In Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Agriculture (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (8th Dáil) – Tuesday, 5 Jun 1934

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion :—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £410,585 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Talmhaíochta agus seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riaradh na hOifige sin, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £410,585 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and of certain services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.—(Minister for Agriculture.)

Mr. Belton

Since Wednesday last there have been developments which, if they had been decided on by the Minister before that would, I am sure, have been adverted to by the Minister when making his speech. I would be glad to make way for the Minister with your permission, Sir, if he would give the House some details about them. I am referring to the export quotas for grass-fed beef stores into Great Britain and the new system of bounties which it is proposed to give for grass-fed beef which I have seen published in the Press. These are very important matters, which I am sure every speaker will refer to, and it would be well if the House had more information on them at this stage.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I will deal with that matter at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. Belton

Is the Minister too shy to deal with it now?

What is agriculture to get for this enormous estimate of a net figure of £615,000 which it is proposed to spend in the coming year? Notwithstanding all the criticism we hear about the bullock, by far the overwhelming amount of this money is going to be extracted from the taxpayers for bullocks. All through the pages of the book of Estimates, thousands of pounds are being asked to provide salaries for inspectors, superintendents and inspectors who are inspecting inspectors, right through the whole organisation of agriculture. When the Minister entered on his job of taking responsibility for agriculture in this country, he was satisfied, according to the statements he made in this House and throughout the country, that he was taking over what was practically a bankrupt concern. The Minister for Agriculture, above all other Ministers, not even excepting the Minister for Finance, should watch the trend of prices, should watch the financial barometer. In the year just ending, for the first time perhaps in history, the balance of payments is against this country. From the beginning of the first quarter of 1933 up to the end of the first quarter in 1934 the net decline in bank balances has been over £10,000,000. Up to this the balances were increasing in favour of this country, but for the year just ended they have gone down by £10,000,000. Supposing the bank balances in Britain had gone down correspondingly, if one were to use the President's formula, the amount of the wrong balance would be £660,000,000.

Apparently this Ministry is schooled in the idea that to lose trade is really no loss provided that you lose it both ways, provided that if you lose your import and your export trade correspondingly, one balances the other. I am not going to argue that. Whether that is sound economic doctrine or not, I will not now dwell upon and, anyway, it is not necessary for the purpose of this debate. What certainly is dangerous and what is threatening our economic position is the fact that our export trade is declining at a much more rapid rate than is our import trade. These are two things that any Minister, but particularly the Minister for Agriculture, should watch carefully. He had at his disposal last year a sum of £448,000. Does he consider he is justified this year in asking for a sum of £615,885 to administer the affairs of his Department when our exports of agricultural produce have gone down, when our general exports have gone down to a far greater extent than have our imports?

If one is to judge by the Government's theory of what is a sound trading position, the situation is really alarming. We have lost in our capital reserves, as shown by our banks, £10,000,000 last year. In that position the Minister is asking the taxpayers to put up £616,000, whereas last year he asked for £127,000 less and at that time he could say that although our exports and our imports had declined, yet the increased percentage of decline in our exports as compared with our imports was not very alarming. He could point to the stable financial position revealed by the fact that in the year ended March, 1933, the balances in the banks had increased by £8,500,000. The difference in the two years, plus and minus, is only £18,500,000. In fact of that, the Minister asks £126,000 more from the taxpayer. If a balance sheet means anything, does not that indicate that the business of the country is in an unsound if not insolvent state? All that can save the solvency of the country are the big bank reserves, built up in the years before the present Ministry came into office.

We are told in the House and on the platform that the British market has gone for ever. In the year just ended, when our supplies of butter to the British market barely amounted to 300,000 cwts., the capacity of the British market in regard to butter absorption was 8,100,000 cwts. Notwithstanding this, Ministers and spokesmen of the Fianna Fáil Party go down the country and tell the unfortunate people that no such market now exists, that the British are no longer able to buy butter. Similarly with beef. The Minister told us, in his opening speech, that we had half a million surplus cattle. I do not know if he said in this House that the British market for beef has gone, but he certainly said that down the country. I have here a report of the Smithfield and Argentine Meat Company, dated March 29th, 1934. It states:

"Quoting from Mr. Milman's Smithfield Market Report, the Chairman gave some interesting statistics of meat prices and of rationing the 8,000,000 people of London. For instance, the supplies of beef produced in Britain and Ireland available for London were only sufficient to provide Londoners with a weekly ration of 3.2 ozs."

Nevertheless, the Minister goes down the country and tells the people that England is now extending her agriculture, that she is going to feed herself, while Britain and Ireland together are only able to provide the citizens of London with 3.2 ozs. of beef per week. I have no doubt that there are better authorities on meat production and the marketing of meat on the back benches and on the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil than Mr. Milman, chairman of the biggest meat concern in the world. I continue the quotation:

"The Dominions provided a further 1.8 ozs. The Argentine (mainly) and other countries supplied the further necessary 14.8 ozs. The average price of Scotch sides of beef was 73 per cent. higher than the average price of chilled Argentine beef."

The Minister knows perfectly well—I am sure he has not neglected to make himself up in the question of meat production for the British market —that a big percentage of this Scotch beef consists of half or threequarter fat Irish cattle, bought here for the Scottish market and finished in Scotland. That beef as a rule fetches 75 per cent. above the Argentine price. The quotation goes on:

"Mr. Milman, whose long connection with the Smithfield market meat trade rendered his views valuable, wrote: ‘When the general run of English beef becomes plentiful and superior, or even equal, in quality to imported chilled beef, Londoners may be induced to pay a slightly higher price for the home-produced article'."

Apropos of that, what do we hear? We hear that the British are so poor that if they get a bit of fresh meat they must have a piece of Argentine meat with it. Members of the opposite side go to the people and tell them that the British have developed a taste for chilled meat and will not buy the home meat. That is disposed of by the authority I have just quoted.

The Minister has told us that, if the advice of himself and his Party had been taken by the then Government six years ago we should now be well advanced towards the self-supporting stage as regards wheat. The Minister has started what he euphemistically describes as a tillage policy, but which, in fact, is the most direct route to ranching. He tried to fortify himself by saying that this Party were now being converted to his tillage policy and that, if we had listened to him six years ago, we should be well on the road to self-sufficiency now in the matter of wheat. I have before me a pamphlet in the making of which I had a share nine years ago—before the Minister or any colleague of his on the Front Bench thought of practical politics. Here is the recommendation of a conference that sat for seven or eight hours a day for six days. The recommendation is to the Department of Agriculture:—

"That with a view, at some future time, to being able to grow in Ireland all the wheat needed for the requirements of the population, we request the Department of Agriculture immediately to embark on an experimental wheat-growing scheme of not less than 300 acres, distributed at their own discretion over the Twenty-Six Counties."

I may say, in passing, that I discussed this with the Minister some years ago. If my recollection of what took place then is wrong I am prepared to accept the Minister's recollection of it. This discussion was in connection with Red Stettin wheat from Tipperary. This was supposed to be a perfect sample of Red Stettin No. 13. It was brought up to the Department. They were to breed from it. When examined it was found to contain 65 different varieties. The Minister, instead of getting a pure native strain of wheat here and of having its milling and glutin qualities tested, started using any wheats that are here and offering a bounty for growing wheat of good millable quality. I do not know what good milling wheat is. Am I to accept the advice that was given by the millers eight or nine years ago when we had them in conference, or are these same millers to-day going to give the advice that any sort of wheat is good enough for them to use in the grist? I do not know whether they are going to give that advice or not, but I have notes of the advice they gave nine years ago when we had them in conference. If they have changed their minds since I would not like to have them in conference again if I were a party selected to consider a matter of such vital national importance as wheat growing. The Minister is aware of all that. He will recollect that I discussed this with him several times individually and in the company of others.

The Minister also knows that in every other country in the world wheat growing cannot be made a success in the haphazard way that he is going to do it. He is spending public money on this and he is putting a certain acreage under wheat, while in the very best wheat growing countries in the world the reverse process is taking place. He knows that when wheat growing was started in Canada, in California and in Australia it was a failure until they bred a wheat suitable to the soil and climate. For a number of years wheat growing in Canada was a failure until they succeeded in breeding what is known as Red Fife. That put Canada on the road to success as a great wheat-growing country but even that had its limitations because it took too long to mature. It had to be sown early in the spring and it had to get a good autumn. If the frosts were late on the ground in the spring or came too early in the autumn the greater part of the crop would be a failure.

So that beef on hoof, as it is termed, is the same. There is no alteration? That makes the position worse still.

I certainly cannot see any hope for the agricultural industry in the present circumstances. The Minister, also, has reminded us that he and his Party are going to produce from the soil all we want in this country. That is a nice pious hope that we would all like to see bearing fruit. But the Minister should again consult the economic history of this country. He should remember that while wheat prices to-day on the world market are not higher than in 1840, live-stock prices are 200 and 300 per cent. up. That is an economic fact, and if the Minister for Agriculture follows the trend of economic development he will see that wheat was found to be unremunerative here owing to the development of new countries and of plant breeding and research in new countries which was not carried out in this country under the Minister's régime. I challenge contradiction of that. Not even have we the necessary seeds here. If the British stopped the ports to-morrow we would not have a mangold, or a turnip or a parsnip in the country, and yet we are spending £500,000 on agriculture. The Minister showed his expert knowledge of agriculture when he said in Wexford that he had seen cereals grown three or four times in succession. We know that that is farming at a loss. It is within the year that I read, from the Minister, the statement that you must have cattle in order to develop tillage; that, in fact, tillage increases the cattle carrying capacity of land. The Minister was right then. Why has he changed his opinion? Surely he is not so weak that he will change his opinion to suit every changing condition. I have here a report that was compiled about a year ago, giving a description of certain agricultural operations carried out in the County Wexford. It states:—

"The total area under wheat in An Saorstát last season was 50,491 acres, an increase of 131.1 per cent. over 1932. Large as this increase may seem, it only allows for a contribution of 4 per cent. to our daily bread. Let us hope in 1934 that the acreage under this vital food crop will be increased by 200 per cent. The past season was ideal for the production of a successful crop of wheat. The grain was of excellent quality, and the average yield for the country was 12½ barrels per Irish acre."

That is about £14 to £15 per Irish acre. Does the Minister suggest that for his native County of Wexford, it is a paying proposition to grow wheat at 23/6 a barrel and produce 12½ barrels to the Irish acre? Is that a paying proposition at a time when the world price of wheat is about 14/- per barrel and when he will have to get the other 9/6 to make up the 23/6 out of the pockets of the taxpayers? And who is the taxpayer? Is not 75 per cent. of the productive wealth of the country produced in agriculture? If you need to tax industry the agriculture industry has to bear its share even to help you to get your bounty. When the Minister for Finance looks for £100 by indirect taxation he gets that £100 at the source, and that, added to the wholesale price of commodities, is transmitted down the line to the agricultural consumer, with a 33? per cent. profit on top of it.

In order to give the Minister for Finance £100 for the benefit of agriculture, agriculture itself, in indirect taxation, will have to contribute every penny of that £100; so that out of this industry you are feeding itself by taxing itself. And you call that good farming and good economics! Then, you are left with the stubble on your hands. The Minister suggests that you should grow wheat again—presumably, the next year—and he said he saw it in his own native County of Wexford. Now, if 12½ barrels were grown, presumably on manured land, last year in the same County of Wexford, what will it grow this year on wheat stuff? We are not all children. Some of us have grown up and it is time that the Minister grew up. The thing is ludicrous. You can only farm in this country, or in any old country, by rotation. Even in Argentina—I have it from a man who farmed out there and who went out on the prairies and grew wheat—they were driven out of the cultivation of wheat by weeds. The weeds would smother the young seedlings coming up. If in a dry country like Argentina the weeds will smother the young wheat, what would the chickweed do in a moist climate like ours? I dare say that the Minister saw some attempts made at that, but not by good farmers, and I am surprised to hear it stated of a Wexford farmer, for Wexford is the first tillage county in Ireland.

There is an item of expenditure in the Minister's Estimate—I just cannot lay my hands on it at the moment— consisting of a subsidy or a bonus, or something like that, that he gives to seed merchants; and then, in Appropriations-in-Aid, he shows what he gets in under the headings of Seed Wheat and Manures. I wonder that the Minister did not give us a basis for comparison and not change the headings. On that point I will just give the Minister a little information as I got it. I will give the name of the writer of this letter to the Minister, or to anybody who wants it, in confidence, but I have not permission to give it for publication. He is a Wexford farmer from the neighbourhood of Camolin, and he writes as follows:

"I decided in November, 1932, to sow nine Irish acres of Wilhelmina wheat and to avail of the Department's Credit Scheme. I wrote for a quotation" (to a certain society) "and their price was 32/6 but would sell for cash only. I wrote to a well-known (other) firm and they quoted 35/- per barrel with rates slightly under Credit Scheme. I accepted this offer. The wheat was supplied. Some time later the Department form was sent on from the firm for signature. The form was not filled in. Through an oversight of mine and also an oversight of the firm's, the signature was not witnessed and the Department returned the form for witness's signature. I noticed that the form was now complete and 20 per cent. interest added to the price of the wheat, that was as follows:—Nine barrels at 35/-, £15 15s. paid to the seed merchant; nine barrels at 42/-, £18 18s. The firm applied for £18 18s. on the undertaking form. I held the form for some time as I intended to try and pay off, but owing to financial difficulties I eventually sent it on again. If I grumbled, perhaps the firm would call in their money and that kept my mouth shut. I did not hear another word from the firm about the transaction since no receipt was sent, but I presume the Wexford firm has been paid. The crop was good and lucky" (and so on). "In January I received 7/5 in official bounty order. No mention was made about seed or anything, but the total bounty would be around £19 5s."

This man goes on then to show that on a barrel of wheat the State stands behind the seed merchant with a 20 per cent. guaranteed profit. Is that the position? If the Minister wants to check this he can have the letter.

Now, the Minister remembers that, when the quota system was fixed by the British, licences were given to the exporters. That applied to about 9,000 or 10,000 cattle during the month of January. Representations were made to the Minister and, while the Minister saw difficulties, he accepted the principle that the feeders should get those licences. I hope that the Minister still accepts that principle. Now, those licences were sold at £5 apiece in the Dublin market. A piece of paper with a licence to export a beast was worth £5. Instances have come to my knowledge where people have been offered licences for sale who had not a beast in the world, and people who had 50 and 60 cattle tied up could not get licences. I am not going to dwell long on that because I have not the particulars. If I had the particulars I would very soon give them, but I should like the Minister, when he is replying, to explain what system he adopted in allocating the licences. So much for the past.

Now he tells us in his opening address that the quota system is going to remain. That was a very unfortunate admission for the Minister seeing that he and his colleagues have been boasting that the British market has gone forever. If it is gone forever, what harm can the quota do? Is not a market with the quota better than no market at all? The Minister was thanking God that there was no market; that it was gone, and now he starts to pray when he is finding there is only a quota. We are going to have the quota system anyway.

I wonder are we going to have a guarantee that the man who produces is going to get full value for what he produces? Or are those licences going to be given to the "John Browns," as the last ones were? The Minister knows that roughly about 10,000 licences were issued for the month of January for fat cattle. Those 10,000 licences for January were given exclusively to the dealers or shippers. He knows that half of the licences for the first half of February, approximately one quarter of the licences for the whole of February, or about 2,500 licences, were given to the shippers. That is about 12,500 licences in all were given to the shippers. By giving them to the shippers he made them a present of a sum of £60,000, money that should have gone to the producer. The Minister, I am sure, will not deny that, because when we were before him on a deputation on the 18th January, it was there put up to him that on that very day at the Dublin Cattle Market, men, who were present before him on the deputation, were offered licences at £5 apiece. These licences were given to the traders.

Now we are going to have the system foreshadowed by the Minister in his opening remarks. The quota is going to be a permanency. And rumour has it, we are told, that the Minister has decided to discontinue the present system from the 15th of this month. The present system is that the feeders or producers are getting the licences. When they have their cattle ready they go to sell their beasts, and the shipper can buy. Under that arrangement the shipper knows that the producer is going to get the full value of his beasts. But now the rumour is that the Minister has decided that from the 15th of this month he will give the licences to the shippers. What will the position then be? It will be this: The Minister has told us that on a rough average we exported 20,000 fat cattle per month last year before the quotas were introduced. Now we will export half of that under the quota regulations. Presumably, we have 10,000 fat cattle to export for the month of June. We have another 10,000 fat cattle that we could export if there were a market. But not having a market these cattle are left here. Remember that with the 20,000 exported previously we had supplies also for the home market. The Minister gives licences for the export of 10,000 to the dealers, and the dealers go down to the fairs in the country to buy fat cattle. They go to the Dublin market and to the big sales in Limerick, Cork and in other big towns. The position there is that there are two cattle offered for every one they want to buy. Nobody wants the one beast that is left behind. What price will be given for that beast?

It was explained to the Minister by the deputation, of whom I was one, and, of course, he knows it himself without anybody explaining it to him, that when you have two articles and there is a market only for one and nobody else wants the other one, that really the two can be bought for the price of one. In fact, you can get them for anything you offer. How long is that going to continue? With the annuities already paid, and the sheriff going out collecting them again; the Government lending its servants to buy those seized cattle; putting them on lorries and taking them across the Border, as has already happened in cases in Wexford, Limerick and Clonmel, how long is that to last?

Well, it is not a tillage constituency. The system of agriculture advocated by the Minister for Agriculture, three or four crops of corn to one root crop is not tillage. The Minister said we have 500,000 surplus cattle for which we cannot get a market. They must be got rid of somehow. He pointed out that Germany and France have developed an agricultural economy and that they kill the young calves. It was done in this country at one time. But the Minister did not tell us that the breeds of cattle in the countries he mentioned are anything approaching in quality to the breeds we have here. Those breeds of cattle in France, Germany and Belgium have not been developed for the purposes for which breeds here have been developed. Here beef was a prime consideration. The bull calves that are killed in the countries named by the Minister are the produce of cattle that would never grow into beef. They are not a beef producing strain. Their quality and their utility are for milk. It is only the heifer calves that are worth rearing. Here the position is different. After the millions that have been spent on producing cattle of this standard that we have here we are going to kill the bull calves. The Minister tells us that we will have increased tillage. Where inevitably is the Minister going? He is going to be self-sufficient in agriculture. Self-sufficiency in agriculture, according to the Minister's doctrine, would mean a reduction in tillage. Even if you had land that would give you all the wheat we wanted here in this country—500,000 acres would about do it—what would we do with the rest of the land? Wheat would account for 500,000 acres out of, I suppose, 12,000,000 acres of arable land in the Free State. What is going to be done with the rest of it? The inevitable development of agriculture under the present system, until the country goes into bankruptcy, will be that the man on the land will do what the notetaker opposite is doing, Deputy O'Reilly; he will sit down in his house and look at the grass growing; he will go around to cross-roads meetings and tell the labourers he stands for trade union rates of wages but he will not break up his land to give them any sort of wage. That is what you have all over the country. The farmer is going to grow just what will feed himself. We are going to have a limited economy. We will go back to the primitive state. If that limited economy is developed, the other arm that Arthur Griffith is so badly quoted in connection with—our industrial arm —will shrivel up because the products of that arm will have no market. It would be well if we were to develop into a two-armed nation, but the sort of a nation that we are developing into under the general economic policy of the Government is not a two-armed nation but a no-armed nation. In conclusion——

I hope that this very urgent matter of the cattle licences will be dealt with fully by the Minister. In the first place, it is up to the Minister, and to the Department for which he is asking the taxpayer to put up £615,000 this year, to devise a scheme by which those quota licences will be given to the producers, and will be given equitably to the producers, which I am afraid was not the case during the months of February, March, April and May. The scheme of allocating those licences should be made public, so that the public would have confidence in how the business was being done. In conclusion, I would impress upon the Minister that he should ask himself how long he thinks the agricultural industry can last with the tariffs that are being imposed by Great Britain. On his own admission, on the export of a fat bullock there is a loss of £4 5s. 0d. There is a corresponding loss of £4 5s. 0d. on a similar fat bullock consumed at home. In 1929 the export trade was about half what was consumed at home. Now I should think that the ratio would be one-third exported and two-thirds kept at home; so that, on one-third the British are collecting £4,500,000. If you take about £2,250,000 bounty off that, it will leave a net sum of about £2,250,000. Now you have two-thirds at home, for which the general level of prices is lowered to the same extent that it was lowered for the exports, and you will have about £5,000,000 alone on the home market. The net loss on agriculture, therefore, through the economic war, is in the neighbourhood of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, even if you can get a market for the surplus stuff that is at home. The Minister has admitted on the figures he himself has given that there will be at least 10,000 fat cattle per month for which there will be no market at home. With that over production, for which there is no market, the industry has to bear an extra £7,000,000 a year under the régime of the present Government. It is only a matter of a very short time—it is quite obvious that that time will be up this year-until agriculture cannot go any further. It will then have this Government to thank for the ruin of the industry which has been built up by the expenditure of about £500,000 of national taxation over the last 30 years.

Mr. J. Flynn

After listening to Deputy Belton, who has criticised the administration of every branch of agriculture, I should like to point out that he has made very few suggestions as to how the situation could be improved. It is all very well to point to the economic war, but if he really meant to be constructive and to assist the Government, he would adopt a different attitude and put up constructive proposals. I have some remarks to make on this Estimate, and I propose to refer to these matters from the point of view of what the Minister has done in one particular direction. I refer to his action in announcing his decision to provide bounties in respect of poultry and eggs immediately after the Budget had been announced. Anyone who lives down the country, and particularly in a county like Kerry, will readily realise what that meant to small farmers and poor people generally. It had more beneficial effect from the point of view of agriculture than anything else.

I would put forward a practical suggestion for the consideration of the Minister as to how the cattle question can be dealt with and the cattle export trade improved. It is that the quotas of exporters, who, under the present system, have a monopoly of the licences be cut to 30 per cent., and that the licences remaining be divided among the other cattle dealers whose buying will be of value to the counties in the West and South. What has happened under the present system is that certain dealers, who formerly visited Kerry, Galway and other counties, have now opened up trade with other centres, and the result is that, with their monopoly of the licences, there is practically no trade in this type of cattle so far as Kerry and the other western counties are concerned. The suggestion I make would compel these people to trade with these counties and competition would be created in that numbers of traders will come into the different districts and better prices will be obtained.

I could quote several instances in Kerry in which one of these exporters who had such a monopoly and who is the only man in that district with licences, got cattle for the asking because there were practically no other prices offered. As a result, in many cases the whole thing was a complete fiasco. I am sure that a new system could be devised whereby the quota of these exporters could be cut to 30 per cent. I could quote a number of cases, without mentioning names, of men from Dublin and one or two other counties, who still go to Kerry, but who at present have no licences and cannot, therefore, be of any benefit to us. The proposal I put forward would make for a better system and greater benefit to all concerned. It is a practical suggestion, and I hope the Minister will consider it.

There is also this question of the levy on farmers' butter. That is a very serious matter for districts in which there are no creameries. It is all very well to say that farmers dealing with certain merchants or traders get very good prices but in towns and villages where there are no creameries, the prices to be obtained by the farmer from any trader in the area could not be described as exorbitant. If this levy on farmers' butter in such districts is imposed, it will mean the practical wiping out of these farmers because there is no outlook for them. It is a good enough arrangement, and people will still carry on, in areas in which there are creameries operating, but in the areas like that which I represent, and particularly in South and West Kerry, it will have a very bad effect.

I am glad to hear the Minister's decision with regard to the portable creamery. Such creameries will be of great benefit to us, and I speak particularly of areas in which it would not be an economic proposition to build permanent creameries. There are isolated, mountainous districts in which the travelling creamery will be an economic proposition. I understand that the Minister has proposals for legislation ready to legalise expenditure in connection with portable creameries, but so far as portions of our county are concerned, such as Dingle and other portions of the West and South Kerry, this intended legislation will operate against us. I understand that the Department has one of these creameries operating in Kerry at the moment and I would urge the Minister to put it into operation in our portion of the county pending the introduction of this legislation. It would have the effect of solving the problem in that portion of the county. So far as we, in Kerry, are concerned—and Kerry is perhaps one of the hardest hit counties in the entire Free State—we realise that the Minister is doing his utmost to assist us and we will try to put up the best proposals we can. Under the circumstances, we realise that very great benefits cannot accrue to us because, being, as we are, far removed from the big industrial centres, our county is hard hit. If the Minister would consent to relieve us immediately in regard to these two important problems, I think that for the present, in any case, the people of Kerry would realise that he is doing his utmost for us and they will be grateful for the assistance extended to them.

Mr. Bennett

There have been several allusions in this debate to the eventual result of the Government's policy in regard to agriculture. I am in doubt as to what the policy of the Minister in regard to agriculture really is. Indeed, I am not quite sure that the Minister has any defined policy. If one is to take any cognisance of his statements not alone in the House, but outside it, and the statements of other Ministers inside and outside the House, neither the Minister for Agriculture nor any other member of the Executive has any definite policy whatever in regard to agriculture. One does not know exactly whether the Minister intends to pursue a policy of intensive agriculture and tillage, or what are the proposals he has for the future of agriculture. Speaking at Newcastle West, in my constituency, on May 12th, in reply to a deputation of farmers mainly, in fact wholly, his own supporters, in relation to the dairying industry the Minister is reported to have said:—

"Even if he had the money to do what he would like to in regard to that industry, there would still be great difficulties about the matter. There were other branches of agriculture that were in a much worse condition. The danger was that if dairying was paying too well they might have a surplus of cattle and they would have to cut the numbers of them down, as had been done in Holland, Denmark and Australia, where they are actually killing cows heavy in calf."

He went further in regard to dairying and said:—

"They did not want any more people than those already engaged in the dairying industry to come into it. If he had a quarter of a million or more to devote to agriculture he would not give it to dairying, but to other branches of agriculture like cattle.... Therefore, he was not holding out much hope for the dairying industry, at any rate for some time to come."

So that the Minister certainly has not taken dairying to his bosom, as one of the means for resuscitating agriculture. He does not want any extension of it. In fact, if possible, he is going to limit the extent of it. If he had any money he certainly would not put it into dairying. So that dairying cannot be the particular branch of agriculture that it is intended to foster in this State.

The Minister, in the same speech, made a remarkable allusion to dairy produce in the shape of calves. He went on to refer to the bounty on calf skins, and said:—

"No one seemed to object to the killing of baby beef, and he could not see any moral difference between the killing of young cattle for baby beef and the killing of calves."

I do not know whether the Minister made that statement on the spur of the moment without thinking seriously, or whether he really believes that there is no difference between the killing and the skinning of calves and the killing of cattle for baby beef. The Minister further said that there was an extensive veal business in this country for years, and calves were killed to a great extent. Does the Minister realise the difference between killing calves for veal and the scheme that he has put into operation in regard to the killing of calves? Does the Minister suggest that killing newly-born calves for their skins and having the flesh bartered for whatever few pence it makes is at all comparable to the killing of the fed calves sold for veal in Dublin and other cities? The Minister ought to know that it is not. We all know that there was a considerable veal trade here and a considerable sale and export of baby beef. These animals, however, were not newly-born, unfed calves like those which the Minister has made the farmers sell for slaughter and which are sold to the unfortunate consumers here at present as veal.

Instead of helping the veal trade, I think the Minister has gone the best way he possibly could to kill that particular industry. I believe there was a good deal of veal used in Dublin. There were a certain number of calves killed in the country, and the taste for veal developed. But these were highly-fed young calves whose fattening was helped by intensive feeding, and the meat was really excellent. The veal, however, that is offered to the people at present is what one might call the most obnoxious form of beef flesh. If anything is calculated to kill the sale of veal it is the policy of the Minister, because anybody who has a few consecutive meals of the veal now offered for sale will very soon develop a distaste for veal of any kind, and I venture to predict that the sale of veal in future will be a very small business.

I said that the Minister did not intend to extend the dairying industry, and he certainly does not if his statements are to be relied upon. He has made successive statements that he does not intend to develop the cattle industry as a whole. In fact, there is proof enough in the scheme for the slaughter of 200,000 calves that he wants definitely to restrict the cattle business and that he will not be satisfied until he limits it to such an extent that it will be a very small industry indeed. He is backed up in that by other Ministers. One Minister who has made very interesting statements in regard to agriculture is the Minister for Defence, whom I might call the subsidiary Minister for Agriculture, the Minister who generally takes the place in this House of the Minister for Agriculture when he is absent. What does the Minister for Defence say?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Agriculture can only be held responsible for his own statements in regard to agriculture; not for those of other Ministers.

Mr. Bennett

I do not want to get any further out of order than any other Deputy who spoke, but it has been usual in this House, when speaking on any subject, to quote the statements of members of the Executive Council generally. At least that has been the practice. It may be out of order, but I would ask the Chair to have a little patience with me.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has been repeatedly ruled on. However, I shall hear the Deputy's argument.

Mr. Bennett

It is only in regard to agriculture. The Minister for Defence, speaking on May 28th at Dundalk, stated in regard to this cattle policy:—

"Up to the present they had been producing 300,000 head of cattle every year to pay for their coal. They were now going to produce their own fuel and they could then eat as many of these cattle as they required, and cease producing the rest. The responsible man, no matter what the colour of his shirt was, used his farm to make money for himself and his family, and the way to do that was through the Fianna Fáil policy. The farmers who disagreed with Fianna Fáil and who worshipped the bullock might as well make up their minds that the policy of Fianna Fáil was going to stand."

So that the bullock is to go definitely. There is to be no more of that particular industry.

There have been other statements as to particular branches of the industry that it was hoped to develop from time to time. The Minister has made so many confusing statements on these particular things that one does not know what he eventually intends to do. Take, for instance, the case of tobacco. The Minister some time ago stated that he hoped to get 10,000 acres of tobacco grown, and they were now ready to go on with their policy in that regard. Subsequently the Minister made a statement in the Dáil on the matter, and we find that the tobacco to be grown is restricted to 1,000 acres.

He does not seem at the present moment to be as anxious to develop the tobacco industry to such a great extent as he was six months ago. The same applies to various other branches of the industry. One would not, perhaps, criticise the Minister so much if he did not, at the end of his opening statement, make the following remarkable announcement:—

"I can, therefore, say that, except for cattle, the farmer has not suffered. In fact it can be shown that he is better off."

That is a statement that no Deputy interested in agriculture could well take lying down. The Minister tried to prove to the satisfaction of the House the results of Government policy. I have tried to show you that there is really no policy underlying the Government's actions. They do not know themselves where they are tending. What they imagine to be their policy has, according to the Minister, put us in this position: that every branch of our industry is better off except the cattle branch. Perhaps I will be permitted to go through some of the statements the Minister made in his opening speech.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to analyse and criticise all or any points of the Minister's statement.

Mr. Bennett

I will begin with the dairying industry, and there the Minister attempted to prove that it was one item in regard to which we were definitely better off than we would be if the late Government were still in office and if there was no economic war. Telling us that we were definitely better off now, the Minister quoted prices in connection with the sale of butter. He said the farmer was getting an average of 102/- a cwt. for butter and if there were no economic war and the late Government was in office the farmer would probably be getting the average English price of 80/- a cwt. He said the farmer was now getting 4½d. a gallon for milk and if the late Government were in office he would be receiving 2½d. per gallon. The Minister was right when he quoted butter prices at 102/- in summer and 132/- in winter. He was not correct in his other analysis. Perhaps he was correct in saying that if the late Government continued in office and if there was no artificial help given to the industry, the farmer would be receiving 80/- a cwt. But he was not correct when he said that the farmer would get only 2½d. a gallon for milk.

I do not agree with the Minister's figure of 4½d. a gallon for milk with butter at 102/-, but for the sake of argument I will take the Minister's figure. If the present price of butter means 4½d. a gallon for milk, then butter selling at 80/- a cwt. would certainly mean 3½d. a gallon for the milk. On the Minister's figures, if there were no economic war the farmer would be getting 3½d. a gallon. However, I am not arguing on the Minister's figures. I contend that the present price of milk would be 3¼d. or perhaps 3?d. He certainly would not be getting as low as 2½d. Of course he would get other concessions which he does not get now. He would have £2 a head more for his calves. That would be the equivalent of 1d. a gallon on milk. The cow, the producer of the milk and butter, has fallen in value by more than £4. I am putting the fall at a very low estimate, one which even the most ardent Government supporter will not quarrel with. Altogether, the farmer would be a good deal better off than now.

I would like to refer to the efforts the Minister has made to bolster up agriculture. I think every credit should be given to the Minister for his efforts in a very difficult situation. In many ways the Minister is more deserving of sympathy than of censure. I dare say he has been doing his best in many branches of agriculture in very difficult circumstances. We have been told by the Government that, were it not for their efforts, the dairying industry would be down and out. Did it ever strike anybody that a very small bounty would suffice to keep agricultural prices and butter and milk prices as they are at the moment, if we had not the economic war with its attendant ill results by way of imposition on the unfortunate consumers of butter here? I do not believe that any Government should allow the price of butter to the farmer to go below 100/-. I cannot conceive any Government doing it, except a Government that wilfully desired the dairying industry to collapse. A direct subsidy of 20/- would keep the price over 100/-. What is it costing us? I do not want to repeat all my arguments about subsidies and bounties and the high prices the unfortunate consumers have to pay, but outside the levy and bounty the Government is contributing 30/- per cwt. and the consumer is mulcted to the extent of 4d. or 5d. a lb.

It certainly would not be difficult to prove that the dairying industry is by no means in such a satisfactory position as it was before the present Ministry took up office. In the case of cattle the Minister could not, by any manipulation of figures, prove otherwise than that there was a serious loss. The Minister endeavoured to prove that wheat prices were more favourable to the farmer now than under the previous Government. He told us that the farmers were jumping over one another in their anxiety to grow wheat. He said the anxiety to grow wheat was so great that they were going to have 100,000 acres this year and probably that area would be doubled next year. At 23/6 a barrel, the Minister expects that there will be a rush of farmers in the years to come to grow wheat. Just now, when every other branch of agriculture is in a desperate position, some farmers may resort to the experiment of growing wheat even at 23/6. I believe they will. You will get a certain amount of wheat grown at 23/6. It is not a paying proposition at that price but it may balance things better than producing any other agricultural product at the moment. If, however, we look at recent history, we shall see that that is not a price that will constitute a lasting inducement to the farmer to grow wheat.

A few years ago, when there were no bounties, a price of 30/- was obtainable for wheat. For good wheat, anybody could get 30/-. Nevertheless, at 30/- no farmer got convulsions by reason of his anxiety to grow wheat. I never heard of any farmer who got rabid because he did not grow enough wheat at that time. Although there was no rush to grow wheat at 30/-, now, at 23/6, we are told it is a golden proposition. The only thing that is helping the Minister in regard to wheat is that every other attempt the farmer has made to derive a profit from the pursuit of his industry is unsuccessful. As the Minister rushes from one proposal to another, so the farmer is now inclined to rush out of things that paid him in past years and to make experiments in new fields of production in which he is told there is a profit obtainable. I venture to say that the farmer will discover before many years that there is not any great money in wheat production except it can be grown successively upon the same lands. That has been referred to, but I do not know whether or not the Minister said that. The farmer could not produce wheat at 23/6 unless he produced other crops as well. One would go against the other and there would be profit and loss. It is impossible to grow wheat for any number of successive years on the same land. Anybody who attempts that will find in a very short time that the lands will fail to produce wheat. In countries more favourably circumstanced in that respect than ours, they found that attempts to grow wheat for any considerable time on the same land ended in disaster. Even in the new fields of Canada and elsewhere they have adopted the policy of growing wheat for a year or two years and then permitting the land to lie fallow, allowing it to resuscitate itself by the natural oxygen. Whether we shall come to that or not, I do not know. Perhaps the time will come when we shall grow a patch of a couple of acres of wheat for a couple of years and the third year plough up the patch and leave it as a feeding ground for birds, a place in which they can search for worms and insects.

According to the Minister, we shall come to the time when we shall grow all our own wheat. Therefore, we shall have 700,000 or 800,000 acres devoted to wheat. Having restricted the dairying industry very much, according to the Minister's statement of his policy, and having killed the live stock industry, there will be only one thing to fall back upon and that will be tillage. We are to have an intensive tillage policy. Having grown 700,000 or 800,000 acres of wheat to feed the whole population, what are we then going to do? Deputy Belton asked the relevant question: "What are we to do with the rest?" A few years ago, when we were on the other side of the House, this subject was debated. I ventured to remark then that if the policy of the then Opposition—the present Government—were ever put into effect and it became profitable enough to farmers to grow wheat, there would be overproduction eventually. If a sufficient subsidy is paid, people will produce anything. If the 23/6 does not suffice, I expect that the Government will make the amount bigger and that they will eventually get the amount of wheat they require for home consumption. If you limit production in other directions the farmers will be forced to turn to wheat. But will you limit the farmers' production to 700,000 or 800,000 acres of wheat when you have destroyed the possibility of his developing in dairying, cattle, or in any other direction? If you make the bribe big enough, you will have the farmers producing not only what is necessary but more than is necessary.

I made the bald statement when this matter was under discussion formerly that the farmer would not stop at the amount necessary but would overproduce. If you kill live stock production and limit dairying, the farmers will be driven to some other experiment. If they see their neighbours succeeding fairly well in wheat, they will go into wheat. Instead of having 700,000 acres or 800,000 acres of wheat, you will have millions of acres unless you stop the subsidy. If you stop the subsidy, you will kill all wheat production. You will find it very hard to restrict the growing of wheat unless the Minister does something such as he has done with regard to tobacco. He said that they wanted to have 10,000 acres of tobacco grown, that they wanted to produce all the tobacco consumed here. Having thought a little over that, he found that he would have to restrict the amount of tobacco to be grown. I expect that something similar will be done in regard to wheat in the future —that there will be a restriction on the amount of wheat which can be grown by any one farmer. If that is not done and if the bounty is sufficient, in a few years there will be a surfeit of wheat. What is to be done with the overproduction? It cannot be exported. Something will have to be done with it and that is a prospect to which the Minister should have regard. I think that the Minister should look to the future and see what the natural results of his policy will be in three or four years. To me it seems plain that no matter what we do with the 15,000,000 or 16,000,000 acres of land in this State —whether we feed cattle, if we are allowed to do so, whether we increase our dairying, if we are allowed to do so, no matter what we produce, whether it be wheat, tobacco, leeks, celery or even asparagus, we will produce more than we want unless we leave the land idle. So that in regard to the greater part of what we produce we need to have an export market if we are to use our land to the fullest extent. That goes beyond yea or nay. Even the Government cannot envisage a period when the people of the Saorstát will be able to consume even a great part of the production of the land of this State; that is, if the land is put into production in the proper way. That is going to be the position, no matter what form of production is decided upon. If we are not going to have dairying and if we are not going to produce cattle, then we will have to produce something else. I do not care twopence what form of production is decided upon if it pays the farmer. The only alternative offered so far to the live stock and dairying industry is the growing of wheat and a little beet, and as I stated before, the growing of wheat is bound to come to the point when we will have either overproduction or the Minister will be faced with the position of having to withdraw the subsidies. Such an alternative is certain to have very serious consequences.

Frequent mention has been made of the losses that farmers are suffering owing to the policy of the Government. These losses have been estimated at from £6,000,000 to £20,000,000. The losses they have sustained certainly represent a big number of million pounds. On cattle alone the losses sustained run into a very big sum. The position is that the farmer's income has diminished to a very great extent. In fact, the income of most farmers has disappeared altogether. In connection with that there is one point on which, in my opinion, sufficient emphasis has not been laid, and that is the loss in capital. That is one of the most serious things that can happen to any industry, whether it be agriculture or manufacturing industry. In the case of agriculture, what is the position at the moment? We have about 4,000,000 odd cattle in the country. Their capital value has dropped by £16,000,000 or £17,000,000. The capital value of horses and other live stock has also dropped substantially, so that I believe it would not be exaggerating the position to state that the capital value of all classes of live stock has dropped by at least £20,000,000. In addition, there are the other capital losses that farmers have sustained. We have in this country—we always had and always will have, and not even the Minister can diminish it—about 15,000,000 odd acres of land. Within the past two years the capital value of that land has diminished by at least £100,000,000. That estimate, I submit, is a moderate one. I do not think there is a responsible Deputy or farmer in the country who would deny that the value of land here has within the last couple of years diminished by at least £6, £7, or £8 an acre. In my own county the capital loss per acre would be even greater than that— substantially greater. If to that figure of £100,000,000 we add the £20,000,000, capital losses on live stock, we get the total of £120,000,000. What does that mean to the farmers of the country? We have heard a lot of talk about the reduction in the annuities, in rates, and so on. Even if the Government had fulfilled their original election promises of relieving the farmer of his rates and his land annuities, these combined reliefs would not have gone anywhere near compensating him for the capital losses he has sustained due to their policy. It is well to remember in that connection that when these promises were originally made there was no talk of an economic war or of all the hardships that have flowed from it.

The Minister spoke of eggs, and quoted prices for the last two or three years. He seemed to be satisfied that compared with two years ago people were now getting 1d. a dozen more for their eggs. That, of course, is due to the bounties. The position that we have reached is this, that at the moment not a single branch of the agricultural industry could be carried on if it were not for bounties or subsidies. It does not matter whether you take dairying, live stock, tillage, hens, eggs or anything else. Not one of these branches could be carried on if it were not for the fact that they are being subsidised or are on the dole. That is the position that agriculture has been reduced to: that at the moment not a single branch of the industry can, so to speak, stand on its own feet. Not a single branch of the industry will survive within the next few years if the subsidies cannot be continued. The question arises, can the subsidies be continued? The Minister for Finance, who is the chief financial authority in this House, has made the statement— and it is a true statement—that it is the farmer himself who pays any bounty or subsidy that he receives. If I were to say that it might be regarded as a wild statement from a Deputy on the Fine Gael Benches, but it is the Minister for Finance who made it. Therefore, if the bounties and subsidies that he receives are paid by the farmer himself, and that he is losing hand over hand, how long is he going to be able to continue to pay them? The farmer at the moment is carrying on a profitless industry. In view of that how is he going to continue to pay or to provide not only subsidies and bounties for himself but for other sections of the community?

Some months ago a deputation waited on the Minister for Finance in connection with the relief of rates. Deputies, of course, will remember that at the general election the Fianna Fáil Party promised the farmers that they would derate their land. The Minister for Finance told this deputation that it could not be done now: that if the farmers were to be given that relief it is they themselves would be paying it. That, of course, is true, not only in regard to the relief of rates but to the payment of subsidies and bounties. Whether these go to the farmers of the country or to any other section of the community they are provided mainly by the farmers. If the farmer is at the moment engaged in a profitless industry, if practically every branch of it is on the dole, and that the greater portion of the dole is being supplied by the farmer himself, the whole thing resolves itself into a simple question of practical economy: it cannot continue very long.

We are bound to arrive at a stage when bounties and subsidies can no longer be paid or be extended. They will have to be extended if they are to be successful. The future in regard to agriculture in this country, as I see it, is hopeless. If the present course—I cannot call it a policy, because there is no policy—is pursued there is bound to be wholesale disaster to the agricultural community. I wish the Minister would seriously consider a policy in regard to agriculture, a policy that would offer some hope of lasting benefit to farmers, a policy which they could stand on, one which would not make farmers subsidise themselves by taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another, instead of rushing blindfolded into statements regarding his policy; saying one day that he was going to increase the profits in dairying, and to increase the number of dairy cows, and in a few days saying that dairying had got on too well, and should be restricted; one day telling the country that more tillage and more live stock were wanted, and the next day saying that some of the live stock must be slaughtered; another day stating that we were to have 10,000 acres of tobacco, and in a few days stating that the acreage was to be limited to 1,000 acres. If we are to have statements like that farmers will not know where they stand. The Minister does not know his mind with regard to agricultural policy. As far as any ordinary student of the position can judge, there is no policy on the Government Benches in regard to agriculture except the kind of outlook that I have referred to. The development of wheat growing will reach a limit. When attempting any policy concerning any industry it is necessary to look to the future, not to what will happen to-day or to-morrow, but to what will be the position in five or ten years time. If live stock is to be eliminated, and dairying restricted, in order to make wheat growing possible, an inducement is going to be given to farmers to grow more wheat than will be needed, with the inevitable result that there will be a surplus. That is the only prospect offered to agriculture. It does not look like materialising, because farmers will break down in the attempt to subsidise wheat and other crops. There will be a breakdown in the farming industry long before the Minister arrives at the stage when enough wheat will be produced to feed the people.

The only practical policy for agriculture in this country is the policy of exporting more produce. If we are to farm our 15,000,000 acres of land we must have exports. The people of this country cannot consume the produce of 15,000,000 acres no matter what they produce. Experience has shown that the only profitable exports for farmers are live stock, and the produce of live stock, cattle, butter and other things. These exports have been limited and reduced in price owing to the action of the present Government. The only hope for the future of agriculture here is the extension of markets for our produce, mainly cattle and the produce of live stock. That can only be possible if certain circumstances which have been in operation for the last couple of years are changed, and an attempt speedily made to get on better terms with our neighbours by putting an end to this unfortunate economic war.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

Listening to the arguments put forward by the Opposition one would imagine that we had not a tradition for wheat growing in this country. That was the big argument advanced against the success of the wheat-growing policy, and it was suggested that the Minister could not be a judge of the best sample of wheat so as to ensure the success of that policy. We have a tradition for wheat growing even in the county I represent, Meath. Although we were told the land was too rich and would not grow wheat, the results of wheat growing on experimental plots which were tilled and manured by the Committee of Agriculture, according to a report issued by the agricultural instructor, show that:

"Wheat samples were equal to the very best, from the milling point of view, to those we were importing from Manitoba."

Wheat was grown in this country very successfully many years ago. We had an example recently of what we may expect if wheat growing is to be carried on here. I refer Deputies on the opposite benches to the annual report of Bolands, Limited, in which it was stated that samples of Irish wheat had produced excellent bread. It has also been stated that wheat cannot be grown for more than one year on the same land. I know one place, where the land was not very good, where wheat was grown a second year in succession with good results. There are numerous instances where that occurred. I am sure that, if necessary, wheat can be grown the second year in the same land and that no evil results will follow. England forced the people of this country into the cattle trade from wheat growing, and it is recorded in history that the farmers of those days were up in arms against the change in economy. They would have preferred to continue growing wheat, even though the results might not have been the same as from the cattle trade, because they had a tradition of wheat growing. One of the arguments put forward was that we would have overproduction of wheat here. I think no sensible man can come to the conclusion that we could have overproduction for a number of years. We have an increasing population owing to the stoppage of emigration, and consequently we may look forward to a very large home market for at least ten years. Perhaps our population may increase in the meantime so that even then there may be a full demand for whatever wheat is produced.

Deputies on the opposite side believe that bounties and subsidies ought not be paid, or at least they rather sneer at the idea of having bounties and subsidies paid on agricultural produce. I believe that bounties and subsidies ensure a better distribution of wealth through the country, and if the Minister finds that that is a fact, in the case of agricultural produce, there is surely no reason why he should not help that distribution of wealth by the giving of bounties and subsidies. Opposition speakers evidently believe that the development of the cattle trade and the export of cattle and cattle products is the only policy that would pay this country. I wonder would England take all our cattle? Is there any reason why England should have more regard for Irish farmers than she has for the farmers of New Zealand or the farmers of Australia? Have the Opposition any guarantee that we would not have the quota system continued against us, seeing that it was introduced against New Zealand and the other Dominions? Have they any guarantee that, if the farmers of England demanded that their industry should be protected, we would not have to keep our surplus cattle here, and provide some other means of disposing of them or put a changed system of economics into operation in regard to agriculture? We have the example of the aftermath of the war, when England reduced the price of cattle by about half and reduced, as a result, the capital of the farmers to about half. We may conclude that when the interests of England demand that the market be either closed or reduced, the Irish farmer must suffer as a consequence.

The policy of the Opposition in this connection has been merely to feed the English people, whether the price was a remunerative one or not for us, or whether that price gave any benefits to the people of this country. The difference in the policy, as outlined by the Minister, is that it is adopted with a view to feeding all our people. This cannot be done in a better way than by growing wheat, oats, beet and other agricultural produce. The Opposition speakers tell us that this cannot be done. They tell us that it is only because there is nothing else for the farmer to do that he grows beet at the present time, even though there is a guaranteed price of 30/- per ton for beet with a sugar content of 15½ per cent. Why, may I ask, should there be so many farmers looking for an increased acreage of beet if it is merely for pastime they are carrying on beet growing? Our experience in this connection proves that beet produces more than 15½ per cent. of sugar, and that the farmers are well aware of that fact. I know of one instance where 24 tons were grown to the acre, and that same beet gave a sugar content of 24 per cent.

The Opposition build all their case upon an estimate of the very lowest amount that is likely to accrue to the farmer in producing beet. Unfortunately they never take a middle line in other matters either. In regard to tobacco it has been stated over and over again that the Minister has 10,000 acres in his mind as the figure to be arrived at, but seeing that the taste for Irish tobacco has to be nursed, the produce of 1,000 acres was found this year to be the limit that the smokers in this country could consume without realising the change or without turning from tobacco smoking altogether. We feel that the acreage of tobacco in this country will be increasing year by year until the 10,000 acres are arrived at. The farmers down the country were not deceived in the slightest by any statement made by the Minister that 10,000 acres would be grown.

A reason has been advanced from a Front Bench speaker this evening why this Estimate should not be passed. He said that the reason was that we were paying £4,500,000 to the British Government in place of the land annuities. He said that we were paying that in tariffs, and that this Estimate should consequently not be passed. He further stated that the £1,500,000 extra Customs duty beyond what the Minister for Finance anticipated last year, as was disclosed in the Budget statement this year, was also paid by the farmers. Surely Deputies cannot have it both ways. We are told that if a tariff is imposed on goods coming into this country the farmers must pay that tariff. We are also told that if there is a tariff put upon produce on the other side on goods going into England, the farmers here must pay it. Surely if a tariff is put on here and that the farmers must pay it, if there is a tariff put on on the other side, the farmers in England must pay it. In making those statements it would appear to me that Deputies put all their entries on the debit side. They never take the other side of the situation into account, and consequently we have their very depressing statements day after day.

In the giving of licences to cattle exporters, I would suggest that the Minister should consider the applications of the small feeders. If it should happen that men who are grazing their land and giving no employment, men such as we have in County Meath, should obtain all the licences or a heavy percentage of the licences, the small feeder or the man with a small acreage may not be in a position to dispose of his cattle. Consequently I would suggest to the Minister that, in giving licences, a fair distribution should be made, and that the interests of the small feeder should be kept in mind. I am pleased that the policy of the Minister is bearing fruit down the country. We find that the development of the agricultural arm is already bearing fruit in the shape of giving extra employment to our people. By the change over from a purely cattle producing country to a country that will be producing for the home market, a more healthy life will be given to the people, and in general the country will benefit when we shall have reached a state of self-sufficiency among the people.

Mr. J.M. Burke

In intervening for a few minutes, in this very interesting debate, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in some remote areas of West Cork, and other parts of Ireland, where it is impossible to establish co-operative creameries, or to provide such requisites as are necessary for the recognised creameries, there is a large number of unregistered creameries which share none of the benefits and none of the bounties that go to what I may call the regular creameries. Now these unregistered creameries are doing a great deal of very useful work, and serving a very useful purpose; but they are in a very anomalous position.

Last year, the Minister may remember, I drew his attention to this matter, and, again, I drew his attention to it last February. On that occasion he wrote me a letter intimating that he would directly send down an inspector to inquire on the spot into the circumstances. Later on I called at his office. He was engaged at the time, but someone in his office got me into touch with the Dairy Disposals Board, one of whose principal officers —I think he was Mr. Clifford—promised that the matter would be seen to at once. The season advanced, months passed, and nothing has been done. I now seriously request the Minister to give this matter his attention at the earliest convenient opportunity, and I am sure he will do so.

In regard to the matter of bounties, I do not for a moment question the Minister's bona fides, or his good intentions, or his honesty of purpose. I am sure he means well, but I, for one greatly doubt the wisdom of his policy. I do think, speaking generally, that bounties and the like, especially in relation to the key industry of the country, are more or less a confession of failure and disclose a lamentable state of affairs. Who pays the bounty? The bounty is paid, for the most part, by those whom it is supposed to benefit. It is simply taking something out of one pocket and putting it into the other. What is the effect of a bounty? In most cases it means the artificial enhancing of the price in the home market, and the burden of this increased price has to be borne by the consumers. What is the object of a bounty? It is an effort, so far as I can see, to keep hold on a market which we say is not worth keeping; which we say is decadent, and practically useless, and which we have deliberately, designedly and of malice aforethought wilfully flung away. On these grounds, I think these bounties are a display of woeful lack of statesmanship and are by no means indicative of a very healthy state of affairs in this or any other State that employs a similar expedient for the purpose of bolstering up a particular industry.

I admit I am not in a position to offer any opinion upon the wheat growing question. But, in reference to what the last Deputy has said, it may be pointed out that when wheat growing was extensive in Ireland the population was almost twice as large as now, and, also, at that time the Corn Laws were in force. But apart altogether from the repeal of the Corn Laws, the whole aspect of wheat growing, so far as Ireland is concerned, has been changed by the increased means of transport from lands where wheat was grown in immense quantities at a cheap expenditure on virgin soil. That will occur to everybody who has given the matter a single moment of thought. But what I really intervened for was for the purpose of saying one or two words on behalf of the poor cows and calves. I want to enter a protest against the slaughter of the innocents, butchered to make a Roman holiday, and immolated on the altar of economic heresy. I want to make a short appeal not only to the history of foreign countries but still more to the history of our own country.

One may say that this old struggle between the tillage man and the cattle man began shortly after the fall of Adam, when Cain, the husbandman, murdered Abel, who kept flocks and herds, because, as it happened, Abel's offering was more pleasing to the Lord than the fruits offered by Cain. Anyhow, in ancient times the cow was held in the greatest respect and the greatest veneration. It was so in ancient Egypt. It is still held so amongst the Hindus and the value of the cow may be appreciated by the fact that it was the standard of value and that its name is still enshrined in the words used every day of chattels, cattle, capital, pecuniary, etc. The ancient Romans have been referred to very often lately in the course of debates here. They were not only great soldiers, great road-builders, great colonists and great statesmen, but above and beyond all things they were farmers, and amongst them, wantonly to kill a cow was a crime punishable by exile. Deputies on the opposite benches frequently appeal to our forefathers, but in ancient Ireland our forefathers had the highest respect and regard for cows. So much so, as is well known to some members of the House at all events, that some of our greatest tales and sagas are about cattle. I need not refer to the famous Táin Bo Cuailgne or the equally famous Brian Boru of the Tributes. It will be a sad state of affairs if we are going indiscriminately to slaughter all the cattle and the poor innocent calves. The poor little calf was held in such respect in ancient times that, when the idolatrous Israelites, in a moment of folly wanted to set up an image to worship, they set up the golden calf. When the Prodigal Son returned home, what the rejoicing father killed in order to welcome him was the fatted calf, but in Ireland we shall have no more fatted calves if this policy of the Government goes on. Even to this day, an Irish mother, addressing her child in the most endearing terms, will say to the child: "A laogh liom," which means "my calf," and which indicates in a very simple way the affection and love the Irish people have for the young cattle and for those young calves that are now to be killed and allowed to be thrown to disappointed pigs and disgruntled foxhounds.

I think that it is a shocking state of affairs and a crime against nature. I think that it is a crime thus to waste wilfully those good things which God, in his bounty, has provided for this generation and to destroy the cows that would produce butter and milk for future generations. It appears to me that, in some Departments at all events, the policy of the Government is that of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland—"Off with their heads." With all sincerity, then, I appeal to the Minister to try to find some expedient for dealing with this question other than by the wholesale destruction of calves. Veal, I may say, when properly cooked and with suitable trimmings, is a very delectable and toothsome dish, but it does not seem to be very popular in this country for some reason or another, and the present policy of the Government will deprive veal of any chance of ever becoming popular in our time.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I was rather disappointed when Deputy Belton stood up this afternoon, because I expected to hear his solution of the problem with which the farmers are faced at the present time. The only solution, as far as I could find out from the Deputy's speech, was to breed a certain class of wheat in this country. He did not seem to think that there would be the slightest difficulty if this so-called economic war was over—that everything would be all right then. Of course, that has been preached here by some men who, at least, know the difference. Others, of course, do not. It is quite customary here also for even reputable newspapers to make statements to the effect that the economic war is the cause of the whole collapse in the prices of agricultural produce in this country. Of course, there is not the slightest danger of the people of this country accepting that statement. In no part of the country would they accept it, although demonstrations are made and pictures and photographs and big leaded headlines are given in the newspapers in order to try to indicate that that is the state of affairs. It is not the case, however, and it is quite obvious that even the farmer, who was not supposed to be a thinking individual at all, is a thinking individual and knows his business quite well.

The farmer knows quite well that two things occurred. One was a natural event here—and, personally, I hold that it is a great thing, although others, who have different opinions, may hold that it is a terrible misfortune—I refer to the increase in population here owing to the stoppage of emigration. It is quite obvious that if emigration stopped, in a country like this that was addicted to it, some economic causes in the outside world brought that about. The country to which most of the people went from this island was the United States of America. Of course, owing to economic conditions in that country—a breakdown both of its agricultural system and its industrial system—they were no longer able to employ people and, therefore, our people could not go there. That being the case, it is quite reasonable to assume that the system that was in existence in this country whilst emigration was going on could not obtain here the moment that emigration ceased; that a new problem had to be faced and that a new problem had been set up; and that, therefore, it was the bounden duty of any government to set out to try to solve that problem and arrange its economic conditions with a view to the solution of the problem. Other things happened also, however, and we are not told much about them. Naturally, economic collapse in one country spreads to other countries. There has been a very serious collapse in agriculture on the other side, where, we are told, we had a good market, and where we, undoubtedly, had a good market, and where a large market still exists, but where there are people, and the owners of that market, in just as big difficulties as we are in over here. There is no sympathy at all for the English farmer. He is supposed to have the Bank of England or some other bank there behind him and that he can shell out and keep on doing so. That is not the case. He has been throwing out S.O.S. signals for quite a long while now, and the culminating point was reached with the English farmers about a year ago, and frantic proposals were made in the English Parliament, to which there is as much objection, and perhaps more, as there is to proposals here, in order to try to remedy that position.

The result of that collapse there is simply that a country which was free trade for 60 or 70 years, known all over the world and famous as a free trade country, had to turn round and then become a highly-protected country. It is rather interesting to examine that country and its position and the difficulties it has. In a great number of cases how very similar the situation is to what the situation is here. On Monday, the 9th April, I think it was, as reported in the Parliamentary Debates of 1934, column 31, volume 288, No. 68, Mr. Ormsby Gore, First Commissioner of Works, speaking on behalf of Mr. Elliot, Minister for Agriculture, in the House of Commons, said:

"We must hasten slowly in these matters, but we must continue what is inevitably a great change in the history of British agriculture and which is still in its early experimental stage."

And then he goes on to say:

"On the free import basis, there is not a single agricultural product produced in this country that we could not get far cheaper from overseas. But for regulated quotas and the like, I do not think there is a single branch of agriculture in this country that could survive in the face of competition of that kind."

Then he goes on further and he states:

"All the statistical facts go to show that the consumption of beef in these islands, as in other countries, is steadily going down. People do not like the larger cuts. There has been a definite change of diet. People who could afford to have a Sunday joint of beef now have a much lighter joint and have changed round to such things as poultry and eggs. The expansion of the beef market in this country is definitely at an end, even with the present low prices ruling."

Then he continues:

"And we must look forward to a period of time—and this is fair to say to this country (meaning England), to the Argentine and to the Dominions—when the idea that there is a possibility of expanding the beef market in this country even with the present low prices ruling, must be cut out of the picture."

That statement, coupled with the position we have here of an increase in the population, I think ought to make people seriously consider the situation and it ought to make some members of the opposite Party somewhat more careful of the statements they have been making. I know very well that they do not really believe these statements themselves and the majority of the people of this country know full well that it is mere playacting. However, it is no good, and I think that in the face of those statements made by a responsible Minister we should no longer encourage any section of the community to depend wholesale on a trade that this British Minister states should be put out of the picture. It is quite true, it is difficult for farmers to change. I know it is. It is quite true it is made more difficult because of the enormous collapse in that industry and the collapse in the whole agricultural industry which arose in 1921 and continued up to the present time. But the change in the economic world conditions will have a decided effect and I can quote statements here from the English farmers at their different meetings in which they held one definite hope in England, and that is from their arable land.

They state that it is impossible—and they recognise it—to have any control whatsoever over live stock itself. They hold that they have already got effective control over the wheat business. It is one of the things they can control. Dairying has been mentioned. Now the price of butter in England is about 6d. per lb. In England for every three gallons of milk consumed there are two lbs. of butter imported from abroad. During the last month the average price at what we call the creamery and what they call the processing factory was 3½d. a gallon. That was the average price at the creameries. They have made an effort to increase it, and I believe the price has been increased somewhat to some further figure. The statements made by the same Minister on the same date and during the same debate are rather challenging with regard to prices. The price of the finest Canadian cheese on the 1st April, 1932, was 72/- per cwt.; on 1st April, 1933, the price was 68/- per cwt., and on 1st April, 1934, the price was 56/- per cwt.

In the other statement I read from that Minister he definitely stated that they would have to curtail imports from the Dominions; that is actually part of their policy. During that debate on that same day many members of the House of Commons lamented the situation that arose with the Ottawa Pact. Many of them advocated by some means or another that those agreements should be broken and that every step would be taken to protect the British farmer. I do not think there is much use, and we would not be wise people in this country here at all if we depended on that country as our market. We have always talked here about that market, and what was said still remains to be a fact.

I know that really there is good land in this country. We have a lot of people in this country but we have a big lot of land which serves no useful purpose whatsoever. I do not think there is any one of us here in this House who would agree that the land in certain parts of the country could in any way be left as it is at present. Certainly if we do not change our economy we cannot change that situation. Because it is the very economy that we are bewailing that brought that situation about, and particularly our economy in our trade with Great Britain. That must be minimised; it must be decreased in order to allow an economy to develop here which would allow these people to be put on the land on smaller farms.

I believe if we sat here and did not face up to that problem the people concerned would solve it themselves. When the British Minister for Agriculture was introducing these control measures the same situation arose. Farmers naturally object to this control, to the filling of papers and to all sorts of boards—wheat boards, pig boards, butter boards, and cattle boards. All these things are very objectionable to farmers, but under the circumstances there is no other possibility. The British Minister for Agriculture made an apology when he introduced these regulations. On 13th March, 1933, as reported in the Official Debates of the British House of Commons, column 1624, volume 275, the Minister said:—

"Our only justification for them is that they are not more drastic than the situation demands; that they are not more novel than the circumstances which confront us and that they are not more far-reaching than the emergency which has brought those proposals into being."

That is a clear admission. In fact, he has read a lecture to the opposite Party. He has read them a definite lecture in this House, and given them a warning that they need not be relying on that market there any longer. I agree with the British farmer. He certainly should have supremacy in that market. If he is going to live there he should get all the protection he can get.

Mr. Broderick

On that principle, I assume that you will vote against the provision, by way of bounty, for sending anything over there?

Mr. O'Reilly

That is entirely our business and your business. It is better to get shut of those commodities at any price than not to get shut of them at all.

Mr. Broderick

I thought there was no market for them there.

Mr. O'Reilly

There is a part market as long as we keep going there. We are fairly good business people, and we can get shut of those things. Remember, it is pretty hard to get shut of those things when they have no value. That position was very well examined last week in England. This Fat Stocks Commission's Report came out, and it is very interesting. They had a big meeting in London. Some of them know a good deal. They found out a good deal in the last two or three years. One of them put up to the Minister for Agriculture and the Government this sort of proposal: "Why don't you let the little people alone. You have the Colonies, and they are all small; the Free State is small. Why do you not have a go at the big fellow?" That individual liked to tackle the big fellow. "Why do you not put 50 per cent. cut on Argentine cattle and beef? Why do you not reduce them? It would solve the whole position for us." The Minister for Agriculture replied that that, of course, would need very serious consideration, and that it was a very difficult question to tackle. One farmer put up to him: "Yes, and I know the reason why. It is financial commitments and entanglements and controls that are eventually going to ruin us." There was no reply.

That is the position. There is not a butcher in England who is of any standing, and who made any money in the last 30 or 40 years, but has every bit of that money invested in the Argentine Freezing Company. Everyone of them of any standing is tied to that place. Nobody can deny the statement that, in 80 per cent. of those butcher shops. Argentine meat is pushed against English or Irish meat. They cannot get over it. It is a matter whether we think it to be good and sound, nationally, to continue such an industry as this to start out and have a good round battle with those fellows and to try and knock them out. I do not believe we could, because they are the most powerful sellers in the world. Half of Southern Brazil is under cattle production. They cannot do anything else. They grow wheat. Deputy Belton said it turns the land into weeds. They began to grow wheat because they could not kill the weeds with anything else. He remarked about the Americans developing wheat growing. That was by chance, too. I would not like to be any sort of expert, because all the experts were wrong at that time. World famous experts stated that they could not extend wheat growing to the United States—in other provinces the growing of wheat had been a complete failure—and it was not until they went there that they found it was a much better success than in the other provinces.

We have not any great problem here. They have a big problem in England; we have not a big one here. We have a good deal of land, and the only difficulty is we have more people than we have land to give them. We have no industries, but we can develop those industries. We were dead for 600 years, and we only woke up two years ago. There may be an odd smile round about. People may smile sceptically at that. They do it in every country. There are people of that class in every single country. I do not know any country that they are not in. Their policy is "hang on to the old method until the ship goes down and everybody goes with it." That was not our policy. We tackled the problem straight away, and everybody is thankful that the Government did tackle it straight away. The last Government should have tackled it. They know very well they should have tackled it. They left it over, for some reason or other. I do not know why. They could not get agreement or something like that. They cannot swallow all they said before. If they had tackled it, it would be less difficult than it is to-day. There is not a big difficulty here at all in tackling this problem. We have more people than we can put on the land, and we want a great deal of industries. For many years to come we are quite safe here, and quite sheltered. I know very well that when those changes take place somebody has to suffer. The farmers have suffered, and are suffering, but their sufferings will be made easy, and they will suffer less and less each year. In England many farmers make the statement that certain things are doing well, but other things are terrible. The same statement is made here. There are the same conditions here as there, but we do not hear them shouting so much. It is only occasionally they shout. When any national question arises they grin and bear it, and do not shout. It is a pity that that idea was not accepted, and that so much foolish talk and bitterness was brought about. It is a terrible state-of affairs that this bitterness was brought about by false pretences and without any reason. Many farmers are set upon and many businessmen are set upon and their businesses have been impaired by this suggestion of boycott. You do not set up agriculture that way. The result of that will not be very satisfactory.

I hope that, in future, newspapers and those who have an opportunity to give publicity will at least state the case as far as they know it in other countries, and will not tell the farmers of this country down in out of the way places: "There is an El Dorado just beyond. You follow us and we will bring you to it." I think it would be far better to admit to them that the situation is extremely difficult. It is much more difficult in the English market than it is here. I see where the Minister for Agriculture in England, in answering a question about the reduction in the supply of eggs, thanked the Free State and one or two other countries for agreeing to reduce the supply of eggs put on the British market. Everybody believes here that because there is one question between this Government and England we are all killing each other—that at every turn we are murdering each other. We do not do business that way. It is a good job they have that much sense anyway. I hope this thing will stop all over the country and let us get on with the work. The sooner that solution is brought about, and the more assistance people get to bring it about, the sooner will the farmers, whom we are all sorry for—most of us are farmers—get rid of their difficulties.

Dr. O'Higgins

I was rather struck when I heard the Deputy censure those who pointed to an El Dorado just around the corner. It rather reminded me of the republic around the corner and the promises that were made of better times and a rosy future for anyone who supported Fianna Fáil. Certainly the members on this side of the House are not given to over-enthusiasm or exaggeration in the way of promises. That is entirely the monopoly of the people who sit opposite. I have never, in this House or outside it, heard any grown-up Irishman who placed such simple faith and absolute reliance on the statements and opinions of Englishmen as the Deputy who has just sat down. We heard, from beginning to end of his speech, one long mass of quotations of British experts, British Ministers and English statesmen. If we were to follow the Deputy's line of argument, we should leave this country to be run by British experts. We should nearly attach this Parliament of ours to the tail end of the English Parliament and allow our future to be decided by these English experts. I always understood that the dream of the people of this country was to hoe their own furrow and go their own road, irrespective of how it suited other countries and irrespective of the opinion of British experts as to the future, but the Deputy, with his simple faith, quotes one British expert after another, one English M.P. after another, one British Minister after another and not a single quotation from an Irish Minister, and I am not surprised at that.

Mr. O'Leary

We will do that.

Dr. O'Higgins

Particularly in defending the agricultural policy of the country he dare not quote any Irish Minister, because another would be quoted against him. In dealing with this particular Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, I think one is entitled to ask what is the agricultural policy of this country and what is the agricultural policy of this country with regard to the rearing of live stock and with regard to the surrender or retention of the outside market. Within the last fortnight we have had from three Ministers in turn over there highly contradictory statements. We have had the Minister for Industry and Commerce moving a vote to tax the people of this country to provide a mercantile marine for the export of produce from this country; we have had the Minister for Finance asking for leave to increase his borrowing powers, so as to increase the export subsidy on agricultural produce going into the British market —and we had within the last 48 hours public notice of an increase in the export bounties on produce going into the English market—and we have had, within the same two weeks, another Minister of the Government saying: "Yes, England is collecting the annuities so long as we are sending produce to England, but we will beat them by sending nothing to England." Who is right? Who is speaking for the Government? Who is speaking for the Party or who is speaking for the country? If all these Ministers are clashing in their opinions, one providing a stimulus to export more, another providing ships to carry out that export, and another saying that that is playing the enemy's game and that we must send nothing out of the country, who is to be the judge? Is it the President of the Executive Council, who thanks his God that the British market is gone and gone for all time?

When you have that kind of lack of harmony, that lack of co-operation and that lack of comradeship in the members of the jazz band that constitute the Executive Council of this country at the moment, is it any wonder that you have lack of harmony and lack of understanding by the ordinary people of the country? We had the Deputy who has just sat down telling us that butter is only 6d. a lb. in England. I suppose that was thrown out as a sample of how prosperous we are. If butter is fetching only 6d. a lb. in England, why do you tax the poor people of Ireland at the rate of 4d. a lb. in order to send your butter into England to secure 6d. a lb.? Has it not got to be one way or the other? Is it not better that sooner or later, and preferably sooner, that we should face up to the question of whether we want to live like Robinson Crusoe or whether we want to live like a modern nation dealing with others and bringing as much wealth into this country as we can by the export of produce from this country, and if it is a case of playing the enemy's game to send goods to England and if it is a case of thanking our God that the English market is gone, it is simply criminal for any Minister to tax the Irish people to send more and more produce into England in order to play the enemy's game, and in order to scramble into the market which we should thank our God has gone.

A little honesty and a little moral courage would be a lot better for this country than to have the Minister for Agriculture drinking milk, and if his own consumption of milk is the only bit of encouragement he can give to the farmers of Tipperary and Offaly, I would say to the Minister that that is not what he was appointed to do. He is appointed to give advice and not to tell the people what diet he lives on. When I refer to the Minister as head of the Department of Agriculture, as the director of agriculture in this country, I have mixed feelings of sympathy and contempt, sympathy for any man, a member of the Executive Council, responsible for agriculture in this country at the moment, because I have a feeling that he is overruled by the city politicians, by the people who are politicians rather than statesmen, and that the present plight of the particular industry that he represents is not due to any fault of his, but rather due to his weakness; and contempt for the man who would continue to fill the role of director of that particular industry when he sees it going down hill day after day and sees every other nation, great and small profiting by the losses of the farmers and agriculturists of this country. And all because we cannot face facts, and all because we regard politics and our political complexions as being of more importance to this country, and the future of this country, than this trade and its prosperity and the possibility of rearing prosperous and happy people in this country.

We had Deputy Kelly, of Meath, standing up to discuss the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and devoting a great lot of time to proving that this country can grow wheat. That was proved long before either Deputy Kelly or I was born; it was proved before Deputy Dr. Ryan became Minister for Agriculture. The argument is not whether this country can grow wheat or not; the argument is whether it is more profitable to grow wheat or more profitable to produce something else. We have all this talk about wheat coupled with talk of increasing tillage and by increasing tillage increasing prosperity. Nine-tenths of the tillage produced in this country is produced to be consumed by stock. If you destroy the market for stock, you destroy all hope for nine-tenths of the tillage in this country. Tillage is one of the things in this and every other country which requires cash behind it. It requires cash at the end of every week. Farmers do not till for their health and labourers do not work for the sake of exercise. Farmers till to feed stock and labourers work to earn wages. Farmers will cease to till if there is no market for their stock and labourers will cease to work if there is no wage to be earned. It is nonsense for anyone, Deputy or Minister, to talk about increasing tillage when you have destroyed the capital behind the agricultural industry; when seven-eighths of the farmers have no money to pay wages; and whether they like to till or not, they have not the wherewithal to till.

We have all those platform speeches about living on ourselves. There are a great number of smokers in this country and the very minute the farmers started to produce tobacco they were limited in their production. The Minister down at Carrick within the last month confessed that the loss to the country would be too great if we produced a sufficiency of tobacco for ourselves. We have another crop that was stimulated within the last ten years— the production of beet for the manufacture of sugar. As far as that could be discouraged by the reduction in the price of the product, we had a discouragement given. We have this loss of a stock market, a reduction in the value of stock, a reduction in the value of crops, the disappearance of the means whereby to pay labour, and all this accompanied by a song about increasing tillage, increasing labour and stimulating the prosperity of the country.

If not this year, next year or the year after we will have to forget about politics and all kinds of cheap phraseology and political clap-trap. We will have to make up our minds whether we are going to live in the present time in the international struggle for existence, or whether we are going to quit or go under. We cannot import and keep importing all the machinery for these will-o'-the-wisp factories. Imports are paid for by exports, and by no other means, all over the world. If we surrender the extern market, we have not the wherewithal to import anything for industry or any other purpose. We cannot import the material, or we cannot import the fuel to keep those industries going. We cannot hope to prosper by this policy of sulky, squalid isolation, and the Minister knows that better than I do.

If the Minister had his way he would make, I believe, a decent, brave attempt to settle this miserable mess that the country is in at present. He was overruled by the politicians. I would advise the Minister not to be discouraged—to try again. He should remember the tale of the spider and keep on trying. Every effort he makes, he will have more people behind him than he had before; he will have more members of his Party behind him than he had before. If he can only get back to the position that I believe he arrived at 18 months ago, he will command a majority in that Party for sanity and commonsense inside the councils of this country.

Mr. McGovern

If the Minister questions it, I will set out to prove that we are losing £12,000,000. I think the Minister knows perfectly well that there is that loss upon the sale of our commodities. There is a big difference between £1,000,000 and £12,000,000. All these things should be taken into consideration. There is another view to be taken in regard to the Government assistance for wheat, beet and tobacco. A good deal of the money is given by way of subsidy, and fully 60 per cent. of the subsidies come out of the farmers' pockets. Anything a man may get by way of wheat or other bounties represents a net gain of only 40 per cent. What the farmers lose on the export market is a dead loss. Anyone who takes the trouble to examine trade figures will see that the adverse trade balance is increasing and the export and import trade of the country is decreasing. If the import trade were coming down in proportion to the export trade it could not be called a direct loss to the nation. As the situation exists, however, the balance of trade is the real test. Whether we export or import much or little, the difference between the two is the real test of whether our trade is developing to our advantage or otherwise.

Last year when this Vote was being discussed I remember Deputy Belton dealing with the tillage policy of the present Government. He went exhaustively into the conditions which their tillage policy would bring about. He showed, and I think the Minister agreed with him, that a tillage policy would provide more food for live stock than a grass policy and, therefore, the policy of doing away with live stock was a mistaken one. The Minister resented the suggestion coming from this side of the House that it was the policy of the present Government to cut down live stock. Does the Minister deny that it is his policy to-day? Why did he resent it then and why does he stand for it to-day? Did he get a mandate in the meantime? I will give the Minister the references.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy need not; it is all right.

Mr. McGovern

The Minister dealt with the suggestion by Deputy Belton that it was the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party to cut down the live stock. How do you reconcile that policy with the destruction of calves? They have ordered 200,000 calves to be slaughtered and 10/- will be paid for the skin, the bulk of the 10/- coming out of the taxpayers' pocket. How much of it is coming from the farmers' pockets? In County Cavan and County Leitrim calves are being sold at 7/- a pair. The agricultural community are paying 6/- on every calf skin and in some cases the calves are being sold at less and the farmers are pocketing less than they are paying out in respect of each skin. Where is the balance going to? The Minister is supposed to have control of this matter, but how is he controlling it? He will not issue licences to the people in the country who would be responsible for buying the skins. Licences are given only in Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Dublin is the nearest place to us where there is a licensed exporter of skins to be had. The people are very glad, in the existing circumstances, to get a few shillings for the calves, but they cannot come up to Dublin and they cannot get a licence themselves. All they can do is to sell the calf at whatever price they can realise. In some cases three calves go for 10/-. That is the position with regard to the live stock industry. The Minister should see that people get licences in certain parts of the country so as to enable them to purchase the skins. The farmers who have the misfortune to be compelled to sell their calves should be given a reasonable value for the skins. As it is, they get a bounty, 60 per cent. of which they pay out of their own pockets.

I think the most mistaken policy the Government ever adopted is the policy of slaughtering young cattle. In a year or two when people gather a little sanity and when this economic war is settled, there will be a shortage of cattle. A great deal of the land will become waste, because, even though the policy of extended tillage is carried out to the extreme, there will still be more land under grass than there will be cattle to cover if this destruction of calves is to continue. It was not the policy of the present Government to cut down live stock, but they have been forced into that position. They might as well realise the fact that the economic war is going against them and that the enemy is making the plans for them. If the enemy is making the plans, how is the economic war to be won? It is unquestionable that the Government's policy is really a policy of economic suicide. The destruction of our young live stock is part of the policy of economic suicide.

Agriculture is affected in another direction, and that is in the cost of production. Protective tariffs are imposed upon the agricultural community for the purpose of protecting baby industries. I am not opposed to the protection of baby industries, but we who are engaged in agriculture and who represent agricultural districts are entitled to ask that a fair balance should be struck between agriculture and the baby industries that are being supported. Having regard to the situation in this country at the present time, owing to the fact that there is no outlet for our surplus population, I think it is necessary to build up industries here, but there should be some judgment used and the Minister should be very careful that the tariffs imposed are really protective rather than destructive and that they should be only as high as is necessary to give the essential fillip to these new industries.

Attention drawn to the fact that there was not a quorum present. House counted and a quorum being present,

Mr. McGovern

I was referring to the baby industries that are being set up in Dublin and to the effect of the protective tariffs on agriculture. These baby industries have to be nursed into development. It would be better to protect the mother industry instead of destroying it. By destroying the mother industry, which is agriculture, these baby industries will never develop into anything worth while. Instead of encouraging and fostering agriculture, agriculture is being destroyed and the market for these industries is being destroyed also. We are told that 20,000 persons have got employment in these industries. That is very questionable because questions were put here as to where these industries had been started and particulars were never furnished. Even if we accept the statement that 20,000 persons have got employment in these industries, how many thousands have been disemployed amongst the agricultural community? It is not an exaggeration to say that 200,000 agriculturists have been disemployed. Probably more than that number have been disemployed because the whole agricultural community is really disemployed. If they were able to obtain and avail of employment in any other industry, they would not hesitate to take it. But what is the position? The farmers are in the position of serfs. They cannot get away from the land. Their homes are on it and their capital is sunk in it, so that they cannot leave. There is no remedy open to them. They are in a state of complete slavery which is worse than unemployment. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that there are more than 200,000 unemployed in agriculture because of the policy of the present Government. The sooner the Government realise these facts the better. The sooner the Minister for Agriculture has some little regard for the industry over which he presides the better. Is agriculture an industry at all or are the people engaged in it supposed to be fools? I think that the Government will soon get a rude awakening if they think that they can walk over the people and not only destroy their trade but come along and add insult to injury. When they have brought them to a position in which they are unable to pay their overhead charges in the shape of rates and annuities, they insult the people by telling them that they have entered into a conspiracy against meeting their lawful obligations. When were the farmers of this country dishonest, or when did they attempt to evade their liabilities? The first time that they became dishonest was when they were asked to pay their liabilities three times over. Ministers must admit that the farmers have paid to Great Britain much more than their annuities. Instead of £3,000,000, they have paid £4,500,000. They have paid, in addition to their annuities, the pensions for the Royal Irish Constabulary, Local Loans and other items. That represents only a small percentage of their loss. As Deputy Belton pointed out, we are exporting now only one-third of our agricultural produce. On the home market, farmers are losing even more than two-thirds, because the cattle, for which they have not been able to obtain licences, are being sold at a good deal less than the export price. As Deputy Flynn pointed out, the people with licences do not come near counties like Kerry and parts of Cavan, and cattle that would ordinarily be worth £10 have been sold at £3. That is really more than the loss incurred in shipping cattle. The loss on inferior cattle is about two-thirds and, in some cases, three-fourths of their whole value.

It is impossible to estimate the loss that agriculture is suffering because of this foolish economic war. I should rather not have to refer to the economic war, but it is impossible to discuss agriculture or, in fact, any Vote in this House without referring to it. It comes in everywhere. It strikes at the basic industry of the country and at the living of everybody in this State. I do not refer to it for the sake of making political capital out of it but in the hope that the Government may do something, as soon as possible, to bring it to an end before it brings the country to an end. If the economic war continues, that is what will happen. I can see no hope otherwise than by bringing the economic war to an end somehow. We shall be asked "What is to be done; are we to surrender?" There is no question of surrender. There are many things which the Government might do. The Government might try negotiations again, even if they failed. They might ask the Opposition to co-operate with them. Those are two things which they might do. There is still another thing they could do. If they see that it is going to cost £12,000,000 to save £4,000,000, could they not pay under protest? That would not be giving away their case to plank down the money and pay under protest. They should do something to save the nation from destruction. The nation is worth some sacrifice and they should sacrifice their vanity for the sake of the nation.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy who has just sat down made an appeal that the nation should be saved from destruction. There was another appeal, a very earnest appeal, made in the House about ten minutes ago: that the Opposition should make clear what their policy is with regard to the present position. The Deputy who made that appeal quoted from the speeches of British Ministers and of leading British politicians in regard to the British policy for agriculture: as to the necessity for continuing the present policy and of the determination of the British Government of the day to continue the present policy. To that there has been no reply. I think it is very important that there should be a reply given. It does not seem reasonable that the present position in Great Britain can be reversed simply at the wish and desire of the Irish Government. If these statements of British Ministers and of leading British politicians mean anything they are surely directed to the encouragement of their own farmers and to a plan for the future of their own country. In the statement, for instance, of Mr. Ormsby Gore, quoted by Deputy O'Reilly, I think it is mentioned that in the social and national interest the present policy with regard to British agriculture is to be continued: it is even to be developed.

And the decline still continues. There is the promise, too, from the British Minister for Agriculture that he is going to use all his efforts to arrest that decline and to give his own farmers a chance of making beef pay. Can he do that, I wonder, and at the same time offer, what Deputy McGovern wants him to offer, a free entry to an unlimited number of Irish cattle from this country to his country? I do not see how it can be done. So far as I can follow the course of this debate the Minister for Agriculture here is being blamed not so much for conditions in this country, not for anything that he has left undone to help Irish farmers, but for the position in England. He is being blamed because there is not a better prospect in England. Surely that is rather too much blame to put upon any Minister. If Deputies opposite could show that the economic dispute was the sole cause of the very bad conditions that exist for farmers, if they could show there was a direct loss of the big sums quoted by Deputy Belton, then undoubtedly they would be making a big case against the continuance of the economic dispute, but there are very few people in Ireland, selfish and all as they are, there is, in my opinion a very small percentage of farmers who believe that the conditions that prevailed even five years ago in the British market will ever prevail again so far as Irish produce is concerned, no matter what Government comes into power here.

Deputy McGovern mentioned the alternatives before the Government, but I suggest another alternative, that the Opposition should not continue to cry out so much for the cessation of the economic dispute, but rather put their shoulders to the wheel in an effort to bring the economic dispute to an end by the more indirect means of showing that if the British market is closed to our cattle we can get on without it. The effort might not succeed, but it is surely worth while making. Many countries enter into a war, not believing that they can succeed, but they make their best efforts to do so. Would it not be worth while for all Parties here to make an effort to see if they could not succeed without, as Deputy McGovern suggests, going on our knees to the British?

Mr. McGovern

I did not suggest that.

Mr. Rogers

Withdraw the sheriffs.

Mr. Belton

If they cannot settle the economic war we will settle it.

Mr. Jordan

In three days?

Mr. Belton

Yes.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy is very silent as to the method. In my opinion there is a very big problem in relation to farmers, who are the principal supporters of the policy of the Deputy's Party. These farmers are refusing to adapt themselves in any way to the new circumstances. They are adopting an attitude of defiance. They are proclaiming that they will be a law unto themselves, and that if their will does not prevail in this country no Government will rule here. That is a very serious position for these farmers. In number they are in a very small minority and, although their interests are considerable, I am afraid that in present social conditions they are running a very big risk for themselves. It is a great pity Deputy Belton and his friends do not endeavour to get these people into a more reasonable frame of mind. It would be a very big problem for this Government, or for any Government, to deal with them if they continue to drift, as they are plainly drifting, to a position of bankruptcy, because their reserves are becoming less and less. They have refused to adapt themselves to the new position, and have refused to negotiate with the present Government, or to have anything to do with it. Their attitude is one of mere defiance, a determination to bring down the Government. That is very bad for people in their privileged position, because they are in a privileged position, having regard to the amount of property they hold.

Mr. MacDermot

May I interrupt the Deputy? He said just now that the farmers had refused to negotiate with the present Government. I would like to point out to him that the farmers have on various occasions made attempts to send deputations to the President to discuss the whole position, but he refused to receive these deputations.

Mr. Moore

I will call the farmers I have in mind the Naas farmers in view of the recent episode in that town. It is not easy to describe their attitude as one of negotiation. It was not one of co-operation. Deputy MacDermot must realise that it was one of determined hostility and a resolve to bring down the Government.

Mr. MacDermot

As a result of Government action.

Mr. Moore

No, but in what they foolishly considered to be their own interests. Whatever Government is in power is going to have a difficult task in dealing with a body of men like that, and the longer it goes on the more difficult it will be to do so. It would be a very wise thing on the part of some of the Opposition leaders to advise these men that the outlook for them is not at all a favourable one and that the sooner they come to terms with the existing Government the better it would be for them.

Mr. O'Leary

Is that a threat?

Mr. Belton

Would the Deputy suggest what are the terms and point out what has been the unreasonable attitude of the farmers? Have not the farmers paid the British Government their whole demand, and having paid that demand, what right has this Government to go out and collect the annuities from them? What right has the Minister for Defence to organise men from Armagh to come down to steal cattle over the border? Stand up to that and answer it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Moore must be allowed to make his own speech without being subjected to interrogation.

Not when they are slaughtered.

Mr. Belton

We are seeing another division now.

Mr. Moore

That is one of the questions one would like to hear discussed apart from Party feeling or Party affiliations. What is to be done with these cattle in future if the British market—as I think Deputies opposite must have some suspicion will be the case—is not able to absorb them? If it is not able to absorb more than half of them, what is to become of the half? How is this big problem to be dealt with? In my opinion the Minister's approach to it has not been improved upon in any speech I have heard up to the present. Perhaps it is still not too late to expect that someone will make something in the way of a statement that will give us further light and will enable us to visualise other methods which we have not yet conceived.

Mr. Cosgrave

In the course of the Minister's speech a couple of days ago, he dealt with most of the items that go to make up the agricultural economy of the country and pointed out, with perfect satisfaction to himself, that the prices the farmers were getting in this country were practically as good as world market prices and almost as good as a year or two ago. With the single exception of cattle, in the price of which he admitted there had been a serious fall, the Minister appears to be very well satisfied with the condition of the whole agricultural economy of the country. An article, which appeared in the newspaper which supports the Ministry, on the 17th May last, runs like this:—

"To-day we have reached a crisis in our agricultural economy. We are indebted to banks, burdened with thousands of unsaleable cattle, with a pig and poultry population for which the future market is at best problematical, certainly far from sure, with a horse trade staggering under the deliberately-aimed blows of a crippling tariff, with a home market still requiring three or four years to get into its stride and render it capable of consuming a reasonable proportion of the butter, meat, eggs, poultry, mutton and wool which the war years showed us capable of producing, with a farming population uncertain where to turn to find the means for changing over from a pastoral to an agricultural programme."

I think that anybody reading that and comparing it with the Minister's speech, will agree that there is a good deal to be explained on both sides. When we listen to a speech such as that delivered by Deputy Moore in which there is criticism, in the first place, of political Parties discussing agriculture, and a statement to the effect that we should have it discussed free from Party bitterness and Party opposition, we are certainly in some doubt as to where the mind of the Minister or the mind of the supporters of the Minister is on this whole question. There is one certain reason for the present depressed condition of agriculture, one certain reason more than another. Last year the British Government collected in duties on our agricultural produce, £4,552,000 and the Ministry here deducted from the grant which should have gone in relief of agricultural rates £448,000. The Ministry, in their Land Bill, placed on the farmers a liability for the whole of the May-June annuities. They may tell us that they have funded them at 4½ per cent. with a sinking fund of 1/2 per cent. but the liability is there all the time. It is the same as if a man went into a shop and bought goods the price of which was £10. He paid in cash £8 and the trader would say to him: "You will pay the remaining £2 over 20 or 30 years and you will pay me in addition five per cent. on it." That man could, at the same time, have got the money at 3½ per cent. elsewhere. There was again £1,000,000 in November and December which they are trying to collect with the aid of the sheriff, the registrar and various other officials of the State. That is, there was £8,000,000 in all collected in one year or rather a liability for that amount placed on the back of the farmers of the country. In all fairness, if that description, which I have read out from the newspaper which supports the Ministry, be a correct picture of the agricultural condition, is it fair to expect or can you reasonably expect to take £6,000,000 in cash, either in tariffs, impositions or other collections, and £2,000,000 of a debt as well, from an industry so depressed as agriculture was last year? I put it to any man, to any Party or to people of no Party, could it be reasonably expected that agriculture could have earned that much money last year or could it shoulder that liability in addition to the burdens placed upon it in other ways? It is quite true the Ministry will say, "We gave certain allowances, we had bounties, subsidies and other things of that sort." If those bounties, subsidies and other subventions all went directly into the pockets of the farmers they are still in a worse position than they were before their agricultural economy was interfered with.

Deputy Moore wants to know what is our solution of the present difficulty. A very nice question to put, knowing full well what the answer is going to be and the opportunity that is then offered to the Government and their supporters to say, "Settle with the British to our disadvantage." They know, as well as that they are sitting on the other side of this House, that there is no truth in that. It does not require any close analysis of the international communications that passed from Government to Government over years, even since the Party opposite came into the Dáil, to satisfy them that the condemnation in this country of negotiations is all political humbug. Why, even within the last two years, possibly within the last 12 months, there was a very serious economic international dispute between France and England and for a while it looked as if there was no possible solution of it to be found. But a solution was found. You have got politicians in one of these countries—say on the French side—trying to get the best terms for France that can be got; and on the other side, in Britain, you have politicians trying to get the best terms that can be got for Britain. They have the courage of people accustomed to political responsibility. They realise that in negotiations all the gain cannot be on the one side. Here with us, to my mind, practically all the gains could be on the one side. There is every prospect and opportunity for that.

I wonder whether in the course of the Minister's examination of our agricultural problem—if he has really examined it—he has followed the course of the cattle exported from this country, treated in England and Scotland, fed there for the British market, and then put on the market as British beef. Has he ever mixed with men who know this business and who will tell him how far more satisfactory these cattle are than cattle bred in England or Scotland. If the Minister does not know that I can put him in touch with a man who has practical experience, and who has been handling and feeding such cattle in Scotland for 25 years past; and this is his explanation. He will tell you that 100 cattle from the Dublin market, fed in England or Scotland, will market 100 cattle, whereas out of 100 bred in England and fed by this very man 95 per cent. only will market. The goods produced here require something even more than quality; they require to be boosted and to have the quality told to the people. If there is one thing more than another that interferes with the sale of Irish beef in Great Britain it is the frozen meat brought from the ends of the earth. As I said, on a previous occasion, when the President was putting up a proposal for Press propaganda, this is the sort of propaganda that should be employed, and there is no necessity to indulge in exaggeration. There is no need for that at all, the quality of the material stands out.

One of the things that gave a shock to the people of this country was the Minister's proposal to have calves slaughtered. I think the President recommended that they should be sold as veal. Anyone with experience of cattle-raising knows that calves for veal will have to be kept for a couple of months or a longer period. What is it that they propose to slaughter? During the last seven or eight years, even if there was no admission from our own people, those who come here to buy cattle at once admitted that there has been an enormous improvement in the breed. The quality of the cattle has certainly astonished them. Now if there is to be any large slaughter it ought to be not of the young, well-bred animals but of those not so useful, for instance, cows that have ceased to yield milk. Certainly it ought not to be young stock produced under the better conditions. We have had a Department of Agriculture spending large sums of money, earning for itself a good deal of criticism from its present successors, in reference, for instance, to the rejection of bulls not up to the standard. Now you have such a standard. That system has gone on for years notwithstanding criticism, and the progeny to-day is a tribute to the genius of those responsible for such legislation and for such improvement in the character of our live stock. I do not know, from the point of view of advertising our goods, of any more dangerous statement that could be attributed to the Ministry than that about the slaughter of our calves. It amounts to a practical admission that they were not satisfied with the quality produced in our country. When the Minister tells us that we must have something like 900,000 cows, and must have an export trade, and that we cannot consume all the cattle we have, the question at once arises, what are you going to do about it? How is it to be arranged?

Are there any other two countries in the world which laid themselves out —that is the only proper description of what happens—in the last few years to quarrel, as these two countries have? We have this cattle trade and the British are bound to look at it. There is no definite policy, at present, decided in Great Britain upon that subject. At the end of this month the agreement, arrived at at Ottawa, falls for reconsideration. There is an article in the Statist of 2nd June, 1934, headed “Empire and Agriculture.” It would be very wise for people generally to read it, and to read it very carefully. There are various points of view set out in the article. One has reference to an utterance of Mr. Baldwin in which he referred to the necessity of keeping up the beef prices. A comparison of the prices of beef over the last 40 or 50 years with the price of wheat will show that the balance is on the side of beef. If we are to discuss these questions, as advised by Deputy Moore, let us not be ashamed to read the Statist, and make up our minds without putting on political spectacles. The latter portion of this article reads as follows:—

"The negotiation this month of fresh agreements relating to meat supplies from the Dominions and the review in the autumn of next year of the agreements relating to eggs and dairy produce seem bound to rank as events of no small significance in the development of Empire trade. A stage has now been reached when the Government will have to make up its mind, to quote a recent speech of Sir George MacDonough, ex-President of the Federation of British Industries, as to whether ‘it intends to pursue to the bitter end its policy of rehabilitating British farming, or whether an extension of inter-Imperial trade is to take precedence, or whether there is to be delimitation of the territory of the two.'

"The Dominion Government would do well to recognise with Mr. Bruce, the Australian High Commissioner in London, that the rehabilitation of British agriculture is ‘a sound policy which, if successful, will contribute to the well-being of Great Britain and of the whole Commonwealth.' Likewise, the British Government must realise the soundness of the views expressed by Mr. Bruce at Ottawa during the week that, because of its dependence on export trade for the sustenance of large masses of its population and because of its considerable oversea investments, Britain's new agricultural policy can only be pursued within very definite limits."

Mr. Moore

Mr. Bruce is not speaking for any interests except those of Great Britain.

Mr. Cosgrave

I quite agree, but that is the difference between those people discussing this matter and having it discussed here. Here, if one sees an argument which seems to favour the policy of the speaker or whoever it is that is in favour of it, then that is the whole policy. In so far as the British are concerned with mapping out and settling and determining a line of policy, there is not agreement on it yet. The market is still there for negotiation. The door is not permanently closed. Let us consider for a moment how they stand with regard to all this. It will have been observed that our export trade has diminished very considerably during the last couple of years. Our import trade also diminished during the last couple of years. The volume of trade has diminished very considerably. Is it at all unlikely that, if our export trade were far bigger than it is, our capacity for purchasing imports would not be increased correspondingly, and without any loss? Because now at the present moment, when the trade is lower than it has been for many years, the adverse balance on the trade side is worse than it has been for some years past. That is regarded, and was regarded, by Deputies opposite as a very important item in the whole national economy of the State.

I think that last year was probably one of the biggest years of which we had any experience in connection with an adverse balance, and it had this particular significance for us at the time, that the adverse balance almost equalled our export trade. No matter how we wish and hope to develop tillage, there must be a corresponding improvement and development of our live stock trade. We cannot do away with it. When Deputy Moore says that the farmers are being advised to oppose the Government's policy, and even where they are not advised they are in opposition to the Government's policy, let us hope that we have not reached that stage in this country that was depicted on a vulgar picture postcard some years ago showing a father with 10 or 11 children in bed with him, and with the words underneath, "When father turns we all turn," and depicting a couple of children falling out of bed. You will not get perfect agreement on given subjects and it is too much to expect it. How are we going to equate the statement of Deputy Moore with that of the Minister? Deputy Moore says that we must change our line of policy. In other words, if a man had 10 or 20 head of cattle last January the Minister's advice to him at that time was to hold on to the cattle, but Deputy Moore's advice would be to sell out and grow wheat. He cannot do both. He must make up his mind which of them is right.

Looking over those last few months and listening to the speeches that have been delivered here I think it would be very advisable for Deputy Moore to try to impress on the Ministry the advisability of first adopting his advice. The Minister's speech, in introducing this Estimate, was politics from beginning to end. The speech of the Minister for Finance, in introducing his Budget, was politics from beginning to end. Those two matters would have been discussed quite free from politics and would have had a much better presentation if they had been free from politics. I should like to hear from the Minister if he has got complaints to make either against the Press or the farmers or members of this Party about the oats question. What is the policy he is going to adopt next year with regard to that question? There is a disposition, which I suppose affects politicians as widely as it affects other people, always to try to put the blame on somebody else in connection with anything that happens. If the Minister and members of the Party opposite are now getting some of the disadvantages of political responsibility, let them remember what they suggested and what they did some couple of years ago. Deputy Curran here, in the earlier portion of the discussion on this Estimate, read out the Minister's speech and pointed out that the Minister's reason, or the reason he adduced to the House here a very few short years ago for the depressed condition of agriculture was the high taxation on the people. It is much higher now. As I explained, before the Minister came in, the liability on the farmers for the last 12 months was £8,000,000 where they used to pay £4,000,000. They are still paying more, even supposing that the whole of the subsidies and so on, went into the farmers' pockets. If the statement of the Minister a couple of years ago, that the taxation on the farmers was too high, was true, surely he will admit that it is worse now; and are they able to bear the high taxation in addition to the various imposts due to the British policy, the reduction in the agricultural grant and so on?

We have asked the Minister more than once to take out a few farms in every county and give us a picture of their balance sheets at the end of the year. We have asked him to do that at least before they send around the sheriff. Do not always take it that there is a conspiracy when people are unable to pay. Remember what was said to us when we were, under far better conditions, collecting the land annuities. Deputy Ryan, as he then was, said that some men had not got cattle on their farms, that they removed them as they were expecting the bailiff to come along. That was when we were in office. His explanation was that they were perfectly entitled to do it. May I put this to the Minister or to Deputy Moore? Take the case of a farmer who had four or five head of cattle last January. He got a licence for only one, and was expecting his bill for annuities or rates. What advice would they give that farmer, having no money and no credit and expecting to sell the animals, as to how to meet his liabilities?

There is one item in connection with the agricultural industry to which the Minister made no reference at all. He will have heard of a couple of very famous stallions having been sent out of the country during the last 12 months. I think there were about six of them. The Minister knows the reason, and while, perhaps, there are as good or nearly as good in the country still, the loss of those animals here may result in bringing down the pre-eminent position we had in the bloodstock industry. What I regard as perhaps the worst feature of the whole business is that in the case of at least one of the stallions that have gone over, if not two, the strain of blood from which they came had not as satisfactory results in Great Britain as it had here. The Minister will be able to find out for himself about a similar case of a sire named Kendal that was here once and was responsible for two Derby winners. The animal was bought here by a very good judge of horses for about £5,000 and some of his successes were sold for £25,000 in Great Britain where his career was by no means distinguished. That would be little short of a fatality.

In this case the subsidy amounts to a very small sum. The Minister allows a bounty of 10 per cent. whereas the imposition is 40 per cent., and the Minister limits the sum to £100. There is a very great difference between bloodstock as such or even hunters and cattle. It is for this reason: men in the cattle trade are able to tell to within about 20/- or so the value of the animal either by weight or by other means of that sort. The same thing does not apply to either hunters or bloodstock. A man may be inclined to give, let us say, £100 for either a hunter or throughbred, but at an auction he may find himself going to £200 in the case of a horse for which he intended going as far as £100, or £250 in the case of a £150 throughbred. He may have gone to the auction prepared to give only £150 for the animal and he may go as far as £250.

For my part I believe, rightly or wrongly, there is a disposition on the part of the customs officials to put fancy prices on all hunters and through-breds. In consequence it has been very difficult to sell these horses except at sacrifice prices. From the returns which I have been able to extract from the British publications it would appear that the Government there collected something like £66,000 in the calendar year 1933 on horses. I think they have not segregated in the entries for January, February and March of this year the exports from the Irish Free State. I think they bulked them with others. The Minister would be well advised to consider an expansion of that bounty or subsidy. I go so far as to say that it would pay this country well to pay the whole subsidy. The Minister will not go so far as that, probably, but he might be well advised to go to 30 per cent. It would mean, perhaps, a considerable sum from the Exchequer but on the other hand it will bring a considerable sum of money into use here from other sources—I should say twice or three times that much money, perhaps three and one third times if he goes to 30 per cent.

I have been informed that it would be well that some attention might also be given to greyhounds. I do not know whether that falls within the ambit of the Minister's Department or not but I understand that the sales of greyhounds have been very considerable. In that case also rather arbitary and expensive figures have been placed by the Customs authorities upon the animals.

As I have said, considering the imposts that are upon agriculture at the present moment if the Minister were a far abler man than he is and if he were imbued with more generous instincts towards the agricultural community than he is, he would not refuse to put any administrative machinery in motion to help the agricultural community under the present circumstances. I want to tell the Minister that once a market is lost it is very hard to regain it. This market is not lost. It has not been definitely decided yet by the British Government what their policy is with regard to it, but even if their policy had been decided they would have to alter it. I suggest that in view of the real need of the farmers of this country the Minister would be well advised to direct his energies and abilities towards finding a solution for these very important matters of our exports.

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Moore asked us what our policy is with regard to agriculture. Our policy is what it was in the past as crystallised in Deputy Hogan's words, "another cow, another sow, and another acre under the plough." That was his policy and that is the policy for which we stand to-day. Deputy Moore talks about our regaining our market. Now we do not accept any responsibility for the loss of that market. Our Party, while in office, retained that market. In 1932, we warned the people all over the country that every country in the world was trying to get a grip on the British market. We warned the people that they should be very careful that they did not put into office a Party that would lose that market to them.

What is our position now with regard to the foreign market? That is what we are asked. Fianna Fáil told us that we should not depend on the one market; that we should have for this country an alternative market. What is the position now? It is that we have neither the English market nor the alternative markets. We are told by President de Valera that the English market is gone and gone forever. Deputy Dowdall tells us the market is going. Evidently, they are not in agreement on this matter. It would be well, if all Parties, even now, laid politics aside, tried to get together and endeavoured to get a solution of this problem. Deputy Little, Parliamentary Secretary to President de Valera, addressing a meeting in County Waterford lately was evidently anxious to explain why the farmers have no longer the market they had when Fianna Fáil came into office. He told the meeting that England is now almost self-sustaining. The fact is that during 1933 Great Britain had to import food, drink and tobacco to the value of £340,000,000 or almost £1,000,000 a day to meet her requirements. That included pig products to the value of £33,000,000, butter to the value of £34,000,000 and eggs to the value of £9,000,000. The Saorstát's exports of these three commodities during the same period totalled less than £4,000,000 although England had to buy these foods to the amount of £76,000,000.

Then those people on the Government Benches have the audacity to stand up here and tell us the British market is gone forever. Deputy Davin surely cannot be excused of being anti-Government. I will read for you an extract from a speech of his lately. The Deputy said:—

"They were being repeatedly reminded by President de Valera and his Ministers that they stood for a policy of self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency surely should mean that they should devise a scheme which would provide our own people with the surplus food which we were unable to sell to others. President de Valera and the Minister for Agriculture would be well advised to give up thinking of and talking politics for a week or two and see whether it was possible to put such a scheme into operation immediately, or if they could devise a better scheme. It was a scandalous state of affairs that they should be asked to tolerate a continuance of dealers from the Six Counties coming into the Free State and smuggling fat cattle over the Border, thereby making profits averaging about £7 per head."

Mr. Donnelly

Who made that statement?

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Davin. I suppose Deputy Donnelly knows him; he represents the same constituency. I think that is an answer to the people who state that the British market is gone forever. I say it is a scandalous state of affairs that such a condition of things should continue. But people are beginning to open their eyes. On last Saturday I was going down to Cork and the attendant of the Pullman car asked "What has become of the cattle dealers in the country?" I said: "I do not know, Paddy. I suppose, like ourselves, their market is gone and they have to sit at home and cannot afford to travel." The attendant said: "As far as I can see, there are only a couple of big dealers travelling now"; and I replied: "That is the position, a few people making fortunes out of these bounties."

On last Macroom fair day I bought 14 two-year-olds at £5 a piece. If there were no tariff on these cattle the people would get at least £6 a head more. On these cattle that cost me £70, there was at least a loss of £84 to the farmers who reared them. Does not every Deputy here know that that kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue? It is a perfect disgrace that those unfortunate people, some of them the most industrious in the whole country, should be treated in that way. I represent them and I am prepared to lead the Minister for Agriculture down there at any time. I will take him into their houses, and show him what they have been able to do. They have no land. Deputy Moore talked about the farmers around Athy who support the Government. They support it because they are bribed at the expense of the unfortunate small farmers of this country.

Last week I put down a question to the Minister, as follows:—

"To ask the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that the price, to the farmer, of Indian Meal in Northern Ireland is 5/- per cwt. and that the price of comparable feeding stuffs under the Mixed Grains Scheme is at least 8/- per cwt., in North Cork and other areas, and if, in view of the necessity of farmers in those areas obtaining feeding stuffs at the cheapest price possible to enable them to carry on, he will come to an immediate decision to permit of maize meal, etc., being available again for farmers and labourers."

The Minister gave the following reply:—

"The returns published by the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland show that the average retail price of maize meal in that area at the 1st May, 1934, was 5/7½ per cwt. The average price at which maize meal admixture was sold at the same date at the principal centres in Saorstát Eireann was approximately 7/6 per cwt. The latter price is not considered excessive, having regard to the price of home-grown cereals in maize meal mixture. It is not my intention to permit the milling of pure maize for feeding to live stock."

I still maintain that maize can be bought in Northern Ireland at 5/- per cwt., but I am not going to quarrel with the Minister's figures. Take 5/7½ per cwt.; that will mean that the farmers will have to pay 14/-. At the present time the farmers in my area are paying 21/- a sack. That means a difference of £2 16s. per ton and in addition everybody will admit that the feeding stuff is inferior. It is an admitted fact that it will take close on a month longer to finish a pig with the present feeding stuff as compared with pure Indian meal. When our Party was in power I made my position clear on this question. I said "if you are going to adopt this policy I will vote against you." There is no question of politics in this. I will stand for the people of my constituency, because I am not going to have an imposition of that kind put upon them. I have already quoted the Minister for Agriculture in this House when he talked about tillage. He admitted that the more tillage you had the more cattle you should have, because you wanted the cattle to consume any surplus oats, barley and so on. What is his policy now? He has advocated the destruction of 200,000 calves. I believe that the present average price of two-and-a-half-years old cattle in the British market, without restrictions, would be £15, so that after two-and-a-half-years, if this policy of the Government is persisted in, the farmers of this State are going to be losing £3,000,000 per year. In the meantime, if the policy is gone on with, and tillage is increased, where is the market to be found for the feeding stuffs? Then we had the Minister talking about bounties. I will just quote the Minister for Defence. He asked "Why do not the farmers stop grousing, and get down to produce the things that brought them 50 per cent. better prices than in England?" I wonder would he tell the House what are the things for which the farmers are getting 50 per cent. more than in England?

The present Minister for Agriculture said in 1928 that the farmers of this country produced 80 per cent. of the wealth of this country, and for that reason paid 80 per cent. of the taxation. Is it not, therefore, a fact that of every £100 we pay in bounties the farmer pays £80? I am just quoting the Minister's own figures, and I challenge him to contradict them. You had the former Minister for Agriculture warning the farmers of this country: "Beware of the industrialists. The industrialists are asking for tariffs for you in order to get them for themselves." The result is that some of those people at the present time are making fortunes, and the farmer is being fleeced. I think it was Deputy Moore who, some time ago, issued a challenge across the House. He said that if we pay taxes to England on our exports we do not pay taxes to England on our imports. I put it to the Minister for Agriculture, to Deputy Moore, or any other Deputy on the opposite benches to come out and say who pays the tax on coal, or who pays the tax on drapery goods. If Todd Burns or McBirney's go down to the North Wall, and want to release goods, is it not a fact that they will first have to pay the tariff? They come back and add that to the cost of the article. In addition I expect they put a profit even on the tariff which they pay. I challenge contradiction on that.

They talk about wheat, and suggest that this country is getting a higher price than any other country. I have the latest figures quoted by the Minister. He said that they pay 23/6 here, and only 14/- abroad. Who pays it? Is it not a fact that it is the people in the poor parts of the country, who are not in a position to grow wheat, oats or anything else? I say that it is a crime to impose taxation on those unfortunate people in order to maintain people who have good land, and who should be compelled to live on it. The people on the opposite benches tell us that the people are changing; the President told us that we should change from tea to beer, and the Minister for Agriculture tells us to drink more milk. Did you ever hear such damned nonsense, when talking to people who have experience? From what we have heard for some time it would appear that the farmers know nothing about the land. The people who know nothing about it are the people who are preaching to them. It has been suggested by the Cork County Council and others that the Government should run the farms on the lines advocated, and then if they were in a position to show a profit they might be justified in forcing their policy upon the farmers of this country. I want to make the position quite clear. If something is not done to settle this question this country will very soon be bankrupt. The people cannot possibly carry on. In order to prove that, I will again issue a challenge to the Minister to set up a commission. This is, undoubtedly, one of the most important industries in this country. Let him set up a commission, and examine the farmers in this country, taking those of all phases of political opinion, and find out the real position of agriculture. Possibly, we might then find some agreement on the whole question.

Mr. Coburn

The Minister in his remarks dealt with every phase of the agricultural industry and there are one or two phases to which I should like to draw his attention. One is the question of oats. I think the Minister, at the last meeting held in Dundalk, made the astonishing statement that he advised the farmers of Louth and the other counties in the Free State to hold back their oats, and that by so doing they would command a higher price. It was very good advice, in view of the fact that oats is commanding a high price to-day. What I should like to ask the Minister is this: what steps did he take, previous to the oats being marketed, to ensure that the farmers would get a better price than they did actually receive at that period? The average price per barrel paid for oats in the Dundalk market was 7/6 to 8/-. I remember when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in power what a storm of protest was raised all over the country, I think in 1931, when the then Minister for Agriculture imposed a tariff on foreign oats. There were meetings of protest all over the country because the Minister was forgetful of the farmers' interests in imposing a tariff when the majority of the oats had already been disposed of. Last season, however, the Minister for Agriculture took absolutely no steps until most of the oats had been disposed of at the prices I have quoted, and in the course of a month there was an agreement come to between the Department and the merchants which guaranteed the farmers a price of 9/- per barrel. Of course the oats for which 9/- per barrel was being paid had to be up to a certain standard, and for that the merchants were to receive 10/6, provided that, in the meantime, if the price suited, the merchants could dispose of the oats they bought for 9/- per barrel.

The point I should put to the Minister is that it is not honourable, it is not fair, for the Minister to state that he advised the farmers to keep their oats and that they would thereby get a higher price. If the farmers had taken his advice at that time, would they be in a position to pay their rates or annuities and, again, if we assume that they did act on the advice of the Minister and that farmers all over the Twenty-Six Counties kept their oats until now, would the price be 12/- to 14/- a barrel? Would common-sense not tell anybody that the fact that oats is 12/- to 14/- per barrel to-day is due to their scarcity? If the farmers kept their oats on the advice of the Minister, they would simply command the same price to-day as they commanded last September or October.

Again, the Minister must be aware that the average small farmer has no accommodation for keeping oats for three or four months and that the majority of the farmers in the Twenty-Six Counties have, of necessity, to dispose of their oats as soon as possible after they are threshed, for the simple reason that every week they keep them over means more expense. The Minister must be aware that bags must be hired and that the merchants who hire them out will not give them for nothing. A certain amount has to be paid and in that way, the cost would overcome the profit. In view of the criticisms levelled at the late Government for their inaction, especially in regard to price paid per barrel for oats, I should like to know what the Minister proposes to do to ensure that the farmer will get a price that will give him a fair return and, at least, a price greater than what he was receiving, even after the guarantee given by the Minister to the merchants which still left oats at a price of only 9/- per barrel.

We come now to the question of potatoes. The Minister, from his visits to Dundalk, must be aware that, on the north end of the town, there is a peninsula called Cooley which is inhabited by as thrifty a set of farmers as could be got in any part of the Free State. I do not like going back to ancient history, but I remember the welkin ringing with statements emanating from the Fianna Fáil Party that, in the event of their being returned to power, the farmers of Cooley would get immediate relief. In fact, it was almost guaranteed on that occasion that not alone would they be allowed to export their potatoes to the British market—they had power already to do that—but that steps would be taken that would enable them to dispose of their potatoes in the markets of the Free State. The supporters of the Government who made those statements may possibly deny them now and state that, owing to the fact that they have gained much experience since they came into power, and have experienced many of the difficulties in connection with this matter which they thought did not exist when the previous Government was in power, that the farmers of Cooley must depend, as they have depended in the past, on the British market.

The position at the present time is, and has been during the early part of this season, that these unfortunate farmers have been compelled to dispose of their potatoes at an average price per ton of 20/- to 25/-, and the irony of the whole thing is that Dundalk being in the ordinary sense their chief market town, those farmers can see farmers from other parts of the country receiving an average price of £3 10s. to £4 a ton. The position of the farmers there, and especially that of the small farmers who occupy the area nearest Dundalk, is pitiable in the extreme. It cannot be properly understood unless you have local knowledge as to the conditions prevailing there. The farmers down South have absolutely no idea of the difficulties which they have to encounter. Their difficulties were brought home to me very vividly recently on a particular Monday in Dundalk when one of those farmers from the Bellurgan district endeavoured to bring in a few hundredweight of potatoes by running the gauntlet of crossing the Border, as the saying goes, and was intercepted by the official in charge—and no blame to him, he was doing his duty. Those potatoes were confiscated and that farmer had to return home without receiving one penny piece for his day's work. I consider that that is a state of affairs which cannot be allowed to exist very much longer, and I urge the Minister, in view of the promises made to the farmers in that district during the past two elections, to take steps which will ease the situation there, especially with regard to the disposal of their potatoes in the future. The Minister may state in reply that they are considering the setting up of a factory for the manufacture of industrial alcohol. I do not know whether the Minister will be in a position to state that that factory will be erected in that area. I am not aware whether he will be in a position to state when operations in that direction will start. I do know, however, that the people there are in no frame of mind to brook any more delay in the matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to intimate that work will be started on the erection of the factory at no distant date.

Statements have been made here in regard to the cattle industry and also the butter industry. I should like to ask the Minister if it is his intention to impose a levy on what is known as farmer's butter. I have seen it reported in the Press that the Minister has been asked by people interested in creameries to impose a levy of 2d. per lb. on all butter manufactured in the farmers' own homes. That has been suggested as a means of increasing the price all round and more or less standardising the price, not alone of farmers' butter, but also of creamery butter. That may be all right, but, after all, the creameries, I think, have been treated fairly well. They have received bounties and subsidies at the expense of the general public.

Those bounties and subsidies have been so large that you have the extraordinary position that the poor people in our cities and towns are being compelled to pay from 1/4 to 1/5 a lb. for butter, while similar butter is being sold in the North of Ireland and Great Britain from 10d. to 11d. per lb. That was brought home to me very much recently when a lady from County Cavan went to Belfast on a holiday and had occasion to send out for a pound of butter. The butter being good in the County Cavan she naturally asked for butter from a particular creamery in Cavan and the price was 11d. per lb. When that lady returned to the town in Cavan where the creamery was situated she had to pay 1/4 or 1/5 a lb. for butter similar to that which she had got 5d. or 6d. cheaper 60 or 70 miles away. Creameries, as I say, have been treated very well. I do not think that it would be just or proper for the Minister to interfere in any way so far as the making of butter in the farmers' homes is concerned. It is about time that we should have a little more of the policy of self-reliance, which we were so fond of preaching some years ago. So far as I can see, we are going to have State interference in everything. If these farmers are prepared to make their own butter, I do not see what right the creameries have to ask the Government to impose a levy of 2d. per lb.

In regard to cattle, I have listened to many speeches here by Government Deputies and also by Deputies on this side of the House. I do not take everything I hear either in this House or from public platforms as being the truth. I prefer to get information for myself. I have interviewed farmers all over my constituency in order to get first-hand information as to the real position of affairs. My experience is that farmers in Louth are honest, thrifty and industrious and give their views of the situation in an open way, free from Party rancour. I know for a fact that many farmers in Louth have paid their annuities at least twice over. As proof of that I shall give an example of a farmer in that county who sold six cattle in 1932 previous to the present Government coming into office or, to put it in a non-political way, previous to the economic war. He received at that time £150 10s. for the six cattle. This year he sold six cattle of the same weight and the price he received was £62 10s. His land annuity was about £40. One can see at a glance that on that transaction alone that farmer lost on these six cattle a sum greater than the total amount of his annuity. At the same time, he still has to continue paying half of his annuity.

The same thing applies to every branch of the agricultural industry at present. While I give credit to the Minister for endeavouring, in very difficult circumstances, to make the lot of the farmer as comfortable as possible, still I think he must admit, and Deputies of the Government Party must admit, if they face the situation fairly and squarely, that the work of the Minister's Department would be much lighter and easier if this dispute with England could be settled. My advice to the Minister, as one of the Executive, and to Deputies of the Government Party is that there is no necessity for going with your hat in your hand to make a settlement with England.

There is no question of being humiliated. Anybody who has any experience of disputes, especially disputes as between employers and employees, knows very well that both parties cannot win. Even though both parties state that they will never surrender, still, as time goes on they come together and in 99 cases out of every 100 there is a settlement effected which is honourable, both to the employers and the employees. In the same way, if our present Government approached the British Government in a reasonable manner, I am positive that a settlement which would be honourable to the people of both countries could be effected. I quite realise there may be difficulties in the way, but, after all, what are Governments for, what are statemen for, only to surmount difficulties? And the difficulties in this case are not so great that they cannot be overcome. In the interests of the people of this State the Government should make some effort to settle. No matter how long this economic war lasts, it must be recognised that we, as a small nation, are bound to suffer more than the big nation, and that we would be in a much better position to-day—it is a fact that cannot be denied—if this economic war were not on. Nobody can argue that the economic war is a blessing in disguise. I think the most ardent supporter of the Government in the country will admit that if this economic war was not on, very many millions of pounds, which are at the moment lost to the country, would find their way into the country.

I am not going to go into the question of the price of cattle and so forth. Everybody knows it and there is no use in trying to twist the thing the same as was attempted here this evening by a few Deputies over there, who tried to show that the price of cattle indicates no difference. There is a vast difference, as anybody who has any knowledge of the subject knows. There is a difference of at least from £4 to £6. Anybody who has any experience at all knows that. As the cattle industry is the most important part of our whole agricultural economy, I think it should receive more sympathetic consideration from the Minister. In fact, I would go so far as to state that the cattle part of our agricultural industry is to the whole industry as the keystone or the keybrick is to the arch. Everybody knows what the keystone or the keybrick means to the arch. Remove it and you will affect at one stroke the whole strength of the structure. You may prop and stay it as much as you like, but you will never restore that arch to its former strength until you insert the keystone or the keybrick, as the case may be. I say this in no slavish spirit, that so far as the cattle industry of this country is concerned, the keystone is the British market and the sooner that is restored the sooner our cattle industry will regain its former strength.

I ask the Minister as a member of the Executive to do all he possibly can to bring this dispute to an end. The Minister may believe me or he may believe me not, the members of his Party may believe me or they may believe me not, when I state that 90 per cent. of the supporters of the Government would be delighted if President de Valera could get up here to-morrow and say that he had made a settlement with Great Britain. He wants only a little courage. Do not mind the shouts of the mob at the street corners about republics, or anything else. Fully 90 per cent. of the honest people of this country would applaud the President to-morrow if he could make the announcement that he had effected a settlement with Great Britain. They would applaud him if he would bring to an end this economic war which is having such disastrous effects on the people of both countries.

The O'Mahony

It is very difficult to speak on this Estimate because, to my mind, the whole subject is a most heartbreaking one. Any Deputy, I do not care to what Party he may belong, who goes about the country and talks to the people who have to make their livelihood and feed their families from the industry of agriculture, must realise the terrible difficulties that everyone in that industry has to face. When one goes about amongst the people connected with that industry the conditions that one meets with are truly appalling. One thing which I have remarked very much is that the man who was always a hard worker and his sons, steady young lads, who may now be working hard on the farm trying to make a success of their occupation and who, in previous years, succeeded in doing so, are now the worst off. If we will only face up to the facts—and I do not believe there is anyone in the Dáil who will dare contradict me if he really faces the facts—we must surely realise that the harder a man works to-day on his farm, leaving out certain conditions where he may be more favourably situated, the less money is he making, in fact, the more he loses. That is the truth and, to my mind, we are never going to get anywhere unless we face up to these truths. I see the Minister laughing. The greatest grouse I have against the Minister, as a Minister—I am not speaking personally, because I do not believe in personalities —is that he is not facing up to facts. That is the real trouble the whole country is confronted with to-day.

Looking at this Estimate, I see there is a gross sum of approximately £1,000,000. You cannot divorce from that another sum which does not figure in the Estimate for agriculture, but which comes under the heading of Export Bounties, and it is a sum of £2,250,000 in round figures. That is part and parcel of agriculture. That brings the total amount for the Estimate, as I see it, to £3,250,000, and notwithstanding that huge sum being expended, we see the industry going down and down. Of course, the Minister will probably say, "Wait till the wheat comes along." I am in entire agreement with the last Deputy, who said that the keystone of agriculture is stock. Wheat will be dependent on stock. You may be able to carry on for a short time with artificial manure, but you must have the other; you cannot do without it. It is just as well that we should, now and again, refresh our memories with regard to the utterances of men who are raised to important positions in this State, who must consider carefully what they say, who are aware that what they say is going to carry weight, and that there may be serious casualties if they do not carry out what they say should be done. I know perfectly well that there is a sort of freedom recognised when one is in opposition. But when one becomes, say, a member of the Executive Council, there is not quite the same freedom. To be perfectly candid, I can see very little difference between the present members of the Executive Council in the matter and tone of their speeches from the same body of men when in opposition. I have always held that it does not matter whether a member is speaking for the Government or for the Opposition, he should be careful of what he says. I shall quote now from the Official Report an extract from a speech made by President de Valera when he was in opposition.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the President responsible in any way for this Vote?

The O'Mahony

The speech has to do with agriculture, if you will permit me to read it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to read extracts from the speech of a Minister who has no responsibility whatever for the Vote which we are discussing.

The O'Mahony

This speech deals with agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies cannot quote speeches on agriculture by every member of the Executive Council. Deputies can only quote the Minister for Agriculture on his own Vote.

The O'Mahony

One matter that has been discussed freely is the statement by members of the present Government that the British market has gone. That statement has been made by practically every Minister and every T.D. of the Fianna Fáil Party. Members on our side of the House have been frequently accused of going round the country and deceiving the people by creating false hopes. The British market, we are told, can never be brought back again. In spite of those utterances, the present Government see nothing strange in putting a very heavy burden of taxation on the community to meet the export bounties. One of the arguments used to show that the British market can never be brought back is that the policy of the British Minister for Agriculture is to conserve, as far as possible, the home market for the British farmer and that already quotas have been arranged cutting down the import of foodstuffs from other countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I ask any member of the House to challenge me if I am wrong in this statement: supposing no food in the form of meat, butter, eggs or fresh pork were allowed into England from any country, could England meet her requirements in respect of these foods from what her own farmers produce? I say she could not and I challenge anybody to contradict me on that. Going a step further, supposing the only foods of that nature allowed into England from any country were those from the Irish Free State, would England be able to subsist on what she could produce herself and on the surplus we would have for export? Again, I say "no" and I challenge any Deputy to contradict me. A very important point to consider is that we are specially situated here compared with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa or the other places which have been mentioned by members of the Government as having quotas against them. They can send all these articles to England, but in order to do so they have got to be frozen. We can supply them fresh and that is the difference. Nothing that those other countries can do can get away from that one difficulty: that they cannot supply them fresh, whereas we can. There is no question that when conditions are good in England—in the large manufacturing centres and in the large mining areas—the people working in the factories and in the coal mines have their pockets sufficiently lined with good wages to enable them to buy fresh meat. When such conditions prevail they will purchase it every time. It is only since times got bad in England that the demand for frozen meat crept in. But, as times improve, the market for fresh meat will be there, and I submit that we could get back on that market to-morrow if only we had the courage to do so.

I often think that away across the sea there is a table with empty seats around it: seats waiting for men of courage, of ability and of sound common sense who are thinking of their country and not of politics to go over and take their places around it, discuss like men with other men across the water the question at issue between us to see what sort of agreement they can make. There is no need for us to go down on our knees or to talk rubbish of that kind. All that we have got to do is to take our courage in our hands. I believe that there are men in this country with sufficient ability to be able to discuss any question with the representatives of any nation. Let us throw out our chests and face the real position. Let us say that we are going to have done with this nonsense and humbug; let us talk the question over squarely and frankly and see if we cannot make a good business deal. We have many things to offer to the people on the other side. I believe that we could make a rattling good bargain. Alas, I see no men of courage coming forward to take the necessary steps to try and pull this unfortunate industry which we are discussing here to-night out of the tribulations and troubles into which it has been put. I would say in all earnestness to every member of the Executive Council: "Go around the country and see the conditions that exist, go around and see some of those unfortunate farmers and the position they are in, and try to realise the anguish that many really good true Irishmen are suffering." I am not talking politics now. I have in my mind the position of many men of whose politics I know nothing, but I know the misery, the difficulties and the tribulations they have to face at the present time. I am certain that before this trouble is finished many of these poor unfortunate men will be driven into such a state that they will become subjects for mental homes. Everyone knows that nothing so affects men's minds as worry: the fact that they do not know how they are going to meet their many obligations, to pay the shopkeepers' bills, to educate their children or to keep their homes. These are the things that the Government should study and think about. I would ask the Government to face up to the facts. If they do not, then all I have got to say is "God help our unfortunate country."

Mr. Fagan

If the policy which the present Government is pursuing is continued much longer it will end in complete disaster for the agricultural industry. Everybody knows that that policy has left those in the agricultural industry poorer than they ever were. The farmers of the country are unable to do what the Minister for Finance has done. They cannot transfer a large slice of their year's expenditure to a capital account and meet that by borrowing. Those of them who were lucky enough to have a little spare capital have been reduced to such a condition that they have been obliged to use it to meet their ordinary obligations. My constituency of Westmeath and Longford covers a large cattle raising area. The majority of the farmers there are very poor and the Government have done nothing to help them. The people in that area have derived no benefit whatever from the beet factories or other schemes undertaken by the Government. Most of the farmers in that constituency are so poor that they are unable to pay the debts they owe to the shopkeepers who gave them credit. I maintain that the farmers in my constituency have paid the weight of the annuities. The area is chiefly a cattle raising one. That is the principal industry in it. Through the operation of the British tariffs these people have more than paid their annuities, and yet in spite of that the country is flooded with sheriffs' notices for the collection of the annuities. It is a poor tribute to the policy of the present Government that the sheriff is busier, and continues to be busier in this country to-day, than he ever was in the days of rack rents and evictions.

The real test of a farmer's position is how he stands at the end of the year. There is not a farmer I know in the country to-day but is much poorer than he was when the present Government came into office. Everyone would like to see increased tillage. It is essential to good farming, but there can be no increased tillage unless the farmer sees that it is going to result in a profit to him. Any increase that there has been in tillage since the present Government came into office is due to the operation of subsidies. Every one knows that is not a sound policy to pursue because these subsidies cannot last. If tillage cannot justify itself by its own results then, clearly, it is not economic. In order to have increased tillage you must have a market for your crops. Before the economic war started we had that market. The farmer fed the crops that he grew to his cattle. He sold the cattle in the form of meat which was exported so that in reality the foreigner was the purchaser of our crops.

If our market is to be reduced to the boundary of the Twenty-Six Counties our live stock must be reduced. The Minister for Agriculture seems to think that is so, because he has supported the policy of slaughtering cattle. When the live-stock population is reduced there will be no market for the increased crops. That shows that the Minister is not honest in his policy. On the one hand, he advocates increased tillage; and, on the other hand, he is doing away with the market for that tillage. There is no alternative market for live stock. I would like to know what is to be done with the beet and the wheat which is being subsidised so largely, or what is to be done with the by-products of live stock? Surely he is not going to tell us, as he told us before, to drink milk or to eat bran for breakfast and sugar for dinner. There is no other way out with his policy. As a doctor I suppose that will be the next prescription we will get. The Government talk of the British market being gone, but, if that is so, why are they paying over £2,000,000 to keep a grip on that market? The British market is not gone. If the trade returns are examined it will be found that they increased in the first three months. If farmers could get their live stock to the British market without having to pay special duties, which are taking the place of the annuities, they would get at least £6 per head more for cattle. I defy contradiction of the statement that they are losing £6 a head on every beast they sell, as well as being taxed on everything that they buy for their own use or for their farms. The Government would be well advised to reverse their policy. As Deputy The O'Mahony pointed out, they should take their courage in their hands and negotiate for an honest settlement on both sides. If they could get any ray of hope I guarantee that farmers would use their best efforts to bring back agriculture to the position it was in when this Government took office.

Mr. Keating

The Minister and the Executive Council have told us that the British market is gone, and gone for ever. I admit that it is gone from the Free State, owing to their policy. The Minister told us recently that the price of eggs in Wexford on May 19th was 9½d. a dozen. The price of eggs last week was 6d. a dozen and farmers' butter on Saturday was 6d. a pound, so that the home market must be gone, too. Farmers here can compete in the British market against any country in the world with live stock, but they cannot do so with grain and butter. The taxpayers in the Free State have to pay 4d. per pound more for butter than the people in England pay—the people that we do not like. They get their butter for 4d. a pound less than our friends and neighbours. That is a nice state of affairs. I notice that the Minister is smiling. The Minister, like myself, is a farmer's son, but he got away from farming and went for a profession. The Minister's brother, like myself, knows how hard it is to make things pay on the land. It is impossible. That is due to the policy of this Government, which is responsible for the torture that the farmers and agricultural labourers are enduring. Now that the farmers are "broke" the agricultural labourers are drawing a small wage, and shopkeepers are feeling the effects, as money is not in circulation. If the Government hated the country as much as they say they love it they could not do more to bring farmers to their present position.

The Minister should face up to the situation, that we have to settle this economic war. Why should we not settle with the British when we have no alternative markets? The Government promised to find alternative markets, but failed to find them. I belonged to a Party that tried for other markets. I would not go to the British for business if I could get a halfpenny more any place else, but I do not see why we should persecute our own people by allowing the present position to continue. Farming is the staple industry, and until farmers are prosperous this country will not be prosperous. We have been told about new industries that have been set up. I would encourage these industries in every way, but when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was in Wexford last week, and looked along the quays, he must have noticed that there was not a solitary ship, where two years ago they would have been lying two deep, with the result that the unfortunate labourers are without work. It is time the Government woke up and tried to do something for the people and to put the farming industry on its feet again. The agricultural community, labourers, and townspeople have suffered because of the whim of one man. When addressing a meeting before the last election the Minister for Agriculture said that Mr. Thomas could do his worst, that he could put on 100 per cent. in duties, and that he did not give a damn. The Minister is drawing a big salary and did not then take into account the position of the poor man. The sooner the Minister realises that we want the British market the better for the country. There is no getting away from that position.

The Minister some time ago said that people who had taken his advice and kept the oats would get 16/- a barrel. I know one man and the best price he could get was 10/6 a barrel. That man did not give employment. He sowed the crop in the spring, then locked the gate, and cut it in the harvest. That farmer is growing corn and weeds, but the practical farmer—the man to encourage—gives employment 365 days of the year. That type of man wants a market for his surplus produce. Stall-fed cattle are selling in the home market for 15/- per cwt. Is there any encouragement to keep cattle for six months when they have to be sold for 15/- a cwt? The Government says that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party did not think that wheat could be grown here. I was reared on a farm, and until last year I never remember such a good year for corn. In the eighties I saw wheat growing, and two or three days before it was ready for cutting, the weather got foggy and it began to sprout. The result was that farmers in that district had to eat barley bread. The wheat was mouldy and could not be baked. At that time, country people only got shop bread on Sundays. Now they live on shop bread. Conditions have changed. It is up to the Government to go with the people, and to try to get back their markets, by settling the dispute with England. I am not in love with England, but any time I went there I got a fair deal. As an honest decent Wexford man I ask the Minister to do something for the farmers.

Mr. MacDermot

Discussion on this Estimate has necessarily been concerned less with the details of administration than with the principles underlying the whole administration of our Agricultural Department. In other words, Deputies on both sides have talked around and about the hackneyed subject of the economic war. That is a very hackneyed subject, and it is with some reluctance that I plunge into the fray on this occasion. I do not think I would have done so but for two speeches delivered from the opposite benches, one by Deputy Donnelly a few days ago, and the other by Deputy Moore, to-day. Both the speeches appeared to have the merit of sincerity and earnestness, especially the speech of Deputy Donnelly and much as I disagree with his sentiments I could not help listening with pleasure to a speech which had apparently so much fervour and sincerity behind it as his had.

It is suggested that the chances of the Government's producing a favourable condition of things for agriculture in this country are being interfered with by the Opposition. That suggestion is constantly being made but it has never been established. I have yet to listen to any Deputy on the opposite side producing any quotations to show that members of the Opposition have done anything to deter the farmers of this country from taking advantage of any opportunities that the Minister for Agriculture may have put at their disposal. Certainly we have criticised the policy of the Government, which produced the economic war and we shall undoubtedly continue to criticise it until such time as a settlement is arrived at, but it does not follow from the fact of one's being opposed in principle to the economic war, that one is deterring the people of this country from taking advantage of any opportunities of a new kind that the Minister for Agriculture may put before them. I think that allegation against the Opposition should be dropped.

Mr. Smith

It is true.

Mr. MacDermot

If it is true, it should be proved and so far it has not been proved.

Mr. Smith

Is it not true that a member of your own Party only recently refused to pay his rates?

Mr. O'Leary

I suppose no member of your Party ever does refuse?

Mr. MacDermot

I am not going into the question of rates because the question of rates is absolutely irrelevant to what I have just been saying. I am talking about the statement that a new era for the farming community has been entered upon in this country, that the people ought to change their habits and adopt new ideas, and I say that as far as the Opposition is concerned they have not stirred a finger to prevent anybody from taking advantage of that.

This new agricultural policy of Great Britain of which we have heard so much, is it really something that, if we had commonsense, we need regret in this country? Of course we must all admit it has certain dangers but would not we all, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, have been delighted in this country to hear that Great Britain was going to give up free trade and was going to impose tariffs on agricultural imports? We would, in those days, have regarded it as an extraordinary opportunity for the Irish farmer. I admit that there is this difference in the situation, that we are now a self-governing country, that we are developing our own secondary industries and that consequently you might suppose that we had not quite the same right to expect preferential treatment in the British market as we would have if we were still members of the United Kingdom. But the Dominions, after all, are all self-governing countries. They are also developing their secondary industries. They are very much further away from Great Britain than we are. They are not in a position to trade as profitably with the British as we would be. There is not the same motive for Great Britain to adopt a conciliatory attitude to them as to us. They are not any of them as good customers of Great Britain as we have been, and still are. There is not one of them importing so much from Great Britain, in proportion to what they export to Great Britain as we do. And obviously we are entitled, not only to as good treatment as, but to better treatment than any of the other Dominions forming the Commonwealth when it comes to making a treaty with Great Britain. Therefore, so far from regarding the new British agricultural policy as an injury to our live-stock industry, I would suggest, on the contrary, that it was a very important opportunity for our live-stock industry. Certainly I agree that there are some dangers; but they can be overcome by skilful negotiation considering what very substantial bargaining assets we possess. Deputy Moore, rhetorically, asked us to declare what our policy was for regaining the British markets. Now, when going into conference to negotiate a particular policy, you cannot announce, beforehand, with any exactitude, what the result of your negotiations is going to be. All you can do is to indicate the frame of mind in which you go into those negotiations, and I think that is a sufficient indication. We ought to be anxious if we go into negotiation with Great Britain to-morrow, to do so in a business-like spirit, without temper, and without going back on the past; and, then, it ought to be more than possible to make an arrangement that would be, in the highest degree, advantageous to our present live-stock industry and to the Irish farmer.

Deputies opposite, including Deputy Donnelly, some time ago, spoke of our live-stock industry as if it was something that was disreputable, or that it was something bad in itself. I claim that is absolute nonsense. Deputy Donnelly said, I think, that he was born in a labourer's cottage, and hoped that nobody on this side of the House would be so low as to taunt him with that fact. Of course not. One would have thought it hardly necessary to say such a thing. Instead of that it is rather those who were born behind demesne walls that might be taunted, and not those born in labourers' cottages. Wherever we were born we ought to be able to apply our minds to the agricultural problem. It is not a problem shut out from the operation of ordinary common sense. I maintain that if we look, in a commonsense spirit, at that problem we cannot suppose for a minute that the live-stock industry is something that we can afford to treat as a Cinderella, as the least honourable side of agriculture, and as something that should be pushed into a back place.

Deputy Donnelly even brought in the famine. He gave the impression that in some misty way, or other, he considered the famine had been due to the improper absorption of our agriculture in the live-stock industry. Yet in the next breath he gave figures that showed that before the famine our live-stock industry was much smaller in relation to our human population than it is to-day. So if his argument in regard to the famine proves anything it would seem to prove the very opposite of what he set out to prove.

Mr. Donnelly

That is the reason they tried to kill off the people.

Mr. MacDermot

I do not know who "they" are, but I will admit this: there was far more tillage then proportionately, than now. However I am not going to claim that the famine was due to an undue amount of tillage existing. I do not believe it. But I am not going to admit, as Deputy Donnelly seemed to imply, that the famine was due to the fact that we went in too much for live stock. His figures showed the reverse. Deputy Donnelly, I think, is not one of the Deputies who would really be interested in the problem whether it is possible to regain the British market. In his heart I do not think that he wants to regain the British market. I think Deputy Donnelly used the words to the effect that we should forget about the people across the water and try to concentrate upon our own markets at home. There is a sense in which I would like to forget about the people across the water. I would try to forget them as enemies, and I would try to remember them as customers. The trouble about Deputies opposite is that they want to think about the people across the water as enemies and to forget about them as customers. There is no good to be got by looking at problems, affecting the material prosperity of the nation, in a spirit of bad temper and going back on the past. We have plenty to be angry about with Great Britain, but is there any sense in stirring up these old passions? By pursuing the sort of policy that Deputy Donnelly would wish us to pursue are we not taking out of our own power the chance of getting some atonement for the hardships and injustices of the past?

We are now in the position that the existence of Great Britain, with its enormous industrial population so near our shores, can be an unmixed blessing. We can make it that by acting in a commonsense manner. But if we get such a taste for trailing our coats and going back to the facts of history that we are unable to accommodate ourselves to the everyday facts of the present world, we are throwing away the opportunities that we have got. If, however, we return to the past, and adopt a course such as Deputy Donnelly would have us pursue, we revive a state of things which shall always make us liable to invasion and confiscation.

There is only one enemy we ought to be thinking about in this country and that is poverty. To my mind there are a good many Deputies on the benches opposite who are filled with the desire to enter on a crusade against poverty. I claim that we all ought to be filled with that desire. But we are not effectively joining in that crusade, and exerting ourselves in that crusade, if we are thinking of the sort of enemies that Deputies on the benches opposite seem to think about. Let us concentrate upon poverty. Deputies opposite seem to think the livestock trade is only the concern of comparatively wealthy farmers. Of course, that is not true, or nearly true. I was down this week in the poorest part of my own constituency, talking to a number of people in those parts. And they are pretty hard hit. I could not get one of them to say that he had not got poorer under the present Government than before, and poorer because of the decrease in the value of live stock. They had got definitely poorer, and nothing that the Government could do in the way of relief works or bounties, or subsidies, could make up to the people anything like what they had lost in the depreciation of the value of their live stock. I am not interested in making scores off the Government or making Party hits at the Government at all. I would be very much better pleased if they would go ahead with this question of an economic settlement with England instead of leaving the settlement of the matter to another Government. I wish that Deputies on the opposite side would give us at least a little credit for sincerity and patriotism. They always respond eagerly to every suggestion that we are doing nothing but playing a Party game; that we are agitators who are only anxious to stir up trouble. We are not agitators. When we speak of the poverty and misery that the policy of the Government has inflicted on the people, it is not a case of making political scores or of revamping Party catch-cries. We are merely reflecting the cries of misery that reach our ears from scores and hundreds of the people, and the sooner Deputies opposite make up their minds to recognise that fact the better it will be.

I submit those considerations to Deputies opposite to reflect upon. A suggestion has been made several times in the course of this debate that if the Government want to make a beginning towards convincing the people that agriculture on Fianna Fáil principles and a continuation of the economic war can be made to pay, they could not go about it in a better way than by establishing specimen farms in various parts of the country and letting the people see whether these farms can be made to pay when worked on these principles. I think that it is a most sensible suggestion and I do not know why the Government has not adopted the suggestion if they really believe what they say.

Mr. Smith

Did these farms pay under your previous Government?

Mr. McMenamin

No, but you say you can make them pay.

The Deputy ought to keep his hair on.

Mr. O'Leary

I will leave the House because I cannot stop to listen to damn nonsense.

Dr. Ryan

I spent an hour talking about this Estimate and I produced figures to show that, with the exception of cattle, the farmer was no worse off now in any item of our agricultural produce than under the previous régime. I produced figures for the various years and challenged Deputies opposite to contradict my figures. They discussed this Estimate for two days and they never challenged one of my figures. Since they did not challenge my figures, the country can only judge that my figures were correct and that the farmers are at least as well-off, and perhaps better off, in the various items of agricultural produce with the exception of cattle.

Deputy MacDermot asks in what way do they obstruct the policy of the Government. A member of that Party opposite would not pay his rates because he wanted to obstruct the Government. When his cows were to be sold he walked in and planked down the money. That proved that it was nothing but obstruction. It was not a question of his not being able to pay. Deputy MacDermot gets up and asks us to quote a case of obstruction and sabotage. I do not know what could be a more relevant answer to that than this case of a member of the Deputy's own Party trying to obstruct the Government by not paying his rates and then, when his cows were about to be sold, going in and planking down the money.

Mr. Smith

Showing a good example.

Dr. Ryan

It might be a better example. In one way, it was a very good thing for us that it was done in that way. Deputy Belton made a great speech here lasting two and a half hours and the only thing I could learn anew about his Party's policy was through one chance phrase. He said that we were growing wheat instead of good grass. Deputy Belton here to-day has evidently come round to the opinion that we should not grow wheat in this country but that we should leave our land in grass. It is evident that when Deputy Belton was made shadow Minister for Agriculture he took the soup. He took the soup and swallowed the Cumann na nGaedheal policy. Deputy Belton, of course, is now against wheat, the man who has been for 20 years going around the country preaching wheat as against grass. I met the Deputy in the Banba Hall many years ago and the discussion there was on the growing of wheat. The Deputy was the chief spokesman and I thought that day that he was the only one in the country who knew anything about growing wheat. Now he says we are trying to grow wheat where good grass could be grown. It is no wonder he reneged after being appointed shadow Minister by Mr. O'Duffy.

Next he goes on to talk about a scheme by which the people should be made buy Irish-milled flour and that in the making of milled flour the miller should incorporate a certain amount of Irish wheat. Imagine a Deputy appointed here in charge of agriculture who does not know that that is the law at the present time. The Deputy does not even know that what he is advocating is the law of this country. He does not know that millers should incorporate a certain amount of Irish wheat in Irish-milled flour and that no flour can be imported into this country except under licence. The Deputy is advocating that as a good policy to be followed.

I was asked by several speakers here why was it necessary to increase the Estimate this year by £126,000. In opening this Estimate I said that there were three big items that accounted for more than that £126,000. I said there was an item of £70,000 in connection with the wheat bounty; that there was £90,000 set down for the scheme for the purchase of oats and £24,000 for increased loans to creameries. That accounts for much more than the total increase of £126,000. Deputy Belton went on to talk about economic facts and he used an argument to-day which was repudiated, I think, by every speaker on the opposite side. That is, with regard to the ratio of tillage to cattle or live stock in this country. He said that wheat prices are as low now as in 1840 and that live stock prices are three times as high as then. He went on to argue from that that we were on the wrong path. He then talked about the growing of wheat in this country and argued in favour of live stock. He ignored the fact which every speaker on the opposite side, including Deputy MacDermot, has ignored. That was that we had not got at the present time a good or free market for the export of live stock.

Many speakers got up and said that on a previous occasion I had stated that we should not be accused of diminishing live stock by advocating an increase of tillage. I did say that. I did say that an increase in tillage does not mean a diminution of live stock. Why should it? There is no doubt about it, because with the same amount of land under tillage you can produce more food for cattle, sheep and pigs than you will have with the same amount of land under grass. If tillage were pushed over an extensive area we should get more live stock in this country as a result of that policy. I may have said later that it is necessary for us to cut down our live stock and the reasons I gave were: that we are consuming a certain number of cattle and exporting a certain number of cattle and after this if we have a surplus that something should be done about that surplus.

The best way that we could see to deal with that surplus in the future was by reducing the number of calves to be reared. That does not mean that I was wrong when I said that increased tillage would mean increased live stock or that it would make possible an increase in live stock. That is still a fact but we are facing a new fact now. That is that if the markets are not sufficient to absorb our live stock then we must cut them down, if necessary. But if we have to do that there is still room for an increase of tillage. There is room for an increase to a very big extent, because for human consumption we have to grow 800,000 acres of wheat. The amount of wheat required will be increasing as our population increases. Even with the present live stock, without any increase, we would require to grow about 700,000 additional acres of cereals. At any rate, with our present population we require 1,500,000 acres extra tillage. That amount of extra tillage may not be altogether necessary if we have to decrease our live stock. But under any circumstances we require a greater amount of tillage. As I said, if the live stock has to be reduced the 700,000 acres of cereals may also have to be reduced.

Mr. Fagan

What about the byproducts?

Dr. Ryan

There was quite a quantity of oats sold, I admit, but I say to the Deputy, and to every Deputy here, because they all seem to have taken it very much to heart, that I am going to bring in a Bill that will compel a decent price for cereals in future and I only hope that I will have the support of the House when I do bring it in.

Donnachadh O Briain

And there will be no more scaremongering like last year.

Mr. Coburn

It is not a question of scares.

Dr. Ryan

We were asked by Deputy MacDermot why we did not take over a few farms and run them. Deputy Smith put a question to Deputy MacDermot, which he said was irrelevant. He asked if the last Government had made these farms pay, even when things were so bright as they were supposed to be under Cumann na nGaedheal? No; in the Estimate there is always provision for a loss on those farms run by the Department of Agriculture, because they are run as show farms and they have to do certain things that no ordinary farmer would be asked to do in the way of giving instruction and doing experiments. Naturally, there was a loss on them and probably there would be a loss if we tried them now. It might not be so bad, but there would be some loss, naturally. We are getting some costings made out and we may be able to produce some of these costings in the near future, but I do not know how soon.

Deputy O'Leary made an appeal to us to set politics aside and try to do something for the farmers. It was, however, only a pious wish because he did not follow it up by saying any more. Practically every Deputy who got up said that the farmer has big expenses to meet because he has to pay a tariff on what he is buying— clothes, boots and everything else— and that when he exports cattle and sheep to England, he has to pay the tariff, too. I can never follow very well the reasoning of the Opposition in that respect. They have tortuous minds. When a commodity is tariffed coming into the country, the Irish farmer has to pay the tariff and when another commodity is tariffed going out, the Irish farmer also pays it. The British farmer, when a commodity is tariffed going into his country, has not to pay that tariff and when a commodity is tariffed going out of his country, he has not to pay the tariff. It is rather strange how the British farmer can escape both ways and the Irish farmer is hit both ways. That is the reasoning of the Opposition and it is not any stranger that most of their reasoning.

To get back to the oats question, Deputy Coburn said that I gave the farmers advice—I am not sure if he admitted that but he asked what was the use of advice and how was the farmer going to keep his oats. When I was young, I used to see farmers keeping oats in stacks——

Mr. Coburn

The old saw: "Young and had no sense."

Dr. Ryan

I might put that in if I were referring to the Deputy. The Deputy compared the prices of butter in Dundalk and in Belfast and showed how cheap butter was in Belfast and he spoke of how hard it was on the farmers of the Free State. Why did he not give the instance of beef? It is much dearer in Belfast than in Dundalk and much the same argument applies.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 6th June, 1934.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 5 Jun 1934