bull except with the permission of the Department of Agriculture. If that is right, the farmer in the future will have very little initiative as to the class of cattle he is to deal with on his farm. The Department has views on cattle breeding and other matters which many of us might consider were inclined in an arbitrary direction, but if the farmers as a whole are willing and ready to hand over the whole administration of their business to a Government Department, all I can say is that I hope that in the development of the laws of this country the farmers will keep that legislation to themselves. In essence the proposition is unsound, whatever may be the reasons that justify the passing of this Bill.

I think the argument will be used that the man who owns cows has no responsibility as to the class of progeny he is putting on the market, but it must be remembered that as far as districts are concerned the cattle bred in one district are not necessarily retained in that district. They are probably scattered in various directions, and to say that in one district a certain class of cattle is to be bred, and in another, another class, is only in my judgment going to raise difficulties in the future. Either the Bill will not be operative to the full extent of its terms, or it will be very expensive and costly to adminster. Why confine the principle in this Bill to the scrub bull? Can you logically refuse to extend the same arguments you are using in connection with the scrub bull to the cocks and hens? It is equally essential you should breed hens, and have the best layers. Where are you going to end? You are establishing a principle which is very far reaching. Why not apply it to the highest as well as to the lowest, and why not apply it to individuals? I do not want to raise any cavilling objections to the Bill, but I think I am not out of order in drawing attention to what I consider is an aspect of the Bill—no matter how far the improvement may be that will be effected in the cattle, that in its essence it is administering by Act of Parliament a principle which I do not think you can apply all round.

The Minister may say it is only a temporary measure for raising the value of the cattle in the Saorstát. Possibly that is so, but I can hardly conceive of the adoption of a principle of this sort being beneficial to the country. For instance, fashion changes in cows as well as in everything else. I am told nowadays that instead of the demand being for the very large animals, of which we used to be so proud, that were fattened on the lands of Meath, these cattle are now almost unsaleable. The whole demand is for forced production of small cattle as being more convenient, and the selling value of which is very much above that of the larger stock. These things all change. The farmers' business has to be watched for the opportunity of altering the system of farming to suit the altered conditions of the times he is living in. To lay down hard-and-fast rules as to what a man is to do, and what he is not to do, is going very much to the root of bureaucratic control. As I said before, I ought not to criticise the Bill. The Farmers are the people most interested in the measure, and they are in favour of it, and are supporting it.

Therefore, it does seem as if I were exceeding any duty placed upon me in saying anything against the Bill, but I might say frankly that I object to the principle, apart from the good that the farmers may think the Bill would do, or apart from the good that the Minister for Agriculture may consider it will do. I think, in my humble judgment, it is going to do harm in the long run, and in the general outlook. If the farmer, or anybody else, is going to be subject to having his arrangements regulated for him, as to what he is going to buy, or what he is going to sell, or what he is going to breed, he may well be in a position of uncertainty. That position of uncertainty is, I believe, the cause of a great deal of the trade troubles in the country to-day. Underlying them is the want of confidence and the want of stability in the outlook. Generally, I maintain that as far as the principle involved in the Bill is concerned, it is not a good one.

Mr. GOREY

I would like to make a little explanation, if I may, in regard to some of the strictures that Deputies on these benches have made in regard to the Bill——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is this a second speech?

Mr. GOREY

No; it is only that I wish to make an explanation, if you will allow me. If you do not, it will be all right.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Very well, I will hear your explanation.

Mr. GOREY

The explanation is that we are giving effect to the considered opinion of the Farmers' Unions and the various farmers' associations all over the country. All these associations have been passing this class of resolution for years, and if we are at fault in this matter, as the Deputy says we are, it is because some of us have been studying the cattle question at fairs and on the fields for twenty-five or thirty years, while other Deputies were studying Horace or the dictionary. I want to assure the Deputy that if we have made mistakes in this matter, these are mistakes the results of which we are willing to bear, as representing the country. Another Deputy said this Bill is not welcomed by the farmers. It is welcomed by us and by our associations.

I want to assure Deputy Connor Hogan that while the things he has seen in Clare may be perfect, they are not at all perfect in the ten or twelve counties that I am acquainted with. It is the general rule to find that in the Spring fairs, when the animals are bought, and in the Autumn fairs, when they are sold, a considerable number of them look more like the picture of the animal that used to appear on the match box a few years ago than what the people of the country desire.

Mr. BAXTER

If Deputy Hewat did not pass strictures on the farmers generally for their attitude, I would not feel that I was called upon to say anything. He fears interference with the trade. I want to assure Deputy Hewat that if we were satisfied with the profits we were making in our business we would not want any interference, and I doubt if we would tolerate any interference on the part of the State. We are not satisfied with the conduct of our business. We see failings partly due to lack of educational facilities for the farmers, and partly due to the handling of matters by the Department of Agriculture in other days. When Deputy Hewat remarks that we have complaints to make of the Department in other days, and when he points out that that is also a danger in the future, we want to assure Deputy Hewat that though the Department in those days did good work in some ways, it did not consider Agriculture from the Irish agriculturist's point of view. The mind of the Department in those days was the mind of the foreigner, and the farmers of Ireland had not the control over that Department in those days that they feel they are to have over the Department of to-day and to-morrow.

If, generally, this measure is welcomed, it is with the feeling that there is not going to be bureaucratic control absolutely. There is a feeling that the farmers of the country generally, and their representatives, are going to have a good deal to say about the regulations that are to be made under such a measure as this and its administration, and with the consciousness that there will be organized opinion to speak out when the Ministry is going too far. I would suggest to Deputy Hewat that he would permit a trial of this measure and if it brings success to us and to the farmers generally, that he might not be so antagonistic to such matters in future.

Mr. McKENNA

Like most of my colleagues on these benches, I rise to support the measure. I took the opportunity when the Bill was published of having it considered by thirty-five branches of the Farmers' organisation in Westmeath and twenty-eight in Longford, and I was present at the National Executive, where it was also submitted for consideration. These bodies were unanimously in favour of the Bill. I would like to ask the Minister for Agriculture to extend the scope of the Bill so as to make it include premium boars and rams. In the past there has been a lot of laxity in the selection of boars. I was myself a member of the County Committee of Agriculture for a number of years, and the system in vogue then for the selection of animals was a good one. The County Committee generally gave out a number of premiums each year. The Department, in their model farms, bred boars fit for such purposes, and sent down a number of them to the various county committees. Oftentimes, however, they would not have the required number, and sometimes they allowed them to be bought from private breeders. Sometimes these farmers would not have a good class animal. Therefore, I would like the Minister to include in the Bill premiums to boars.

It is my opinion that the Bill has the unanimous approval of the farmers of Ireland. In the past there were lots of complaints in the various counties about calves got by these scrub bulls, and in the county in which I live, Westmeath—one of the best cattle-feeding counties in Ireland—a lot of calves were imported in the past from the South of Ireland. We know in those districts where the creameries are in the South, oftentimes a man will have from thirty to eighty cows, and in the past some of them were not very cautious in the selection of the bull, and the result was that the calves that came into our county turned out badly. Naturally the farmers are anxious that the measure introduced by the Minister for Agriculture will help to safeguard their interests.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

May I be permitted to offer an explanation in reply to Deputy Gorey. I have not challenged Deputy Gorey's right to speak on behalf of the organised farmers of Ireland. He does so. I stated that I represented a minority. I got a mandate from the County Executive of the Clare Farmers' Association to oppose the measure.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The Bill as drafted can be made apply to boars and rams. Section 19, sub-section (2) says:

"The Minister may at any time after the appointed day by order apply the provisions of this Act with such modifications as may be specified in such order to boars or rams or to both boars and rams, and any such order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be varied or revoked by any subsequent order of the Minister."

It is, perhaps, a little bit late to argue the principle of the Bill with Deputy Hewat, because, as has already been stated, the principle of the Bill has already been accepted by the Commission of Agriculture, the various Farmers' organisations and the County Committees of Agriculture; so it is not real politics to argue about the principle of the Bill at the moment. I do think, and I would suggest to Deputy Hewat, that his rigid belief in Free Trade pure and simple, with no interference of any kind by the State, is a little bit out of date. I cannot understand the point of view of a Deputy who says:—"I do not care what good this Bill does; I do not care if it effects all you claim for it; I do not care if it even exceeds all anticipations and has more useful, more valuable, and more effective results, because, notwithstanding all that, I am against State interference." That is an extraordinary point of view. It seems to me to be the only dogma—the only rigid dogma— that the Deputy has, and I cannot understand it.

When I was moving the Second Reading of the Bill this evening, I quoted some figures, and I tried to show the results that might be achieved by an intelligent administration of this Bill. I stated that I was careful to quote under estimates, and I asked Deputies to point out to me if, in any of those figures, I was overstating the case. I pointed out that we could at least aim at an improvement in quality which would mean an increase of £1 per head per beast, or in the aggregate £1,000,000 per annum. I also stated that it ought to be possible to increase the milk yield of each cow by something like 200 gallons per annum— from something less than 400 gallons to something less than 600 gallons. I said that was a modest proposal, a proposal that ought to be within the competence of Irish agriculturists. It does not require any great organisation work or any particular stimulus for Deputies to examine these figures and see whether they are sound. Deputy Wilson referred—and I think it was the only reference—to those figures when he said, in effect:—"They are all right, but the fact is it can be done, but will not be done." That was the effect of Deputy Wilson's speech.

If that is so, it is an extraordinary state of affairs. "It can be done but it will not be done." The farmers will not do it. They will not make a net profit of eight millions per annum, a net profit which, on their own admission, they can get with a reasonable amount of work and organisation. The creamery farmers of the south will not make a fifty per cent. increase in their net profits, even allowing that half the increased milk yield goes to butter exports. Nobody has ventured to suggest that there was any overstatement of the case on my part. Most hard-headed farmers will agree that, if anything, I have understated the case. Yet the position is that we are told although it can be done it will not be done.

I heard from Deputy Heffernan that the Department of Agriculture did a lot of wrong things in the past and that they are responsible if the present dairy cows have a very low milk yield. In addition he stated that when he went to bull sales or to fairs, he found that fifty per cent. of the cattle were scrub cattle, and at the sales he found that at least fifty per cent. of the bulls were scrub bulls. Farmers who will not organise for the purpose of taking this profit which is well within their reach, state, through one of their representatives, that the Department of Agriculture, in its operations in the past, was responsible for the present low yield of our dairy cattle. Very little time, thought and attention will show the Deputy that that is a gross overstatement. I pointed out that there were 900 premium county and leased bulls in the country. Those are the bulls the Department have at present under control after ten years' operation of their live-stock schemes.

Mr. GOREY

What year did the schemes commence?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I should say that after twenty years they control about 900 bulls. That is to say they control about two and a half per cent. of the bulls of the country, and of these 900 not half are dairy bulls. A little more than half are beef bulls. About one and a quarter per cent. of the beef bulls are responsible for the bad milk yield of 1,250,000 cows.

Mr. GOREY

What percentage of the bulls came under the Department ten years ago when the damage was done? How many were beef bulls, and how many were dairy bulls?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The proportion at the moment is as I have stated.

Mr. GOREY

We have nothing to do with what was done in the past.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The proportion of bulls controlled by the Department was never more than three per cent. of the bulls in the country, and of the three per cent. only a little more than half were beef bulls. At the outside, the Department controlled about three per cent.

Mr. GOREY

I make the statement that at the outside the Department were the people who destroyed the dairy shorthorn strain in the country. It is in the district wherever the pure-bred shorthorn breed is that you have no milk; you have to go outside it to get milk.

Mr. NOLAN

But what of the descendants of the bulls the Department controlled? How many bulls in the country are descendants of the Department's bulls?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

While the scheme was in operation only two per cent. were bulls under the control of the Department.

Mr. GOREY

We would like to have the figures. I suggest that the Minister should leave the Department of the past out of it and not take their sins on his shoulders. Let him begin on the new.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I intend to say all I have to say.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I know that.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

If I might diverge for a moment, I wish to say there is too much easy criticism of the Department of the past; the criticism is very much too easy. There are too many general statements made about the Department of the past. I would be more impressed if people would come to details and point out where the Department of the past, as Deputy Gorey stated, sinned. I know it is a pity to have to face realities and face the problem in the spirit, as Deputy Connor Hogan called it, of chill-blooded bureaucracy. That is the phrase. Still, we must face the fact that not more than two per cent. of the bulls in the country were ever controlled by the Department. I agree there are descendants of those bulls, but they are only descendants of the two per cent. What about the other ninety-eight per cent.?

Mr. GOREY

I will not accept those figures, so the Minister had better not be labouring that point.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Minister is replying to a fairly exhaustive debate, and he must be allowed to state his conception of the figures. Deputy Gorey may not believe the Minister, but he need not be telling us that he does not believe him; we will assume that.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

In the past there were far more premium bulls in the country. Two per cent. of the bulls, that is the beef bulls, of this country were controlled by the Department of Agriculture. Putting it another way, the Department of Agriculture were responsible for about two per cent. of the beef bulls of the country. Now as to the descendants of these bulls. I suppose some of them are there still, but so are those of the other 98 per cent. and that is the point: that you cannot compare the various produce of bulls by reference to any one year. It is absurd. The other 98 per cent. have descendants also and I am merely pointing out that it is perfectly absurd to say that any deterioration in the milk yield of the cows of the country is due to the 2 per cent. of the beef bulls the Department put out year by year. I can quite understand Deputy Gorey when he tells me he does not know that the figures are correct. But he can look them up and verify them.

Mr. BAXTER

Supposing the beef bulls were 2 per cent. twenty-five years ago how many would there be the next year, and how many of those beef bulls have we in the country now if they were doubling every year for twenty years?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

This idea seems to have stuck in Deputy Baxter's mind. I answer his question by asking another: If there were 98 per cent. of a certain type of bulls two years ago, what percentage do their descendants represent to-day?

Mr. GOREY

I suggest again to the Minister he should deal with the future and not continue dealing with the past.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I am genuinely trying to arrive at a conclusion in this matter. It is an extremely important matter and I think it worth while wasting a little time if I can persuade the farmers here of something that is much more important than fee-farm rents, or even arrears of land-purchase annuities.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

We do not deny its importance at all.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

And consequently we cannot come to a conclusion and see where we are going unless we get our data and facts correctly; we must diagnose the disease before we treat it. To blame the Department of Agriculture for any deterioration in dairy cows is idle in face of the fact that there are only 40,000 cows under test at the present moment. If the organised farmers came to think about it, and if they realised the advantage of cow testing and increasing the milk yield, if they think out for themselves the figures I have quoted and accept them, and the view that here could be a net profit to them, in a short time, of eight million pounds per annum, and yet refused to organise themselves to bring about that happy consummation, then it is idle to blame the Department of Agriculture.

I agree with a certain statement made by Deputy Hewat that it would be much better if this thing could be done by the Farmers' Organisation, but on the other hand I say there are good reasons embedded in the past for the comparative failure to do these things which obviously should have been done. We have to put the one against the other. We have to take the situation as we find it. We have to agree now, that is to say, the Department of Agriculture and the farmers of the country, that there must be, not only voluntary schemes on one side, not only activity on one side, but also that there must be a certain amount of compulsory legislation upon the other.

I said in opening this debate that the contention that a very large proportion of the 33,000 bulls in the country were "scrub" bulls was very much overdone. I repeat that; and it was overdone in the debate. I cannot agree with Deputy Heffernan when he says that when he goes to a fair he finds fifty per cent. of the cattle of very bad quality, and that when he comes to any of our bull sales he finds sixty per cent. "scrub" bulls. That is a surprising statement. I have discussed this matter with farmers; I have tried to get at the facts, and I have my own experience, and that statement of Deputy Heffernan does not square with the facts as I know them. I think when he goes to a fair he will find that there is not at all such a high percentage of poor quality, but he will find a very large percentage of cattle that were allowed to grow too old, far too old as stores, and not sufficiently finished; and if he goes down to the North Wall he will find that the quality on the whole is fairly good.

But, on the other hand, cattle are going out that are supposed to be fat, but that are not sufficiently finished; and fat cattle are going out in some cases finished, but a great percentage are far too old. They are not the young beef required to-day. You want intelligent breeding, but you want also to have efficient and intelligent feeding. You want what Deputy Hewat spoke about when he referred to the necessity for adaptability in the farmers. We have a more complex problem in this country than they have in any other agricultural country in Europe, and you want more adaptability, more education, and more intelligence from the Irish farmer, on account of his peculiar difficulties, and the complexity of his difficulties, than you require, for the same result, in any other farmer in Europe. I hope for certain results in this Bill, but we cannot have them except that, on their side, the farmers, adopting the propositions that I put forward as possible, will organise themselves, will co-operate with the Department, and see to it through their organisations that there is the right sort of breeding, and that there is more efficient and more economical feeding.

Let me refer to a few specific points made. A number of Deputies criticised in Section 3 (1) (b): “The Minister may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any bull which appears to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is kept or is proposed to be kept.”

I agree with Deputies that it would be a great hardship if a pedigree breeder was unable to keep any purebred bull to be used for his own purposes, and I am willing to consider any amendment that is put in on Committee Stage with the object of making that position quite clear. But, on the other hand, that section is necessary. No Deputy would suggest that the Department of Agriculture could allow a Jersey bull to stand in the County Limerick for the service of the countryside; that would be impossible. If you are going so far as to prevent a bad Shorthorn standing in Tipperary, Limerick or Cork, then we cannot have a good or bad Jersey bull serving Shorthorn cows in Limerick. We cannot take the line that individual farmers will see that only suitable cows are sent to the bulls, because the whole case underlying the Bill is, we cannot leave these things to the individual farmer. I do not think I need put it any further than to say we cannot allow a Jersey bull to stand in Limerick for service.

Major COOPER

Will the Minister consider the advisability of drafting an amendment himself for the pedigree herds.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I will do that. It is a very difficult and complex matter. With regard to the referee, I do not think it would meet the case of this particular sub-section to give additional power to the referee with regard to it. I prefer to make it clear by an amendment that a pedigree bull may be kept by a private individual for his own cow. I think Deputy Wilson suggested there should be no fee for an appeal to the referee. Where would that lead us?

There will be a certain number of farmers who will not like the administration of this Bill, and, if they could appeal to the referee in every case, the referee would be kept as busy as the inspectors of the Department are at present. That must be obvious to Deputies. A considerable minority of farmers might in every case, where a bull was rejected, through pique and natural vexation, appeal to the referee, because if the Deputy's suggestion were agreed to it would cost them nothing to do so. It must be remembered that it will cost a lot of money to send a referee down the country to hear appeals, and hence we must put on a fee to make it fairly sure that any appeal to the referee is a serious appeal. I think we safeguard the position pretty fairly when we provide in the Bill that in the event of the referee's decision being upheld the fee goes back. Deputy Cooper asked at what age does a calf become a bull, and he complains that we have not defined a bull. How could we define a bull? There is no question that a bull is of the cattle tribe, and there is no danger that there will be any dispute as to whether boars are bulls. I do not see how we can define a bull except to say that every calf must be castrated after two months, and if not must be regarded as a bull for the purposes of this Act. But that might be very serious.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The owner of the calf, pedigree or otherwise, may not be in a position to say when the calf is two months old whether it is going to shape right or not, or whether he is going to be good enough for the purpose for which he requires him. It would limit the owner very much if, in two months' time, he had to declare that he was going to retain the calf for breeding purposes. I do not think we could define that in an Act.

Major COOPER

If the Minister cannot define it in the Bill how can he define it in regulations. The Bill says that the Minister may make regulations defining it.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

You can make regulations without defining it in the sense that the Deputy means. I do not think it is intended to say in any regulations that the age shall be nine or ten months. You can have a general definition without a specific age, and you will have to leave it to the inspectors to say at what age a particular bull is a bull for the purposes of the Act. In practically all cases it will be at the age of nine or ten months. The age at which the bull will become fit for service will largely depend upon the particular animal. If the Deputy will show me how we can introduce such a definition, without doing an injustice to the owner of the animal, I will be prepared to consider the matter. I do not see that the section, as it stands, is going to do any harm to anyone. This is not a rigid bill and could not be a rigid bill.

Major COOPER

Would it not be practicable to make a regulation to the effect that the bull should be registered on or before the 1st March in the year following its birth, except in the case of February calves. I think very few bulls are serving before the months of January or February.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

That is to say in the case of November or December calves?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

All these are questions that the Deputy can raise when the Committee Stage of the Bill is reached.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I think, too, it would be better to have these matters discussed on the Committee Stage. Deputy Heffernan complains that there is no indication here as to the means by which it is intended to carry out the Bill; as to the cost of the Bill and as to who are to inspect. I cannot understand that objection being made to a Bill that is to become an Act of Parliament. Surely the Deputy does not suggest that I should put in a Section stating, as I believe it will, that this Act is going to cost about £10,000 a year, and that the inspections will be carried out by A, B, C, D, E and F of the Livestock Inspection Department.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

My intention was to criticise the Bill from the point of view that it gave no indication as to the cost of it. The Minister in his opening speech did not give us an estimate as to what it would cost.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

If that question had been put in a definite form I could quite understand it. I believe the Bill will cost about £10,000 a year. I think it is worth that, and I believe it is cheap at the price.

Mr. HEWAT

I hope the farmers will pay for it.

Mr. GOREY

They pay for everything.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I was just going to say that the farmers practically pay for everything. Deputy Heffernan also complained that the quality of our pigs was not what it should be. I do not agree with him at all because I think we have probably the best pigs in the world. I think that that is admitted by every judge of livestock in Ireland, England and Denmark. The quality of our pigs is first class, and that is due to the Department of Agriculture. I know that there is something wrong, but not in the quality. The fact that the quality is so high is due to the old Department of Agriculture. I want to say that much.

Mr. GOREY

It is certainly due to whoever helped things in West Cork and Kerry, and perhaps it was not altogether the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps the Cork bacon curers had as much to say to it as the Department of Agriculture.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The officials of the Department of Agriculture were the first of their kind in Europe to realise that the large white York was going to be the right type of pig. They are realising that now in Denmark. Years ago in England, when no one would look at the large white York, the officials of the old Department of Agriculture in this country realised that that was going to be the right type of pig, and they bought them in England at a cheap price for use in this country. The result of that is that we have a greater percentage of first-class pigs in this country than is to be found now in any country in Europe, not excepting Denmark. What is wrong with the pigs is the feeding. I know that our farmers are not getting a fair show from the factories, and I fully realise that it is up to them to take the obvious step to meet that difficulty. It is the feeding that is wrong in this country, and that is where the Danes beat us. The quality of our pigs is first-class, and for that quality we must very largely thank the old Department of Agriculture.

Mr. GOREY

I just want to clear the air on this question. In any remarks that I made I was not reflecting on the inspectors of the Department. In fact, it is the other way about. I want to pay a tribute to the inspectors who have done such good work during the last eight or ten years. I should say that they have done wonders for our pig trade and cattle trade. If there was any fault to be found it was not the inspectors who were to blame. I desire to pay a tribute to the excellent work done by the principal inspector connected with the cattle trade in this country.

Mr. WILSON

How does the Minister explain the fact that 50 per cent. of our pigs are of the wrong type at the present time?

Mr. HOGAN

By denying it.

Mr. HEWAT

Is there a "scrub" pig?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I have tried to point out what I consider to be wrong in the pig trade. I do not think the fault is in the quality. It is, I think, in the feeding and in the organisation of the bacon trade, and I hope the farmers will take the obvious steps to right that immediately.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Might I explain —I did not like to interrupt the Minister when speaking, as there were so many interruptions? I would like to tell him that I still maintain that the policy of the Department of Agriculture is largely responsible for the decrease in the milk-yielding qualities of our cattle. Although he maintains that the Department only controls two per cent., he must know that they are breeding very widely from these, and that the facts prove that the milk-yielding qualities have as a result decreased, as the farmers in County Limerick can tell.

Motion put and agreed to. Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 5th November.

The PRESIDENT

I propose to take the Housing (Building Facilities) (Amendment) Bill, next, because we get an opportunity of having an earlier Third Reading, and we will have time to-morrow for dealing with the motions that are on the Order paper.