Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 12

Private Deputies' Business. - Export Licences and Market for Fat Cattle: Motions.

Debate resumed on the following motions:—

That the Dáil expresses its dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Ministry of Agriculture has allocated the export licences for fat cattle.— (Deputies Belton and Byrne).

That the Dáil requests the Government, in order to maintain the present area under tillage and to prevent wholesale unemployment, to take immediate steps to secure a market for our 58 per cent. of surplus stall-fed cattle, and failing to do so, to purchase the said cattle from the feeders at the price ruling in the British market.—(Deputies Belton, O'Higgins, Minch and Byrne).

Mr. Donnelly

Last night, in moving the adjournment of the debate, I said that I thought the moving of those two motions was more or less a clearing up of the mess into which the Opposition had landed itself during the last 12 months. Those two motions would not, I think, appear on this Order Paper to-day if they were taking action under this heading to-day. If you try to relate those two motions to a number of others which are on the same Order Paper here it gives one a kind of index to the mentality which obtained amongst the Opposition when they were tabling motions such as these. I think motion No. 8 was practically disposed of last night. It is the motion appearing in the names of Deputy Belton and of Deputy Alfred Byrne:

That the Dáil expresses its dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Ministry of Agriculture has allocated the export licences for fat cattle.

I think that motion applies very little now, if at all. The other one is really the more important of the two. I was trying to sub-divide this motion under the three headings which it seems to convey on reading it. The first is that the Government should maintain the present standard of tillage and the present acreage of tillage; item No. 2 deals with the prevention of wholesale unemployment, and item No. 3 is to dispose of the 50 per cent. surplus of fat cattle. If it cannot be disposed of in any other way the motion suggests that the Government should purchase the fat cattle themselves at the price ruling in the English market—in other words, that the Government should buy from the feeders their surplus fat cattle.

Let us take the first heading. Deputy Belton, I have no doubt at all, was extremely anxious that the present acreage under tillage should be maintained. I think he will be the first to admit, and I am sure any Deputy in the Opposition will admit, that this Government has done something to maintain the present acreage under cultivation. They have done more than that. It has been our policy and we have made every effort—trying as much as human beings could possibly do—not only to maintain the present acreage under cultivation but to enlarge, improve and extend the acreage under cultivation. I wonder when Deputy Belton was tabling this motion did he advert in any way to the stupendous task which is involved in an intensive policy of tillage? I wonder did he try to relate the figures, as they appear on the official returns, to the motion before the House. Take the acreage of the Free State itself; there is a total of 17,000,000 acres, I think. Twelve millions out of the 17,000,000 acres are arable, and at the present moment, according to those returns of which every Deputy has a copy, only 3,000,000 acres out of that 12,000,000 acres of arable land are under tillage. Surely to goodness there must be something wrong somewhere if that cannot be improved upon. Those are startling figures. Only 3,000,000 acres out of a gross total of 17,000,000 are under tillage. Allowing 5,000,000 acres for mountains and so on, that leaves a balance of 9,000,000 acres which apparently must be under grass. Is it any wonder that an Irish economist wrote that the Irish agricultural industry had developed into nothing but a cattle trade?

We, the members of this Government, promised the people in the manifesto that was issued prior to the general election that we would go in for a system of intensive tillage. That system of intensive tillage is one of the important things, if not the most important, that should be observed by us as a distinct promise to which the Government will live up as long as they are in office. Deputy Belton seemed last night, in the course of his speech, to scoff at tillage. Certainly Deputy Dillon scoffed at it. What I am saying does not apply so much to Deputy Belton as to Deputy Dillon. Tillage and the growing of wheat is the policy of the Government. The total amount of money that was paid for wheat coming into this country for the year ending 31st December, 1933, was £2,412,000. Deputy Dillon laughed at the idea that we could grow wheat to remedy that state of affairs.

Deputy McGilligan told us that if we could grow wheat we could also grow tea. In other words we were to go on spending £2,500,000 of Irish money purchasing foreign wheat while we can grow the wheat here. The greatest economist we ever had, the late Mr. Arthur Griffith—and it is not necessary to look for any better authority—said of wheat growing:

"One hundred years ago we fed ourselves on our own wheat and we exported thousands of tons of wheat to feed the people of other countries. Now we import 344 days' supply of wheat to feed ourselves. In the whole country we can only raise enough each year to provide us with 21 days' supply."

That was dated 1914. Yet we could go on importing £2,412,000 worth of wheat for which cash should be sent out of the country while the greatest economist we ever had stated explicitly that we did feed a population double our present population 100 years ago. If it could be done then there is no reason in the world why it should not be done now. I would like when Deputy Belton is replying to this motion if he would pay some attention to that matter. He told us last night also that if this thing were not done, if the Government did not take action on the lines suggested in this motion on the Order Paper, there was the obvious alternative for them to adopt, and that was to settle the economic war. I do not want this evening to get into that matter. I do not suppose the Chair would allow me. We may have to speak about it later. I noticed that when Deputy Belton refers now to the economic war he has slightly changed his attitude in that matter. At first it was foolish; then it was fatal, and next it was worse than fatal. Now he admits that the Government has a mandate to carry on the economic war. I have noticed also that Deputy Belton fights shy as to what the terms of settlement in regard to the economic war should be.

Mr. Belton

That is for your Party.

Mr. Donnelly

Precisely. Deputy Belton is in an easy position as regards the economic war. One of the easiest things is to sit on the Opposition Benches and criticise what the Government did. That is the easiest possible thing.

Mr. Dillon

Is it only now the Deputy discovered that?

Mr. Donnelly

It is one of the easiest possible things to criticise.

Dr. O'Higgins

What about the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. Belton

Both sides are doing that.

Mr. Donnelly

With regard to the economic war we have not got any——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy himself said it is not in order. The Deputy should live up to the knowledge that is in him.

Mr. Belton

He ruled himself out before he started.

Mr. Donnelly

The cattle pact was mentioned by Deputy Belton last night. Whatever settlement has been arrived at as regards the economic war there is one thing of which we may be certain. The Opposition, when the cattle pact was announced, welcomed it. I think that Deputy O'Higgins was one of the first Deputies of the Opposition to welcome the coal-cattle pact. Several other Deputies on the Opposition Benches welcomed it. Deputy O'Higgins said it was a great sign of the political advancement or amelioration of the Government. But while it is welcomed in public it is denounced in the Dáil. Deputy Belton spoke about it last night and he asked how are we to dispose of the rest of our cattle. As a result of the cattle pact we got 150,000 of our cattle out of the country.

Mr. Belton

For £1,000,000. Does the Deputy admit then that they were sold at £7 apiece?

Mr. Donnelly

We will discuss that matter later. At all events we got away 150,000 cattle. Deputy Belton says that the Government should purchase the cattle from the feeders if they cannot secure a market for them. The Deputy says that one moment and in the next breath we will find the Deputy denouncing the free beef scheme.

Mr. Belton

I never mentioned the free beef scheme at all.

Mr. Donnelly

Not last night. At any rate to my mind that is one of the methods which the Government has adopted to get rid of surplus cattle. It is impossible for the Government to do all that is suggested in this motion, which has been put down by Deputy Belton. To take the matter again under its three heads, the maintenance of tillage, the prevention of unemployment, and the disposing of 58 per cent. of the surplus stall-fed cattle, that means that Deputy Belton is supporting the tillage policy of the Government and wants it continued. It means also that he supports their policy in the solution of unemployment. If the Deputy only added industry and land division he would have the whole programme of Fianna Fáil. But that was 12 months ago. He was hurrying up at that particular time. I do not believe either of these means would put the people of to-day in the circumstances that existed then. The circumstances are not the same to-day as then and they do not apply to-day in the same way as they did 12 months ago.

Mr. McGovern

Are conditions growing worse or better?

Mr. Donnelly

Much better, and you know it. There was another way in which we could get rid of the surplus cattle. Deputy Belton was very fond of using one phrase last night. He had a great deal to say about this grand British market. That has become a sort of battle-cry with the Opposition. We could get rid of the surplus cattle in another way. It might not be exactly the correct way to do it, but we could have done it by the methods that were employed to secure this great British market. I was surprised when I looked up to find the total number of cattle in the country to-day. I have got the number from the official returns. I looked at these returns for the purpose of speaking on this motion and I discovered that there were 10,000,000 cattle in all Ireland to-day, between 10,000,000 and 11,000,000 as a matter of fact. There are 8,000,000 four-footed animals in the Twenty-Six Counties. There are exactly as many cattle to-day in the Twenty-Six Counties as there were in all Ireland in 1914. I do not wonder why a man like Arthur Griffith would say that the agricultural industry in Ireland had developed into a cattle trade. Yet Deputy Belton comes along with a motion like this, backed up, of course, by that other eminent agriculturist, Deputy Alfred Byrne, and wants this changed overnight. The population of cattle has gone up and we could have disposed of the surplus population if we had taken steps as drastic as those taken by the engineers of this great British market to get rid of the population, in order to establish that market and to increase the population of the cattle here.

I wonder did Deputy McGovern ever try to reconcile this state of affairs with the prophecies of Columbcille? The House will remember the day when we were discussing other motions Deputy McGovern, who represents one of the best constituencies in the country, stepped into the debate and said that this was all foreseen by the prophets of old—that there would be pounds and that people would be in prison for debts and cesses and all the rest. I wonder did the Deputy ever see it foretold that this country would be overrun with bullocks and that this land, which God destined to feed the people of this country, would become one big grazing ranch and that that would be the country's industry? Was it ever foretold in any book of prophecies, by Columbcille or anybody else, that we would have a number of Deputies on the benches here, calling themselves the Centre Party, in an Irish Parliament, appealing with the battle-cry: "Give us back our markets; perpetuate the cattle trade and destroy the population," because that is what it means, or that we would ever live to see the day when Deputy Belton, with his great national record, would table a motion in an Irish Parliament that the Government should take steps to perpetuate a system which would do away with the population and establish a population of cattle?

Mr. Belton

I would ask the Deputy to read the motion and to speak to it.

Mr. Donnelly

I have read it several times and that is the meaning of it.

Mr. Belton

To increase tillage?

Mr. McGovern

What about the Minister for Agriculture who says that we want to increase our cattle? He says that is his intention. Does the Deputy contradict that?

Mr. Donnelly

I was dealing with Columbcille, the man to whom the Deputy referred.

Mr. Belton

Columbcille was the first Minister.

Mr. Donnelly

At any rate, that is the position so far as the Deputy is concerned. He wants to perpetuate this system. That is what I think he means and that is what I read into this motion. To relate this motion to the cure for unemployment, there is one method, in my opinion, which I think the Deputy would have been well advised to have included. It is that he might have touched slightly on the establishment of industries and have included in this motion something about land division and he would have been nearer the mark with regard to the solution of unemployment than he is. Supposing all the surplus cattle were got rid of to-morrow morning, would that solve unemployment? Is it the definitely considered opinion of Deputy Belton, Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Minch and Deputy Alfred Byrne that if all the surplus fat cattle were got rid of to-morrow, it would solve the problem of unemployment? I wonder was that what Deputy Belton meant when he tabled this motion? It may have been one of the things passing through his head. I suppose he was at daggers drawn with the present Government at that time and he was looking at it from a different angle. He has moderated his opinion somewhat now and I do not believe that he would have tabled this motion to-day in the phraseology in which it was originally drafted and submitted, I presume, to Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Minch and Deputy Byrne for their signatures.

Mr. Belton

The conditions have not changed.

Mr. Donnelly

I do not think Deputy Belton played fair with his colleague, Deputy Byrne, more particularly in regard to the unemployment aspect of this motion. The seconder of No. 8 motion, and also the signatory to No. 9 motion, is very busy at the moment —all honour to him for it—trying to effect some sort of trade arrangement in the United States and I venture to say that if anybody had been listening to Deputy Byrne in Boston, in Philadelphia and New York on any of these evenings he would scarcely hear him describing this country in the language which Deputy Belton used here last night when he described it as a poor, impoverished little island. Those were the words the Deputy used and how the Deputy could come to use these words in face of the facts I do not know. It is only a very short time since we read in the newspapers that £129,000,000 had passed through the Irish banks last year, as a result of the trade in the country.

Mr. Belton

By how much was that figure down?

Mr. Donnelly

It does not matter. That is the figure I read and I considered it not too bad at all. As I said at the beginning, there is a certain excuse for all this. You have only to look at all the other motions tabled in or about the same time as these were tabled to see that the minds of Opposition Deputies were befogged in some way or other. I do not know how it came about, but they certainly were not thinking on normal lines. I am one of those who believe that, whether there ever had been an economic war or not, these quotas which have been imposed by the English would have been imposed. Possibly Deputy Dillon may not believe that, but they are there, and, in my opinion, they are there to stay. Farmers in this country have got to adapt themselves to the new economy and to the new system of tillage. If there is one living example of a follower of, and a believer in that, it is the Deputy who is proposing these two motions—Deputy Belton, the best tillage farmer, if he will allow me to say so, in County Dublin.

Mr. Dillon

Now get up and bow.

Mr. Donnelly

You do not find him staking his all in the cattle trade and you do not find him, like Deputy Dillon in this House, extolling all the virtues of the cattle business and pouring ridicule upon the growing of wheat and upon tillage and telling us that it is silly and absurd to go in for any policy of that kind. "Other countries," said Deputy Dillon here the other evening, "grow wheat and they grow too much of it." That is one of the reasons we should grow it. We are paying £2,400,000 for wheat coming in here every year because other countries grow too much. It is a crop we can produce ourselves, and I would like Deputy Belton, when he is replying, to try to reconcile—I know that I cannot —the statement made by Deputy Dillon with the statement made in this extract which I have quoted. It is a possibility, according to Arthur Griffith. It was done before. All that was required to feed the entire population—and it was bigger than it is now—was grown. Deputy Dillon says it cannot be done. I should like Deputy Belton to reconcile the statement of Deputy Dillon with this authority whom Deputy Belton believed in.

Mr. Dillon

I never said you could not grow wheat. You can grow pineapples here if you want to.

Mr. Donnelly

I am glad that the Deputy is again repudiating one of his own speeches.

Mr. Dillon

You can grow pineapples here and you can breed elephants here if you want to spend enough money.

Mr. Donnelly

How does the Deputy reconcile that with the statement made by Deputy McGilligan, that if we could grow wheat, we could grow tea?

Mr. Dillon

So you can.

Mr. Donnelly

What is the innuendo there? Perhaps Deputy O'Higgins will tell us his views on it in a few minutes.

Dr. O'Higgins

We will have tea in the next "Plan."

Mr. Dillon

Green tea.

Dr. O'Higgins

Republican tea.

Mr. Donnelly

At any rate, I believe that Deputy Belton to-day does not believe in either of these two motions. The first has been disposed of already and the second will be disposed of in a very short space of time. They are good enough, like Deputy O'Higgins's motion with regard to derating, as an attempt to score debating points here and as an opportunity for putting forward something that somebody said five or six years ago, and for hanging your hat on pegs of that kind. That is good policy and good manoeuvring.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy ought to know.

Mr. Donnelly

I can quite understand all that. I would do it myself if I were in opposition and I possibly have done it before now.

Dr. O'Higgins

What is the date of the quotations the Deputy has given us?

Mr. Donnelly

The date is 1914.

Dr. O'Higgins

And you object to going back three years?

Mr. Donnelly

No, I do not object. I say you are perfectly right to take advantage of that; it is good parliamentary tactics and you can score a debating point if you like. Always remember, however, that there was some eminent statesman who said at some time that in order to be a good politician one must change with changing circumstances. You do not find Sir John Simon going to Berlin riding on a push bicycle. He went on an airplane. Times have changed. Over there you are living in the past. The best thing I could suggest to Deputy Belton would be to read the list of motions on the Order Paper and then consider if it would not be advisable to withdraw the whole lot of them. They really do not apply at all. They might apply in one way and that is that you might score a small debating point out of one or two of them by making quotations from previous speeches.

I have a high regard for Deputy Belton as a Deputy. It would be a very dull Dáil if Deputy Belton was not here. He creates a bit of life now and again. I believe he is sincere in everything he does and says. I believe he is sincere in the attitude he adopts, whether I come into conflict with him or not. I believe he is sincere in all his actions and the same applies to the vast majority of Deputies over there. There is one thing, however, that I cannot reconcile and it is this. Deputy Belton has an honourable national record. I wonder what he thought when he was participating in the movement, in the rebellion, which incidentally was the cause of the establishment of the Dáil—I wonder if he did not think that one of the results would be that we could establish an economic system of our own?

Mr. Belton

That is what you have not done.

Mr. Donnelly

That is what we are trying to do; it is the purpose of this Government. I read quotations here from the man who influenced us all. I read quotations from the late Arthur Griffith. We are trying to put the policy he stood for when his was only a lonely voice in the wilderness, into operation. There are men over there faithful followers of his and I wonder they cannot see that that is the position. We are out to build up the country; we are out for an extension of tillage or the preservation of the present acreage of tillage; we are out for a solution of the unemployment problem. We are not so very long in office. At the end of ten years you might criticise us pretty harshly if we have not a better record than our predecessors.

I appeal to Deputy Belton—I may not be able to speak on any of the other motions submitted by him to the Dáil—to forget these little debating points, going back to speeches made one, two or three years ago. We are engaged in a national struggle whether you like it or not. Those motions have originated as a result of our being engaged in that struggle. The very existence of this country as a country is at stake. It is the duty of every Deputy on the Opposition Benches as well as on the Government Benches to protect the country. It is the duty of the Opposition to give the Government the benefit of constructive criticism. It is not the duty of the Opposition either individually or collectively, at all angles, at all times and in all places, to be harping at them, utilising carping, destructive criticism that cannot be regarded as a credit to themselves or anybody else. This Government is only human. The men here are only human beings. The Opposition ought to be patriotic in this national struggle and give us the benefit of their assistance through the medium of constructive remarks. That is really what an Opposition is for, not for delaying and hampering us and offering carping criticism all the time.

Dr. O'Higgins

I listened to Deputy Donnelly, as I always do, with very great interest. I was particularly interested to hear him quoting the advice of the late Mr. Arthur Griffith. It struck me when he was speaking what a pity and what a tragedy it was that the advice of that great man was not listened to when he gave it with regard to much more important matters than the growing of wheat in Ireland. When he advised Deputy Donnelly and myself and everybody else on one occasion that Ireland was ours for the making and for the Lord's sake to make it, only too many of us proceeded to attempt to break it. When he told Deputy Donnelly and myself and others that the Treaty was Ireland's economic need and national salvation, it is a pity the words of that great man and his advice were not listened to. It was not then a case of scoring a debating point. I will never quote any line here against an opponent that I do not believe in and respect in every mood and tense. I will never stand up here for the sake of scoring a debating point to quote the name of a man for whom, by every action, I have shown disrespect both in regard to his teachings and his advice. If we are going to have a better type of debate here let us only quote those we stand for and let us give up quoting at an Opposition Party men we have done our best to tear down.

I listened with interest to Deputy Donnelly delivering a homely lecture to Deputy Belton in a very commendable attempt to elevate the tone of debate in this House, to get rid of matters that struck the Deputy as being in bad taste, because Deputy Belton happened to refer to the fact that there were few farmers on the Government Benches. That was all to the good, but it rather took the good out of it when the Deputy proceeded to sneer at the men whose names are appended to this motion. While the Deputy took unto himself the right to disapprove of a sin, he took equally to himself the right to commit the same sin. It is said that charity should begin at home. I believe that is right, and out of the superabundance of the Deputy's charity, in his desire to elevate the tone of debate in this House and stamp out bad manners, perhaps he would have a few words in private to spare for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. Charity begins at home and words of advice should be given, in the first place, at home. Let us all, irrespective of Parties, make an effort in our own homes to practise what we preach to others. If we wanted an outstanding example of Parliamentary bad manners and bad taste it is to be found on that second bench over there every time the long-distance bore performs.

It is a pity that the canker of Party politics has eaten so deeply into a man like Deputy Donnelly that he cannot even take the trouble to pay attention to the wording of a resolution. We have a motion here, not in any terms of condemnation; we have a motion merely requesting the Government to take some steps to get rid of the surplus stall-fed cattle in the country. Forget about Parties! When the Deputy was rambling around Offaly and Laoighis, and when he saw, as he must have seen, stall-fed cattle remaining unsold, and when he thought of the amount of the produce of tillage and the amount of labour and of money that went into finishing that beast, if he could get a market by asking for it for that hard-working farmer's beast, would he not do it? Yet, Party politics is so engrained in his system that he cannot join with me this evening in merely politely asking—not in condemning or criticising, but merely politely asking—that a market be got for that beast. Is he not as anxious as I am for a market—I do not care whether it is in Belgium, Germany, Russia or England—is he not as anxious as I am that the farmer should be able to sell his produce? When someone from this side of the House requests that a market should be found, why must the Deputy get up to attack? Does the side of the House that a request comes from make the position outside any better? Would it not be far better, from the point of view of the people he represents, if he would join with us in making that request and then devote his time to explaining, as he is quite capable of doing, that every effort has been made and that further efforts are going to be made in that direction, rather than resenting the thing, stabbing the Minister for Agriculture in the back, and repudiating the advice the Minister gave us in this House? Does he not stand behind the Minister? Why stab his own Minister in the back? Was he not in the House when the Minister for Agriculture told us that it was essential that the present cattle population of this country should be maintained? He might not have heard that. He might not have read it. I think that if he had either heard it or read it, he is too good a Party man to make the speech he has just delivered. Nevertheless, that is his own agricultural leader and that is the advice that leader gives him, and I am so little a Party man that I am prepared to take that advice.

Mr. Donnelly

That is the best yet.

Dr. O'Higgins

Will the Deputy not join me when I follow the present Minister for Agriculture? At any rate, I say—and I think the Deputy will take it as no offence—that of the two advices given with regard to the cattle population, the one by Deputy Donnelly and the other by the Minister for Agriculture, I would prefer to take the Minister's advice.

Now, we have this motion which is to the effect that the Dáil requests the Government, in order to maintain the present area under tillage and to prevent wholesale unemployment, to take steps to secure a market for the 58 per cent. unsold stall-fed cattle. The Deputy spoke about the ranches and the green fields and the grass farms. This motion, however, refers to stall-fed cattle. It is not grass that fattens stall-fed cattle, and the Deputy knows that much. If we were talking about stores or young cattle, there might have been some point in some of the Deputy's remarks, but this motion essentially applies to the cattle produced by tillage. The Deputy did not notice that. In his speed of attack and in his anxiety to get there he overlooked that particular factor. We are talking about the finished product of Irish tillage. The Deputy probably knows that, leaving aside cake, cattle in this country are fed on turnips and mangolds, and that there is far more employment given—I leave it to farmers to give the amount—acre for acre, in the production of a root crop than in the production of any grain crop. There are three seasonal periods of employment in a root crop. There are two in a grain crop, and even at the two periods, spring and autumn, there is considerably more employment given in the production of an acre of turnips or mangolds than in the production of many acres of wheat or any grain crop. If we are to aim at tillage in order to relieve unemployment or to maintain employment, the way to secure that is to aim at the maximum production of root crops.

I would remind the Deputy that the labourer does not work just to keep himself warm, nor are fields tilled just so that they may look tidy and trim. If the stall-fed cattle population of this country is reduced by the closing of a gate into a market, you are going to reduce very drastically the amount of employment given in tillage. You may substitute wheat for turnips or mangolds, but if you do so you will reduce considerably the amount of employment given. The Deputy knows that in grain tillage there are only a few weeks employment given in the spring, and with the modern type of reaper and binder and with the thresher and the straw thrower, there are about two weeks employment given in the autumn. If every acre in this country was under grain there would be five weeks' employment on the land.

I shall bring that nearer home for Deputy Donnelly's benefit. He represents, as I do, a county that was always more or less in the front rank of the tillage counties in this country. I am referring to Laoighis. That county has the second highest tobacco area in all Ireland. It has the second highest increased area under beet in all Ireland—I am referring to 1934. It is amongst the first four counties in all Ireland in which there is an increased acreage of wheat. And the net result of all that, according to the official returns, is that there are 844 less males employed on the land in Laoighis. Do not contradict that. Look it up. I am quoting from the official publications, and the net result of the increased tobacco, increased wheat, and increased beet is 844 males less.

Mr. Donnelly

And you should have said increased cash in their pockets.

Dr. O'Higgins

In the pockets of the farmers?

Mr. Donnelly

Yes. It is true down there.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Deputy is blossoming as a humourist but he has chosen a rather sad subject for his humour. The Deputy will not go down to Laoighis and tell his farming constituents there that there is increased employment on the land because the farmers have more money. I would advise the Deputy—and I believe he is man enough to take this advice—to say nothing here that he is not prepared to say there.

Mr. Donnelly

Why the anxiety to get more land in Laoighis if it is not paying?

Mr. Belton

For nothing.

Dr. O'Higgins

The man who has no experience has yet to get it.

Mr. Donnelly

Farmers want more.

Dr. O'Higgins

Just as we had Ministers representing city constituencies talking about farming prosperity—I do not blame them; they have no experience of the other thing; they do not know what they are talking about—there are a number of land hungry men in Laoighis, better known, possibly, to me than to the Deputy, who will be cured of that land hunger the minute they get their fill of land.

Mr. Donnelly

They are farmers.

Dr. O'Higgins

There are as many men with land in Laoighis anxious to get rid of it as there are others to take it over. There is no great celerity on the part of the Government to take land when land is offered to them.

Mr. Belton

What did Brockley Park in Stradbally fetch on Monday last?

Mr. Donnelly

I know what they want in Stradbally—I have been there.

Dr. O'Higgins

Anyway, I give this as my opinion, although the Deputy does not seem to know it. My agricultural experiences are similar to those of the Minister. I was reared on a farm and then gave it up and became a doctor. Some time later I became a politician, though not as successful a one as the Minister.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I went back to farming.

Dr. O'Higgins

Why, or when?

Dr. Ryan

For the last ten years.

Dr. O'Higgins

Of course farming in Greystones and farming in Laoighis are very different things.

Dr. Ryan

Except that it is more expensive in Greystones.

Dr. O'Higgins

You went back to farming and at the right moment you gave up farming and became a Minister.

Dr. Ryan

I did not give it up.

Dr. O'Higgins

There is not a farmer who could not carry on if he had a Ministerial salary besides his farm. In fact, they would all be contented to be farming Ministers, but the people we are concerned about are the farmers who are not Ministers. Unfortunately, there is not room for all of them to become Ministers, and the rest of them have to remain farmers. My opinion is that if you want to increase the amount of tillage from the point of view of employment you have to provide a market for fat cattle. I was reared on a farm where there was not a grain of wheat, oats or barley sold. There was nothing whatever sold off that farm, and Deputy Donnelly knows it, except what went out on the hoof and it was a holding of 90 acres. All through that period of 22 years there were never less than five men permanently employed and during the turnip thinning, the hay-making and the harvest there was a very considerable number of extra hands at work. Every one of those five men who had permanent employment on that farm is known to Deputy Donnelly, and not a thing was grown for the market except what went out on the hoof.

At the present time, owing to the application of the quota and tariffs, there is exactly the same amount of acreage in tillage on that farm and there is the man who is working it and one labourer employed. What is the explanation? That there is grain grown for the market now. There used to be every year 24 cattle fattened and finished on that land. If you are thinking of the working man you have to go in for mixed tillage where there is employment in the winter as well as in the spring and autumn, where there is the ordinary employment given on a tillage farm and then the winter employment in finishing cattle. The cattle will not be put in to be finished if this country is to experience for another year or two what it experienced in the last year; if people are not to know from month to month whether a market is to be there for the finished article. If next autumn things are as unsettled and as uncertain as they are now, anyone who puts even one beast in and ties it down will be either a gambling speculator or a fool. If you want to blast tillage and destroy any hope of employment on the land for the wageearner, then interfere with, jeopardise or curtail the outside market.

The Deputy advocates one particular type of tillage, and only one, and the answer to everything is to bleat about wheat. What is there particularly Irish or patriotic or republican about wheat? Is not the old potato a more Irish crop? Why is wheat particularly taken to your hearts over there? Why is the man who gives more employment in growing mangolds, turnips, and winter employment in fattening cattle to be regarded as the outcast or the pariah, the man to be interfered with, obstructed, criticised and jeered at every time there is a discussion here on agriculture? Can we never reach the point that a man is to be judged by his actions and the results he achieves? If a man, by one type of farming, is giving as much or more employment than another, by another type of farming, why is not that man regarded as good a citizen as the other? There is this difference—that the man who goes in for mixed farming is going in for a type of tillage that does not cost his neighbour anything. The man that goes in for wheat or beet, no matter how patriotic or republican these crops may be is in effect a parasite on the nation. If the world price for an article is 12/- and the guaranteed price, made up by the taxpayer, is 24/- or 26/-, every barrel of that crop produced is bleeding his neighbour by one-half of the cost of it. Any type of national economy, whether from Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, that is based on the principle of beggar-my-neighbour is going to end by beggaring all your neighbours and yourself as well.

Let us, as far as possible, concentrate on a type of economy that is self-supporting. We have a type of economy in this country that, as results go to show, gave considerably more employment on the land than you have at present. In addition to that, it brought more and more new wealth into the country and it cost the man next door nothing. You have stopped all that and you have dammed the tide of wealth coming in. You have each man living on his neighbour as long as his neighbour can carry him on his back. I want to assure both the Deputy and the Minister that the capacity of the neighbour to carry the other fellow on his back has a certain definite limit and that we are in sight of the limit at the present moment.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad of this opportunity of following Deputy Dr. O'Higgins on the question of wheat, beet and peat, as opposed to the agricultural policy that we espouse in this country. I believe that Deputy O'Higgins has made a case here in reference to wheat, every syllable of which I endorse and accept, which is absolutely unanswerable and covers the whole ground.

I have listened for a long time to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party bleating—as Dr. O'Higgins aptly describes it—about wheat, beet and peat. He starts from the top—wheat—and comes down to peat. Let me start at the bottom and go up again. What has become of the peat scheme?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is not a word about peat in either of the two motions.

Mr. Dillon

That is quite true. Is the Chair of opinion that I am being irrelevant?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Quite irrelevant.

Mr. Dillon

I am relating the observations which I have been making about wheat, beet and peat to the fact that we put before this House the view that unless steps are taken by the Government to preserve the live-stock industry we will be driven back upon the alternatives proposed by the Government which, in our submission, are neither practical nor desirable.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The terms of the two motions are very definite. One says: "That the Dáil expresses its dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Ministry of Agriculture has allocated the export licences for fat cattle." That is definite and clear. The second motion is: "That the Dáil requests the Government, in order to maintain the present area under tillage and to prevent wholesale unemployment, to take immediate steps to secure a market for our 58 per cent. of surplus stall-fed cattle, and failing to do so, to purchase the said cattle from the feeders at the price ruling in the British market." Deputy O'Higgins went as far as it was possible for anybody to go in the matter of referring to the Government policy in regard to the production of wheat. I cannot allow Deputy Dillon to start at the bottom, as he says himself, and discuss peat and wheat.

Mr. Smith

Perhaps the Deputy wishes to be in the bog.

Mr. Dillon

I listened here in silence to Deputy Donnelly, who spoke for three-quarters of an hour on the policy of growing wheat and growing beet in this country, in preference to the cattle industry. My experience of the procedure of this House has been that where a Deputy is allowed to follow a very definite line of argument it is open to the Opposition to reply. If, in your opinion, I may not reply to Deputy Donnelly's speech——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot put it that way. It is not the Chair's opinion that Deputy Dillon may not reply. It is the Chair's opinion that Deputy Dillon is irrelevant.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Donnelly has recommended us to grow wheat, for three quarters of an hour. Deputy Donnelly has recommended us to grow beet, for three quarters of an hour.

Mr. Donnelly

On a point of correction, I never mentioned beet once during the whole time I was speaking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course, the Chair cannot rule on the statement of one Deputy, which is more than likely to be contradicted by another Deputy. The Chair must rule only on what it knows itself. What the Chair has to rely on on this occasion is on the terms of the motion before it.

Mr. Dillon

Let me phrase my submission in this way. I can argue that the only feasible method of agriculture is the one which we advocate— and of which what these motions demand is an essential element—as opposed to the scheme of agriculture of the Government. If I cannot argue that, I cannot speak to the motions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy started by telling the Chair that he was going to discuss beet.

Mr. Dillon

Very well. It was proposed by the Government that instead of the scheme of agriculture which we suggest for this country we should substitute the three commodities to which I have referred. The Government has now definitely abandoned one of that three, and we hear nothing at all about it. Peat, since the coal-cattle pact has, apparently, ceased to be a practical proposition within the ambit of the Fianna Fáil programme, and we are left with the other alternatives proposed to us—beet and wheat—for the cattle trade which we seek to preserve in this country. So far as beet is concerned, it is costing this country £1,250,000 per annum to subsidise that crop. It is a crop the acreage of which is necessarily limited to the number of acres the produce of which the factories in this country can consume in providing the sugar requirements of the Irish people. It is a crop the price for which has been arrived at as the result of a coercive agreement come to between the beet factories and the producers' organisation. That agreement provided that the price payable for beet delivered at the factory would be 37/6 per ton.

Mr. Smith

On a point of order, I think that Deputy Dillon is attempting to flout the ruling which the Chair has just given.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was just waiting to have a further indication of that.

Mr. Dillon

37/6 per ton is a rate at which no farmer in this country can employ an agricultural labourer at other than a slave wage. So far as wheat is concerned I repeat the question which was asked here by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins: why does anyone want to grow wheat in this country? He has asked that question and given several reasons.

Mr. Smith

On a point of order, what has the growing of wheat to do with the finding of a market for 58 per cent. of our surplus stall-fed cattle, which is what is referred to in the motion before the House?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in either of the two motions which will allow Deputy Dillon to discuss the Government's policy on the matter of growing wheat or growing beet. The motion is perfectly clear and explicit, and the Deputy will have to confine himself to the terms of that motion and to matters relevant to it.

Mr. Dillon

If it is desirable to adopt the policy of Fianna Fáil and grow wheat, one of the essential elements of that policy is to have the wherewithal to cultivate the land in preparation for that crop. One of the essentials for that preparation is the farmyard manure which is derived from the production of fat cattle for export to the British market. The production of those cattle cannot and will not continue unless we have a market wherein to dispose of them. When we consider this question of whether it is desirable or necessary to preserve the live-stock industry in order to secure that by-product of manure, we must consider the reasons for setting a value upon that by-product. One of the reasons is its use for the cultivation of wheat. I propose to consider now whether the desirability of cultivating wheat is something sufficiently important to justify any unusual methods being taken in order to endeavour——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will not endeavour to flout the ruling of the Chair in that fashion. The motion is explicit and clear:

That the Dáil requests the Government, in order to maintain the present area under tillage and to prevent unemployment, to take immediate steps to secure a market for our 58 per cent. of surplus stall-fed cattle, and failing to do so, to purchase the said cattle from the feeders at the price ruling in the British market.

Mr. Dillon

I sat listening in silence for three-quarters of an hour to a Deputy of this House on the agricultural policy as put forward by the Government Party in opposition to our policy. The discussion has proceeded along these lines. I assumed that the Chair decided that that discussion would be allowed to proceed and that I would be allowed to reply. If the Chair now rules that I am not to refer to the particular points raised by the Deputy on the Government side, then I have nothing to add to the debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will not put the Chair in the wrong in that fashion. There is implicit in the Deputy's statement an assertion that the Chair is not ruling fairly. But whether Deputy Donnelly did or did not discuss the Government policy on this motion is a matter for the Chair. The Chair did not think that Deputy Donnelly discussed the Government policy in the direction in which the Deputy proposes.

Mr. Dillon

That being so I have nothing to add to the debate.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton in introducing this motion has some fault to find with the allocation of cattle licences. I would like just to outline what took place exactly with regard to the allocation of these licences. From the 1st January, 1934, to the present time, it was the most natural thing in the world for anybody to say that the licences would go to the exporter.

Mr. Belton

Oh, no.

Dr. Ryan

Would anybody here say that bacon licences should go to the producers, or that motor car licences would go to the person who was about buying a motor car, or who would say that the bacon licence was to be given to the man with the pig?

Mr. Belton

The man with the pig has not the bacon — he has only the pig. At any rate why did the Minister change it in February, 1934?

Dr. Ryan

I will come to that. Perhaps I will convince the Deputy that it was wrong to change it. It was the most natural thing in the world that we should give the licence to the people exporting the cattle. We had at first to hold up all exports for 14 days in order to get our register ready. There were 3,000 people exporting cattle and we decided to issue the licences on the basis of the exports in the corresponding month in 1933. That entailed a good deal of work at any rate to look up the figures in the case of 3,000 exporters, to see what number of cattle on which they drew export bounty in January, 1933, so that we would know what percentage of licences for January, 1934, each individual was entitled to draw. That took nearly a fortnight.

Then there was also the difficulty of dividing the fats and the stores and we had to get the opinion of our own veterinary inspectors, the portal inspectors. We got them to give their opinion, individually, of the percentage between the fats and the stores of each exporter. That list had to be made out and I say it took a fortnight. The licences were then issued for those exporters. If those exporters had done their business as they should, there would never have been any complaint. Why we did not continue it was because there were complaints and well founded complaints that the exporters were abusing the privilege they got in these licences, and that they were not paying the prices they should have paid. The case was put up that the producers would get better value, if they were given the licences themselves—if the licence were sold with the beast. That was done about the middle of February. Deputy Belton pointed out also that it was upon his advice that this change was made.

Mr. Belton

No. But as a result of the interview with the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

I was going to admit that his advice had considerable weight. A number of people came with him as a responsible deputation and they pointed out that if the producers could get these licences, that they would get a better price than they were getting when the licence was being given to the exporter. We then said we would change and give the licence to the producer if that were a better system. That was done from February until June when the grass-fed cattle came in. It was found impossible at that time to deal with the licences on that basis during the summer months. When the stallfeds came in again, we reverted to giving the licences to the feeders.

At the present time licences are given in this way:—Fat licences are given entirely to the producers. It is rather a troublesome system. The individual farmer who has stallfed cattle applies to have an inspector sent to his place. The inspector calls and gives his opinion that so many of these cattle would be fit for sale within the following month. The total number of cattle expected to be fit for sale in the whole country is made out and then the licences are issued on a proportionate basis. It might be one in five or one in seven or one in ten. There are disadvantages in that system. It is impossible at present to go lower than a certain number of cattle with each individual. The result is that owners of one, two or three cattle have not got any licences yet. We must try to meet those people and the sooner the better.

That is one of the disadvantages of that system, but there are other disadvantages to which I will come later. On the matter of selling licences, I want to say that licences for stores are distributed in two ways. In the month of March half the store licences are issued to producers and half to the exporters. The store licences issued to producers go to forward cattle—that is where the inspector calls to examine fat cattle, stall-fed cattle and so on. If these stores were good advanced cattle fed on roots and hay, a certain number of store licences were issued to that producer. Half the licences were issued in that way in the month of March, the other half went to the exporters.

Now the way these store licences are issued to the exporters is much the same as in 1934. When we commenced in 1934 we issued the store licences altogether on the basis of exports of the corresponding month in 1933. We set up an Advisory Council of the trade. These traders on the Advisory Council began bringing up cases of individual exporters who for one reason or another were not fully in business in 1933. Some of them were ill; in other cases it happened perhaps that the principal of the exporting firm died and his sons did not get properly into work for three or four months. For one reason or another there were hard cases —cases of exporters who had grievances, and it was agreed by the Advisory Council that certain of these men would get a special allocation in order to make up for the loss they had suffered owing to causes over which they had no control.

I also mentioned that they were not going into the remote areas to buy cattle. When the licences were issued to the big buyers in the big ports like Dublin, Cork and Waterford, they were inclined to take the cattle near to hand and did not go down the country as they had been in the habit of doing before that. I said to the exporters that I thought the only way to get over that difficulty was to allocate a certain number, 1,000 or 1,500 licences, to the remote districts. They agreed to that, and it was done so that the exporters in Connaught, Donegal, Kerry and Clare and remote districts were given a bigger percentage than they were entitled to in the ordinary way. They got them on condition that they would buy in the areas named.

Mr. Belton

Who got those licences in the remote districts?

Dr. Ryan

The ordinary exporters in those districts got a bigger percentage than they would otherwise be entitled to because they were in those districts.

Mr. Belton

There was no further check as to his buying cattle in that district?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. At least it was a condition that he would buy in that district. So far as I can recollect, there was one, or perhaps there were two, reported as going outside to buy, and they were told that unless they bought within their own areas they would not get these extra licences. From that on there was, I think, no complaint. It was one of the conditions that they would buy in those remote areas. I have already explained here before, but it is perhaps no harm to explain again, that apart from what I call the three big classes—the regular exporters, the individual exporters who were out of business for some reason or another in 1933 and the remote area exporters—there is always a residue. If you have, say, 3,000 exporters and 17,000 or 18,000 licences, as you would have in a fortnight, when you divide 3,000 or 3,002, maybe, into that, there is certain to be a small fraction over. There are always somewhere between 50 and 300 licences, and that residue had to be got rid of somehow or another.

I get a number of letters every fortnight—from producers and not exporters, of course—from people who claim that they have cattle and cannot sell them; that they are very badly off and that they have no food, perhaps, and a big family. They make a good case and they get a few licences. Senators, Deputies and other people send long lists to me and to the Department, instancing such hard cases. These are all examined at the end of the fortnight by some rather junior official, because it is rather a big job to go through 3,000 letters, and he picks out what he considers to be 200 or 250 really hard cases as being deserving of consideration. They are put on a list and they pass through the different officials until they come to me, recommending a certain allocation, and, in that way, this residue is sent out. There are allegations here in the Dáil—I do not say against me personally—that there is too much discretion left to the Department and to me, in respect of the issue of these licences, but I do not know that any better way of dealing with this small residue could be suggested. The residue of these licences to which I refer are the only licences over which we have discretion.

Mr. Belton

Have you not got discretion over the lot?

Dr. Ryan

No, because we say to all exporters: "You are getting 44 per cent. or 47 per cent." and he knows what he must get and he gets them. It is only in respect of the residue that we have discretion. It would save me personally a great deal of trouble if any Deputy could suggest a means of getting rid of that residue and leaving me out of it. I have said to people, and not jokingly, during the last 12 months, that if there was no cattle licence system, the Minister for Agriculture would have a good time in this country, because he gives half his time to it at present.

Mr. Belton

Is the Minister inviting suggestions? If I or anybody else get complaints in future about various things, such as licences, would the Minister be prepared to have a little conference to consider how the distribution of licences should be made?

Dr. Ryan

I would, certainly.

Mr. Belton

It will ease me, and many another Deputy, too, if we can give that answer in future.

Dr. Ryan

I would be very glad and I think the Deputy's suggestion is very good. I should be glad to meet Deputies of all Parties and to put it before them.

We come now to the question of the sale of licences. There is no doubt, of course, that licences have been sold. We know it has taken place, but it is not so easy to stop it, although the Deputy thinks that a non-transferable rule in regard to them might stop it. I do not think so. We have taken certain steps. In the first place, if ever we hear that a person who is getting licences—an exporter and not a producer—has sold licences, we can take it up ourselves without referring to him at all. All we have to do in the Department is to look at his application for export bounty for the same month and if the numbers do not correspond, we are fairly certain that he has sold licences. We write and ask him—in a few cases, they have admitted it and in some cases, they have denied it—but where a case is proved, he is taken from the list and does not get licences any more. Any exporter who sells licences is removed from the list.

Mr. Cosgrave

So far as the transfer of a licence from one person to another is concerned, we take no great exception to it or so far as a sale is concerned, except only in the case in which the sale means a profit to the individual to the prejudice of the person selling the cattle. In other words, if cattle normally should get £20 a head and a man buys a licence for £2, he can buy the cattle for £18. That is where the corruption comes in.

Dr. Ryan

That is quite correct and that is the objection we all have to the sale of licences. If we thought that exporters were losing the price of the sale of the licence, we would not be so concerned, as they can look after themselves, but we know quite well that they take it out of the pockets of the farmers and that is why we object to it. I am talking for the moment about the steps we have taken to stop the sale of licences. It is true, of course, that drovers and certain other people, whom Deputy Belton mentioned last night, did get licences in the beginning and they got them on the list we drew up, because the way in which we first issued those licences was to send them to those who drew export bounties. It was found after some time, and after some investigation, that very often an English exporter, say, who came over here occasionally to buy cattle might have been in a hurry to catch the night boat and might say to the drover doing business here for him: "You look after the export bounty and we will settle up afterwards." The export bounty was actually drawn in the drover's name and, therefore, the drover got these export licences from us when we were sending them out. In a number of cases, the drover would know they were not for him and he gave them to his principal and did what was fair and right, but, in some cases, drovers dissolved partnership with their principals when they got the licences and sold them and that is where the trouble commences. As I say, however, the name of the person involved in every case of that kind that was reported was removed from the list and he got no further licences. I expect that, in 1935, we will have cut these people out completely, because, in the main, we are issuing the licences in 1935 on the bounty list of 1934, so that a drover who sold licences—he did not, of course, draw bounty because he had no cattle to export—is not on our list this year. We cut all that class out this year by giving the licences in 1935 on the export bounty list of 1934 and I think we will cut out all these people who got licences and who were not genuinely in the cattle trade and, therefore, not entitled to them at all.

The giving of the licences to the feeders and producers will, in my opinion, lead to a greater transfer of licences and, indeed, to a greater sale of licences, than the old system, because even though the producer is not doing anything which he believes to be dishonest, his fat cattle are examined in the stalls on, say, the 1st March, and the report comes back to the Department and it is decided that that particular feeder is entitled to, say, three licences each fortnight until the cattle are examined again. He will get three licences on the 1st March; three more in the middle of March; and three more on the 1st April, perhaps, before there is another examination and by then, he may have sold the cattle to some local butcher or somebody else. He has no cattle and he gets the licences and there is scarcely a farmer in the country who would not make a few pounds on licences if he could. They do not send them back; they sell them. That is how the licences are sold.

Then again there is the case of the butcher, who goes out and sees a man with a couple of cattle and two licences. He buys the cattle, knowing that he has two licences to sell or to use in respect of his own cattle. In that way also licences are being sold. By giving the licences to the producer, there is, I believe, a greater sale and a greater transfer of licences than if they were given to exporters, but that is not sufficient argument, I believe, against giving them to the producers. I was talking to one particular man last year and he told me quite honestly: "I sold cattle at a very low price and got licences afterwards, and I got a bit for them, so that in that way they did not work out too badly." They feel they are entitled to the price of the licence as well as the cattle.

To come to the point of the non-transferable licence, we cannot make the licence non-transferable. If you send one or two licences to a farmer or producer he cannot possibly export those cattle himself. He sells them with the licence to the exporter, and in that way the licences are transferred with the cattle to the exporter. I quite agree with Deputy Belton that if licences are given to exporters they should not be transferred. I am afraid the non-transferable suggestion will not work, especially as we are now tending to give more licences to the producers.

Mr. Cosgrave

Has the Minister considered the advisability of transferring with the sanction of the Department?

Dr. Ryan

I think the Deputy, on consideration, will see that that would be very cumbersome.

Mr. Cosgrave

Let us say that a man applies for licences. His cattle are not quite finished for export at the moment. He gets licences, but he would be better satisfied if he could get them in a month's time. The surrender or the transfer of those licences with the Minister's consent would not prejudice that man and might help somebody else.

Dr. Ryan

I am quite well aware that sometimes where you have two farmers living side by side and they have twenty cattle each, if they get three licences each it is quite a common thing for one to say to the other: "You take the six licences now, and I will take them the next time." There is no harm in that. There are, I think, something like 10,000 farmers involved. Last year the number went up to 14,000 or 15,000 at one stage. It would be almost impossible for the Department to deal with a large proportion of those making application for a transfer of licences to note to whom they were given. I am afraid it would be almost impossible to do it.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister is making a great case for the second motion.

Dr. Ryan

I think the only thing we can do is to stick to the policy we have pursued in the Department. Under that policy if a farmer gets a licence and in certain circumstances transfers it, we are not too hard on him; but it is quite different in the case of the exporter. If it is proved that the exporter sells the licence, he is no longer allowed to remain on the list. It has been reported to us that an exporter on one occasion said he had merely lent 15 or 20 licences to another exporter and would get them back in the next month. Where I am satisfied that that is actually the case, I do not think any drastic action is necessary. I believe that giving licences to producers leads more to sales than when they were going to exporters. Where a farmer sells his cattle and wants to make a little bit on the licence, perhaps there is no great harm done.

We now come to the question which affects; perhaps, the second motion. I will take the points as they arose and this one deals with the disposal of cattle. I think if any Deputy looks up the figures—he can get them by looking at the exports for all the years from 1922 to 1934—and if he gets the quota figures that we have for this year and ascertains the consumption of cattle at home, he will find that in 1935 we are in a position to dispose of as many cattle as we did on an average during the period 1922 to 1932, or higher in fact than in 1930 and 1931. I admit, and I regret it too, that there is a surplus of cattle to be dealt with. That is just our trouble at the present moment. It is possible that that surplus may disappear before the end of this year; but for the moment there is a surplus and it is causing a certain amount of trouble. As regards stores, our export quota to Great Britain is higher than the number of stores we exported in 1931 or 1932 and it is about equivalent to the ten years' export from 1922 to 1932.

In the case of fat cattle, let us take 1931, the last complete year before there was any such thing as British tariffs or quotas. In that year, as far as I can make out, the figures indicate that we consumed about 120,000 cattle at home and we exported about 240,000 cattle. That may be a little bit low, but it is as well as I can make it out, because the figures are not divided between stores and fat cattle. That shows a total of 360,000 fat cattle disposed of in 1931. I may be a bit low, but if any Deputy wants to add 40,000 it will bring the total to 400,000. I think, however, that 360,000 is the correct figure. What will we be able to get rid of in 1935? First of all, our consumption of cattle went up very considerably in 1934 and it is estimated to reach about 200,000 in 1935. Possibly even with the free beef scheme it would not quite reach that figure, so we will say 180,000. The free beef scheme is disposing of 1,000 cattle a week and that means another 50,000 cattle. Our exports to Great Britain were at first 50 per cent. of the 1933 exports; that is, 120,000. Recently we got an additional 33? per cent. and that would be another 40,000. Then to other countries, such as Germany and Belgium and such remote places as Morocco and Gibraltar, we can send 20,000 cattle in the year.

I am not including cattle intended for canning, because that has not yet started. Our present disposals of cattle work out at 410,000 for the year 1935 and that is certainly as high as in 1931; in fact, I believe it is higher. I admit that there is a surplus of cattle at present and there is no doubt it would be convenient for us if we had even a bigger disposal than that. I want to show we are certainly not 58 per cent. below the 1933 figures. I admit it is true that we should, perhaps, have a higher disposal still, because we have surplus cattle in the country. I do not know how Deputy Belton got his figure of 58 per cent.

Mr. Belton

At that interview with you last year I got it. I do not know where you got your figures.

Dr. Ryan

I think I know how the Deputy got that figure. I had suggested that the number of fat cattle licences that were got in January was only 42 per cent. of the fat cattle we exported in 1933. Would that be right?

Mr. Belton

It would be something like that.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, but that was leaving out home sales altogether. It would not have been 58 per cent., and certainly it would not be that figure now with the increased exports and the consumption of free beef and so on.

Mr. Belton

Has the cow population gone up in the last two or three years?

Dr. Ryan

It has — definitely gone up.

Mr. Belton

By how much?

Dr. Ryan

By about 70,000, I think. I was coming to another question raised by Deputy Belton, and that is arising out of this question of the disposal of cattle and what we are doing, as it were, to deal with the 58 per cent. surplus. We have tried to get home consumption raised by means of the free beef scheme and we have also tried to get extra markets in Britain, Germany and elsewhere. Even so, however, I am not satisfied that we would have eased the problem to any great extent before the end of this year. It is quite possible that the British may tell us, on the 1st January, 1936, that they are not inclined to renew the coal-cattle pact. Apart from that, I do not think the Opposition think a lot of that pact. They do not consider it a good bargain and I think myself that if we could avoid making it again it would be better. It would be better if we could avoid it in such a way as to be able to get rid of our cattle and get our coal somewhere else. At any rate, we could then satisfy Deputy Dillon by using all the turf in the country because we would not have to get any coal from Great Britain.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister is getting off the line now.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think so.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister should have been here a few moments ago.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton asked me a few moments ago whether the number of cows had gone up. The number of cows has gone up and I believe also that there is a very big number of old cows here that are not by any means economical, and which it would be better to get rid of if we could get any sort of price for them at all. In that connection, we are establishing a factory in Roscrea with the object of having these old cows converted into meat-meal, not, however, into food for human consumption, as I saw in a newspaper recently. That would have the effect, of course, of reducing the number of calves.

Mr. Belton

Yes, but the number of calves that were slaughtered was double the number of the increased cows. How did the surplus cattle come in?

Dr. Ryan

We will cut down the surplus eventually. It must be remembered that every country has the same problem as we have, except that they have met it and we have not.

Mr. Cosgrave

What about England?

Dr. Ryan

England is a big importer of butter and milk products generally. She may be a much bigger importer of meat, but I am not sure that she is. However, we will take a country that tries to produce its own milk and butter and its own meat, such as France and Belgium and most of the other European countries. Germany, of course, is an importer of such products, but a small importer. These other countries are all more or less self-sufficient in that way, and they all find that the number of cows sufficient to give milk and butter and cheese and other milk products to the population is too great a number if the cattle are brought to maturity, because it would mean that you would have too much beef.

Mr. Belton

Or else they are not the type of cattle that would produce beef economically.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, I know that Deputy Belton raised the question about French calves here before. In this country we would require about 900,000 cows of the type we have at present in order to supply our own people with milk, butter, cheese and all milk products, but if the 900,000 cows had calves and the calves grew up to maturity, we could not possibly consume that much beef. We could only consume about one-third of them. The continental countries are in the same position. They have enough cows to supply them with milk products, but they do not let the cattle grow to maturity. Instead of that, they eat veal. I have been trying here to get the people to cultivate a taste for veal. I have tried to encourage it by means of a bounty on the skins. Of course, I am accused by the sanctimonious people of slaughtering the innocents. I wonder, however, where the Opposition draws the line. I do not know, because when they were in office as a Government they used to talk a lot about baby beef.

Mr. Cosgrave

How much of the meat slaughtered was consumed?

Dr. Ryan

I shall come to that later. Where does the Opposition draw the line? It is baby beef, and is a virtue with Fine Gael, when an eight months old calf is slaughtered, but it is a crime when Fianna Fáil succeeds in getting a young calf consumed. I should like to know at what age does the crime stop and virtue begin.

Mr. Cosgrave

I can tell the Minister. Anything under a month would be a crime.

Dr. Ryan

But if they were 31 days old it would be all right?

Mr. Cosgrave

It depends. It depends on whether they are finished for veal or not. It might take six weeks or two months.

Dr. Ryan

If it is ordinary fed veal?

Mr. Cosgrave

If it is fit for human consumption.

Dr. Ryan

It is the difference between what they call "bobby" veal and fed veal?

Mr. Cosgrave

Well, say, the difference between slaughtering for human consumption and for such purposes as kennels for hounds and so on.

Dr. Ryan

At any rate, I do not see any method of getting them to slaughter for veal other than to give them a financial encouragement and to say that if they slaughter a calf and consume the veal they will get the advantage of 12/6 for the calf skin. That might encourage them.

Mr. Cosgrave

A better way would be to give £1 to the owner of every animal that would pass a veterinary surgeon as fit for slaughter and give him £1 for the skin.

Dr. Ryan

I do not like too much administration. I had a scheme drawn up in connection with tuberculosis in cattle, which I expect will come before the House shortly, or before the summer holidays anyhow. My chief objection was to the administrative expenses in connection with the scheme. Practically half would go to the veterinary surgeon and the other half to the farmer. The man dealing with such a matter will have to have a certain amount of knowledge and will have to be provided with a decent salary so as to put him beyond the temptation of bribery and so on. A huge number of inspectors would be required and I think that when it would be worked out it would be found the inspectors would draw more than the farmers.

Mr. Belton

There would be more inspectors than farmers.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid so. However, it would be a good scheme if it could be worked, but it would be frightfully costly. I want to say, at any rate, that our only object in this scheme of calf slaughter is to help out this whole problem. I do not want to see a calf slaughtered. I would not enjoy it. I dislike it. I had to get a cow of my own slaughtered a few days ago on account of tuberculosis, but I made sure to be away from home at the time, because I dislike to see animals slaughtered. The whole idea behind the scheme is to get the people to cultivate a taste for veal so as not to have all these beef cattle in the country. Whether we will succeed in that or not, I do not know.

Another way of reducing the surplus is by the use of canned meat. The real difficulty about such a project is to get factories to undertake a business of that kind unless they get definite guarantees for a number of years. They will insist on getting guarantees that they will get cattle in certain definite quantities and at a certain price, and that they will be protected for a number of years, before they will consent to go into such a business as the canning of beef, beef extracts and so on, because, under ordinary free trade conditions, they could not work the thing at all. It is rather difficult to get agreement with a company to do it. We are endeavouring to get it, and I believe that we will get a company to do this thing which will perhaps be able to take some of our cattle before the end of the summer. These are the ways in which we are aiming at a permanent solution of the cattle surplus problem, that is, to get rid of the old cows, to get the people to consume veal rather than beef, and to do all the processes we want in this country in the way of canned meat, meat extracts, and so on.

Mr. McGovern

Has the Minister any way of getting rid of the adverse trade balance?

Dr. Ryan

I shall leave that to the Deputy, as he has more time than I have. Deputy Belton will be winding up this debate, and he is a wizard at figures. I have given the figure of what I thought was the disposal. I am prepared to accept any correction from Deputy Belton, if he thinks my figures are wrong. They may be wrong, because we can only make a calculation.

Mr. Belton

They are substantially good enough.

Dr. Ryan

We are disposing of at least the same number of fat cattle this year, so that the 58 per cent. is wrong. We have a surplus, but God knows what it is. I think we will have got rid of the surplus towards the end of the year. Then our exports will be coming down to the number we have to export. I was warned, but I must say I did not understand the warning, that I was on dangerous ground when talking about the coal-cattle pact. I want to repeat that this Government would be in a much freer position if we had not had to make the pact at all.

Mr. Belton

That is dangerous ground —that is your weakness. You had to make it; you had to squeal.

Dr. Ryan

Did the Deputy ever hear of any Government making an agreement that they had not to make?

Mr. Cosgrave

That is more dangerous ground still.

Dr. Ryan

A Government always has to make an agreement. Of course a Government should not make a bad agreement.

Mr. Belton

What about the threat of immediate and terrible war?

Mr. Cosgrave

That is right. That is still more dangerous ground.

Dr. Ryan

It is only a gentleman's agreement anyway.

Mr. Belton

But no gentleman gave his name to it.

Dr. Ryan

It was not necessary. Surely the Deputy does not infer that there was not a gentleman available on either side to sign?

Mr. Belton

I did not say that.

Dr. Ryan

It was not necessary at all. We trust one another.

Mr. Belton

It is a good job you have come to that.

Mr. Cosgrave

We are learning a lot of history.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy O'Higgins referred to a statement I made on one occasion and stated that I said we must maintain live stock here in order to maintain our tillage. Remember what I said; I did not say we must maintain our cattle, but our live stock. Of course I admit that if we could maintain or increase our cattle perhaps it would mean more tillage, but when you are up against it you cannot. After all, we can only consume a certain number of cattle, export a certain number to Great Britain under the quota, and export a number to other countries. That is our limit and it is all we can do.

Mr. Belton

Does not that set a limit to the tillage also?

Dr. Ryan

As far as cattle are concerned, it does. But fat cattle are not the great item that Deputies make out with regard to tillage. Our tillage does not depend altogether on fat cattle, as Deputy O'Higgins made out in his speech. Our tillage is increasing. Some opposition paper made the point that our tillage was going down because hay was bulked with the tillage. Our tillage, apart from hay, is increasing. I was only a very young boy when I could see that if a farmer increased his hay crop it was a sign that he had no stock, that he had no cash to till, and that he had to put his land into hay. It is the worst sign that a country could have. In 1934 there was less hay than for the last 10 years — a good sign for the country.

Mr. Cosgrave

And more grass.

Dr. Ryan

And more tillage. There was a little more grass, it is true, but they had not to go into hay.

Mr. Cosgrave

Seventy-five thousand acres more grass.

Dr. Ryan

It was better than hay anyway. It showed that the farmers had something to graze it. When we come down to this question of live stock and the consumption of tillage crops, hay and roots, there is not a single thing in the agricultural line that we have not more of now than in 1931 and 1932. We have more cows, more butter, more milk products, more cattle — which I regret — more pigs.

Mr. Cosgrave

Not according to your own report.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, there is what is called the pig cycle. I think that certainly, on the average, we have more.

Mr. Cosgrave

I shall give the numbers if the Minister likes.

Dr. Ryan

I am sure that the average over ten years for pigs will not beat 1934.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister is wrong. It was never as low.

Dr. Ryan

Certainly it was much lower. It was 200,000 lower in 1926 and 1927.

Mr. Cosgrave

Perhaps these years were not given, but for the years given it was lower.

Dr. Ryan

This year we are calculating on a 10 per cent. increase in eggs. We have provided that market, although Great Britain has imposed a quota. We had to look for other markets in Germany and Spain and we have provided a market with 10 per cent. extra. If eggs exceed that we will be in a difficulty about eggs. We are calculating on a 10 per cent. increase. We have more land in tillage, in wheat, beet and all the rest. There is more being produced from the soil, whether we agree about the price or not, than in 1931. There are more animals there and more production to consume the crops than there were three or four years ago, no matter what Deputy O'Higgins or anybody else may say.

Mr. Cosgrave

All the greater case for the motion.

Dr. Ryan

In 1934 we increased our import of maize over 1933. We had a good deal more barley and grain for animal feeding. In maize and barley there was a big increase in 1934 over 1933. What was consuming the maize? The people were not consuming it. I was accused on one occasion of preventing the people in the Gaeltacht and congested districts from eating maize. That was in connection with the Cereals Bill. It must be going to animals, therefore. There is a big increase in production in the country. Still we have Opposition Deputies misleading the people and saying that there are no animals to consume our crops. They should try and stick to the truth. Deputy Dr. O'Higgins talked here about cattle being the great consumers of crops. How much turnips does Deputy O'Higgins give a bullock which is being fattened? He was talking a lot about turnips. I suppose he would give him a cwt. in a day.

Mr. Belton

A cwt.? You do not want to burst him, do you?

Dr. Ryan

I will burst him, just so that nobody can contradict the argument.

Mr. Belton

The bullock I am talking about.

Dr. Ryan

We will allow the bullock 1 cwt. of turnips in the day. What does that mean? Six cattle will consume an acre of turnips while they are fattening, so that if the British have reduced our quota by 80,000, that means 13,000 acres of turnips. 13,000 acres is nothing to this Government, which has increased beet by 45,000 acres this year over three years ago. 13,000 acres of turnips is all you can claim that we have lost over this cattle quota. Take oats. We will give him, say, 7 lbs. of oats, which will mean about four cattle to the acre of oats, so that taking 80,000 cattle it means that we have lost 20,000 acres of oats and 13,000 acres of turnips.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is half of your tillage extension.

Dr. Ryan

We are growing 94,000 acres of wheat. What is 20,000 acres of oats compared with that?

Mr. Smith

And you have not done extending it.

Dr. Ryan

Not at all. We are going to expand here for the next 25 years.

Mr. Belton

If you do, we will be eating turnips with the cattle.

Dr. Ryan

We have 1,200,000 cows. We have about 230,000 fat cattle in the year for ourselves. Deputy Dillon talks about farmyard manure. One million two hundred thousand cows produce a great percentage of the farmyard manure. What about the 80,000 cattle we lost? One of the principal points of the Opposition is about farmyard manure. Every time they go on a platform they talk about it. They say we cannot carry on without farmyard manure. What does it amount to? We have lost 80,000 cattle in the quota with England, and it is going to ruin tillage in this country because there is no farmyard manure! That is Deputy Dillon's chief point.

Mr. Belton

What have we lost in the cattle England is taking?

Dr. Ryan

We will come to that later.

Mr. Dillon

We have lost the market, thanks be to God.

Dr. Ryan

I was, for the moment, dealing with Deputy Dillon's point about farmyard manure.

Mr. Dillon

Deal with it now.

Dr. Ryan

We have 1,200,000 cows. We have lost 80,000 cattle in the quota with England. What great difference does that number make, in the matter of manure, as against 1,200,000 cows? This 1,200,000 cows are in during the whole winter, while the 80,000 cattle are indoors only about eight weeks.

Mr. Dillon

Has not Senator Connolly thanked God that the market could be destroyed in one hundred days?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy may try to run away from the chief argument which he used in his speech — farmyard manure.

Mr. Dillon

I did not use any argument in my speech, because I would not be allowed to speak.

Dr. Ryan

I did not stop you from speaking, because I like to hear you. It puts me rather at a disadvantage when Deputy Dillon does not speak before me. He always gives me plenty of material when he speaks before me. It is not so easy to reply to Deputy Belton, because he makes good points.

Mr. Belton

We are getting on.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy O'Higgins tried to make little of my bit of a farm in Greystones. It is just as hard to farm in Greystones as in Leix, and probably harder, because we have to pay a little more wages. He said he was reared on a farm of 90 acres and that they employed five men. They produced crops but no grain. I wonder how long can farming go on without grain. Perhaps Deputy Belton will deal with this, because I should like to have his views. Suppose you went on sowing root crops—potatoes, beet and so on—how long can that continue without grain? It appears to me that it would be rather difficult to carry on. Perhaps it could be done for years and years, but it appears to me to be rather a peculiar type of tillage. This particular farm employed five men. My little bit of a farm is only 25 acres, and I employ four men because I have the mixed tillage which Deputy O'Higgins was more or less condemning. I grow wheat, oats, turnips, mangolds, potatoes, tobacco, and several other things which I do not want to name now. I keep horses, cattle, pigs, sheep and poultry. That is really mixed farming.

Mr. Dillon

It is a great 25 acres.

Dr. Ryan

And I employ four men. There is nothing whatsoever to be deduced from that, because you certainly cannot take statistics on one farm against another.

Mr. Donnelly

Have you any tomatoes?

Dr. Ryan

I have tomatoes and rhubarb.

Mr. Belton

It would be better if you had not let the Northern apples in to swamp the market.

Dr. Ryan

There is one thing I have not got and that is fat cattle, and still, mind you, I give employment. I have more farmyard manure than I can use for the tillage. I have to put some of it on grass. If Deputy Dillon comes down to Greystones I will solve his problem for him. I have no fat cattle at all; I have quite a lot of tillage, and have more farmyard manure than is required for the tillage.

Mr. Belton

I am afraid you are a rancher.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Dillon was ruled out of order for talking about wheat. I do not want to go into that question. I will stick to cattle. It is absolutely uneconomic for this country to produce cattle because we can get all the meat we want from the Argentine for 1½d. per lb. Why should Deputy Bennett's neighbour pay him for producing cattle and making our consumer pay 9d. per lb? Why should Deputy McGovern's neighbour have to pay 9d. per lb. for meat when we can get it from the Argentine for 1½d. per lb? That is a good argument. It appears a good argument to Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Dillon. According to Deputy Dillon it is an unanswerable argument that we can import wheat cheaper than we can grow it. We can import meat much cheaper than we can produce it. We can get it at 1½d. per lb. from the Argentine, and it is good meat. We can get all the meat we want for the population of this country without producing cattle at all, because they are costing too much. There is no reason why we should produce bacon. Irish bacon is sold by the factory at 90/- per cwt. We can import it at 36/- per cwt. from China and Poland. Why should we produce our own bacon. It is uneconomic. "Uneconomic" is the word used by the Opposition. It is an unanswerable argument as far as Deputy Dillon is concerned. Why should we produce bacon of our own when we can import it at that price?

Why should we produce butter? We could get butter from Australia at 66/- a cwt. all the year round and our own creameries are getting 100/- per cwt. for it. Why should we subsidise them? We can get cheaper poultry from Russia; cheaper eggs from China and Egypt and we can get all those things for a quarter of the price we pay to our own farmers. We would have a grand country and we could all live on nothing, importing our wheat, our meat, our bacon, our butter, our sugar, eggs and poultry. Everything could be imported a whole lot cheaper. Even tinned milk could be imported. It is good enough, especially when you get it cheap.

Mr. Dillon

What would you do with the grass?

Dr. Ryan

What would you do with the grass except to lie on it, unless you go back and eat the grass like Nebuchadnezzar.

Mr. Dillon

Are we to take it as the view of the Minister that the Argentine meat shipped to this country in a chilled condition is just as good as Irish baby beef — is that the Minister's official view?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad to hear it. The Minister said a moment ago that he could get as good meat from the Argentine.

Dr. Ryan

No; I said we could get very good meat but none of these things are as good as the Irish produce. Neither is the wheat that we are importing. I say it is not as good as our own.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister says that Manitoba wheat is not as good as ours?

Dr. Ryan

We are growing Manitoba wheat.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Minister prepared to give it as his official view that Irish wheat is as good as Manitoba wheat?

Dr. Ryan

We are growing No. 1 Manitoba wheat. Perhaps the Deputy does not know that the millers are prepared to pay more for it than for the imported Manitoba wheat and that they have paid more for it.

Mr. Dillon

I am asking the Minister for his official view. Is Irish wheat, in his opinion, superior to Manitoba wheat?

Dr. Ryan

It is.

Mr. Dillon

It is no wonder agriculture is in the position in which it is in this country.

Dr. Ryan

If we followed the Deputy's argument to its natural conclusion we should import bacon, eggs and butter. That is the logic.

Mr. Dillon

It is the logic of Grangegorman.

Dr. Ryan

I admit that; I quite admit it, and the wonder is that the Deputy is not there already.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Kelly and I will look after him when he gets there.

Mr. Dillon

Set a thief to catch a thief.

Mr. Briscoe

We are on the Board, anyway, and we will not be locked up.

Dr. Ryan

I have only a few words more to say. Deputy O'Higgins, when speaking on this motion, more or less rebuked Deputy Donnelly for not taking this second resolution in a friendly way and joining with the Opposition, or with Deputy Belton and the Opposition. This resolution requests the Government to do a number of things. I think the Government have, as Deputy Donnelly has said, done a good deal of what has been asked in these two motions Nos. 8 and 9. The first motion asked the Dáil to express its dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Ministry of Agriculture had allocated the import licences for fat cattle. That motion is put down in the name of Deputies Belton and Byrne. I do not know exactly what Deputy Byrne thinks about this motion, but I have a fair idea of what Deputy Belton thinks about it. I think he put it down in order to draw attention to the fact that the exporters have been given the licences and not the producers. That was the big grievance that Deputy Belton thought they had. I have already told the House that all the "fats" are going to the producer and half of the stores.

Mr. Bennett

Will that continue during the summer?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. We could not have done that without the Cattle Act because we have to bring the marketing conditions into effect.

Mr. Belton

The motion was justified at the time.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. But if the motion were justified at the time the Minister met the Deputy, the Deputy can have but one reason now for pressing it and that is to point out that it is to him is due the fact that the licences were given to the producers. Under the circumstances I think the Deputy should have withdrawn the motion seeing that we have met the provision in the way we did.

Mr. Belton

Will you set up a register and I will consider your request? Will you keep a public register in your Department in which will be entered the names of the people who get the licences?

Dr. Ryan

I will not keep it in the Department.

Mr. Belton

Keep it where it can be seen and inspected by the citizens.

Dr. Ryan

It would need to be kept at the Nelson Pillar.

Mr. Belton

Keep it in a field.

Dr. Ryan

The second motion, Item No. 9 on the Agenda, asks the Government to take steps to secure a market for 58 per cent. of surplus stall-fed cattle. Now, first of all there is not 58 per cent. of surplus stall-fed cattle. That figure was a false one. It was not 58 per cent. of the exported cattle but 58 per cent. of the cattle produced. I have given the figures which I have asked Deputy Belton to check. We expect the disposal of fat cattle this year will be higher than the number of fat cattle disposed of in 1931. So there again we have gone, further than Deputy Belton ever expected we could go when he put down the resolution. I do not know that the Deputy could make very much of a case for the motion. I know he put it down in a friendly way. I quite welcome the discussion and I am sure the Deputy in winding up the debate will accept that in the same spirit.

Mr. Belton

I would like if the Minister would say if he has considered the question of a register. If he would consider that favourably it would remove a lot of the grievances that I see in this problem and it would remove a lot of what I thought the Government failed to do and that they should have done in order to meet the case.

Mr. Haslett

I think that the Minister is correct when he says that a good deal of change has taken place in reference to the allocation of export licences for fat cattle. We have had 15 months' experience of the giving of licences. We find that in the last month or two licences have been more freely in circulation. But I do not think the Minister could be at all satisfied that he has made the scheme watertight. Personally, I sympathise with the Minister and his Department in trying to allocate the licences. Any little say I have in the matter would be in favour of the genuine exporter and producer. These are the two people who ought to get the licences. It is nothing short of a scandal to see the way in which licences have been given. The Minister has explained where the leakage comes in. For my own information I have gone up to the market on Thursdays and I find there what is really a scandal, men offering licences for sale who can neither be described as producers or exporters. We are made a laughing stock to onlookers. The Minister says that licences will now be given in the main to producers and to the genuine exporters. There is no argument to be used against the transfer of licences because the great object in distributing the licences to those who are genuinely in need of them is that they may get the benefit — that the person who is producing live stock will get the possible maximum for his cattle.

If he gets a licence, whether he sells his beast to an exporter or not, he gets the benefit of the licence and that achieves what the Minister wants and what we all want—that the producer will get the maximum value for his beast. It would not be at all right, I think, to make any regulation prohibiting the transfer of licences as between producers and exporters. At the store sales, at the present time, when the cattle come into the ring it is announced that there are so many licences available with them and they are sold, and legitimately sold, that way. In regard to the fat cattle, the position with regard to the licences in respect of these is something like this: Last year, at the back-end of the season, as we call it, the store licences were issued but the British regulations were such that if a beast was fat or would kill a certain percentage of dead carcase, it might be confiscated if it were described as a store, and, in that way, there was a surplus of beef cattle left on the market which had to be kept and which we were quite anxious to get rid of. To wait for beef licences for all those was out of the question, and we had to get rid of them as well as we could. In passing, I might say that our new legislation——

Mr. Esmonde

On a point of order, I think there is not a quorum in the House.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present

Mr. Haslett

I was dealing with our being compelled to keep a great many fat cattle on hands because we could not get them out on store licences, as there were not so many available. At the present time, the situation is a good deal eased, and as a result of the coal-cattle pact, and the extra quotas, the licences are much more free. Whatever may be said, and a good deal has been said and, I suppose, will be said, about the coal-cattle pact, the producers have welcomed it in this regard, that it will ease the situation so far as stores are concerned. Whether, in the ultimate result, it can be argued that it is good or bad, as a producer of cattle and as one who lives by the soil, as a tillage farmer, I say that, while it was not perhaps the very best bargain that could be made, I think the President was right to take it when he could make no better.

What I object to in this discussion is the attitude of the Government members to the question of cattle. On a motion last week, Deputy Briscoe scorned such things as cattle and spoke scornfully of the bullock. I should like to remind Deputy Briscoe and other members that, in an inland county, such as I live in, Monaghan, we have no option. There is no such thing as market gardening or the sale of new milk to any extent there, and we are thrown back on cattle as part of our industry. It is vital to our interests that we have a market for them, and that we can dispose of them to the very best advantage. When speaking to-night, the Minister rather deprecated cattle-raising and spoke in a manner which suggested that he thought other things would be better. While I welcome the Government policy of more industry and more tillage, my experience of farming has been that cattle will go hand in hand with that, and we must look to cattle as the gatherer of the wealth and prosperity for our export purposes, and to keep our imports and exports nearly right. I think it is a wrong attitude to take up that, because we have a certain number of cattle in the country, we cannot have tillage. Modern methods have proved to us that the carrying capacity of our country is not utilised to the full at all and, if as this motion asks, we could have a freer market and a better market for our stock, we could go hand in hand with the Government's policy as well as with the cattle policy.

The Minister in speaking about hay, said that it was a cardinal point that absence of hay meant that cattle were going out of the country. There is a point of difference in that because, under tillage regulation, there is first and second crop hay which comes within the ambit of the term "tillage", and in that way we might have considerably more acreage of tillage and there could be a difference there. With regard to the other commodities we are producing in inland counties, there is the question of potatoes. Is there any need for our putting a larger acreage under potatoes? Are they not at the moment cheap enough in that people, who are some distance from Dublin, can scarcely get a market for them at all and are selling them at less than the cost of production? We are producing butter, but if it were not for Government help at the moment, butter would be an uneconomic proposition. The fat cattle, the finished product, are what use up the by-products of our tillage. They work into our system in this country and are a recognised medium by which people can meet their bills.

Somebody mentioned about the seasonal sale and about coming on towards November. Coming towards November, as anyone in the country knows, we have far larger commitments as farmers than at any other period of the year and it is essential we should have something to meet them. The problem for our people is to have something coming on that they can sell so as to meet their liabilities, and from November onwards it is maddening, after producing the season's crop and after having reared our stock, to have to sell them at a price far below what they should bring. The Minister has been telling us what he has done for us in the way of helping us with our markets and giving us bounties and subsidies for what we are selling. As has been pointed out in this session, the bounties and subsidies are about equal to the sum originally mentioned as in dispute, so that really the Minister is giving us in the subsidy the amount we are fighting about and yet our cattle are on an average £5 per head less than they should be on the world price. The effect of that is seen all over the country. Anyone doing business in the country finds that things are tightening up and the people tell you frankly they have not the means to meet their accounts. It is essential that the very best price should be got and that the Government, through the medium of such measures as it can adopt, should alleviate the lot of the people.

I might mention also that recent legislation, such as the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, is cutting across the prices we are getting for our cattle. In the fairs that were recently held in my locality an inspector from the Department was there. He was anxious to know what was going on and he was warning people not to sell below the fixed price. There were men there to buy the cattle and when the Government agent issued his warning we had the spectacle of a man unable to give the price, unable to force anybody else to give the fixed price, and yet preventing the seller from getting what he could get in the ordinary way. There is nothing more uneconomic than a fat beast when it comes to the time to sell it. Keeping such a beast for a month or so in the hope of getting another shilling or two a cwt. would not compensate one for the feeding of it. Really it has come to this, that the producer wants to get clear as soon as he can and cut his losses as early as possible. I mention this to show that our legislation, including the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act and the free meat legislation, in so far as they have relation to the minimum price, have been rather a hindrance to us because the local butchers are afraid to buy at what would be the market price for fear of losing their licences and the exporter is the same. One is, therefore, thrown back on doing the best he can.

The debate on these motions has been carried on with a great deal of goodwill. I think a good deal of the air has been cleared by what the Minister said about his endeavours to distribute the licences more equitably. If he follows along that path he will achieve what the first resolution seeks to achieve, and that is that the legitimate trader, the legitimate exporter and producer, shall receive the licences and that will do away with the spectacle of fellows who have no responsibility whatever, who are not exporters or producers, offering licences for sale in the open market.

As regards the second motion, perhaps enough has been said, and I do not want to prolong the debate any further. Except we in the midland counties have a return in the way this resolution suggests, we will not be able to meet our commitments. In the county from which I come the people hold a very good place as regards the payment of rates and annuities. We hope the Government will do its best to make it easy for us to carry on.

Mr. Bennett

These two resolutions have been many months on the Order Paper. Someone opposite has said that if we were introducing them now they might be worded somewhat differently. I do not know that they would be. I will admit that there is about to be some improvement as regards issuing licences owing, perhaps, to the fact that these motions were down for consideration. There has been an attempt made to improve matters. I was not here at the beginning of the Minister's speech, but I understand he said the licences will henceforth be distributed to the producers, to the legitimate traders. The argument of many of us has been that the licences should have been, if possible, given altogether to the producers. I am not denying that the exporters, the traders, have certain rights and their rights should be protected. They have the right to export as they have hitherto been exporting, but they have not the right to whatever pecuniary advantage attaches to an export licence. That is the producer's right and until the producer gets the licences in larger numbers no arrangement will bring him the pecuniary advantage that he ought to derive.

When this resolution was first submitted and when it was stated here that the possession of a licence was worth £4 or £5, that statement was met with derision but it afterwards turned out that we were right. We had the Minister for Agriculture admitting that a licence was a valuable possession. When the Minister came to recognise that, he attempted to rectify the position and a definite price was fixed that exporters were to pay. Exporters were bound to pay a fixed price to the farmers from whom they purchased the cattle. We all knew that the Minister would not be able to enforce that regulation.

Deputy Haslett has pointed to the experience of people in his county. Because of the presence of an inspector, the buyer was not able to offer a price and the seller was not able to sell at any price. In my county many men were producing fat cattle in the grass season. I pointed out there was a danger that these men would be left with the cattle on their hands. In September, October and November many of these men were relying on the Minister's proposal to give them 25/- a cwt. That amount was afterwards reduced to 22/-. The producers refused to sell in September, October and November. They held the cattle, hoping that the Minister's promise would be fulfilled and that they would get the fixed price. What happened to them? They did not sell their cattle at the right time, there was no possibility of obtaining even 17/- a cwt. since and the cattle are still on their hands. These people have lost the chance of whatever little market there was. The animals are worth very little now except they keep them for another year and fatten them again.

I believe still that some machinery can be arranged to give the licences to the producers. Let them get whatever financial advantage can be got out of the possession of a licence. There is no possibility of the financial advantage reaching them until that is done. As long as the exporters are getting the licences, they will not pass on to the farmer whatever value they get out of the possession of the licences. If the farmers themselves get them it does not mean that they will put the exporters out of the market. The exporters will be there, as they always were there, to buy the cattle. The individual farmer only wants to sell his cattle at the best price he can get and he wants the exporter to give him a just price for his cattle, which certainly did not happen in the last 12 or 18 months. The mere fact that the farmer possesses the licence is going to be the best guarantee that he will get the best price, because the exporter will be under the fear that if the farmers in general do not get a fair price for their cattle, they will turn into exporters themselves. That would be the greatest possible guarantee that the farmers would get the benefit of these licences. As I say, I believe that machinery can be arranged to give the licences to the producers.

The Minister, I think, said, in a speech some time ago, that it would be impossible to trace or keep a list of the individual farmers and that it would be impossible to distribute the licences equitably. I admit that there would be trouble about it, but I believe that it could be done, nevertheless. When we had epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease, and when, in the Dublin market, ten or 12 or more cattle were found to be suffering from it, the individual farmer who owned these cattle was found within 48 hours or 24 hours, and sometimes even ten hours, although none of the exporters had his name. What they could do then they could do now under any legislation the Minister desires to make. They could easily make out some list and the Minister could get proper evidence as to who the producers were and the number of cattle they were exporting.

The Minister, when making his case for the licensing system, developed the argument that it would be increasingly difficult to export cattle from this country and that, in fact, regulations would have to be brought in to reduce the number of cattle and so on. He made the remarkable statement that it was absolutely uneconomic to produce cattle in this country and, to back that up, he quoted that we could get Argentine beef at 1½d. per lb. Perhaps we could, but does the Minister insinuate that the people of this State, if they can afford to buy good home-fed beef such as the producers in every country use themselves, should be compelled, as a matter of economy, to eat canned or frozen or some other kind of Argentine beef at 1½d per lb.? Even as an economic proposition, and even if he did let in the Argentine meat at that price, does he say that cattle here would still not be worth more than that? The average store beast here would realise a much greater price than that, even in such conditions, and it could be exported to Great Britain in greater quantities, and, will be exported in future in great quantities, if care is taken in finding and extending the market in Great Britain. A couple of nights ago in this House the Minister himself, or if not he, certainly some other Minister, made great play on the fact that England was going in for an extension of beef production herself and that in a very short time the export of beef from this country to England would be very difficult to maintain; that the quotas issued against us would be so great that our beef export would be at an end.

Even if it does come to that — and I do not believe it will — I think that Britain will always need far more home-killed beef than she could produce. Even if she could consume every head of home-killed beef, we will still have a market for our store cattle there, and because of the fact that England increases her home production of beef to the disadvantage of the foreigner we will gain rather than lose because of necessity England will have to find a greater number of stores, and the best of stores, and the only economical place where England can find a good store is in this country. I do not know whether Deputies on the opposite side are aware of it or not, but it is a well-known fact that a good Irish store is, nine times out of ten, as valuable, pound for pound, as good beef. Deputies opposite may or may not be aware of that, but a really good Irish store is worth as much per pound as beef, and there is a ready market for it across the Channel always. That market will be there even if England goes in for an intensive production of home-killed beef. The more of that she uses, the better we ought to be pleased, and the more luck we ought to wish her in the advancement of that policy.

The Minister went into the question of tillage very elaborately. I do not intend to develop that but the Minister made comparisons between his own farm and the farm belonging to Deputy O'Higgins' family. The Minister tried to prove that, because he had several acres of tillage and so on he was a very good farmer, and that because of the fact that the O'Higgins' were producing more cattle they were not good farmers. If he did not actually say that, he tried to imply it. He made one statement, however, which was unfair to Deputy O'Higgins, but I think it was due to the fact that the Minister heard him wrongly. I thought, therefore, that I ought to correct it here. He said that Deputy O'Higgins had said that he sowed no grain but produced cattle. Deputy O'Higgins did not say any such thing. He did not say that he sowed no grain, but that he sold no grain. The difference between selling and sowing is great. Accordingly, I think it is only fair to make that correction.

The Minister made one rather remarkable statement in reply, I think, to Deputy Dillon. It is a statement that I, for one, would not like to let go unchallenged. I think that if there is an opinion offered definitely on one side of the House there ought to be somebody on the other side of the House to speak also. The Minister made the remarkable admission that, in his opinion, and I think he said that he was backed up by millers, we can grow No. 1 Manitoba wheat in this country better than they can grow it in Canada. I hope I am correct in that and that I am not misquoting the Minister. Perhaps he said that we grow Irish wheat better than No. 1 Manitoba wheat. Whichever it may be, I can only say that that is not my experience. With equal definiteness I can say, for one Deputy on this side of the House anyhow, that we certainly cannot grow Manitoba wheat or any other wheat in this country equal to No. 1 or No. 2 Manitoba wheat grown in Canada.

Mr. Donnelly

That is nonsense.

Mr. Bennett

I should like to get a declaration from any miller in this country that we can grow wheat of any description equal to No. 1 or No. 2 Manitoba. If we cannot have a debate in this House without making extravagant statements of that description it is useless to be debating at all. I admit there has been an improvement lately and that the quality of the wheat has possibly improved. But, several years ago, on two different occasions in this House I issued a challenge that if there was any really good milling wheat grown in this country it had escaped my notice. I think that appeared in the Press. I issued that challenge then and I repeat it now. My challenge was that I never saw a grain of Irish wheat grown that was as good as No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 Manitoba. That challenge was never taken up in three years.

As Deputy Donnelly said times have changed and we are all learning a little. I am not going to retract my statement, but I shall water it down, lest the great agricultural policy of the Minister has succeeded to the extent that he says it has, that we are producing better wheat than they produce in Manitoba. I said years ago that we were not producing as good a wheat as No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 Manitoba, or, if we were, that it must be hidden, because I never saw it. In my younger days for a good many years my job was the grading of wheat at 2½ dollars a day. I pretended then to know something about it, and I pretend still. I never saw a grain of Irish wheat that I would grade as good as No. 1 or No. 2 Manitoba. The Minister says it is there, and I would like to see it. The debate has gone largely outside the motion, but the Minister himself was partly responsible for that, and one had to answer him.

Mr. Belton

What about the Chair?

Mr. Bennett

I am acknowledging the courtesy of the Chair in allowing me to reply to the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be wiser not to draw the Chair's attention to that.

Mr. Bennett

I should like to appeal to the Minister, even though he has improved the position as regards the licences somewhat lately, and that we have his promise that the privilege he has given to the producers of cattle during the winter will be continued during the summer, and that a certain proportion of the licences will go to the farmer producers, that that will be extended, and, if possible, that it will be arranged that all the licences will go to the producers. I believe that machinery can be arranged to produce that state of affairs through a register or in some other way. It can be done without injuring the exporters in any way, because every farmer Deputy on the Government Benches knows as well as we do that an individual farmer who gets a licence is not going to turn into an exporter. I hope that the motion will have some effect, and that the Minister will be induced to give a larger proportion of the licences eventually to the producers.

Mr. McGovern

A good many things have been discussed on these motions. The Minister referred to the licences for store cattle. I find that the store cattle licences are not being distributed fairly at all. I only had occasion once to go to the Department for store cattle licences. I do not know whether the man was entitled to them or not, but I was told he was not. I was told further that if I went to some other section of the Department I might get them. That simply meant that I might get them as a favour. I did not want to get them as a favour. I think licences should be given as a right. If I get a favour, somebody else is going to suffer the loss so long as the licences are limited. I think this thing should be done fairly and that nobody should take advantage of it to try and secure a favour. That is the worst thing about the whole licensing business — the thing is not being done fairly.

I know another man who exported 12 store cattle last year. He wanted licences for a number of store cattle this year and he got a reply from the Department that, owing to the demand for licences, he could not get any this time. That does not bear out the Minister's statement. If that man was entitled to get licences last year and got licences and exported his cattle, why did he not get them this year? Of course, the answer is that somebody else got the licences to which he was entitled. That is really what is happening. It is a bad system to introduce into this country because, sooner or later, it will lead step by step to a worse form of corruption. Every Deputy on every side of the House should try to uphold the good name which this country has always had and there should be nothing in the nature of corruption admitted into the Department or its administration. There is no reason why a man who got licences last year for the export of store cattle should not get an equal number this year, especially as the number has been increased owing to the coal-cattle pact.

The coal-cattle pact was of some use. The Minister says that the Opposition do not think much of it. They ought not to think much of it, but it is better than nothing. It is a step in the right direction. The Minister missed opportunities of getting a better arrangement with Great Britain. After trying to get alternative markets, he found that it was good business to fall back upon the market that he has so long despised and to be satisfied with small mercies there. I think it was a wise thing for him to learn that much and I hope he will learn more.

The only thing that the Minister seems to be concerned about is to reduce the number of cattle by any means. It is not a question of selling them at the best price in the best market, but to be rid of them by any means or by any method. I think that is a foolish policy. We do not want to get rid of the cattle, but to turn them into money. If the cattle have to be disposed of, they can be disposed of, of course, in many ways. I asked the Minister a question: "Had he any plan for getting rid of the adverse trade balance by disposing of the cattle except by selling them at a remunerative price?" That is one of the difficulties that he is making for the country.

This adverse trade balance has grown from £13,000,000 in 1931 to over £20,000,000 in 1934. If it goes on at that rate the country may be able to put up with it for a time, but the time will be very limited. This is a matter about which we are all concerned. It is in the interests of this or any other country to try to keep its trade balance right, and to try and balance its trade as well as balance its budget. The Minister thinks that the bounty given on calf skins and the price given for calf skins is going to make up for the loss sustained in the cattle business. Deputy Donnelly referred to bullocks. He thinks it is a great shame to have bullocks in this country. He asked me a question about Colmcille's prophecy — did he make any reference to bullocks? I do not undertake to interpret St. Colmcille, but I gave a quotation from him and I will leave it to Deputy Donnelly or any other Deputy in the House to interpret it. One of the things he said was that the package would be worth more than the contents. I do not know whether that refers to calf skins or not. I leave it to Deputy Donnelly or anybody else to take whatever meaning they like out of it. Personally, I think it refers to calf skins and that, therefore, he refers to bullocks.

Mr. Donnelly

Sheep!

Mr. McGovern

I am not going to argue on the point. I leave it to the Deputy to see for himself. I think it is more important to sell our cattle and try to get a good price than to dispose of them by putting our hand in the other pocket to pay ourselves for the calf skins. The Minister asks what can he do, and says that we are limited by the quota. That is quite true, but when he speaks like that is it not an admission of failure? The quota limit represents the limit of statesmanship, and the limit of the power of the Fianna Fáil Party to make a trade agreement. It shows the limit of their ability. For the last few years other countries have increased the value of their exports to this despised British market in which the Minister admits he is unable to get any quota, even at the reduced prices. He referred also to the price at which Argentine beef can be bought, but he had to admit that Irish beef cannot be compared with Argentine beef. The same applies to Irish bacon or Irish produce of any sort. If the prices which we obtain in the British market are not sufficient how then can we carry on at a price which is 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. lower than that? I find that the prices in Northern Ireland compare favourably with the prices four or five years ago. There is no such thing as bad prices there, and there is an extraordinary demand, because they are bringing in cattle there night and day. If Deputy Donnelly were living a little bit nearer to the Border, he would know more about trade.

Mr. Donnelly

If I lived on the other side of it?

Mr. McGovern

If you were convenient to the Border at either side you would know more about it. I should not be surprised if the Deputy knows more about it than he cares to let on. It is nonsensical to say that Irish beef or Irish cattle would not be in demand in the British market. The British Minister for Agriculture has made provision for increasing the price of beef to the British farmer. The British farmer comes over here for his store cattle, and we in County Cavan and many other counties in this State are more concerned about the price of store cattle than of fat cattle. Deputy Belton is more concerned about the price of fat cattle, but I am more concerned about store cattle. Everybody is not in the happy position of the people in County Dublin and some other counties who have land which is able to fatten cattle.

Mr. Belton

If there is not a good price for fat cattle where will you get a price for store cattle?

Mr. McGovern

Exactly. We want a good price for fat cattle, but we want the price for the store cattle to be up to the price for stall feeders at home, and the stall feeders beyond the water. Unless the store cattle improve I see no hope for the man on the inferior land, because he cannot grow wheat. His only means are derived from feeding cattle, sheep, pigs and fowl. With regard to bacon and eggs, we are limited here again as well as in the sale of bullocks. The Minister for Agriculture told us some time ago that he had reduced the bounty on eggs in order to discourage their production. It is a very strange policy for a Minister for Agriculture to cut down production of every sort. What will be the repercussions on the people on the land? What will be the repercussions on the workers, for instance, so many of whom are already unemployed? How many more will be added to the unemployed list if there is no sale for eggs, or at least only a limited sale, and if there is a limited sale for beef and a limited sale for bacon? If we have not a market as an outlet for our surplus produce there is no use in producing anything. This country cannot carry on if it is only to produce agricultural products to feed our own population. Any child knows that that could not be accepted as a sane policy.

We have something like 16,000,000 acres of arable land. The Minister for Agriculture stated that we want only 900,000 cows. Any other cattle are regarded by him and by most of the Fianna Fáil Party as a nuisance. Deputy Donnelly, at any rate, believes that anything beyond that number is a nuisance. According to them the only thing to do is to sell the skins and get a good price for them. That will create unemployment on the land and will increase the congestion in the towns and cities.

The people are already flying off the land and getting into the towns, because they have a better chance of getting free beef and unemployment assistance there than they would have in the country. That problem will be growing worse and worse unless there is a market for our surplus agricultural produce. Unless there is, unemployment is bound to increase. About 2,000,000 acres will feed 900,000 milch cows, and 500,000 acres will supply all the wheat we want; 1,500,000 will supply tobacco, beet and the other needs of the people. Then the problem will remain what is to be done with the rest of the 12,500,000 acres. That will become a serious problem. What is the use of distributing land and giving it to the people who will have no market for their produce?

Mr. Donnelly

What about the human population? Let us have your views on that.

Mr. McGovern

Perhaps in 100 years our population will have grown so rapidly that we will be able to use all our produce, but there is no use in talking about what may happen in 100 years. In 100 years we will all be dead and forgotten. We have to face the problems of the present and the near future, and we have to deal with them. That is what I would like the Minister and his Party and everybody in this House to face up to. Let us deal with the problems before us at the present moment. It looks as if we are the only wise people in the world. All the foolish nations in the world are looking for the market which we have despised. All these nations are walking in. The Danes, Canadians, the Australians and others are very glad to get the market that we are throwing away. It all boils down to one problem, that we must get a market or the country will not be able to carry on. The people will have to lower or alter their standard of living if the Government are prepared to persist in their present policy. We cannot continue importing petrol, motor cars and other luxuries, mounting up the adverse balance until the credit of the State goes down. The result will be a financial crash and an economic crash. It is better to look a little bit forward and see what is threatening before we reach the precipice. I warn Deputies that we are rapidly moving towards that precipice. I hope everyone on the Fianna Fáil side will take a reasonable view of the situation. Sooner or later it must be faced up to. I do not want to say much more upon this question.

Mr. Cooney

Hear, hear!

Mr. McGovern

We have talked a great deal over these things; there is only one way out of our difficulties and we must be prepared to face that way sooner or later. In making the coal-cattle pact the Minister acknowledged that he made an advantageous settlement for this country. He should try on the same lines to make an advantageous settlement for us on the whole British market. The coal-cattle pact was an admission of the value of that market. As the Minister has admitted its value in that particular instance, I hope he will follow the same principle in getting an advantageous settlement now and in opening up the British market for our surplus produce. Unless that is done the country cannot continue. We know the position of farmers and everybody down the country. Deputy Donnelly may not know it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Belton to conclude. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, the two questions will be put as soon as Item 8 has been debated. Item 9 will have to be formally proposed and seconded, but there is to be no debate. If a division is desired, well and good.

Mr. Belton

The understanding is that this concludes the debate on the two motions.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, on the two.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Donnelly and the Minister for Agriculture endeavoured to make a case that there was no need now for this motion, thereby implying that there was need for the motion when it was put down. The Minister has gone even a bit further and pointed out all that has been done in the last year by his Department to meet the case that, in fact, has been made for this motion. I admit that a good deal has been done by the Minister and his Department in that direction. I admit now, and I was prepared to admit a year ago, the difficulties with which the Minister was beset after the notification had been conveyed to him by the British Government that ten days from the receipt of that only a quota of our cattle would be allowed into the British market. The Minister had to provide machinery. At the outset he had to decide as to what class of people should get the licences and then, after having decided that principle, he had to devise machinery by which the administration of the scheme of licences could be carried out and he had to get the licences down to the class of people who were to be given them; and the licences had to be distributed equitably. It was impossible of course to have the thing perfect at such short notice.

When this motion was put down the situation was so bad that it was justified, but I do not think that we got from the Minister all the satisfaction that we looked for. This motion, however, has done good.

There has been no discussion on any motion with which I was connected since I came into this House that I am better pleased with than the discussion on this motion. If it were nothing more than the spirit in which this motion was discussed, it should be productive of a good deal of good. I was particularly impressed by the way the Minister met us. Though he defended his position and his Department as doing all that was possible in the circumstances, he tacitly admitted that there was a good deal more to be done and he said he was prepared to meet the situation in every way he could. I put it to the Minister that what I am asking him to do now is all that is left outstanding as to what he could immediately do. Of course, it would not entirely meet the situation. But possibly it is as much as the Minister could do in the existing circumstances. I ask him to keep a register of the licensees, giving the total number of licences granted. If that register were kept in a suitable place where it could be examined, on the payment of a nominal fee, by any citizen who felt himself aggrieved, it would go a long way to meet us. I do not think the Minister is as much now against that as he was. For that reason I suggest again for his very careful consideration that he should keep this register. I am not putting it to him as a request. There is one thing that seems to confuse the speakers on both sides of the House and that is the matter of licences being non-transferable. I never suggested for a moment that if a producer got a licence for a beast and sold it, the licence could not be transferred to the new owner. I had in mind a system of endorsement from one owner to the other, when the beast was sold, by which that licence could be transferred to the new owner with an endorsement from the previous owner.

Deputy Donnelly, when speaking on this motion before the Minister, quoted Arthur Griffith's dictum on protection. Deputy Donnelly should know his Arthur Griffith pretty well and the famous foundation of Griffith's policy that we are a one-armed nation and that we should be a two-armed nation. There is a big difference between stepping towards being a two-armed nation and becoming an armless nation. The Deputy should make sure that in endeavouring to be a two-armed nation he does not have the one arm we have amputated.

Mr. Donnelly

That is partition.

Mr. Belton

No, it is not the line of the black pig I am thinking of now.

Mr. Donnelly

Partition did that some time ago.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Donnelly pointed out that two or three years ago our bill for wheat, and wheat products, I presume——

Mr. Donnelly

No, wheat only.

Mr. Belton

——was £2,500,000 and he said we were now endeavouring to save that £2,500,000. It would take from 500,000 to 700,000 acres of land to grow the wheat that would be worth that. This sum of £2,500,000 which we would save is not a complete saving. It is not something we can pick up. In considering agricultural policy and alternative crops, you cannot take, say, 700,000 acres of land and say: "We will get out of that £2,500,000 if we grow wheat." If we do not grow wheat, it does not follow that we are going to have that land idle and get nothing out of it. The question you have to consider is whether you will get more out of growing wheat and saving £2,500,000 of a bill or whether you will get more by utilising that land for some other crop or some other mode of economy. Personally, I support wheat growing, but consider the time we are in. You are growing wheat and endeavouring to get a supply of wheat to satisfy our own requirements, at a time when the price we must guarantee for wheat is double the world market price.

Is it good business? That is what you have to consider. The subject of what is done on the Continent has often been introduced here. They keep up the price, but they do it as a military precaution. The Deputy is aware, I am sure, of the saying of Von Bülow in 1913: "We must keep within the protection of our guns the land on which our cattle graze and the fields in which we grow our corn." They do it as a matter of military precaution, and they must do it. It is an insurance, just as much as they must put up certain fortifications. The growing of wheat there at any price is national defence, but the growing of wheat, because of those considerations, was not the line the Deputy took in discussing this motion. I do not think the Deputy was fair to me when he said that I wanted to keep the bullocks and ranches here and to clear out the population. I think he was having a deliberate poke and a rip under the belt at me in that. I will leave it at that.

In winding up the Deputy appealed for constructive criticism from the Opposition and for support in the national struggle. I am sure the Government will get that if they give a lead in the direction, but remember, there is nothing stationary in this world. You must always be going on or going back, and if you have started an economic war, and are sitting down on it, you are losing. Either fight it or settle it; get it out of the way. If you attempt one or the other, so far as I am concerned, you will have my co-operation.

The Minister for Agriculture was not here when I was dealing with the question of the register. From the spirit in which this motion has been discussed I have changed my attitude in requesting the Minister to meet the situation by putting up a public register of licensees. Although I have heard a lot of accounts of irregularities in the matter of licences — I know some to be true and the Minister has admitted here that there are irregularities — a lot of the alleged gross irregularities of which we have heard may not be true. It is very easy to exaggerate. The irregularities referred to are in respect of people having licences and selling them who have no right to them. The question is then asked: "Why did they get them?" and the next thing we hear is: "Go to the Department and you will get anything you want if you know so-and-so." If you have a public register which includes all licensees and the number of licences they get, and if it is available to anybody who is interested, on payment of the usual cost of a shilling or two shillings for a search for a public document, I do not know of anything that would give so much confidence with regard to the administration of these licences.

I have often heard the Minister state—I hope he has got over it now— that because of the basis on which licences were allocated such a system would enable inquisitive people to find out the extent of the private business of shippers. I do not know whether there is anything in that, but I think that the good that a public register would do would far outweigh whatever little harm it might do in that direction. Even now the feeders are getting licences for fat cattle, or, as they are known in the trade, licences for the "fats," and he hopes that when the grass beef comes in the owners will get the licences, but in respect of the fat cattle, I think, he went as far as to say that he was endeavouring to formulate a scheme by which the owners of store cattle would get the licences. If a scheme is devised by which the licences for all these grades of cattle that are being exported can be given to the producers, there can be no possible objection to a public register.

The Minister more or less invited anybody who had a suggestion as to an equitable way of distributing licences to submit it. I asked him if he would be prepared, if he got people sufficiently interested, to have a conference in regard to the matter and he said he would. I hope we will hear more of that in the future. The Minister credits me with being a wizard at figures, but he certainly puzzled me with the figures he flung at me. It was perhaps puzzling to the whole of the House as well, when he told us that there is a market for more cattle now than we had three years ago. If that is so, what has happened the price?

Dr. Ryan

That is not exactly right. Of course, we had practically an unlimited market in 1931, but we disposed of so many cattle then, and I said we can dispose of an equal number this year, if not more.

Mr. Belton

Has our cattle population increased so much as to be responsible for the depression in price?

Dr. Ryan

That is one explanation, anyway.

Mr. Belton

It cannot be the whole explanation. The Minister declared that our cow population had run up by 70,000. I do not want to tie him to that figure, because it was more or less a rough figure. The Minister admits that even though we are selling as many cattle as we were in 1931, we still have a surplus. I think the whole trend of his argument was that notwithstanding all that had been done, presumably by his Department, to find an outlet for our cattle — of necessity after the introduction of the British quota a year ago — we still have a surplus. If we assume that the increased cattle brought 70,000 calves to maturity we must still remember that the Minister slaughtered about 150,000 calves, so that on that end of the trade instead of a surplus we should have a reduction.

If we have as large an outlet as three years ago, I do not see where the surplus comes in. The Minister did not admit that the surplus arose out of the extra cattle left on our hands because of the British quota. He endeavoured to show that the loss we suffered was only 80,000 by reason of not exporting to England, and he asked how could the manure from 80,000 so affect tillage rotation as to deprive the land of sufficient manure. The Minister knows that live stock cannot be kept for their manure; they must be kept for their meat, and the meat is represented by their price. It is not the price of the 80,000 that affects the situation, but the price of the 600,000 or 700,000 exported. The cow population of to-day is about 1,300,000. Let us assume they bring 1,000,000 calves into the world. The figures quoted by the Minister here amounted to 400,000 cattle, and that would leave us 200,000 a year of a surplus. The Minister did not indicate how we would handle that surplus.

The Minister dealt with another aspect which was a bit plausible. He took the stand that we should grow wheat. He said the objection to the growing of wheat was that it was so dear. He pointed out that we could buy eggs, butter, and meat cheaper than we produce them. He said we could get quite good meat from the Argentine at 1½d. per lb., chilled beef. The Minister knows that is not true.

Dr. Ryan

It is landed at 1½d.

Mr. Belton

I take it the Minister knows that even since we passed a Bill fixing 25/- a cwt. on Irish beef, Argentine beef actually beat the Irish beef in the British market. In the very week when the Minister insisted on the 25/- the market in England was rigged and an extra amount of Argentine meat was put on the market, and it actually beat the Irish meat.

Dr. Ryan

That is true.

Mr. Belton

What is the use of saying that it could be bought at 1½d. a lb.?

Dr. Ryan

That was the landed price.

Mr. Belton

I am sorry my friend Deputy Bennett is not here. Irish wheat has been grown within the last ten years, and it proved after the severest test to be equal to the best Manitoba. That statement can be checked up in the Department's circular which was issued at the end of the season in 1926. The experiments were carried out in 1926 with Yeoman No. 2, and in most counties in the Free State — nearly all of them — samples, equal to the best Manitoba, were grown of a particular strain of wheat. I do not know whether it was the best or the second best that was grown in County Kerry, but the next year the best was grown in County Clare.

I do not want to go any further into the discussion on this motion. Both motions are going to a vote. Personally, I must say again that I was glad of the spirit in which this motion was discussed. I was glad also of the change of spirit here recently, such as the spirit in which that very contentious Bill, the Pigs and Bacon Bill, is being dealt with. I think that a few more steps by way of approach may allay a lot of the bitterness in this House, and if we could find a common platform for the economic war and cooperate on it, we might settle it very soon.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy pressing No. 8 to a division?

Mr. Belton

Yes, Sir.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 42.

Tá

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Davis, Michael.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Doyle and Ben nett; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.

Question declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

The second motion (No. 9) might be formally moved and seconded.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move it.

Mr. MacDermot

I second it.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 36.

Tá

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, James Michael.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Davis, Michael.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Doyle, Peadar.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Moane, Edward.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Kilroy.

Question declared lost.