Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 7 Jun 1929

Vol. 30 No. 9

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Agriculture.

Debate resumed on the following motion: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."— (Deputy Ryan).

There are a few matters to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention in this Vote. For instance, there is the question of grants towards county committees of agriculture. Although the Vote will cost the taxpayer £2,000 more this year than last year, these committees are curtailed by about £1,500. I think these agricultural schemes ought to be brought up to date. The agricultural committees have been calling for a revision of the schemes for a considerable time, and I think it is time the Department took the matter up, in order to find out whether the schemes are applicable to conditions that now prevail, or whether they should be altered, having regard to the length they have been in existence.

I notice from the Estimates that there are thirty-seven veterinary inspectors, and that the expenditure includes allowances to inspectors as portal supervisors at Dublin. Cork Waterford, with salaries of £200 rising by £10 to £300, and from £300, rising by £15, to £400. Seventeen of these posts according to the note (J) are unestablished. Out of thirty-seven inspectors it is extraordinary to have practically 50 per cent. of them unestablished officers, in a country where live stock forms a most important part of its wealth, and when inspection is so necessary. It is extraordinary to have 50 per cent. of these engaged on the inspection of live stock at the ports on a temporary basis. The work these men have to do is of the greatest importance. I think complaints have been made from time to time that inspections cannot be carried out, and that there is no proper provision for doing so. Of the thirty-seven inspectors, the seventeen that are unestablished may remain so for twenty years, while waiting until vacancies occur, either through mortality or retirements. That means that if a veterinary inspector is engaged as an unestablished officer he may spend twenty years in the service of the Department, yet none of the time will be counted for pension purposes. I believe some time ago an inspector who had given thirty years' service retired and got a pension of £50 yearly, calculated on the last ten years when he was established. His first twenty years did not count because he was unestablished. I think we cannot expect the best from men who are treated like that. A veterinary surgeon has to do a four years' course for his profession. He has to have two years' practical experience after qualifying and, before he is accepted by the Department, he has to do a civil service post graduate course. Then I understand he has to submit to a severe medical test, and before he becomes an established officer, which may be anything from ten to twenty years, he is again subjected to a medical test.

If a veterinary inspector in the discharge of his duties during the period in which he is an unestablished officer contracts any disease, it very often happens that when he comes to the period when he may be established, if he does not stand the medical test he will not be established. He will be continued in the employment of the Department without any pension rights, and he will go out, either through ill health or at the end of his ordinary period of service, without any pension whatever and without any means of subsistence.

I understand that there is general dissatisfaction amongst the veterinary surgeons over this matter. All that they have asked for is the same terms which apply to their profession in England and in Northern Ireland. I believe that it does not mean very much in money as far as salary is concerned, but in respect of pension rights it means a great deal, and I would suggest to the Minister that it is a matter which certainly ought to be remedied, and remedied very speedily. As I said, if a veterinary inspector is taken on by the Department he may be in their service up to twenty years before he becomes an established officer. If, on the other hand, that man became a clerical officer he would be established after, I think, six months' probation, and all his service would count for pension purposes. It seems an extraordinary thing that a professional man who has had to go through so many college courses, as a veterinary surgeon has to, should be penalised, and penalised in a country like this which demands such rigid veterinary inspection of its live stock. There is one thing that I cannot accuse the Minister of and that is disregard for the interests of this country as far as live stock is concerned, but I think those men who are employed in the capacity of veterinary inspectors are very badly treated, and I would even venture to say that if they had been ordinary workmen we would have had a strike long ago. I am not saying that there ought to be a strike, but I do say that if they were in a different category there would have been a strike long ago. I understand that this matter was raised during the British occupation and that it was raised in England at the same time. I think their status in England was the same then, but the men here were promised that as soon as those in England were placed on a permanent basis the same thing would apply here. But that has not been done. In Northern Ireland they are established officers after two years probation. I think the very least that should be done here would be to put them in the same position as those in Northern Ireland.

There is another matter about which I would like to ask the Minister. For the Bovine Tuberculosis Order a sum of £4,800 is provided. I would like the Minister or the Department to clear up the misunderstanding that exists all over the country with regard to this Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926. There are misunderstandings between the local authorities, the veterinary inspectors and the Department. There was no Bovine Tuberculosis Order in operation from about 1918 up to 1926, when this Order was brought into operation. A great many veterinary inspectors were appointed during the period from 1900 to 1926, but they did not think that the operations of this Order came within their duties at all. At the moment I think there is a great misunderstanding about it, and the sooner it is cleared up the better.

Deputy Ryan yesterday told us that he cannot see any improvement from the operation of the Eggs Act, the Dairy Produce Act and the Live Stock Breeding Act. I am not surprised that Deputy Ryan does not see any improvement, if Deputy Ryan was serious in telling us, as he really did tell us in effect, that he does not know the difference between a £2 calf and a £4 10s. calf. That is ridiculous. He told us that the information contained in a certain leaflet from the Department in regard to the price of store cattle was useful to the farmer, but he did not think that it was any use to be told that calves were sold at from £2 to £4 10s. If Deputy Ryan does not know the difference between these two types of calves the farmer does.

I think Deputy Ryan said that calves under six months old were quoted at from £2 to £4 10s., and his point was what use that information could possibly be. He wanted to know if the £4 10s. referred to a calf a fortnight old or to a calf five months old.

What Deputy Ryan meant was what puzzled us all.

Not at all. He made it quite clear.

As far as the ordinary farmer is concerned, he knows very well. There is another matter to which I should refer. Deputy Dr. Ryan indulged for a considerable time in criticism of the various Acts. Perhaps there may be some ground for it. I do not know. There is, however, one thing he did not do which he, as prospective Minister for Agriculture, might be expected to do, and that is to give us his alternative policy. He has not, however, made any suggestion for improving those Acts. The only suggestion which he and his Party have made for the benefit of agriculture is to grow wheat. I am afraid that Deputy O'Reilly knocked the bottom out of that yesterday, when he told us that wheat was being grown in the Argentine to impoverish the land.

Mr. O'Reilly

On a point of explanation, what I meant by that statement was that the culture of wheat was not permanent in the Argentine; that they had not any manure to continue the growth, so that there would be an opportunity here as regards wheat.

It does not affect the matter whether the cultivation of wheat in the Argentine is permanent or temporary when, in the opinion of Deputy O'Reilly, it impoverishes the land.

Do not most crops do that?

I would like again to remind the Minister of the point I mentioned at the outset in regard to veterinary inspectors. It is a genuine grievance, and I will be glad to hear from the Minister that he is making some effort to clear up the matter.

I have listened to the speech of Deputy Brennan, which was fifty-fifty—half criticism of the Estimate before us and half criticism of Fianna Fáil. As the Deputy was undecided as to what exactly was his purpose in getting up, I need not deal with his remarks: My contribution to the debate will not be controversial. I want to put a few points to the Minister for Agriculture, and if in places I cut across other Departments, I shall try to keep in order. As regards live stock, credit is certainly due to the Department for the splendid condition in which cattle and pigs are at present as regards breeding, and so on.

It is, of course, essential to export the best, to keep up the good name of the country, and the Minister for Agriculture need not be afraid—he was inclined to express fears in other places—that anybody in this House wants a policy of no exports. I do not believe that any Party wants that. It was pleasant also to hear the Minister, if not advocating, at least suggesting his support for a policy of winter dairying. Out of that would certainly come more tillage, but as regards tillage in general, he says that it will come from producing more and better stock. Out of that will come tillage. That is perhaps true, but it will come slowly. If the Minister tells us that farmers know their business best and that we should not dictate to them, I may say that I have heard Ministers tell farmers that the methods of their fathers will not do, that they have to compete with the rest of the world, and that they require guidance— otherwise I suppose there would be no occasion for all the instruction which they are receiving from the Department. The feeding of stock is, of course, of great importance. Somebody has accused the Minister for Agriculture of being Minister for Grass. He is fond of making presents, and I make him a present of the reply that all flesh is grass, according to Scripture. That will be found to be scientifically true when analysed. What exactly is meant by grass in this connection is the problem. There is a distinguished French scientist of European fame in mathematics and astronomy called Abbe Morellet. He has written on other matters, and his books would be worth the study of the Minister for Agriculture—perhaps he has read them already—and he says that the soil of a country generally produces the food suited to man and beast in that country. Perhaps the excellence of Irish racehorses is due to the limestone in the Irish soil. The same would be true of human beings. We are importing over £11,000,000 worth of agricultural produce. That will have to be cut down. It might be remedied by more attention to domestic economy.

Mr. Hogan

£30,000,000.

That is worse. £11,000,000 worth of imports should be grown here.

Mr. Hogan

I beg your pardon. I thought you were dealing with exports.

No, imports. If, with the individual as with the nation, income and expenditure balance you have solvency but you have not much progress. I think that the Minister will agree that the small farmers are the hardest working men in this country, as they frequently work fourteen hours a day. I have known many of them to grow and grind their own wheat, kill and cure their own bacon, and grind their own corn for porridge. That type of food is much more suitable to Ireland and the Department, in co-operation with other Departments, should encourage it. That will secure more tillage. There may be objections on the part of shopkeepers that the farmers would then pay fewer visits to the shops. I do not believe that that will be the case as they will have more money to spend on other things. Farmers should be encouraged to grow a variety of vegetables and also to grow fruit. As a nation we are not great meat eaters. Bacon is the only meat that most small farmers eat and in that respect, it is said that there is some peculiar quality in American bacon, due to the method of curing, which makes it better to boil with cabbage. If that is so, at least some one of the bacon curers in this country should be encouraged to follow that method. That would be of advantage to the country. As regards vegetables, there is waste in this country which we cannot afford. Take places, like kilmacud, where there are schools of economy. There they teach people to cook five-course dinners, but most of the small farmers never heard of five-course dinners. They do not want them and, even if they did, they might be bad for them. These schools should cater for the small farmers and show them how to cook properly the food they use and how to make better use of the vegetables which they ought to, but do not, grow.

These are matters on which the Department might get the co-operation of the Department of Education. The danger, not so much in towns as in country districts, is that the science of cookery will develop simply into the scientific opening of tinned fruit. That is happening in other places and it should not be allowed to happen here. In regard to agricultural colleges, like Athenry and others, the pupils should be taught how to manage small farms from 25 to 40 acres instead of paying so much attention to large farms. The scholarships should be given for that purpose. There is grave need for inculcating among the people an idea of the dignity and importance of agricultural life. Most farmers' sons are inclined to think that the boy who goes into a shop and wears a clean collar and tie is better than a farmer's son. That feeling should be eradicated. I think it would be a very good thing if scholarships were made available in agricultural science for boys leaving national schools, or a few years after their leaving them, in agricultural colleges such as those at Pallaskenry, the McDevitt Schools and such places. Of course, they may want remodelling. Agricultural science is in many respects a technical subject, and I would advocate that these colleges should be recognised as intermediate schools and that grants should be given to them. I refer now to the McDevitt schools, Mountbellew Schools, Pallaskenry, and places like that. It would help to develop agriculture, create proper respect for agricultural life and lead to better management of farms and better domestic economy. It would also lead, I believe, to the development of more tillage and these matters are very important to the country. These are the points I would like to put to the Minister.

I would like to refer to one matter, the provision for flax-growing. I am sorry to see that there is a reduction of £1,400 in that item. Flax-growing is a very important industry in my constituency, and also in the counties of Monaghan, Cavan, Donegal and Mayo. It is very extensively grown in these counties. I think it was an error of judgment on the part of the Department to remove, six weeks ago, flax instructors from areas where they encouraged the development of the industry in years gone by, and especially to remove them at the crucial moment when farmers were preparing the ground and giving orders for seed. It had a very bad moral effect on the community, not, I think, that it reduced the acreage very much, but the moral effect on the farmer who intended to sow flax, in removing the instructors at the time of sowing, is very serious. The flax-grower naturally thinks that the Department is losing confidence in the industry. I hope that it was only an error of judgment on the part of the Department, and that before next year the Department will see the error of its ways and reinstate the instructors in those areas where flax is produced. I hope that the Minister will see that that is done.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to this Vote with the idea of focussing on the subject the attention it deserves. From my experience of this House I think that the general tendency of the majority of Deputies is to underestimate the importance of Irish agriculture, and the Department is charged with the development of agriculture. Starting off on that score, I would say to the Minister that if he wishes to get the farmers of Ireland and the Free State at his back for the uplifting of Irish agriculture, he must practise the doctrines he advocated here yesterday, and with which I agree, that he must get away from political discussions and concentrate all his energies on this matter. I would tell him that down the country I have met farmers—and, thank God, I can meet and speak with farmers of varying political outlook—who tell me that they agree with a good deal of the policy which the Minister for Agriculture advocates here, but they say that they entirely disagree, and so do I, that the Minister for Agriculture, the man who should look upon himself as the most important Minister in any State, particularly in an agricultural State such as this, should indulge in hard-hitting politically. I think personally that it would be better for the State if the Minister would leave aside his political activities and concentrate all his energies on the job he has in hands. I believe that is his duty.

All work and no play.

I will not confine my criticism in this respect to the present Executive. I do not care what Executive is in power, I would criticise it on the same grounds. I would say the job is big enough for the Minister to concentrate all his energies on it and that he should leave the political aspect of the question to be dealt with by the President, the Vice-President and the Minister for Justice of an Executive, no matter who they are. If we are going to make a success of the country from the farming point of view, we will have to achieve it by building up a closer co-operation amongst Irish farmers. The Minister has criticised Irish farmers for not coming together. I ask him, in Heaven's name, to lead the way. Let him take the attitude that Irish farmers can come together and that he will lead the way in this respect. I know Republican farmers in the country who would agree with much of the policy advocated by the Minister for Agriculture, but simply because their political feelings and his do not agree, no matter what he advocates agriculturally, they cannot agree to give that co-operation to his programme which otherwise would be forthcoming.

As an humble student of Irish agriculture and as a young farmer, I am anxious to see the Irish farmers come together and meet on the co-operative platform. They can meet and leave political discussions aside while engaged in the development of Irish agriculture. That need not prevent their entertaining honest differences of opinion on the national question and national aspirations, opinions that they should be allowed and permitted to hold. I hold my political opinions freely and I yield to no man in holding them. At the same time I am willing to concede to my fellow-farmers their right to hold theirs. In that spirit we have successfully come together for agricultural development in my native county. I would challenge contradiction on that point, that we have co-operated successfully there. So much for that point.

I am satisfied, whilst there may be matters of detail about which we would differ, that generally speaking the Department of Agriculture is doing a good deal for the development of Irish agriculture. I take this opportunity of saying to the farmers that they should take full advantage of the agricultural education available. Deputy Fahy spoke of the education of the average small farmer. I think a great deal could be done in that connection. There are many small farmers with from 50 acres downwards who, through stress of circumstances and the depression which has prevailed for the last few years, have not been able, no matter how willing, to provide for the proper education of their children. Unfortunately, it is true that in the past the brighter boys reared on the land have sought professions other than agriculture. The idea was prevalent that anyone could become a farmer and was good enough for carrying on that industry. That is the rock on which our farming industry has split. In order to cope with the modern trend of affairs, I believe our farmers must be educated as thoroughly as the farmers of other countries. There is no use talking of competing with Denmark, Belgium, or any other country, unless we go about it in the right way. We will have to see to it that a chance is given to our future farmers to be able to compete with their rivals all over the world. We will have to see to it that they get facilities to educate themselves for their occupation in life equal to those given in our universities to the young men who are about to enter other professions. Why should the taxpayers be called upon to pay for greater facilities for education for other branches than are given to the main industry of the country?

I speak from the farming point of view, and I hope always to advocate that point of view. I say to the Minister for Agriculture that it is the duty of his Department to advance more and more that point of view. I know that a good deal has been done for agricultural education. I have myself availed of it to some extent, and I appreciate the efforts that my teachers made on my behalf. At the same time, I know what is going on in the different counties. Is it not a fact that at present the total amount of agricultural education given in any county in any given year is one, two or three winter classes? As we know, these classes can only be conducted in one or two centres each winter. What about the rest of the county? If our future farmers cannot avail of the education provided when they are young, they will never get a chance of educating themselves. I, therefore, ask that the Department of Agriculture should give earnest consideration to this matter. I appreciate thoroughly the work that is being done for agriculture by the instructors in the various counties. On the whole, I find these instructors going about their work in a proper manner. It does not matter to them whether a man is a Republican or a Free Stater or a Unionist, or anything else. They are prepared to give him all the help and advice of which they are capable. That is the spirit we must encourage in agriculture. As a Deputy who has taken very little part in debates here, I was rather taken by surprise by this Vote being taken yesterday. I should have liked a little more time to consider what I have to say and to develop other points, but I felt that I could not let this opportunity go by without making a plea on behalf of our young farmers, whom many people criticise and deride and describe as a useless body. They are not given the attention which they deserve, especially as they have always been found in the forefront of the national struggle.

Take the matter of technical education. A good deal, no doubt, is being done in that direction, but is sufficient being done? In connection with the manual instruction classes, for instance, if the instructor was to go to each centre in a county, by the time he would be able to give a second or third course —the most useful course—in a certain centre, he would be a grey-headed man and his pupils would be scattered. The essence of technical instruction as it affects agriculture is the continuity of the training. The efforts of any of us who try to introduce modern methods and promote technical education in our districts are defeated owing to lack of continuity. If you succeed in getting together a number of the sons of farmers and agricultural labourers to go through a course, by the time you can secure a second course for them you find your work has been in vain, because they have been dispersed or have lost interest in the matter. These are points which should be looked into. I want to get the continuity which is necessary to enable our young people to take advantage of the education which is essential for their industry.

I think that there is a tendency in this country to belittle the noble profession of agriculture. I want to eradicate the idea which is so prevalent that agriculture is something to be ignored or despised, that dirty hands or soiled clothes are something to be sneered at. The prosperity of this country depends on the success or failure of agriculture. Our farmers are the main producers in this country. The produce of our fields and farmyards comprises the bulk of our exports. The largest part of the taxation in this country is derived from the farming community, and they have to shoulder the largest part of the burden. Our railways and other transport companies would not be able to carry on were it not for the agricultural produce which they carry. We have long debates here on various aspects of this question, while too little attention is given to the main problem. That is why I try in all sincerity to put forward constructive criticism.

I do not tackle the Minister for Agriculture simply for the sake of scoring a point. It is not my policy to score a point over anybody in this debate, because I believe the farming industry is far too serious a matter simply to score a political point over. I am honest in this matter and I wish to be taken as being honest. I believe the supporters of the Minister will agree with me that in the coming year a good start could be made by the Department of Agriculture taking a tip from what I am telling them. I believe if the Minister would turn over a new leaf in the coming year and say to himself: "I have indulged perhaps too freely in controversial matters which I could leave to the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Defence or the Vice-President or the President, but I shall tackle my job in the coming year free from acrimony and without over-much interest in political problems"—if he said that, I say in all sincerity he would find that his words on many phases of agriculture would be welcomed by the farmers of this country. If the Minister wants to get genuine co-operation between the farmers of the country, then I think that he, as Minister for Agriculture, should lead the way. The same might apply to the heads of other Government Departments. I put it to Ministers that it is the duty of the heads of Government Departments to lead the way. It is not their duty to hit the hardest in debate. Coming to another point, it is undoubtedly a fact that our farmers, taking them as a whole, are in a difficult position. We know there are certain farmers financially well off, who have stood the brunt of the depression that occurred and who do not feel perhaps the effects of that depression. On the other hand, we know there are genuine cases of hardship amongst farmers throughout the country.

There are numerous farmers who would not be in arrears with their annuities or their rates at the present time had they the wherewithal to pay them, as well as to support their families and keep their farms going. We know there are farmers who are financially in low water and who have gone down in the last few years—honest men who would pay twenty shillings in the pound if they had it to pay. We know well that the wheels of Government control have ruthlessly steam-rolled them. I am not blaming Government Departments for carrying out their statutory obligations, but something needs to be done to put a check upon these operations. If anyone goes to the country with an impartial mind he will find farmers trying to rear families on incomes too small to enable them to do so. He will find numberless people suffering in their efforts to keep a good face to the world and carrying their own burdens and as well find them paying relief in taxation for other people in distress in various counties.

There is one point that I would like to stress as a student of agriculture, and that is whether some moratorium system could not be established in this country to give deserving farmers a chance to make good. We all know at the moment that there is a lack of the necessary finance to enable farmers to follow out consistently even the policy which the Minister for Agriculture asks them to follow. Take, for instance, the very vexed question of barley growing. I come from the Midlands, and barley growing is being carried on of necessity in the districts there. "Rome was not built in a day." Neither can the farmers of the country change overnight from one system of farming to another; they have not the necessary capital. The Minister for Agriculture said, in a debate on this matter, it was better for the Irish farmer to feed more and more of his produce to live stock. I agree with him, but what percentage of the owners of average holdings or the small farmers can afford to do that? That is the question. I am satisfied if the farmers could get away from looking to Messrs. Guinness and others to buy their barley, and if they could use that barley on the farm and turn it into beef or bacon products it would be to their benefit. But is it not a fact that numberless farmers are waiting, from the present month until October or November, to thresh their grain crop to pay bills owing to merchants and others? These are matters worthy of consideration.

I would also suggest that the Research Branch of the Department of Agriculture should concentrate all their efforts on this question. I suggest to the Department that they could pick out some of the best of their students and give them facilities to carry on research work in the marketing of produce by farmers and helping to find alternative markets for them. I ask the Minister to consider that matter seriously. I would agree to accept his dictum that it would be better to turn barley into feeding stuffs, but the money is not there and the marketing facilities are not so constant or so regular as to permit farmers to gamble too much in feeding stuffs. Sometimes it happened that farmers started winter feeding, but they found when the animals were ready for market they had to be sold at a loss. The same thing has happened in the case of pig feeding. At present prices are fairly steady, but are they always steady? Can the farmer rely upon it that by the time his batch of pigs are fattened and ready for sale he will get satisfactory prices? I think it would be worth while for the Minister of Agriculture to go seriously into this barley question and as quickly as he can before the coming harvest and to try to find out some alternative method of dealing with it. It would be a great boon to Irish farmers if in the coming harvest some remedies could be found for the appalling state of affairs that occurs year after year in the principal market centres of the barley-growing areas in the Midlands.

What I refer to is this: that instead of the farmer, in the same way as any other producer, having the right to go and offer his products at a fair price and what would yield him a living wage, he has more or less to go on his knees and hat in hand to the maltsters and merchants, asking them to take his produce at their price, and not at his price. There is one remedy that I think could be developed so as to deal with this matter. I think the Department of Agriculture and that other body with which I have fairly close association— the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society—could jointly, between this and the harvest time, usefully tackle this question of the marketing of our grain crops. I am prepared in my district to help in the matter. I know numerous farmers who are interested in this, and I can speak on behalf of a creamery committee down the country which is composed of men of all shades of politics and men professing different creeds. All these men are prepared to co-operate, and would co-operate, in a movement of that kind.

I believe there is a useful field there in which the Department of Agriculture and the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society could work and co-operate in looking for alternative markets for the barley that is produced in the Midlands and other parts of the country. They could make arrangements to transfer the barley grown in Leix by the farmers of the adjoining counties to farmers of other counties where barley is not grown. By so doing, we could cut off a good deal of that expenditure that goes in payment for imported maize. The imports of maize last year amounted in value to a sum of £4,000,000. It is admitted by the men who are studying this question of the feeding of farm animals thoroughly, that of the various classes of grain fed to animals, barley and maize are approximately equal in value as foodstuffs. There is a difference of about 6d. per barrel in the price.

I would not advocate the whole hog exclusion of maize from this country, but I do think that we could reduce the importation of maize by half and that we could give the grain growers of this country a chance of disposing of their grain to filling the gap thus caused if this question were examined on its merits and only on its merits. I do believe that the Minister for Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture would be well-advised to concentrate during the next couple of months almost entirely on this question. I believe that the farmers of the barley-growing counties will be grateful to the Minister if he will take this matter up and, if I am here next autumn, I will pay a tribute to him if he does so and comes forward here with his policy for carrying out that particular work. I ask Deputies irrespective of Party affiliations to consider that matter in their own minds. This is a question that should be, as the Minister himself said yesterday, divorced from politics. I believe that the Party Whips should be taken off a question of this kind and that we in this House should be free to give an expression of our opinions in a case of this kind. I believe it would be to the best interests of the farmers of the country if this could be done.

I would like to call the attention of the heads of the Department and of the Minister for agriculture to the necessity of doing more in the cow-testing sphere. The Department, no doubt, are doing a lot of work in the matter and are encouraging our farmers to go in for cow-testing. I mean, of course, they are encouraging the farmers who are engaged in milk production to go in for the grading of their herds and to keep cows that would be more profitable. I think that while the scheme of the Department for the establishment of cow-testing associations and for assisting this useful work is fairly generous, extra money would be well spent on this side of the Department's work. I say that because it is not realised by the farmers how much gain could be brought to themselves and to the Irish creamery industry and to farming generally by this method of cow-testing.

I know it is usual for farmers down the country to deride new methods, and it is common to find the middle-aged farmer saying, "Oh, the cows of the previous generation got on all right," and so on. But we want to start out on a policy of waking up our farmers, so that we may get them to realise that if we are to compete successfully in the modern world we will have to compete along modern lines. I will give you an illustration from a report of a cow-testing association in my own county and of the work done there on this point alone, and it is work that can be tackled everywhere if we can get our farmers to realise what is going on. I have here before me the report of a single cow-testing association established last year. In this report I find that the value of the produce of the five best cows there, that is including the butter fat and skim milk, totalled together would work out at £32 18s. 11d. per cow. Now, in the same association, taking the five worst cows, we find that the value of their produce per head worked out at the low figure of £8 14s. 10d. There we have a contrast between the five best cows, £32 18s. 11d. per head, as against £8 14s. 10d. per head for the five worst cows. Farmers will find in that report food for reflection. If we give this important Estimate the attention it deserves we will say to the Department to go ahead with their work in cow-testing, to extend that work and to do more of it.

I believe that in the initial stages in any given area it would be necessary even to spoon-feed financially the schemes in order to get the farmers to adopt that system, and I believe that if you get a group of farmers to adopt that system you will find that when they themselves meet at the end of the year, and have the figures before them as made up by their own supervisors, they will be so convinced of the utility of the work that you will find that none of these farmers will afterwards be breaking away from their cow-testing association. On this question of cow-testing associations and on the development of dairy herds, I am not advocating going in for crack cows that would produce more than 1,000 gallons a year. I would prefer that we make haste slowly, and if we could get up our cows from the 400 gallon grade to the 600 gallon cow and the 800 gallon cow I believe we would be doing good work, and that the results would redound to the benefit of our farmers and to the benefit and credit of our country.

Again, I would like to advert for a moment to the question of barley-growing and the grain question in general. Recently a report appeared in the "Daily Mail" from Messrs. Spiller, Ltd., Flour Millers. I will give you an extract from it, and that extract reads as follows:—

"In feeding-stuffs the company were making a new departure in putting on the market under open formulæ what are known as balanced rations; that is to say, mill offals, meals derived from barley and maize and other products all compounded under scientific direction with a view to meeting the special requirements of different varieties of stock. The results so far obtained by stock breeders from the company's balanced rations had been remarkable."

This is a matter that is worthy of notice, and I think it is wise to call the attention of the Department to that extract. Possibly they have already got it themselves. I believe it is well worthy of attention. If experiments in the admixture of our grain crops with maize products brought into this country could be carried on, the result would be there would be a ready market found for a large proportion of our grain crops.

If we are to have success in this matter, I think we will have to get away from the atmosphere of mere political discussions. I say that no political party can solve this question alone. It will take the closest co-operation between all the parties in the State to solve it successfully. This question is big enough to demand that co-operation; it is worthy of the attention of the whole House in an effort to find a solution. No matter what our vocations in life may be, whether we are business men, professional men, or otherwise, I believe if we can confer the benefit of a better market for the grain produced in this country next harvest on our agriculturists, we will have done a good day's work for the farmers, agricultural workers and the country in general. There is plenty of time to go into this matter. I think it would be advisable to read for the Dáil a resolution passed at a meeting of the Athy grain-growers. That resolution is as follows:—

"That we, the tillage farmers of Leix and Kildare, in meeting assembled, call on the Government to formulate a scheme before the advent of next harvest for the purchase of barley at a price remunerative to the producer."

The Government have received another resolution as regards the admixture of barley with maize. I know there are difficulties in the way, but when we have a firm like Spillers thinking it worth while seriously to go into that matter, it is certainly a subject well worthy of being taken up by the Department as a national question of importance.

I hope I have succeeded in getting the farming members of the Dáil, irrespective of party considerations, to realise that they represent a profession which can hold its own against any other profession in the land. There would be something gained if I have even got other people whose professions are different from that of farmers, to realise the difficulties of the farmers and to recognise that it is their duty to help them in the difficult task of improving conditions, and honestly and conscientiously to think out what is the best method of bringing about improvement. If what I have said helps in any way to bring that about, then something will have been gained and my little contribution to this debate will have served a useful purpose. I am anxious to approach this question sincerely; I am anxious to put forward points in the nature of constructive criticism. I sincerely hope that my suggestions will be accepted in the spirit in which they are given. I am anxious that they would be taken to heart and examined if they are considered worthy of attention. I leave it to the fair-minded people of this House to say whether what I am advocating here is right or wrong. If I have taken up the time of the House in asking Deputies to consider these questions carefully, perhaps there are Deputies who will agree that they have often sat here and listened to other points being raised—

They are mooing at last. Go on—keep on mooing.

Deputies have often listened to points raised which would better be discussed in a shorter period. I am glad that there are members in the House who say "Hear, hear," to that; I am delighted. It is a sign that at least I can get home a point. I hope there is no fear of the guillotine falling and preventing me continuing. I hope every Deputy here will contribute to this debate on agriculture. I ask the Department of Agriculture to take the points I have raised into consideration. I think some of them could be usefully referred by the Department to the Agricultural Organisation Society for immediate attention. I believe that the Agricultural Organisation Society—a useful body which is receiving certain financial help from the taxpayers—should have its attention at the present time diverted somewhat to this grain question. In conclusion, I say that research work with a view to finding out better markets for the farmers before the coming harvest could usefully be tackled immediately.

I would like to pay a tribute to the speaker who has just sat down. I think I would be safe in saying that after such a speech there will have to be a rearrangement of the Shadow Cabinet. The Deputy has, I think, thrown a good many bouquets at the Minister and he has given some very good reasons why the Estimate should be passed. There is an expression that a present-day politician on the other side used to use to deputations—I refer to Mr. Lloyd George—whenever they put certain points before him, and that expression was: "You are pushing an open door, gentlemen." I think a good many of the points the Deputy has spoken about are really embodied in some of the schemes of the Department of Agriculture and the Minister might say that it is only a question of pushing the open door.

There are a few points to which I would like to refer very briefly and very specially. There is one question I wish to deal with, and I think an echo of it has reached the Minister from other counties. I would like that some notice would be taken of it through the Northern Counties. That is, in regard to the system of the selection of stock bulls. I am entirely in agreement with the principle of the weeding out of scrub bulls. In order that the whole country may be able to improve its live stock some such scheme as this is needed. But it needs some little details yet to make it right. I say that for this reason, that there are a good many people with sore hearts. They think that they have been unfairly treated in the matter of the inspection of their bulls. I do not say for a moment that everyone who shows an animal should have that animal passed. What I see wrong in the system is the absence of a uniform standard. I say that from the method of comparison. I have seen it myself. Different standards are set up by the different inspectors.

You frequently see bulls that have been passed and offered for sale in the fairs from different counties, and there is no comparison whatever in the standard. The result has been that I have seen some of the ones that were castrated, fattened and offered for sale, and they had developed into very good animals, far superior to the ones which were passed. I am not blaming the principle of the thing, but there must be some system evolved by which people will know what standard is required, because it means a great deal for a farmer to bring forward a calf. If it is passed as a licensed bull it may be worth from £20 to £25, whereas if it is castrated it drops down to £8 or £10. There has been a good deal of hard talk on this question, and I merely put it to his Department that there should be some general direction given to the inspector as they go out, so that there will be some co-ordination between them as far as the animals required and the standard to be set up are concerned. The result has been that in some districts there has been a scarcity of bulls for service, and the people have had to go, not having too much means, to sales and bring in others.

In regard to agriculture, I may say at the outset that I have been a farmer all my life. With regard to tillage, when the Corn Production Act and increased tillage were enforced I had no need to increase, as I was doing more than the fifty per cent. required. Consequently I am not to be taken in any way as advocating grazing alone. This question has got to be faced. It is time we were getting away from the cry, "Tillage, tillage, tillage," irrespective of the locality in which it is done. We must recognise that in order that this country may get on there must be a good part of it in grazing. There are districts in Ireland, in Co. Meath, where it would not pay at all to till, where the grazing is fit to produce animals, while we would have to raise crops to feed them in Co. Monaghan. What we want to do is to put the land to what it is best suited for, to have cattle to export and to export them fed. If we are to turn this country into a nation of stock-raisers, for the raising of stores and the sending them out of the country as stores, to use a country expression, as soon as they get their heads out of the bucket, that is bad policy, and bound to impoverish the country. If we can finish them, and there is room for them, then we are making for the enrichment of the country.

The Minister in his policy, I think, rightly turns his attention to the marketing of produce. Education is a necessary thing. It is good to know all one can about one's own business, but the remarkable thing about it is that there are people who are crying about education who never get into their homes, except by the merest chance, an agricultural paper. Take any other trade or profession in the country, and you will find that they keep abreast of the movements of the world and see progress for themselves. There are many people who never read what is going on. We do not keep abreast of the movements of science and agriculture. The Minister is wisely concentrating on the marketing end. From my experience of the farming community, if you show them that a certain crop will pay to grow and that they will have a market for it, they will find a way of growing it. There is no sense whatever in shouting for more tillage if there is not a market. What are a good many people doing with potatoes this year? Tons of them are lying. They might be converted into feeding-stuffs for stock, but there is no market for them.

Deputy Fahy, in his speech today, said that we wanted to raise the dignity of farming. What aspiration can a young man have when parties are ever shouting about the poverty and bad condition of agriculture? What attraction is held out for the young man, with even the merest smattering of education, if everything is shown black for the future? Deputy Fahy mentioned the question of wheat. I grow wheat. I believe in growing a certain amount for local purposes, but I am sure that every Deputy knows that we cannot grow wheat in competition with countries that have a better climate. They have bigger areas which they can harvest by modern machinery and grow thousands of acres where we can hardly grow one. It is surely idle to think that we can enter into competition with these. There is a certain amount we can grow, but as for competition we can never do it economically.

Deputy Corry mentioned the question of barley. I think he is on the right lines on that question. I will say, as one from the Northern areas, that I think I can guarantee that we will take all his surplus barley in the Northern counties and in the Six Counties if he puts it on the markets there. Those areas are not as good for the growing of barley as the Midlands are. A great deal of barley is being used and we will only be too glad to get a good portion. I do not know how much he would have to export or sell but we would take a good deal.

He speaks of it in comparison with maize, and, of course, it would be on a feeding basis. I understand that it is second-class barley which troubles him and that first-class barley can be disposed of. That will be on a feeding basis. If he is going to rise any higher than maize it is out of the question for feeding.

With regard to cow-testing, which was just stressed a few moments ago, I think the Department are going a fair way towards it. I see in the Estimates that there are £35,035 under that head, an increase of £5,000 on last year. I think it is a fair amount. These cow-testing associations are doing useful work and will, if people realise the usefulness of them.

There are some other points that might be emphasised, but I think that the great field for the Department of Agriculture is to find a remunerative market for the produce of the Irish farmer. There are some commodities that he has not been able to devise a means of disposing of, but I hope in the future he will. There is the question of pork. The marketing of dead pork is a heart-burning one. We are depending a good deal on the price of offal in the English market and it is very discouraging to find sometimes in a week a difference of from 5/- to 10/- per cwt. in the price. It means that a good deal of the profit on the animal is lost. It is hard to solve the question, but we hope to see some improvement in that direction.

There is another question in connection with the marketing of produce and that is the problem of the middleman, people who are making a living out of buying animals from one farmer and selling them to another, from the sucking pigs to cattle. The legitimate trader has a useful place in the community, but there should be some means evolved by which these people who are producing nothing in the country but are merely turning over animals from one to another for profit should be dealt with. In the main, I am against the amendment.

As one who travels weekly from Cork to Dublin, up and down, I meet people from all over the world. I am proud to say that every one of them pays a tribute to the Department of Agriculture. It is one of the best Departments not alone in the British Isles, but in the world. There is an improvement, as we know, in the quality of cattle, eggs, butter and bacon, and, to my mind, that is due to a large extent to the Minister for Agriculture. I was very much struck by the speech of Deputy Gorry a few moments ago. I would like to remind the Minister that in my district we have a park, the property of the Government, which would make a splendid college for agriculture. It is within easy access of the Counties Tipperary, Limerick, Cork and Waterford. Young men, if necessary, could come there every morning from their own homes and it would be better for this country to see these young farmers and labourers assembled there handling the spade or the plough than to see them in the territorial forces that we are hearing about. It would be a pleasure to hear these young men in sensible conversation, talking about agricultural pursuits or their lessons of the day, rather than hear them shouting "about turn" or something else. We hear a lot about barley-growing and compulsory wheat-growing. I think all these services could be improved if the people instead of looking for tariffs had in their own areas industrial organisations and if they went to the different bakers and said "Bake flour made in Ireland or we will not buy the bread from you." Let them go to the different drapers and say "Sell tweed made in Ireland or we will not buy from you." Let the barley growers who are supplying the local breweries drink the local porter. They will not do it. They would sell to the Cork brewers but they would rather drink Guinness.

Until you get some kind of sentiment of that kind into the people, you cannot expect any Government to force down their necks what they could do themselves. These industrial organisations, if they were got up, could put on their own tariffs by telling these people that they would not use the goods if they were not made in the country. There is another thing that I would like to remind the Minister for Agriculture of, and we need not remind him of many things. That is the burning of lime in the country. Lime-burning in the country should be fostered. To my mind, it should be subsidised. If you want to grow wheat, you must apply lime to the land to put a certain amount of heat in it, a certain amount of gluten that is necessary for the treatment of the wheat. I would like that the Minister would take a serious note of that. I am sure he will not. There is one thing above all that I would like him to take note of, and that is the question of the thousand acres of land that are within a loft of a bowl of me in Kilworth—Moorpark. It is good land for graining purposes. There are buildings already there, and good sanitary arrangements, and there would be nothing to do but to put the machinery going. I hope the Minister for Agriculture will take a serious note of it. It would give employment in the district, and good example to all the people of the country as well as providing the education that is required for the young farmers.

I am certain that the Minister for Agriculture will not turn a deaf ear to me. I hope in the near future, instead of seeing cattle grazing about the place, that we will have an agricultural college there which will be of advantage to all the young farmers. As I said before, they will assemble in sensible conversation instead of shouting "Cease fire!""About turn!" or other territorial terms. Let the money that is to be spent on the guns and blank cartridges be spent on ploughs and spades.

I would like to know if the Minister still persists in keeping in operation his scheme as regards bulls in Kerry. The Minister has received protests in connection with this from people of all shades of opinion in the district. Public meetings have been held in South Kerry against the continuance of the regulations made by the Department. It seems that South Kerry is the only part of the Free State where cross-bred shorthorns cannot be produced. In every part of the Free State except in South Kerry you can cross a Kerry bull with a shorthorn cow and you can cross a shorthorn bull with a Kerry cow. In South Kerry you can cross a shorthorn cow with a black bull, but you cannot cross a black cow with a shorthorn bull. That is a nice state of affairs. In this area there are over 6,000 farmers affected by these regulations. They own about 35,000 cows, and their estimated losses, due to the continuance in force of these regulations made by the Department regarding Kerry bulls, amount to over £30,000. I never yet saw where any section of the community was fleeced but that some other section would gain by it, but in this case it is just the same as if you fleeced the farmers to the extent of £30,000 a year and threw all that money into the sea. The Minister of course will say that he wants to improve the breed. If he wants to improve the breed and to make this class of cattle all of a similar type he certainly is right, but if he means by that expression, "improving the breed," to bring the cattle to a larger size, he is certainly wrong. I want to tell the House that South Kerry is the only place in the Free State where you get bulls on the run, and if they are caught they are shot. There must be something radically wrong regarding these regulations made by the Department when you have such a state of affairs existing.

The Deputy means unlicensed bulls, I take it?

Mr. O'Reilly

Bulls that would not be granted a licence. The people want them because they know best what suits themselves. It is ridiculous to have a uniform standard for bulls over a whole area comprising half of the County Kerry and part of County Cork. A farmer in one parish can keep a shorthorn cow, whereas a farmer in an adjoining parish cannot keep anything but a small Kerry. Still they are not able to keep the same class of bull.

Deputy Daly said that everyone he met in his travels seemed to praise the Minister for Agriculture. I want to tell Deputy Daly that if the Minister went to South Kerry to advocate this policy regarding bulls the people there, I am afraid, would skin him. The Minister has been petitioned by several people representing all shades of politics in that area with regard to this matter, asking that they should be permitted to keep another class of bull. I think that the Minister should relax those regulations in a case like this where a demand is made by people to keep another class of bull. I would also like to refer to the question of lime. Blackwater, in South Kerry, would be a most suitable place for the burning of lime. There is a splendid kiln there. If lime were burned there it would be very convenient for the farmers of that area. At present they have no opportunity of getting lime except in Kenmare, which is nine or ten miles away. Lime could be produced cheaply at Blackwater, and I hope, as Deputy Daly says, that the Minister will see his way to do something in regard to this, and thereby give the people there a chance of getting lime cheaply. In conclusion, I would impress on the Minister the necessity of relaxing the regulations in force in South Kerry in regard to Kerry bulls.

I was interested to hear Deputy Gorry's advice to the Minister for Agriculture. In brief, the Deputy advised him to give up political speeches and to confine himself rigidly to agricultural economics and science. I have no doubt that advice, if followed, would be very convenient for the front benches of Fianna Fáil.

No. We do not agree with it at all.

It will be repudiated presently.

That interruption has come from a Deputy who is, I believe, to be regarded as a potential Minister for Agriculture, but if he had been present and had listened to Deputy Gorry, I think he would be interested.

I was here.

Personally, I think it would be a calamity if the Minister for Agriculture confined himself purely to the scientific and agricultural side of farming. I think the greatest service the Minister rendered to the country was, when he exposed by means of what has been called political speeches, the sham economics of the Fianna Fáil Front Bench with regard to agriculture. Deputy Gorry I was pleased to hear. He is one of those silent members who contribute a lot to the transaction of the business of this House. I rarely myself intervene in debate for two reasons, the first because I speak with great difficulty, and the second that I realise that only for the silent members of this House no business would be transacted. Deputy Gorry, as a practical man, addressed himself to many pressing questions. I do not quite agree with all his deductions. He complained of the farmer who sells his barley and buys Indian meal. He gave a reason for that. I do not agree with the reason he gave, but somehow many farmers believe that Indian meal is better for feeding purposes than barley. I am sure that Deputy Gorry is too practical a man not to see that we could not do without concentrates in this country. Oats, barley and wheat, and all those cereal crops, are not good food for making beasts grow. They have not a sufficient quantity of what Deputy Dr. Ryan will tell the House are albuminoids to make the cattle grow muscle and bone. For that reason we shall always have to import concentrates like decorticated cotton cake and linseed cake in this country.

Another farmer will tell you that it would pay him better to buy Indian meal in the shop than to grow barley and wheat. He will tell you that barley and wheat are very exhaustive crops on the soil. We all know, and I know since I was a boy brought up in a farming district where the farmers were always pretty up to date, that when barley was grown it was considered that, as a result, the soil deteriorated and remained in a state of deterioration for some years after the growing of the crop. A practical farmer will tell you that nothing will pay him better than grass, especially when that grass is good. Latterly, practical farmers have been devoting a good deal of their time to manuring their lands simply to grow grass, because, as they say, nothing will pay them better than a good dairy cow. I believe there is a good deal in that, and as long as that is the case the practical farmer will stick to grass.

Of course, we have heard a good deal about the division of ranches. I do not care how you multiply the ownership of fattening land, but this is an economic fact that we cannot get over, that Ireland must always have a large percentage of fattening land, and the day that you put land that is intended by nature to fatten to another purpose, it will be a bad day for the economics of farming in Ireland. I am not saying that on behalf of the ranchers. I do not care how you multiply ownership, but I would like to have the land devoted to the purpose for which nature intended it—that is, fattening. If we become exporters of store cattle only that will not be profitable. That is political heresy, but it is an economic agricultural truth. I was glad to hear a farmer like Deputy Brennan refer to the veterinary staff of the Department of Agriculture. I am sorry the Minister for Agriculture is not present to hear me endorse what Deputy Brennan has said. These are a very important body of officials and they do very important work. They are capable men, and their reputation for attention and professional capacity is a very great asset to this country at the moment. There is implicit confidence in their capacity, in their honesty and their attention to their duties in England, to which we export all our cattle.

There is very great discontent among the veterinary staff in the Department of Agriculture. I believe the Minister for Agriculture realises that, but he has not the final word in these matters. We have some high official, say in the Department of Finance, who has the deciding word. I think that is regrettable, because, in my opinion, the Minister who runs the Department and who knows how to run it should have the final word as to what should be paid to his officials. They should be paid salaries that would stimulate them to give the best that is in them. They do not ask for anything very extravagant. The Veterinary Medical Association have put before me and before the Minister for Agriculture their grievances. All that is wanted is that the veterinary staff should get the same salaries as are paid to the veterinary staff in Northen Ireland. It is a small basic salary commencing at £250 a year and going up to £400.

The work these men do is worth that and more. They have sometimes to get up at six in the morning and be down at their work at seven on a winter's morning. Anyone who knows anything about the examination of cattle for foot and mouth disease and tuberculosis knows it is not only difficult professionally but it is physically laborious work. Fully fifty per cent. are what are called temporary officials. That is a great drawback. Some are temporary officials for fifteen or twenty years. Their temporary service will not count in their pension. That might be excellent from the point of view of the financier in the Department of Finance, but it is very unfair. I am told that every veterinary official in Northern Ireland who has served his period of probation and passed his examination is immediately put on the permanent staff, and the fact of being on the permanent staff counts towards pension.

Another rule that has been in force, and it is not only applicable to veterinary surgeons, but to most officials of their grade in the Civil Service, is making them for a paltry economy to travel third class. If there is a Pullman attached to the train they are allowed to travel Pullman, I believe. In my experience, the Pullman is merely a restaurant, and you will find in it every culinary perfume from a red herring to mulled porter. I do not think it is a comfortable place for travelling, for when once you have satisfied yourself with the requirements you need you like to quit a restaurant, and you are all the better for that. I am not saying that the veterinary surgeons complain in this matter of travelling first class for snobbish reasons. The reason a man travels first class is that it carries a greater degree of comfort than third class. These men are often engaged at fairs doing laborious work. They come into the train heated, and they have to travel home in cold, draughty carriages, and in danger of their health.

I hope the Minister will insist that these grievances will be redressed, and that he will not be palmed off by some one or two high officials in the Department of Finance. Somehow, I have an idea about the Department of Finance that the only men they think entitled to an adequate salary should be in that Department. There is an old hardy annual here—the bacteriologist. I am not satisfied that the bacteriological side of the Department is satisfactory—I mean as regards the examination of milk and cream. There is a very fine laboratory connected with the Department, and there is a very able officer in charge of it. His work is a credit to the nation. It is not only keeping in touch with research everywhere, but it is conducted on original lines, and I think some important discoveries may be made in our own country. What I would like to see is that this country should be put on a level with other countries as regards research and other things.

I remember at one time drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the position of bacteriologist was advertised at a basic salary of £100 a year. That is a ridiculous salary. Then he has to suffer other penalties. He is penalised because of the fact that he is a bachelor. That is the meanest economy I ever heard, penalising a man because he is unmarried. What is allowed to a married man is not much encouragement to enter the state of matrimony. A man frequently in the Civil Service remains a bachelor because possibly he has a widowed mother, or some delicate members of his family depending on him. That sort of economy is mean and no credit to the service, and it should be wiped out off the rules of economy. The reason I refer to this bacteriologist is that I saw some time ago about cream imported from Ireland into England. There was also English and Dutch cream. From the bacteriological point of view the Dutch cream was all right but, fortunately for us, the English cream was about as bad as the Irish. The fact that these creams were not in a satisfactory bacteriological condition is, I believe, due to the economies that are tried to be effected in connection with this official. You should get the best bacteriologist available for money. The whole reputation of our agricultural produce depends on it. There are a few other matters to which I would like to refer. The Department, I believe, has done wonderful work, and any defects that are in the country are due to the want of more general co-operation on the part of the people and to a reluctance, for some reason or another, to adopt the advice of the Department of Agriculture. You cannot expect a model school in every parish, but I would like to see a model farm in every parish, or a least a model farmer who would be an example to the country, and who would work in co-operation with the Department.

I would like to see an arrangement made between the Department of Agriculture and, say, the Department of Education, whereby school children could visit such a farm, and that winter and summer it would be conducted on up-to-date lines. I would also like that special provision should be made on the farm so that the boys, young and old, would see how cattle, especially dairy cows, can be kept clean. A cow can be kept scrupulously clean, and that cleanliness would cost nothing except a little elbow grease for about five minutes daily. Unfavourable comments have been made about the way we keep cattle in Ireland, and it is well for us to realise that. England is a little better, but both countries are behind the Continent so far as the conditions under which dairy cows are kept are concerned. A model farm such as I have mentioned would serve a great purpose in that way, because it is quite easy to keep cows clean. I have met farmers who said it was impossible to do so. I have tried it myself, and five minutes' work every morning will keep a cow so clean that she can pass any sanitary inspector. The day we do that, if we never do anything else for agriculture, we would do great work for this country. We cannot exaggerate the importance of cleanliness when it is remembered that we are a food exporting country. If we do not produce food under the most sanitary conditions it will be a very bad thing for the country, sooner or later. I do not criticise the Minister for Agriculture. He is well aware of all these things. He has made provision for them, but there should be more general co-operation by farmers in these matters. We have some excellent farmers, and we have seen what they can do in the way of turning out different breeds of cattle for the shows here and elsewhere. The young farmers are a credit, but the fault is that the effort is not as general as we would like it to be. There are farmers who will sneer at all these things, who say: "We got on very well in the time of our grandfathers," but what did in the time of our grandfathers will not do at the present day. The Minister knows all these things, and I would ask him with his usual backbone to see where he is interfered with by any other Department and not to stand it.

Deputy Haslett stated a short time ago that it would be foolish policy to till the rich lands of County Meath, that it would not pay to do so, and that it pays better to raise bullocks there. According to what we hear it does not pay to till any land at the present time. Why does it not pay? Because, when the farmer tills his land and produces a crop he cannot get a price for it that will pay him for the labour expended in doing so. Why can he not get a price? Because there is no market in the country in which he can get a price that will pay him. Why is there not a market in the country, or could a market be provided here? I say that we have a market at home for all the food we can produce on the land if we protect that market and protect the farmer. We import upwards of seven million pounds' worth of wheat and flour every year, when we ought to be able to produce enough food to feed the population and have a surplus for export.

One of the reasons given for not protecting the home market is that it would raise the price of the loaf to the working man. There is no reason why it should, but even if it did, the working man would be in a better position to pay a farthing or a halfpenny extra for his loaf if the food he got was raised in the country, if employment was given in raising it, and if wages were paid accordingly. Czecho-Slovakia imposed a tariff upon flour within the past few years, I think, of over 70/- a barrel, a tariff that almost amounts to a prohibition, and what is the result? In Czecho-Slovakia there are over 10,000 flour mills, large and small. How many flour mills have we, who are afraid to put a tariff on flour and afraid to protect our own home market? I do not think that we have thirty, large and small. Czecho-Slovakia has over 10,000, and the people seem to be satisfied with the tariff regulations there. Their tariff is certainly prohibitive, and I am sure that little or no flour is imported there.

Deputy Haslett has stated that we cannot go into competition with countries like Canada, which grow wheat on a larger scale. Why should we go into competition with countries like Canada? Why should we not give our own farmers the market we have at home, protect that market, and give them the means of getting a decent price for the produce of their lands? A reason given for not growing wheat in this country is that it does not make good flour. Deputy Haslett stated that he used his own wheat to feed himself and his family. That means that he is satisfied with the quality of the flour that the wheat produced. Other farmers who are members of the Dáil have said that they also grew wheat to provide their own needs, which means that they are satisfied with the quality of the flour that they are able themselves to produce. If they are satisfied, why should we all not be satisfied? I say that we can grow wheat that will make good flour, and I have that from millers who have tried it—that at least if they could not produce good flour from all Irish wheat, they said that they produced it from a mixture of Irish and foreign wheat. If we were to produce flour from such a mixture, we would be doing a good deal to help the farmers. We have a market for it here, otherwise we would not be importing seven million pounds' worth of wheat and flour to feed ourselves. We can produce wheat which will make good flour. The only thing that is required is to regulate the importation of wheat and flour——

Surely that is a matter that has been decided by the House within the last few weeks?

I want to stress the point that we have a market and that it is only necessary to protect that market. Other countries are doing that, and why should we not do it? There is no reason why we should have to compete with Canada, South America and any other place. We can produce the food that we need, and we ought to put ourselves into a position to do it, despite outside competition.

I do not intend to take up very much time in connection with this debate, as it deals with a subject with which I am not very conversant. I believe in talking about subjects with which I am conversant, and not in taking up valuable time talking on things about which I know nothing, which, I am sorry to say, is very often done here. My reason for intervening is to congratulate Deputy Gorry on the useful, constructive, and valuable speech that he made to-day. No doubt, as Deputy Haslett has suggested, he will be promoted to the front bench, because he richly deserves promotion for his contribution to-day and for the knowledge of the subject which he has shown.

It would depend on a vacancy being created.

The applause which was given him and the appreciation of his speech which was shown on this side of the House proves that, regardless of political differences, we—at least those of us on this side of the House—appreciate a sensible, sound, speech. Deputy Gorry's speech was particularly refreshing on account of all the balderdash and nonsense that we have been listening to——

And are listening to——

—for seven hours a day during the last two or three months. It was a pleasure, as I have said, to listen to Deputy Gorry. I hope we will have many more speeches of that kind, and although I am sure we are very anxious to get away from here, if we were to hear such speeches oftener there would be no necessity for the guillotine, and we would not be so often outside the House and not wanting to come into the House when balderdash and rubbish was being talked.

Before making a few remarks about the Estimate, I think I had better say, with regard to Deputy Gorry's appeal to the Minister for Agriculture, that I sincerely hope that the Minister will not respond to that appeal. We have no fault in the world to find with the Minister's speeches. Whenever they go beyond entertainment they are very valuable from our point of view. We have recently been told in certain districts that he was a better man to get votes for us than any half a dozen of ourselves, and it would really be a misfortune for us if the Minister were to change his methods in the way suggested.

With regard to the Estimate, it seems strange that so many Deputies speak without apparent thought, that they have no touchstone or no criterion to apply to the policy of the Department. On such an important subject there must surely be some criterion before one can form an idea as to whether the Department is conducting its business satisfactorily or not. I think the obvious criterion should be whether agriculture in Ireland is meeting in the best possible way the requirements of the people; whether the present system of agriculture is producing the greatest benefits, or whether it is being encouraged by the Department to produce the greatest benefits, not merely for the farmers, but for the people as a whole. If you view it in that way, it seems to me that very few Deputies would be satisfied with the present position of agriculture.

In opening the debate the Minister gave us a very superficial and a very unconvincing statement of the success of the policy which he has adopted since he was appointed Minister. He made some statements that, to my mind, he could have no authority for. For instance, I was surprised to hear him saying that the Argentine had been driven to devote itself to grain largely by the success of Irish cattle in the English market. I wish the Minister were here, but I think I am not saying anything incorrect when I say that only last August a leading official from the Dairy Department of the Argentine was in Dublin—he was seeking to interview the Minister at the time that I met him—and his statement to me was that the Argentine was going out boldly and determinedly on a dairy policy, and that they expected to be one of the leading exporters to the British market in a very short time. In view of that it was rather surprising to hear the Minister say that the Argentine was going to make grain the principal item in its economy. Not so long ago, Deputy de Valera quoted a statement made by a leading agriculturist in England who had just come back from the South American countries to the effect that competition from the Argentine in regard to dairy produce was going to be a very big thing, and would make the production of dairy produce very difficult in these countries.

There is no doubt, I think, that great numbers of people are dissatisfied with our present system of agriculture. They are not people who can be disposed of with a shrug of the shoulders, who can be described as cranks, or anything of that kind. They are people who see the insecurity of the present position, who see the danger of concentrating on the sale of half a dozen articles in a market over which we have no control. In listening to the Minister here I have often pictured him on these benches; I have often seen him in imagination attacking the policy which he has been defending all the time that we have been here. I can hear him say, "Was there ever such a stupid policy before? We are going to concentrate on half a dozen things and sell them in a market where we have no security. They are going to be exported in foreign ships; they are going to meet the competition of the world, and prices are likely to fluctuate day after day, week after week, month after month, without any chance of checking these tendencies on our part." I can see the Minister getting very indignant because such a policy had been put up. Because he himself is allowed to continue that policy, because, he gets such support for it, notwithstanding what it is leading to in the country, notwithstanding that hardly a year passes when one of these products that he is so eager to concentrate upon is not sold at a loss, it does not seem to me that those who give him his majority in this House are quite doing their duty to agriculture. For instance, I think it is not incorrect to say that all last autumn cattle were sold at below cost of production, wherever they could be sold at all. In several of the biggest fairs in the country, as the Minister must be well aware, practically no business was done for about three months in succession.

It is certainly not incorrect to say, if one is again to take the farmer as knowing anything about his business, as the Minister insists that he does, that the prices were not such as would encourage people to go on a farm. I happened to be present at a couple of fairs in September and October, and I heard experienced people say if things did not improve it obviously meant that the burthens on agriculture could not be borne, and that the future was by no means bright. I think that the Minister will admit, in view of the fluctuations in the prices of bacon and pigs, that if their production for export to Great Britain is to be made a central item in our economy, no set of producers ever depended on a more insecure foundation. Every Deputy, farmer or otherwise, is aware that the prices of pigs have gone up and down at such a rate and to such extremes during the past three or four years, that no man can put capital into the business with any hope or expectation of being able to secure an assured average return. As the Minister is so fond of going on the opinion of people in the business, I wonder whether he has read the last report of the Cattle Exporters' Association. Having given the export figures for the year 1928, the report goes on to state:—

"Though the price of live stock is not so high as in former years, nevertheless such a huge increase could only mean that the prosperity of the country is advancing. Such is not the case. Freight dues are 200 per cent. over pre-war rates, while the price of cattle is lower than, or at least on a par with, pre-war prices. No progress can be expected in the country while these charges exist; such excessive rates and freights must be borne by the producer, and it is like crying in the wilderness to be asking for increased production in the various branches of the Irish Live Stock Trade when such increase will but further help to feed the octopus Shipping Combine."

How far has the Minister shown even the smallest interest in that question?

Mr. Hogan

Would the Deputy go on and quote the paragraph in that report—I am sure it is in it—in which the cattle exporters say that we should give up breeding cattle and go in for growing wheat.

That is an extremely frivolous interruption on the part of the Minister. I do not think that that is the spirit in which the Estimate should be discussed. I was taunted by a Minister some time ago with being a melancholy person. I confess that I am often made melancholy by the speeches I hear on subjects which are of very serious importance to the bulk of the people, the people who are paying our salaries and maintaining us here.

Mr. Hogan

They have exactly the same effect on me. Might I ask the Deputy what would he have me concentrate on, as he does not want cattle, sheep, pigs, bacon, butter or eggs?

A Deputy

Wheat.

Mr. Hogan

Let us be constructive.

The suggestion put forward from these benches are pretty well known to the Minister. Our first aim should be to produce for our own requirements.

Mr. Hogan

So we do.

The food for the people should be produced within the country so far as possible. We should, for instance, try to replace the foodstuffs which are imported in such enormous quantities by home grown foodstuffs. Where has the Minister shown any interest in that? I have here the import figures for the four months ending the 30th April last. For bacon and hams the import has increased from £452,000 to £517,000. That is a rather considerable sum for an agricultural country that is supposed to be concentrating largely on pigs and bacon as leading items in agriculture. For four months we import over half a million pounds worth of bacon. That represents the substantial increase of £65,000 worth in four months.

Mr. Hogan

Would the Deputy show the advantage of stopping that import?

I think that that should be obvious unless, of course, common-sense is altogether a wrong guide. It would be an advantage if these products were produced in Ireland by Irish people rather than being imported from other countries. Of course, the Minister may be a mystic of some sort and may find that common-sense is absurd. There are people, I believe, who claim that common-sense is not a guide. Then you have condensed milk, the import of which shows a substantial increase, notwithstanding the fact that the State interfered recently to encourage the condensed milk business here. There should be no need to import that, as I understand the condensed milk produced in this country is quite as good as that obtained from abroad. It is produced with the technical assistance of one who worked in one of the biggest and best-known condensed milk factories in the world.

Eggs in shell show a huge increase of practically £4,000 in four months. It is rather extraordinary to see a country which specialises in poultry importing eggs in shell. Lard shows an increase. Wheat shows an enormous increase of over £200,000 in four months. Barley shows a really enormous increase from £19.903 to £143,055. From that it would seem that the barley growers are not going to get much encouragement from the Ministry. The Minister, apparently, can only say: "If you grow barley for pigs which you can sell at a profit in another market you will be better off." If that is the Minister's policy, I do not think that we should be blamed for disagreeing with it. Oats show an increase of £9,000, and maize an increase of £8,000. A sum of £1,480,867 was spent on importing maize, despite the fact that, in a speech which we heard a while ago from a practical agriculturist, we were told that feeding stuff quite as good could be produced here. Again, I think it would take a good deal of argument to convince some of us that that is sound economy. It seems to me to be laissez faire gone mad to look on that taking place without any protest or effort to modify it. Oat products increased by practically £8,000. Corn offals and other animal feeding stuffs also increased. Apples, potatoes, and other raw vegetables likewise show an increase. In order to show that the Department of Agriculture under the British régime did not look on these matters as being unimportant, I intend to read an extract from a publication of the Department as far back as 1902 in an article on the Irish milling industry which appeared in "Ireland Industrial and Agricultural," edited by a very able economist. You will find this concluding paragraph with regard to the flour milling industry:—

In conclusion, there is one feature in connection with the use of foreign flour in Ireland which is generally lost sight of, and more especially by the Irish farmer. Ireland has developed considerable importance as a country for the raising of cattle and pigs, and these must be finished off for the market on bran, tailings, etc. These commodities are the bye-products of the manufacture of flour, a given quantity of wheat yielding about 70 per cent. of flour, and 30 per cent. of bran, pollard and tailings. If, therefore, the home production of flour is curtailed, it follows that the farmer must pay higher prices for these bye-products, while the American, whose flour our farmer is consuming, has these foodstuffs for his cattle at a lower rate in consequence of the manufacture of a quantity of flour in America for the foreign market.

Of course, British wheat might take the place of American in that quotation. It is rather strange that under the British régime you had the officials of the Department of Agriculture really anxious as to the future of the fattening industries, if offals were to come in from abroad, and to-day a Department of Agriculture that is entirely controlled by Irish ideas finds that it is of no importance at all, that we can trust the Englishman, even when our flour mills disappear, to send us offals at a reasonable price, that we can trust to the laws of supply and demand and the good nature of people abroad who have offals to sell, and that that will be quite sufficient. That is an axiom I would not like to subscribe to. I think that anybody who observes the operations of trusts in most countries would not be content with it as security for the main industry of the country. I could understand it if the Minister were even in the position that he thought it better to go on concentrating on the half-dozen leading items, cattle, bacon, butter, and so on, provided he were trying to secure that all the raw materials for the production of these things were produced in the country. But in addition to the doubt that one has as to the security of that policy for the country, looking at the position in England, looking at the huge competition that prevails in the market there, and at the possibility of greatly increased competition, if the Minister is also indifferent as to where the materials for the production of these goods come from—as to whether our feeding stuffs are purchased within the country or not— then it makes one very doubtful, to say the least, about the prospects of agriculture, and more than doubtful about the policy of the Department.

There are a great many other things that could be mentioned. I think that the burden that is being imposed on the farmer by a lack of industrial policy in the country, by making him pay for the services prevailing in the country—not merely the central services but the local services—by making him carry a huge, non-productive class in the country, without aid of any kind from industry or manufacture, is a serious item in connection with the Estimate, too. I think the Minister for Agriculture, as the person who is most responsible, as the person who makes his view, apparently, prevail in the Executive Council, deserves great censure for it from the farmers of the country. When it is realised that in the Saorstát, for every 1,000 occupied persons there are 514 engaged in agriculture, 149 in other industrial occupations, and 337 in non-productive occupations, that 514 farmers out of every 1,000 persons have to carry 337 on their backs, it is evident that those in favour of a continuance of that policy are not doing justice to the Irish farmer.

It often amazes me, I confess, to find the Minister getting the applause of farmers in this House when he says that the ordinary steps adopted by most other States to develop industries must not be tolerated in this country because they would impose a greater burden on farmers—to find that he can get away with a statement like that. Nobody ever seems to realise that in preventing the development of industry in this country he is maintaining and increasing the burden on the farmer, because the parasitic community has more and more a tendency to grow and to take more of a share of his production for its requirements. That is a subject with which I would not like to occupy the House very long. I think, however, there is even there a sufficient reason for referring back the Estimate. I think that some time or other the Dáil will have to come to the conclusion that so unnatural a system, so insecure a system, a system that is opposed, as far as one can judge, to all the best thinking in the world, that is hardly in force, as far as one can ascertain, in any other country, will have to be altered. Meantime, we can only urge the House to take some action with regard to the present Estimate, and for that reason I support the motion to refer it back for reconsideration.

Would the Minister for Agriculture, in his reply indicate for us why it is good economy for the Irish farmer to go to the market, sell his pigs and bring home a pound of American bacon?

Will the Deputy indicate why it is not?

Mr. Hogan

Do not leave everything to me.

Will he deny that the policy of his Department is a continuation of the policy enunciated here by Sir Horace Plunkett? Will he further deny that that policy, the policy of grass, has tended gradually to reduce the farming population of the country and is reducing it yearly under the present administration? I have been a member of an Agricultural Committee for a number of years. I see here sums amounting to eighty thousand pounds for these Committees. I think it is the most foolish expenditure imaginable. I do not see what these agricultural instructors are doing. They have been going around for a number of years and they have their tillage demonstration plots. I put it to the Minister to put one of them on an ordinary farm, and let him carry out his schemes, and see at the end of the year if he will be able to pay rates and taxes and maintain himself by these elaborate schemes. If they were non-existent Irish farming would continue where it is. They are like the Ministry themselves. They say: "Do such-and-such a thing and produce more." But the Ministry do not provide the way of producing more. They go out to a man who has not an animal on his farm and tell him to produce more, and they do not give him the way of producing more. Under the Ministry, the Agricultural Credit Corporation was set up. That was to provide capital for the farmers to produce more, and it has been an absolute fiasco and wash-out.

It is not on this Estimate.

It does not suit, I suppose.

The Deputy must be quite clear that it is not a question of suiting, but that it is not on the Estimate, and, therefore, the Deputy is not in order in referring to it. The Deputy must not refer to anything that is not in the Estimate.

Of course, the last election was fought on that issue. The Minister for Agriculture introduced a Bill that set up the Corporation.

Under what Estimate can it be raised?

There will be a Bill introduced next week that will give an opportunity for discussing it.

That is not an Estimate.

Mr. Hogan

It amounts to the same thing.

Apparently, there is no indication as to what Estimate we have the right to criticise the Agricultural Credit Corporation on, which has a vital bearing on the farming community.

I am pointing out that the Deputy must not do it on this Estimate, and I am at present concerned only with this Estimate.

As regards the other Estimates, the same contention will be put up. The great contention of the Ministry of Agriculture is that we live by our exports. Until we have a reversal of that policy, and acknowledge that we must first produce for home consumption, the disappearance of the small farmer will continue. Will the Ministry deny that the small farmer is disappearing rapidly, that we are getting to a state of things in which we are turning out agricultural products with the least amount of labour; that the tendency is towards big ranches? That is caused by the fact that our production is directed towards exports and that the Ministry believes in the doctrine that we live by our exports. Until we have a state of things whereby production will be directed towards the supplying of the home demand and exports will take place when that home demand is fully supplied, the present state of things will continue.

Deputy de Valera stated at one time in this House that if you built a wall around Ireland you would get on all right, and that is where the clash comes in with the people opposite. That is about the greatest statement he ever made. If you build a wall around Ireland you can live. People who get little or no food would get food when that wall was built around Ireland and would be clothed and housed. We live by our exports! We lived by them in 1847, when the trade balance was wonderful, when we exported everything that would sustain the people and when we got in cargoes of Indian meal on which the people starved.

It was Indian meal they lived on at that time.

Yes, of course, the wheat went out. Another point that the Ministry is constantly harping upon is to produce more—another cow, another sow, and something else. Is it not a fact that when you double your production you halve your price. There is one thing that will remain: fixity of annuities and rates. Double your production and halve your price! Your annuity is not halved.

Mr. Hogan

We will get rid of the annuities before long, and so I suppose it will be all right.

I hope we shall. It would be very useful in Leitrim to try to fertilise the soil. Instead of having £10 for fertilisers, as in this Estimate, you might then have something like £100,000, and it might do something. As I indicated, the whole policy of the Department is the policy of grass and of the grazier. In spite of land division, through lack of capital the small farmer is disappearing, and we are arriving at a state of things in which we have the greatest possible production with the least amount of labour. The Minister has, over and over again, indicated in his speeches that he is behind the grazier. On one occasion he said—I forget his exact words, but they were tantamount to this, that if we kept on dividing the land of this country we would get rid of a very useful class of the community. I dare say he was referring to the farmers in the Midlands, with 300, 400 or 500 acres. and these are the friends the Minister does not want to get rid of. Deputy Moore said he wondered at the Minister getting applause from farmers in this House. The people he gets applause from are not farmers. They are people who uphold his policy of the big grazier. Deputy Leonard, I think, interrupted. He upholds that policy of the big grazier. The policy of Fianna Fáil is to place the greatest number of people possible on the land, and let the land sustain the greatest number of people possible not this false economy of producing with the least amount of labour and the greatest amount of labour-saving devices. It is high time that the Minister was attacked on his pedestal as the greatest Minister for Agriculture in Europe.

Deputies

"Hear, hear."

Deputies say "hear, hear."

Mr. Hogan

You have the greatest orator since O'Connell on your side.

We have to have something to balance you. It is clear, as I said, that the policy of the Department of Agriculture is the continuation of the policy of Plunkett House, a continuation of the make-believe that this is not a grain-producing country, that it can only produce cattle and be a suitable cabbage garden for England. That is the policy continued by the Ministry of Agriculture, and that policy constantly tends towards the de-population of rural Ireland.

My reason for intervening in this debate is because of the reference made to-day by a Deputy when dealing with one of the items on this Vote when he suggested that some of the veterinary inspectors were under-paid, that their positions had not been stabilised, and he went on to say that if they were any other class of workers they would have gone on strike. I want to make an appeal to the Minister in connection with a body of men who are of very great use in the Department and are very necessary there. They do not come under the head of inspectors, they come under the head, I think, of messengers and labourers, and their wages are from 25/- to 29/- a week, rising by annual increments of one shilling. These men have to undertake duties at all hours of the morning, evening and night. Their hours are very irregular, and they are frequently on duty eight and nine hours at a time, and their remuneration is very small. They are not pensionable, they have very few emoluments, and they are in the main composed of ex-National Army soldiers. I suggest to the Minister that he should review the condition of work of this grade in the service with a view to bettering it from the financial standpoint and also regularising their hours of employment.

I intend to vote for the motion to refer this Estimate back but I am not at all strengthened in my intention by some of the speeches delivered here to-day. Apparently Fianna Fáil is speaking with two voices. We have bouquets thrown at the Minister for Agriculture because of what he has done for the dairy side of our great national industry. The manner in which these bouquets were thrown at the Minister had been, apparently, acquiesced in, and agreed in, by the majority of Deputy Gorry's party. But I pass from that as I want very briefly to deal with another aspect of this question which has been borne in on me, very strongly, by the turn the debate has taken. There has been a kind of intensified Coueism kept up and repeated over and over again that the farmer is the one and only person bearing the whole burden of rates and taxes and everything else. I suggest that there is no body so petted as the farmers of this country. The Minister for Agriculture, whatever his faults may be—and apparently he has a lot—has been advised to turn over a new leaf, but he might want to turn over several pages. I suggest that this Vote demonstrates, very clearly to anybody who takes the trouble to examine it in all its details, that if there is any industry in this country which has been subsidised, petted and fondled, it is the agricultural industry.

We have this Vote for £408,474 for agriculture. Let us turn to another vote discussed in this House within the last few weeks, namely the Vote for Technical Instruction, which caters for many thousand persons in this country. We find the amount there is only £141,217 and there is the threat that that Vote will be reduced in the near future. There is a strong possibility that the next Estimate for Technical Education will be reduced very considerably. I want to suggest to some Deputies, who apparently believe that the farmer must be a second Old Man of the Sea or an Irish Atlas bearing the burden of every ounce of taxation on his shoulders, that they should study the political economy of this country more closely and more intelligently. If they do so they will deduce certain facts and one of these is that townsmen and city men contribute more to the national exchequer by way of taxation than agriculturists do. I protest against this intensive Coueism that keeps on saying certain things for an object that it hopes to achieve. I do not subscribe to that doctrine. I have never done so and never shall.

What I suggest in this matter is this: So far as the towns and cities are concerned we are, of course, very largely dependent upon the success of agriculture. We know that when agriculturists have a bad year we in the towns and cities suffer very severely. It has been suggested by Deputy Kennedy that if the farmers produced more they would get lower prices for their commodities. That would be true where the markets were already fully supplied by native produce. But I have authority for saying that they are not. Within the last couple of weeks I met a very big trader on a journey from Cork to Dublin. This particular trader deals extensively in agricultural produce—bacon, beef, butter, eggs and so on. He told me he could not get within fifty per cent. of his requirements in Ireland and he said as representing a large British syndicate that they were prepared to buy a hundred per cent. of their supplies in Ireland but could not get them.

Where does this false economic deduction come in? If we produced twice the quantity we are told that the law of supply and demand would operate in this way that it would mean that there would be a lower price for that commodity which the farmer produces. The result would be nothing of the kind. Even now we are not producing food which would suffice for the needs of our best customers, namely, the British. By all means, let us cultivate the home markets but I would warn everyone here, Cumann na nGaedheal or Fianna Fáil, that you cannot have the home market developed as it should be developed in any country with a decent economic outlook if you put the workers on a starvation wage. I mean that so far as their purchasing powers are concerned there will be no home market unless the workers are paid a decent wage.

The economic policy of this country has been largely reflected in some of our Departments and that policy has been to cut down the wages of the workers in the cities and towns to the very lowest point all the time. This is common both to the Cumann na nGaedheal and the Fianna Fáil lines of thought in this country. Both these Parties advocate the cultivation of the home market but it is these very people—Fianna Fáil and Cumann na nGaedheal Benches—who are found voicing in the county councils and elsewhere the cutting down of the wages of the workers of this country to the lowest possible figure. Now, if we want to develop the home market for agriculture in this country the first thing we must do is to see that the workers are paid a decent wage so that they will have the means of purchasing the foodstuffs which the farmers have to sell.

I rose particularly to challenge here that fallacy which has been heard so frequently, that the farmers bear all the burdens of the State. There is a good deal in the philosophy of the Minister for Agriculture. I do not agree with the Minister in everything, but there is a good deal in his philosophy when he says "work and produce more." Unfortunately, there has been present in this country for some years back a tendency on the part of everyone to get a soft job, to get, if you like, money and all the good things of life without any sustained physical effort or indeed any effort at all. So long as the Irish farmer is told "Take your time, ca' canny, we are going to relieve you of land annuities and other things and we are going to de-rate you," and so on, the farmer would not be human if he did not put his back against the wall, throw his spade down, and unhorse his plough because of the good time that was coming. I thoroughly acquiesce in the Minister's policy. I have worked hard all my life and I am still working hard, and I challenge any Deputy in this House to say that I am not. I challenge anyone to name a day on which I was absent from this House since I was elected to represent Cork. My attendance will be found to be the whole 100 per cent. I wish to say this: That I never worked so hard in my life as since I came into the Dáil. I pay this tribute to the Minister for Agriculture that he is the hardest working Minister in this House, and perhaps the hardest working man in all Ireland. I for one can testify to that. I think that instead of being subject to attack from the representatives of the very industry that he is practically losing his health over, instead of being attacked by the representatives of that industry, it is help and co-operation he should be getting from them.

In asking that this Vote be referred back I would add my appeal to that of Deputy Gorry, a young man for whom I have very great respect. He impressed me here to-day by his reasoned, his moderate and well delivered speech. I now join with him in asking the Minister to reconsider some of the things that have been suggested by Deputy Gorry and also to take into consideration the working conditions and the wages paid to the lower body of officials or workers in his Department. The Minister, I think, should agree that this is one of the matters concerning policy upon which we all have different views. There is a diversity of opinion in the Minister's own Party in so far as his policy is concerned; and this Vote as well as other Votes which represent such great utilitarian value in this largely agricultural country, ought not to be made votes of confidence or votes of no confidence. The Minister should take off the Whips when we divide on a Vote of this kind, so that if he were defeated on a Vote of this kind it would not mean that his policy was not the right one or that it would not be the right thing but rather that he should reconsider that policy in view of the discussion and elucidation of certain facts which had been put before him here. He should be prepared, under the various headings alluded to by Deputy Gorry and others, to reexamine them. Perhaps that suggestion may be taken as attempting to revolutionise the whole system of voting in this House.

I might not be out of order if I suggested that these matters might be taken into consideration at the very earliest moment by the Executive. Here you have a conflict of opinion on certain matters concerning the Minister's Department. There is no question about it that a conflict of opinion exists in the Cumann na nGaedheal ranks on the matter, and for that reason I think it should not be made a party matter. It should be one of those decisions arising out of which the Minister, having heard a well-reasoned discussion, should be prepared to go back to his Department and to see that all the resources of his Department would be utilised in doing something to meet the wishes put forward by Deputies such as Deputy Gorry in the course of a reasoned and logical speech.

When we vote for the amendment to refer this Vote back for reconsideration, we believe that the Minister will have an opportunity of considering these things. I would go a little further, and I would suggest that not alone in this, but in connection with other Votes of a kindred character the Party Whips should be taken off and an effort should be made to bring the Minister round to the views of the majority in the House. Of course, we know that in all cases the Minister will have his machine majority behind him. Even if he proposed to reintroduce scrub bulls, and all that, he would have the weight of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party after him; the weight of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party would not be after the bulls, but after the Minister. We always find that in party government. I appeal to the Minister in this matter, which concerns our biggest national industry—an industry which is crying out for certain reforms—to take off the Party Whips and to reconsider the matters which have been brought to his notice to-day in a moderate, well-reasoned way. He should take off the Whips and let us see where we are in regard to this and other Votes later on.

A couple of points have been brought up here that I would like to refer to briefly. A statement was made by Deputy Dr. Hennessy to the effect that we would be always compelled to import concentrates. There was a certain amount in what the Minister for Agriculture said when he spoke of the time taken formerly to fatten cattle in this country and that had an important effect on the foodstuffs that we produced. There is another factor that the learned Deputy evidently has not taken into consideration. He said that owing to the fact that we were not able to produce foodstuffs which would provide the necessary albuminoids for cattle, we were compelled to import the concentrates containing the albuminoids. The Deputy evidently has never considered that beans, peas, clover, fishmeal, meatmeal and offals will provide whatever albuminoids are necessary for the upkeep and fattening of cattle. The Department of Agriculture has never gone into this matter as it should have. We can produce the carbo-hydrates and cereal stuffs, and also those things that I have mentioned, in order to complete what would be the proper feeding diet for fattening cattle. Even from the point of the human the Minister has never given enough consideration to the growing of peas and beans. Many people throughout the country have as their staple diet the usual meal of potatoes, cabbage, and a little American bacon. They could very well produce the necessary peas and beans almost to put them through the whole year. They could do it with their own labour pretty cheaply. That is a thing which should have got more consideration from the Minister.

The Minister's policy, as a whole, is one that I disagree with. I am not going to throw any bouquets at him. He may have done certain things that are good, but that is his job; that is what he is there for. There are other things that he has done that are not good, and there are certain statements he makes which are not good. His whole policy in regard to the land question is a wrong policy for this country. It has resulted in the practical extermination of the population. Where we formerly had eight or nine millions of people we now have less than one-half of that number. The whole tendency is to use one man and a dog where formerly seven or eight families were able to support themselves. If the Minister, or anybody who supports his policy, looks at the matter from the point of view of the grazier who employs a herd and a dog for his cattle, it might be a fine principle all right. There is only one man with his family to keep, concerned. But if we look at it from the point of view of the good of the nation, we have not got the man-power there, and we are not going to have the man-power as long as the policy of the Minister prevails. The Minister went very far when he travelled to the Argentine in order to make a comparison with this country. He travelled 10,000 miles to tell us that he had the Argentine on the run. I hope, for the sake of the people in the Argentine, that the Minister will not chase them too far over the deep-end at Terra del Fuego, or somewhere like that. It would be a terrible pity. He did not tell us the Argentine has to send its products 10,000 miles, ice them and that they do not sell as well as beef on the hoof or newly-killed beef. The working population of England bought the frozen meat from the Argentine because it came cheaper to them than if they were buying the English or the Irish beef.

If there is a decline in the imports of meat from the Argentine into England, it is due to the industrial depression in England and not to the fact that the Minister has chased the Argentine off the map. There are over 1,000,000 out of employment in England, and the remainder of the people are earning very little money. They are not able to buy the same supplies of meat as formerly. There is not much credit due to the Minister, and the present condition of affairs is not due to any effort on his part. Bouquets have been thrown at the Minister here, but it must be remembered that we are not getting the price that we should get for our products. We concentrate on one market, and we leave ourselves at the mercy of the vagaries of the Englishman. If he goes down we go down. That should not be so. If there is a coal strike in England it affects us here, and there is a slump. The Minister should look, first of all, to the home market. Then his policy could be carried out of producing one more sow or one more bullock—that is, if you have any place for them. We should not be dependent on all the chance things that happen in England. The Dane will find an alternative market if the British market happens to collapse. He does not believe in having all his eggs in the one basket. We do, with the consequence that what we get for our products in the English market is the very bare price of production, just what it will take to keep a human being alive sufficiently long to fatten the bullock in order to send that bullock to England. We get just what keeps body and soul together. If the Minister's policy is to continue, we will go down until this country has been wiped out. It stands to reason there is no country in the world going to flourish unless that country realises that it must do a little better than merely making the bare cost of production, the bare cost of keeping body and soul together.

An Ceann Comhairle: took the Chair.

I think there is general agreement that the work done by the Minister for Agriculture finds favour throughout the country. I think that a great deal more could be done. If the people themselves would do a little it would have a tremendous effect nationally. There seems to me to be a tendency recently in this country to ask the Government to do everything for the people; so much so, that listening to some of the speeches here to-day I have come to the conclusion that were the Minister to accede to all the requests that have been made him, especially in regard to inspectors, we would soon have an inspector to call the farmer in the morning, an inspector to show him how to put on his boots, an inspector to show him how to use a knife and fork, and an inspector to show him how to go to bed. I think there should be a little more of the spirit we used to hear so much about, the spirit of self-reliance, and the people should do a great deal more for themselves and not be asking the Department to do everything. They must take into consideration that the more a Department does for the people the more expense is incurred. As far as national expenditure is concerned, we have reached the limit. In fact I think everyone will agree that what we should look for now is a decrease rather than an increase in expenditure and that can be brought about largely by a little more self reliance on the part of the people themselves.

There are one or two questions I would like to ask the Minister on this Vote. One is dealing with the marketing of agricultural produce. There is the feeling abroad that if and when the findings of the Committee that is supposed to be set up to deal with this question are published that most if not all of the agricultural produce of this country will be exported through one or two particular ports. I would like to sound a note of warning beforehand, because I think there is too great a tendency to centralise everything in this country. I would much prefer that all the other little ports in the Saorstát should get their share. There are many at present especially on the north-east coast, Drogheda. Greenore and Dundalk, Co. Louth. These have served the country in the immediate vicinity well and have been in a position to handle all the agricultural produce sent to these different ports in an expeditious manner. I hope that the claims of those ports will not be overlooked if and when the findings of this Committee come to be laid on the Table of the House.

There is another very important matter that affects the farmers of Louth. It is a question very familiar to the Minister and is an old sore there. I refer now to the black scab— the scheduled—area in Cooley. I am sure there are very few Deputies in the House who know the condition of affairs that exists there at the moment. The people there have made potato growing more or less their own. It is the greatest potato producing area in the whole Free State. There are practically three thousand families dependent upon the industry. There is an acreage of almost 23,000 there and as a result of the imposition of the black scab order great losses have been sustained by the farmers of that district. The loss to the growers in the area owing to the poor demand in the English and continental markets from 1923 to 1929 was somewhere in the vicinity of £20,000. The actual price paid per cwt. for potatoes in that district in 1923 was 4½d. and in 1926 9d. In addition almost two-thirds of the 1928 crop would have remained unsold were it not for the demand from continental countries owing to the recent severe frost. I am not asking the Minister to do anything that would be inimical to the interests of the farmers in the rest of the Free State but I do say it is time that something should be done by the Department to lessen the losses incurred by the farmers of Cooley.

Since this Order was imposed in 1917, the farmers in the district have carried out the instructions of the Department; they have grown no varieties except immune varieties that are sanctioned by the Department. All the growers in the area, as far as I know, even hold certificates from the Department that their potatoes are free from mixtures that were susceptible to wart disease, known as "Black Scab." The position of these growers is that there is no guarantee if and when they are ready with their potatoes next year they will find any buyers whatsoever. There is a constant fear as a result of the uncertainty of the market on the other side. At the present time the English market is the only one at their disposal, and I might say, in answer to some of the speeches made here, that in my opinion the English market is the best to be found for Irish produce. I think it would be well if we would cultivate that market as far as possible. Before the introduction of the "Black Scab" Order, the farmers in that district could bring in their potatoes to the neighbouring market, which is Dundalk. Now they are prevented from doing so, with the result that the farmers there— and they are particularly small farmers—can only grow small lots of potatoes. In order to get the other necessaries of life, such as tea and sugar, they were in the habit of bringing in a few hundredweights of potatoes to the market in Dundalk, but they cannot do so now. No one knows the hardships that are endured by the people there but those who are actually living in the district.

I move to report progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported.
Top
Share