Deputy Ryan referred to the question of the flour mills, but I should like to know the position with regard to mills in general. In 1933 a Bill, the Cereals Bill, was passed through this House, and under that Act millers were licensed to mill certain feeding stuffs. There was an amending Bill passed the next year, and different orders were passed since. At the present time, we do not know exactly what is the position in regard to these mills but, anyhow, we do know that as a result of the present difficulties under which the farmers are labouring they had to sell grain at prices which were unreasonably low some six months ago and they were unable to carry on over the winter.
At the present time these millers are selling some kind of stuff—they name it feeding stuffs, but I do not know what it is—at 2/10 a stone, which is equivalent to £1 2s. 8d. per cwt. I have a sample of it here, which I shall show to the Minister or to anybody who wishes to see it. I should like to have it analysed. Perhaps the Minister can have it analysed and tell us what it is composed of and what is its value. It is ridiculous to see stuff like that sold at 2/10. Anybody who would look at it would see that it is not worth even 10d. a stone—I myself do not believe it is worth that much—and that would be less than one-third of the price that is being charged for it. At any rate, since we have a Department of Agriculture to deal with such matters, whenever there is any important matter to be dealt with that Department should see that the farmers are not robbed in order to make up a profiteering miller. That is especially so when you remember that these are licensed millers, having a monopoly perhaps. As I said, I do not know how the law stands with regard to those people, but the Minister should know, and he should see that if they are granted protection and privileges they should rise to their responsibilities and do that, for which they are protected, decently and efficiently.
Deputy Moran, when he was speaking, referred to Deputy Dillon's speech on a self-supporting policy. There are many ways of dealing with this self-supporting policy, and I think that if Deputy Dillon had been quoted fairly it would be seen that his policy is just as self-supporting as that of Fianna Fáil. I do not say that Deputy Moran intentionally misrepresented Deputy Dillon, but it would seem that either he did not read the speech or was not listening to it. He may have heard some of Deputy Dillon's speech, but not all of it. Deputy Dillon's references to wheat growing were based upon just as self-supporting a policy as that of Fianna Fáil. I am not defending it, because I do not know very much about it. I am not giving any opinion whatever upon Deputy Dillon's scheme, as I do not know anything about barley. His scheme, however, was to this effect. He suggested that we should first come to an agreement with Great Britain—an agreement which he said could be made—to produce so much barley to be exchanged for so much wheat from them. That was his scheme, and if that arrangement had been made there is no doubt that this country could supply sufficient barley in exchange for the wheat. As I have said, whether it would be a good scheme or not I do not know, but it was Deputy Dillon's scheme.
It was put forward simply as a business proposition—as something which, if it could happen between two individuals, could also happen between two nations. Of course, the agreement would be that the goods would be delivered by both sides. Now, if it were more profitable to grow barley and exchange it for wheat, that would be just as sensible a self-supporting policy as the growing of wheat. As a matter of fact, if we did not produce exactly what we wanted here, but produced something else and exchanged that for everything we imported into this country, if that were possible, that would be a self-supporting policy. It may not be possible at the present time, but if that could be carried out on the lines to which Deputy Dillon referred in the case of wheat and barley, not only would we be as self-supporting even as we are at present, but we would be more self-supporting to the extent of over £17,000,000, which is the amount of the adverse trade balance, by growing or producing commodities in this country and exchanging them for other commodities from other countries. Accordingly, there is a lot of nonsense talked about a self-supporting policy. It is all a question of which is the more self-supporting policy of the two.
Deputy Moran asked, in this connection, where we were to get the shipping to import 278,000 tons of wheat, or where was Great Britain to get it. Where is Britain getting the shipping to import 100,000 tons more barley? Would not the shipping that would import, say, 400,000 tons of barley import 278,000 tons of wheat? Deputy Dillon's scheme raised no difficulty with regard to shipping. It did not mean that we would be less self-supporting in that event. I do not know whether it would or not, but in listening to Deputy Dillon's scheme, as he put it forward, I think one would get the impression and must come to the conclusion that his scheme would be just as self-supporting as the other.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the foot-and-mouth disease. It has become a serious problem for this country. I was in a fair yesterday and saw cattle that would only realise £12, and they were worth £17 last November. That was £5 lost on a winter's feeding. If we put down the winter's feeding at anything from £3 to £4, the loss would be from £8 to £9 on every beast in this country. Mind you, Cavan is 50 miles away from any outbreak. Yet every animal is reduced by £7 or £8, and there is very little prospect of this disease being cleared up in time to get the cattle shipped, or in time to get them shipped when farmers would be likely to get their value.
I believe that no matter what time the ports are opened now, that will represent the loss, because if the ports are not open before the autumn the British may not want our cattle and we may have to carry them over longer. Even if we do not, there will be such a glut of them that the loss will be as much, perhaps, as it is to-day—whoever is lucky enough to be able to sell them at all, but, of course, very few are able to sell their cattle at any price.
I know that the Minister is well disposed in the matter of dealing with this disease and that his Department is fairly interested. I believe, at the same time, that this was something of an extraordinary disease. There was something very unaccountable in connection with the way it spread at the start. On the 14th February last, before it spread out of the district where it first started, I wrote to the Minister with regard to the disease, and I put down a question at the same time. That was before the disease got into the County Dublin at all, when it was very easy to isolate it and to carry out stringent regulations without any serious inconvenience or loss to anybody. I told the Minister it was better, even if it were not necessary, to adopt the most stringent measures and that it was much better that he should make ten mistakes in taking extreme measures than that he should make one mistake and let the disease spread. The Minister in his answer said that he had it well in hand and that things were going on well. He was an optimist. I got the impression that the Minister was not likely to deal with it because, rightly or wrongly, from my experience of the bad outbreak some 25 or 30 years ago, I was convinced that, if proper measures were not taken, the disease would spread, because I am afraid the people in this country do not co-operate in the same way as in other countries. They are inclined to play fast and loose with the law, and, in many cases, it is very little harm, but in a case of this kind of so serious import to the nation—it means a loss of £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 to the country in a year, which the farmers, in the first instance, have to bear, but which falls eventually upon the nation—the Minister should have been very careful, before the disease got out of hand for a time, to confine it and to deal with it, as every isolated outbreak in Great Britain and Northern Ireland had been dealt with.
If there was nothing extraordinary in this outbreak, how can the Minister account for the way it has spread and got out of hand? The British Department of Agriculture are able to confine and deal with every case, and never let it get out of hand. It recurs there year after year and month after month. They have such intercourse with other countries in which the disease is prevalent at all seasons of the year that it is impossible to prevent occasional outbreaks. Yet, their people confine it and deal with it. In our case, the Minister should have taken every possible step, even that of asking the advice of the British Department of Agriculture and, if necessary, asking them to send one of their special men, if they have special men, to assist the Department here, which, I am sure, they might do. It is no use crying over spilt milk, but I ask the Minister now to take the strongest possible measures. I am afraid he is not doing so, because, in those districts in which the disease is prevalent, notwithstanding all the damage it has done, we find sports meetings, horse races and dog races being held. It would not be a bit of harm to shut up these sports meetings where there is any disease within a reasonable distance of them. I think it is the duty of the Minister to see that these people did not enjoy themselves until this disease was stamped out, and it might induce the people to give more co-operation.
I do not know how many prosecutions there have been in connection with this disease, but the Minister told us that people were concealing it. I wonder what he has done about those cases of concealment. We have not heard of any drastic remedies being applied. Yet the country has suffered to an enormous extent and yet these innocent people are allowed to suffer, while the guilty people go unpunished. The Minister might be too lenient in some directions. He has the co-operation of 99 per cent. of the people in endeavouring to stamp out this disease, and he should not let down that 99 per cent. in order to be too lenient towards law-breakers and public enemies, for that is what they are. Perhaps some of them did not realise the damage they were doing, but, if that be so, it was again the Minister's fault. He should have made it clear to them, and should have taken stronger powers, if he had not already sufficient powers, to deal with them. He should have published, at the very start not in a little confined corner in small print, but in very large print at the top of the page, whatever he wanted to convey to the people in order to get them to co-operate with him in stamping out the disease immediately it broke out, and not when hundreds of outbreaks had occurred. I hope the Minister will learn from past mistakes, that he will turn over a new leaf now and will make an effort to stamp it out at any price.
At that time, there was great criticism—and it was the reason for my becoming alarmed—of the Department's policy of stamping it out, of slaughtering cattle and paying compensation. I asked the people who criticised the policy adopted by the Department what they would think if it spread through the whole country and if, instead of paying a couple of thousand pounds compensation, the country lost a couple of million pounds. I met some of these people yesterday and they said I was right. They admit now that the country is losing £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, instead of £2,000, and it is better for the Minister to make known to such people as these that it is a serious offence, not merely to cloak or conceal the disease, but to attempt to cure it, or to recommend cures for it. That is where the Minister failed. He allowed such things to continue and gave the impression that it was a good thing to try to cure it and to save the cattle from slaughter. That was very foolish. It would be all right if the Minister had decided to abandon the slaughter policy altogether, having decided it was wrong, but so long as he meant to carry out that policy, he should have allowed no other policy to compete with him. He should have taken drastic measures in time to carry out his policy, and it would have been a simple thing then to deal with the disease.
The question of credit for farmers has often been discussed, and I do not think there is very much use in discussing it now, because the real trouble about credit is that agriculture is not paying. There is plenty of money to be got from the banks and from the Credit Corporation, if farmers could give good security, but their farms do not constitute a good security because they are not paying. Any company can raise plenty of money here if its industry is prosperous and paying, and if it is able to show good results. Nobody questions the honesty of the farmer, but their industry is crushed and depressed, for one reason or another. I do not want to go into these reasons. The Minister has heard them often enough and ought to know them well enough by now, but the fact is that farmers cannot get credit because they are not prosperous. If the bankers believed that farmers could repay loans when they would wish them to be repaid, farmers would get plenty of money, but the fact that they believe that farmers will not be able to meet their obligations, that they will be kept out of their money for a long time, and possibly eventually never be able to recover, is the reason why they cannot get loans, or, when they do, that they get them at an exorbitant rate.
I suggest that the first thing to do is to make agriculture more prosperous. That would go further towards a solution of the problem than any other steps that may be taken to provide credit for agriculture. More than 50 per cent. of the tariffs imposed for the protection of industries of various sorts, such as those that manufacture farm implements and machinery, feeding stuffs and manures, and all the rest, is coming out of the pockets of the agricultural community. Not only that, but the increased prices that those tariffs allow the home manufacturer to put on come out of the pockets of the agricultural community without any compensation being given to them.
Unfortunately, the Minister for Finance wants all the money that can be raised on customs duties to help to balance the Budget. But, in justice, this money which is taken out of the pockets of the agricultural community in order to help other industries should go back either by subsidies or otherwise to the agricultural community. The sum, I suppose, would amount to £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year. They are paying that amount in duties upon every article they are buying.
There is another way of dealing with agriculture, if the Minister was in a position to do it, but I do not know that he is in a position to do that at present, although it is necessary that something should be done to help agriculture, and that is to give a decent price for whatever is produced, a price that will not only cover the cost of production, but give a profit, just the same as in any other industry in this country that is getting protection. In an industry where there is an exportable surplus, subsidy is the only method of protection. Whether you protect an industry by giving a subsidy or by imposing a tariff, it comes to the same thing. But, as everybody knows, you cannot protect agriculture by imposing a tariff. You can, however, protect it by paying subsidies. Some scheme should be devised to get over the difficulty and to bring about a fairer balance as between different industries.
Agriculture, after all, is our principal industry; it is the mainstay of the State in the long run. Even in times of war or crisis the raw material for agriculture will not run short; agriculture can still produce and feed the nation. Other industries are very good in their own way, but when we find ourselves in a crisis we are let down. Some industries are not able to procure their raw materials to carry on, but agriculture stands by the nation at all times and it will do so now. Notwithstanding that agriculturists have been treated as the stepchildren of this State for a long time, and are being so treated even now, they are prepared to carry on and feed the nation. Notwithstanding what they are suffering for the time being, they are willing to help the country out of the crisis, just as their sons have always joined the defence forces and given service to the nation, as they always did. I think they deserve better treatment from the Government than they have got for some time. I hope the Minister will do his best to help them out of their difficulties and try to induce his colleagues to do what they can for them, so far as we can afford it at the present time.
We might talk here for the next 24 hours, and still not discuss all the disabilities under which the farmer labours. I will just take one example. There are fellmongering factories in this country. I do not know what protection they are getting; it may be 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or 75 per cent. They are getting that over and above the world price for what they produce. Their raw materials are sheepskins. Are they giving 75 per cent. over the world price for the sheepskins? They are not. In order that they would not be compelled to give the world price for sheepskins, an order was made prohibiting the export of sheepskins, which so far as I know is still in force. The result is that these fellmongers are getting their raw material which the farmers produce at less than the world price.
