Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Apr 1942

Vol. 86 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motions:—
That a sum, not exceeding £444,768 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1943, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, and of certain Services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.—(Minister for Agriculture.)
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration—(Deputies O Murchadha and Pattison).

When the House adjourned last week, I was referring to the effect of the maximum price order on the supply of oats, with particular reference to the difficulties that farmers in non-tillage areas had in getting seed oats and also to the shortage of oats for millers, with the result that there is practically no oatmeal, or at least, very little, on sale at the moment. With regard to seed oats, I dare say that there is still an amount of seed oats in the country and seed requirements will somehow be provided, but it would have been preferable if, instead of having to search the Twenty-Six Counties for seed, the farmer could have got it through the usual channels, the corn merchants. It would have been more desirable in every way, because if a farmer does get seed at the moment, he cannot be sure that it is of the required standard or properly cleaned, whereas, if he got it from the merchants, he would be assured of its suitability.

The difficulty with regard to the millers is much more serious. Oatmeal is probably one of the best foods we have and in this time of food scarcity one would have thought that everything possible would have been done to see that there was a plentiful supply of this very wholesome food. I referred last week to the difficulties the millers had in procuring oats for conversion into oatmeal. That is not due to the fact that the oats was not there, but to the fact that the millers were debarred from purchasing oats because of the Minister's Order, and I am confirmed in that statement by a paragraph from the report of a meeting of the Oatmeal Millers' Association in Saturday's papers, in which it is stated:—

"Some mills, it was stated, had been out of commission for some time, while those now working calculate that unless grain was forthcoming they may be obliged to close down about May 1st. The chief difficulty was the refusal of producers to sell grain at the fixed price."

A month or so ago there was a plentiful supply of oats in the country and probably oats now will be available, if the Minister will revoke the Order and allow the millers to purchase oats for conversion into oatmeal. In a month or two, it will possibly be too late to take any action, or, if any action is taken, it will have no result. I appeal to the Minister now that the revocation of this Order will have very little effect on the price of last year's crop, to take his courage in his hands and make it possible for the millers to supply the children and other people in the country with their usual supply of oatmeal. It is, as I say, one of the most desirable foods we have and the Government should give every assistance to ensure a plentiful supply of it.

With regard to potatoes, the people are asked to grow 50,000 more acres of potatoes this year. If they are required, well and good; I dare say they will be grown—I hope they will—but we should like to have some definite statement from the Minister giving reasons why 50,000 acres more are required and an assurance, if that additional area is cultivated and the crops produced, that the farmers will have a market. So far as I know, there is no shortage of potatoes at the present moment. In the district where I live there is a surplus of potatoes and it is, in fact, difficult to get rid of them. From conversations I have had, I believe that applies generally. If we have a surplus, why do we require 50,000 acres more? Would it not be better, if the Minister has not some scheme in mind for a more general consumption of the potato crop, that some other crop should be grown on the 50,000 acres? If the Minister desires the produce of the additional 50,000 acres for home consumption next year, he ought to make a definite statement to the farmers indicating that the potatoes are required and that he is prepared to guarantee a market for them.

With regard to machinery and farming implements generally, Deputy Hughes raised this matter by way of Parliamentary question. He asked the Minister if he was aware that there was, in the non-tillage areas, a shortage of equipment and machinery. I think the Minister replied that he was not aware of any such thing. I suppose I would be looked upon as a person living in a non-tillage area. I may say that in my area there is a great shortage of tractors and other farming machinery and the farmers are finding it very difficult to fulfil their obligations in regard to tillage. The position was really bad a month or six weeks ago, because certain farmers were waiting on a tractor to till their land. Then there was a period of bad weather. Now we find of the three tractors that were then available two have been, I will not say commandeered, hired by the Department at attractive prices in order to cultivate the land that it has taken over. If the Department is going to compete with the farmers in a small locality for the only machinery available for ploughing the soil, then it will be difficult for the farmers to fulfil their obligations. In the matter of farm implements, I hope the Minister will make some investigations and, while it may be too late to do anything now about ploughing, it will not be too late to arrange for machinery for harvesting the crop next autumn. So far as I can see, in what are called the non-tillage areas the equipment available will not be sufficient to reap and thresh the crop. I think the Minister should investigate the matter and see whether it will be possible to transfer certain equipment into those areas from other districts.

The position in regard to pig production in this country is not at all satisfactory. There was a time when the humble pig was referred to as the poor man's saving bank. Indeed, it was customary in other countries to see caricatures of Irishmen in company with a pig. That is not the position at the present time. In the memory of even the youngest man here it was usual when travelling the country to see a pig outside almost every labourer's cottage and certainly outside every small country dwelling. One would travel a great distance through the country to-day before one would see a pig outside a country house. In fact, one could readily visualise the time when this country will have a very limited pig population.

The industry was in a flourishing condition up to a few years ago. There were ups and downs, as there are in other businesses, but the men who were chiefly in charge of the industry, the exporters, through their energy and intelligence, managed to keep the industry going and to find the markets. If there was a shortage in export of one quality of pig, they encouraged the farmers to find another suitable type. Generally they carried on the trade through many vicissitudes; they kept the pig-breeding industry going. There was such a vicissitude when the Minister had a brainwave and set up the Pigs Marketing Board. I never had any illusions as to the effect that board would have on pig production. If you supplant individual competitive buyers by a monopoly you are bound to create disaster in almost any business. That is what happened in the pig business. Not only did the Pigs Marketing Board create a monopoly, but it created a most vicious form of monopoly. It gave power to one set of pig handlers to control the industry, to arrange production, regulate orders day by day, arrange the regulations to be set up and to fix prices, prices that suited their own ends, with very little consideration for the producer.

It is no wonder that the situation in regard to pig production should be as it is to-day. For the first time in this country we find ourselves in the position that we may not be able to supply the home market, not to speak of the export market. The obvious remedy is to get back to the old method of carrying on the business. Do away with this Pigs Marketing Board once and for all. The war, perhaps, accentuated the difficulty. The Minister may tell us that were it not for the Pigs Marketing Board they would not be able to regulate exports, having regard to the wishes of the British Government. I am quite satisfied that if the men who bought and sold pigs in the old days were in control now, they would make the regulations necessary to carry on an export trade as well as cater for the home market. I believe they would do that much more efficiently than any semi-Government board.

There have been certain references to the feeding of wheat to pigs. I am satisfied that too much has been made of that. There may have been one or two instances here and there where a small quantity of wheat found its way to the pigs. In the main, I expect that it was damaged wheat, or wheat that could not be used for milling, and while, perhaps, in exceptional cases, wheat that might be used for human consumption was given willingly and knowingly to pigs, I do not think there is very much in the charge. If there are any number of people in this country who willingly fed good wheat to pigs, then no condemnation that any Deputy of this House could make would be too strong. I certainly could not find language to express my abhorrence of such a proceeding, but I do believe that it has not been carried on at all to the extent that some people would imagine.

In regard to poultry, I have no doubt that the production of poultry and eggs will be carried on to a certain extent in this country, whatever happens during the war or after it, or whatever difficulties there are in finding food for animal production or for human consumption. The poultry industry is carried on, in the main, in this country by the women. It is the woman's end of the farm work, and whether by pillage or otherwise the woman will generally see to it that, whoever else is short, the hen will get something. It is only when it commences to encroach on the family budget that the woman generally starts raising Cain, but she will manage to carry on, and at least sufficient poultry and eggs will be produced for whatever term the emergency lasts and, I daresay, a quantity for export after wards. Whether or not it is a paying business I am not prepared to argue. I do not think that any countrywoman in a farmer's household ever kept an account of the amount of grain, potatoes, or other food that she pillaged from her husband, and even the Minister could not get her prosecuted. The farmer himself could not catch her at the pillage. Accordingly, it would be impossible, at this stage, to make any kind of an accurate estimate of whether poultry is a paying proposition or not. Personally, I do not think it is, but I do hope that it will continue, during the emergency anyhow.

I noticed, in the Minister's statement, that while he made a fairly long reference to certain items of agriculture he neglected almost altogether to refer to the dairying industry. He did make some passing references to the supply of butter in store or the possibility of providing for our home consumption, but he did not make any reference to the position of dairying generally. Now, I do not know whether it was that the Minister was satisfied as to the position, or that he was so dissatisfied and so hopeless of obtaining a solvent, that he thought it better not to refer to it, but I do think that the Minister has every information at his disposal as to the position of the dairying industry in this particular year. In regard to the supply of butter for our home consumption, without making any reference to export whatever, it looks quite likely that we will be faced this year with a shortage of butter for the needs of the householders of this State. That is a rather desperate statement to have to make in an agricultural country like this, but it is so. We produced last year some 650,000 cwts. of butter, and we consumed here 550,000 cwts. and exported 100,000 cwts. Butter production, however, is on the decline, and home butter consumption is on the increase, and it is probable that before very many months there will be not alone none to export, but not sufficient to supply the demands of the consumers in this country.

Already, for the first two months of this year, butter production has decreased as compared with last year. Everything points to the fact that the diminution in production will continue during the coming months. Many farmers, owing to the increased cost of dairy stock, are unable to purchase dairy cows. Some of them will not need to purchase them because of the fact that their limited supply of grazing land has already been encroached upon to fulfil the demand for extra tillage, but whatever may be the reason it is likely that the number of dairy cows in actual milk this year will be less than last year. I think that is fairly well recognised by all dairy authorities: that the number of cows actually milked this year will be less than last year and the production of butter much less. It is also fairly apparent that the consumption of butter will be greater this summer and autumn than it was last year—everything points to it—so that we almost certainly shall arrive at the situation, at the end of this year, that we will scarcely have enough butter to supply the people.

Now, that is the position as far as our home requirements are concerned, but it is on the broader line that I should like to discuss dairying. What is going to be the position of the dairy farmer in the future? At the moment, butter or milk cannot be produced economically at the current price of 6d. a gallon for milk. I think that no argument can be made to controvert that statement. A very well-known authority in Cork, Mr. Murphy, made a review last year of 40 farms in West Cork. I think most of his investigations referred to the year 1940, which was a very bad year for grass, and he came to the conclusion, after his investigation of these 40 farms, that it cost, that year, to produce a gallon of milk 11¼d. He allowed, however, for the phenomenally bad year, and making all the allowances that he thought it necessary to make he arrived at the conclusion that, had it been a normal year, it would have been fair to put down the cost of production of a gallon of milk at 8.64d., or nearly 8¾d. The current price of milk at the creameries to-day is about 6d. a gallon, and since Mr. Murphy made that estimate the position has worsened. Wages, in the first instance, have gone up by 3/- a week.

Was it not time?

Quite time, if the industry could at all manage it. Three shillings a week represent almost a ½d. a gallon on the production of milk. I do not think it has occurred to very many Deputies to consider what a small increase in wages means on the already low price of 6d. a gallon for milk; so that 8¾d. per gallon that Mr. Murphy estimates is already increased by ½d., and there are added costs in almost every other direction.

It is apparent that an industry producing milk to be sold at 6d. when the actual production cost is in the 9d. region cannot exist very long. We have evidence of the hazardous condition of the dairying industry when a gradual diminution in butter production has taken place—it has dropped about 200,000 cwts. in a few years. I am not arguing that the dairying problem here is not a difficult one to solve, and may not become more difficult as the years go by; but it is essential that it should be solved, or that a solution should be attempted. Certainly, as long as we carry on our existing agricultural economy, dairying must be preserved. No one can view with equanimity the disappearance of our dairying business. Not only does it supply most of the essential food stuffs—if you eliminate grain—but it provides almost all our exports. Take away dairying and the actual accompaniments of dairying in the production of stock, pigs and so on, and you practically eliminate exports.

A solution of the difficulty might be possible if an alternative export could be found. As far as I can see, from studying our production, there is no available substitute for agricultural exports—which are mainly dairying— and if we are to continue as an exporting country it is imperative that we carry on this industry, willy-nilly, or all other forms of agriculture practically will cease. If the dairy farmer does not produce stock, cattle-raising and cattle exporting automatically cease; the production of grain, except for human consumption, will cease; all the industries will have idle mills as, first and foremost, the economy of the country will not allow for the purchase of their goods and they will not be able to get the raw materials if we do not export sufficient to purchase them.

Various suggestions have been made to deal with this matter. I was surprised to hear the statement by Deputy Dillon last week—and made by other apparently sensible Deputies —that, before appealing for help and assistance from any Minister, the farmer must set his own house in order. I would like to draw the attention of the House for a few moments to that particular charge. The farmer has been lectured right and left in this House and outside it for very many years. In general, the farmer knows his own business as well as does any man carrying on business in this country. He has managed, during very many centuries, to carry on in one way or another, and if one way failed he tried another; and I hope he will carry on in the times to come, however precarious the living may be. It is unfair to suggest to the farmer that, because dairying is in its present position, he has no right to appeal to the State for help. One might have said, with just as much reason, that industrialists had no right to appeal to the Minister for financial and other assistance to carry on their industries, or that no assistance should have been required to raise beet, wheat or anything else.

The continuance—I do not say the temporary working—of these industries is much less vital than the continuance of the dairying industry. When the emergency is over, the growing of wheat and cereals of any description except for animal consumption could cease, without any important or disastrous effect on the economy of the country. Certain of the industries might close down after the emergency without any great loss to the State. If, however, dairying disappeared suddenly, the Minister and every member of the Government, and all serious Deputies, would very soon realise what dairying has meant to us. I am not suggesting here what the eventual solution of the difficulty may be. It is a difficult one to discuss and it will be difficult in years to come, but it must be solved somehow, whether by Government assistance or by raising the price of butter to the community. It may be necessary to raise the price at present.

There are some Deputies in this House who are not au fail on the question of butter. At present butter is being retailed at under the cost of production. It is on sale in the city at 1/7 per lb. and could not possibly be produced in this State at 1/7 a lb. with a profit to the producer. Remembering that it takes at least 2½ gallons of milk, and probably more, to produce a lb. of butter, it becomes apparent that it cannot be sold at 1/7 a lb. if the estimated cost of production of a gallon of milk is 8¾d. or 9d. I would hesitate very much to advocate an increase in the cost of the food of the people, but if there is no other way out of the difficulty I must advocate it. Butter is as essential to the people as any other food at the moment: it is almost as essential as wheat. There are various ways in which it fills the gap caused by the cessation of the supply of other fats.

Some Deputy referred to cow-testing as a way out of the difficulty and said that, if every farmer had his cows tested, the position would be solved overnight, and that, from an average supply of 400 or 450 gallons per cow per annum, we would immediately jump on to the 600 basis. I think a lot of this is really unbridled talk from people with very little knowledge of the business. Cow-testing in itself provides no solution for the dairy farmer's position. Cow-testing does nothing to help beyond more readily showing a farmer that one particular cow was milking less than the others. As a solvent it does not help very much. In regard to cow-testing, a farmer comes to know if any number of cows in a particular bawn is producing less than an economic supply of milk and must be replaced. Have the advocates of cow-testing ever seriously considered what amount of money it would take to replace the number of cows in the average bawn that milk less than 400 gallons? To do that would require much more capital than is at the disposal of the ordinary farmer. Has it ever occurred to these advocates that farmers now, and for years to come, will continue to replace one cow in five every year? It is necessary in the course of the business that the average replacement followed by the ordinary dairy farmer should be to replace one cow in five every year. Let us assume that the average farmer does that and makes every effort to put the best cow that he can get for money into his herd. That applies whether it is done in the normal course of business or as a result of cow-testing. It does not, however, always happen that even when that is done he can get a good cow.

The production and purchase of dairy cows are not the simple matter that Deputy Dillon and other advocates would have us believe. I have always considered that the purchase of dairy cattle is a gamble something similar to the production of a race-horse. No blood-stock owner when he rears a foal knows whether it will be a good race-horse or not. If he did he would be a millionaire very soon. No dairy farmer can say with certainty that any particular cow, no matter what price he gave for it, would turn out to be a good milker. The best judges in this State if they set out to buy a cow could not say with certainty that that particular cow was going to be a good milker. In regard to cow testing, we arrive at this position, that it will show to the farmer at the end of the year that there are cows in the bawn that are not really economic and that are not producing enough milk to make the production of milk economic. There is no doubt about that. But that does not remedy the situation. It would be impossible for the ordinary farmer, with the amount of capital at his disposal, to go to the market and to substitute cows that had proved by cow-testing to be bad cows, by good ones. I doubt if it would be possible for the Government to supply the money needed to substitute all such cows with good ones.

It is idle for any Deputy to argue on these particular lines. We must remember that in this country we carry on dairying and the production of cattle in a different manner to that in which it is carried on in analogous States. It is idle to compare the position here with the position in Denmark or New Zealand. In Denmark and in New Zealand they can concentrate on the production of a cow for purely milking purposes. We cannot do that. Our export trade is inevitably bound up with the production of good livestock for export. The solvency of the agricultural community here, and indeed the general welfare of this State, demand that we must produce first class stock for export, and until some Ministers on the Government Benches, who are always getting brain waves of one kind or another, can find an alternative export trade to that which we normally carry on, we must proceed in dairying on the lines of business that we have always been interested in, and must produce a dual purpose cow. Milk is not the only essential. If milk were the only essential then the question might be easier of solution. Then we might concentrate on such breeds as the Holstein or some other milking breed. We cannot do that. The production of cattle is just as essential a portion of dairying as milk. It will always remain a problem here to amalgamate the two successfully. It will never be possible in carrying on the industry to produce a cow with the same milking capacity as a cow in Denmark or New Zealand.

The industry must be carried on somehow, and, at least, during this emergency period I seriously appeal to the Government, and to the Minister, to give rapidly all the assistance that is possible to dairy farmers. I am sure the Minister has received resolutions during the past few months from practically all the societies, and from the other interests concerned, about the dairying business. The Government must step in, either by a subsidy, or by raising the price of butter to the consumer, or by the two combined, so as to raise the price of milk paid to farmers at the creameries to something like 9d. —because it cannot be produced less. The ultimate question as to the problem of dairying generally must be left to future action. It is a difficult matter in a debate like this to deal with it. It is probably too difficult to expect the Minister to get up now and make a statement. The question will require years of constant thought, experiment and determination in order, eventually, to arrive at some solution of such a difficult problem. The essential thing at present is that something should be done. When I say that, I do not mean what is generally understood when a man says that if something is not done something will happen. I mean that the Minister should take some action, and the action I recommend is a subsidy by the Government. Probably it would not be necessary to pay the subsidy that was paid some years ago when a considerable subsidy was provided for the export of butter, seeing that the export trade is not there. When discussing this Estimate on a previous occasion, it was shown that there was a saving of about £500,000 this year which had to be provided last year owing to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. We are all glad that the necessity to provide that £500,000 is not there now. The amount was provided last year as a safeguard for the community against the danger of a spread of foot-and-mouth disease.

I suggest that that £500,000 might be left at the disposal of the Minister as one way towards solving the dairy question, and that the Minister should approach his colleagues with a view to finding other ways of providing the balance required for a solution of the dairying problem. It must be found or before the end of this year we may arrive at this position, that farmers who are now producing will get out of production, and that eventually there will be a combination of farmers who will refuse to produce butter at all. I feel very strongly on the question, just as I believe that every other Deputy, whether farmer, townsman or in any other occupation, feels it. It is not altogether a matter for the dairy farmer. It primarily concerns him. It is his bread and butter, but it is, ultimately, the business of every man and woman in this House to see that our essential exports are carried on. If dairying ceases, then goodbye to any exports that I know of and nobody can say what the future of this little State will be.

Mr. Byrne

There is no butter in Dublin to-day.

There will be less. At this particular period, there would have been a shortage in any event, but if production during the past few months had been as heavy as in the past——

They will not be allowed to feed the cows. They were prosecuted in Youghal.

Mr. Byrne

Butter at 1/7 per lb. means that a lot of people must go without it.

I have been advocating a subsidy, if necessary, on the production of milk and butter.

Mr. Byrne

Tell us why there is no butter in Dublin to-day.

I want to refer to a statement made by the Taoiseach at Ennis on, I think, the 1st of the present month. He spoke of the tillage campaign and then he came to subsidies. He made this remarkable statement:

"Ultimately, the people would object to subsidising agricultural produce."

I believe that, for once, the Taoiseach was speaking with a modicum of sense. Ultimately, the people will get tired of subsidising agricultural produce, but long before they get tired of doing that——

Subsidising agricultural produce for export was, I think, what the Taoiseach referred to.

For any purpose. Long before the people get tired of subsidising agricultural produce, they will get tired of subsidising industries to the extent which they have been doing. Many years ago, I argued that, if we were to adopt a policy of high protection for industry, there would have to be a quid pro quo for the farmer.

That took a long time in coming, but it came—mainly, because of the emergency. That was bound to occur in any country with a high protection policy. If you subsidise three-fourths of the industries of any State, you will, inevitably, have to subsidise the remaining one-fourth. When we adopted a tariff policy, irrespective of cost, which assured a margin of profit to the producer in industry and when the farmer had to contend with rising costs for everything he required, then protection for agriculture was inevitable. If, to-morrow, all forms of protection, by tariff or otherwise, were wiped out, then, perhaps, a case for protection for the farmer could not be made but, until that occurs, the Taoiseach has no right to make the statement he did—that the people will get tired of subsidising agricultural produce.

Mr. Byrne

Tell us why there is no butter in Dublin to-day.

There is no butter in Dublin to-day because the butter is not there.

Mr. Byrne

Why is it not there?

Because the amount of butter produced last year was short by, probably, 100,000 cwts. of the estimate the Minister made or any estimate he could have made. I give him credit for that. It is going to be shorter this year than any estimate he can make.

Mr. Byrne

Why was it short?

It cannot be any shorter than it is because there is no butter in Dublin just now.

It was short because the butter produced was less than any estimate anybody could have thought of.

Mr. Byrne

What is the remedy?

The remedy is for you, and every other Deputy like you, to get up and tell the Minister in the strongest language that, unless he comes to the assistance of the dairy farmer and raises the price of milk from 6d. to 8½d. or 9d., there will be a greater shortage in the coming months than there is now.

I am sure the Minister is aware that a very serious situation has arisen in Dublin on account of the butter shortage. Butter has practically completely disappeared from the shop windows. We have now not alone the depressing spectacle of bread queues, but the spectacle of butter queues as well. Bread and butter queues in the capital city of the country are a sad commentary on the Government Departments responsible for food production and supplies. I do not believe for a moment that the explanation of the butter shortage offered by Deputy Bennett fully meets the situation. I do not believe that the scarcity of butter in Dublin is entirely due to a decline in production. The position is that, in respect of almost every food commodity in short supply, a black market exists and the Government appear not to be taking any serious steps to limit the activities of these racketeers.

Last Thursday, when the Minister introduced this Estimate and when he was informing the House that no butter was being exported, a boat called the "Maxonia" was being loaded with butter and bacon on the quays of Dublin for the Isle of Man. It is reducing this Parliament to an absurdity if, at the very minute that a Minister is informing the House that the export of butter has ceased, a boat laden with butter and bacon should be leaving the quays of Dublin. I hope that the Minister will give this matter his immediate attention. The situation is very serious. I know that nobody appreciates more than the Minister the alarming increase in malnutrition and deficiency-disease which will, inevitably, arise from the disappearance of such important commodities as butter and bread. Vitamins which people usually take through the ordinary media, of essential foodstuffs are being placed beyond their reach. I hope that several Deputies from Dublin will make their voices heard on this matter. The situation is so serious that I think the Minister should get into touch with the Minister for Supplies and see what can be done about it. It is an awful state of affairs that, after the war has been on, for two years, a food-producing country is not able to furnish supplies to the people of the cities. We are all accustomed to Government bungling. It has got to such a stage that, no matter what is done now, nobody is surprised. I hope that this particular matter will receive the immediate attention of the Minister.

If we were to accept the figures quoted by Deputy Bennett as to the cost of the production of milk, the dairy farmers ought to have been out of production long ago. It is difficult to understand how anybody could go on producing an article at a cost of 9d., sell it at 6d., and still continue to live. When I say that I am not, however, unmindful of the position of our dairy farmers, and I think the time has come when something should be done to increase the price of milk at the creameries. That is a vital matter.

What is the something?

The Deputy had the opportunity of suggesting something himself and did not do it.

Nobody will do that.

The Deputy was asked a few questions as to how he was going to do it. There is a guaranteed price for wheat, beet, barley and oats, but not for milk. I admit, and everybody must admit, that tillage must get pride of place at the present time, but at the same time the importance of milk and, of course, butter in the dietary of our people should not be forgotten. Deputy Bennett also deplored the decline in the production of pigs and in the rearing of poultry. I suggest that if people in the Deputy's county, and in other counties, did their duty by complying with the tillage regulations and in producing enough food for the country, the position that he referred to would not obtain to-day. The result is that food which, in the ordinary course, would go to feed animals, must be conserved for human beings. That is the position, and let us hope that it will be much improved during the coming year, although, when travelling through the country, I have seen so many green fields that I am afraid the acreage envisaged by the Minister and the Government will not be realised. I do not know if the present system of inspection is sufficient to ensure that the farmers will do their duty. I think the services of the Gárda Síochána should be enlisted in that connection. Under the present system there should be an inspector, in almost every parish, to ensure that the farmers in it would do their duty. The members of the Gárda Síochána who go around every year to take a census of the cattle and crops should be in a position to know the lie of the land as far as tillage operations are concerned. As I have said, there are too many green fields at the present time. In ordinary times they are beautiful to see, but not now.

We have far too much waste and derelict land in the country and nobody ever seems to give a thought to it; land covered with furze, bushes, and briars. The farm improvements scheme was a step in the right direction. It is one that could not be praised too highly, and should, I suggest, be extended, more especially in the congested districts. To halve the cost of carrying out those improvements to land is, no doubt, a great incentive to farmers to do their part, and in the congested districts there is plenty of labour. I also suggest that we should have more lectures on gardening and fruit-growing over the radio. They would be much more beneficial than some of the lectures we hear from time to time. Recently, I attended a lecture on gardening, given by one of the Department's horticultural instructors, which was most instructive. The impression it left on my mind was that, if given over the radio, it would be of great benefit to our people. Lectures on fruit-growing would also be likely to produce beneficial results. There is not much chance, I suppose, that at the present time we will be able to get in much fruit from outside. I am afraid our people have not the great tradition for fruit growing that they should have. In that connection the radio should be used to a greater extent than it is at present, and instruction given about pruning and the spraying of trees.

From what I hear I am afraid the position with regard to seeds is not too satisfactory this year. That is a matter over which, I hold, we should have some control. I suggest, however, to the Minister that more information should be given to farmers as to how they should grow their own seeds. I am aware, of course, that leaflets on the subject are available, but I am afraid they are not sufficient. What the people of the country really need are practical demonstrations. At a very good lecture given recently by one of the Department's inspectors on seeds, the lecturer said he was of opinion that all present knew how to grow seeds of their own, but when questions were put it turned out that nobody knew anything about it.

I disagree entirely with the proposer of the motion to refer this Estimate back. I do not know exactly what grounds he put forward in support of this proposition, or what actuated him to put the motion down. He made the statement that neither the Minister nor the Government had any definite agricultural policy. I think it can be said that if ever this country had a settled agricultural policy it is now when there is a guaranteed price for all cereal crops, which can be produced at a very remunerative price. The Minister has a very difficult job in trying to guide his Department so that our people will be fed, but in many cases, I am afraid, he is not getting the cooperation required from the people which they might be expected to give. He and the officials of his Department have gone through the country trying to persuade the people to do what they should do themselves, and to point out to them the duty that they owe to themselves, so that if there is any shortage in the acreage envisaged by the Government and the Minister it will be due to no lack of endeavour on their part, but will be due, I am afraid, to a lack of a realisation of the gravity of the present position on the part of farmers themselves.

Mr. Byrne

The position in Dublin to-day is that there is no butter in the poorer quarters or in the well-to-do quarters. I met a very large number of people within the last few days who told me—others wrote to me—that where they formerly got 1 lb. of butter they could not get ¼ lb. Most of the people I am in touch with would probably buy in very small quantities, but they told me this morning in the tenement quarters that they cannot get even the smallest quantity of butter. There is no dripping; it cannot be purchased at any price. There is no lard, no margarine. They asked me what they are to do. All I could tell them is that I would report their case to the proper quarter and see if something cannot be done. I think the Minister has failed miserably in his duty of safeguarding the supply of butter for the people.

Deputy Bennett made reference to the fact of butter being 1/7 per lb. and likely to be dearer. The mere fact that it is 1/7 per lb. has taken butter off the tables of many thousands of the casually employed type of person in the city. They received a shock when they were rationed to ½-ounce of tea. They became used eventually to empty teapots; they became used to fireless grates. Are they now to get used to being without butter? You see delicate women standing for hours at a time in queues, waiting for bread. I want to tell the Minister that some of the Minister's friends felt very hurt and very offended when it was suggested that they were standing in queues for hot bread. Hot bread was the very thing they did not want because it is not good for their children. That was merely an excuse to cover up.

It is the poor and the casually employed, with small wages, who are suffering grave hardships in the City of Dublin. They used to fall back on pinhead oatmeal when there was no bread. Now there is no pinhead oatmeal available as a substitute for bread for their children. There is flakemeal available in small quantities, not in ½ st. or ¼ st. packets, but in lb. packets, so as to bring in a ½d. or 1d. per lb. more than the people should pay for it. That is a complaint which I received only to-day. All the Ministers cannot be wrong, but I think the advice they are getting from their Departments is misleading them. They are out of touch with their people. They do not know what is going on. They do not go into the tenements or into the working class quarters of the City of Dublin to see what is going on and to see how the people are suffering as a result of their neglect.

It was stated here a few days ago that the Minister sent inspectors around to bread shops and that the inspectors reported that after the queues had left there was spare bread in the shops. But that very day people who wanted two loaves got only one. People who were in the habit of getting six loaves for a large family of eight, nine or ten children, got only four. It is quite easy to have a tray of spare bread at night time for an inspector to see if during the day people have been deprived of 50 per cent. of their supplies.

I had a letter a few days ago from the head of an institution whom I asked to give the patients an extra cup of tea. Sick people want a cup of tea. He told me that all he had for the patients in his hospital was 20 per cent. of the 1939 supply. Can anyone imagine such a position in a big institution that deals with 300 sick people, just outside the City of Dublin?

What has gone wrong with the Minister's Department or with all the Departments? Again I say that all the Ministers cannot be wrong. They put too much responsibility on officials, and the heads of Departments, who are not keeping them properly advised. I would advise the Minister to take a walk around. I referred to pinhead oatmeal, which is going off the market completely. I referred to the fact that flakemeal cannot be got except at increased prices for small packages, not the size the woman with the large family wants. From remarks made by Deputy Bennett, I understand that, in addition to all this shortage of essential foodstuffs, the working class people are now threatened with an increase in the price of milk. I do not blame Deputy Bennett and those he represents for agitating for an increased price for milk. I think the producer should get a fair profit and the producer is not getting a fair profit. Let me not be taken as opposing a fair profit for the producer. There may be a lot of people handling it and their profits should not be passed on to the consumer, especially the consumer that Deputy Cooney, I, Deputy Mulcahy and the other Dublin Deputies represent. I am not speaking for the people on the outskirts of the city.

Reference has been made to the supply of potatoes. I wonder what has gone wrong in this country, a potato-growing country, a bacon and butter producing country, that has caused these commodities to go to such a high level, which puts them beyond the reach of the ordinary Dublin workman. Potatoes are 1/4 a stone to-day in the City of Dublin. I know the growers are not getting one-fourth of that price. I know it is not proper or fair. I say it is lack of organisation in the Government Department that has placed us in the position we are in to-day. The conditions in Dublin to-day are appalling. The poor people are suffering hardships. I have seen them standing in bread queues for 3½ hours in the rain. I have seen some standing who should be in hospital, some who should be in a maternity home. They were afraid to leave their place in the bread queues because, if they lost their place, they would get no bread. I have seen women taking up a position in the bread queue at 9 o'clock in the morning who, on account of the break in the schoolday, should be home at 12.30 to meet their children and avail of the gas supply. I have seen them having to make up their minds whether they would go home and leave the bread queue or remain in the bread queue and trust that some of the neighbours would look after the children. They would have to wait until the shop reopened. They might have to spend four hours in a queue in order to get a couple of loaves. The sooner the Government recognises there is something wrong and sets about remedying the evils and removing the burdens and hardships imposed on these people the better for all concerned. I appeal to the Minister to go into these matters. I suggest that the heads of all Departments should meet immediately. The Dublin people and the Irish people as a whole must appreciate what is going on. They know the difficulties. They know there is no shipping to bring in the necessary foodstuffs.

The Deputy is dealing more with the Department of Supplies than with the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Byrne

Agriculture covers wheat, milk, butter, and all these things. At least, I was led to believe that by Deputy Bennett's speech. It is because of the points he raised that I wished to reply. I had not intended to stand up. I rarely speak. I just put a question on a matter affecting the people of the city. If anyone proves to me that he has a grievance, I generally try to get it exposed by question. I should say it is always the last resort because you only put down a Parliamentary question after failing in the Departments to get something done. I did not intend to speak so long. I earnestly hope the Minister will try to remedy some of the injustices to which I have referred.

This House and the country rejoice at the reduction in this Estimate this year due to the disappearance of that terrible scourge, foot-and-mouth disease, and we hope that we will never have a repetition of it. Apart from that great reduction, I believe that the Minister could still further reduce this Estimate. The people in the country districts are very perturbed at the number of inspectors still retained by the Department of Agriculture. It seems to me that once a man is appointed in a temporary capacity he remains on whether the Act or the scheme under which he works still operates or not. I should like to know what is the position of all the inspectors that were employed under the Pigs and Bacon Act and several other Acts, which I believe are now inoperative. I think we have more inspectors now than we have pigs. At the last fair of Fermoy there were only a few fat pigs for sale. The same thing applies to many other Acts under which a large number of inspectors were employed. Probably we will not see many of them after the 1st May. I hope that the petrol restriction will put some of them off the road at any rate.

With regard to the growing of wheat, I hope that when the harvest time comes round we will have a greatly increased acreage under wheat and a greater return of wheat than we had last year. I hope that the Minister's inspectors under that scheme, whose duty it is to see after the farmers who have not been tilling their land, will have done their duty. Deputy Kissane, I think it was, who stated that he saw more green fields than ploughed ones and really I have to agree with him from what I see when coming up to Dublin. In some of the counties in the midlands it is very rarely you will see a ploughed field at all. Thank God, that cannot be said for the County Cork, for it is very rarely you see a green field there. I hope, however, they are all green to-day with wheat to feed the people. We have heard a very mournful story from two Dublin Deputies about the people in the city queueing up for bread and for butter. They will be queueing up for butter, but there will be no butter in this country and no bacon, and that is all due to Government interference. There is too much interference with farmers and that has been going on since the foundation of this State.

It is sad to see people queueing up for butter and for bread. But not so many years ago it was not for butter or for bread that great numbers of people in the cities and the towns were queueing up. I saw them queueing up in the afternoon for the pictures. I saw young men from 18 to 25 years of age in queues 200 or 300 yards long, while down the country, if these young men were doing their proper job, we could have increased the number of our cows at least three times. We should be carrying at least three times the number of cows we are carrying at the present time. We should be producing three or four times the amount of butter we are producing. We should be producing plenty of bacon. We should be producing more poultry and eggs for export, and we should be producing the food necessary for all these extra numbers in the different lines of agriculture. I remember seeing all these queues while the unfortunate farmers and their wives and sons and daughters were pure slaves—they have been slaves for the last 60 years. They did not see very many pictures. They had not time to go to very many theatres. The picture houses opened at 2.30 and went on until 11 o'clock; but the farmers and their wives and sons and daughters, and the agricultural workers, were working every night until 11 o'clock. In some cases the agricultural workers are now as well off as the farmers, if not better off, and more luck to them, because they deserve to be.

The position of the dairying industry at the moment is very serious. The Minister for Agriculture must know of the numbers of young three-year-old in-calf heifers which have been leaving this country for the past four or five months and which are still leaving it for Great Britain. That is a deplorable state of affairs. It is a disgrace that the Minister cannot find some means of keeping these young cows in the country to augment the present number in the dairying industry. I look upon the dairying industry as the most important industry in this country. But, of course, the farmers must sell these animals. If a farmer has ten or 12 young heifers, be might like to keep them on, but where is he to get the people to milk them? They are not there. The young people do not want to milk cows any longer.

I have been listening to the Labour Party, who have a motion down to refer this Estimate back, condemning the Government for not having any agricultural policy, attacking the Government about all the young men who are emigrating to Great Britain, and saying that something should be done about it. I remember eight or nine years ago, when this responsible Party here were trying to stop the Government in their wild and ruinous agricultural policy, trotting up the stairs there and supporting them in the Division Lobby in their ruinous policy. Now they come along and put down a motion to refer this Estimate back. I think it is all hypocrisy. These people are as much responsible as the Government for the state of our agriculture to-day. Why should not young men leave the country? What is there for them here? If a young man cannot find employment in this country and can find employment in another country, has he not a perfect right to go there? What is he going to get here? If he lives in a country district, he cannot even get the dole.

There is just one other matter to which I would like to refer and that is the attack which is being made on the farmers. I was reading a leading article in one of the newspapers yesterday condemning the farmers for feeding wheat to pigs and stating that wheat was found in the stomachs of the pigs in the bacon factories. I do not believe that is true; but if any wheat was found in the stomachs of pigs, I believe it was small wheat or damaged wheat.

I had wheat myself last year, 18 or 20 barrels of it, that was not millable. I failed to get the price for it that I should get, and I had to screen it three or four times. If I had pigs in stock, very likely I would have fed that wheat to them. That may have happened in the case of thousands of farmers all over the country. A farmer may produce 20 acres of wheat, but the produce of only 18 acres may be millable. He may have eight or nine barrels of wheat which is not millable, and he would probably have to screen it and leave it drying for a week or a fortnight, as I had to do. I believe that is the kind of wheat and barley that has been fed to pigs. I do not believe that any sane man would feed wheat to pigs so long as he could get £2 5s. Od. or £2 10s. Od. per barrel for it. It would be much more profitable to sell it than to feed it to pigs, and it is not right or fair to make such accusations against the farmers. I believe the people of the country owe a deep debt of gratitude to the farmers, and before this war is over they will owe them even more, because we all know that were it not for the farmers the people of the country would be very hungry to-day.

I am afraid that the Minister in charge of this Department deserves far more bricks than bouquets —and it is bricks that he is getting from the House to-day—because at the present moment agriculture is in an alarming condition. So far as we can see, no effort is being made to have a balanced agricultural industry in the country. For the last ten years we have had the Minister jumping from one thing to another with nothing steady or balanced. At the same time, we see the flight from the land while the farmer cannot get the necessary assistance from the Minister to do what the nation is crying out for, produce more food. I say the Minister has not done his duty to the country and the best thing he could do would be to take his departure and allow some other Minister to fill his place to see if he can do any better. It may not be the Minister's fault. It may be that he is not the man for the job and I believe myself he is not the man for the job. For the last ten years, while there was a so-called industrial drive in progress, we saw how the Minister for Industry and Commerce could, with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, take the nest-egg that agriculture had provided and squander it on a number of wild-cat schemes. These schemes for which millions of pounds were taken from the farmers' pockets have now foundered. At the onset of the war they ceased to exist. If these millions of pounds had been utilised to promote production on the land, what would our position be to-day? There would be no need for the cry of the Minister and his colleagues: "For God's sake, produce food or we shall starve." For ten years the farmer was crying out for assistance and help but all he got were the sneers and jeers of those who were getting a cheap living at his expense. His cattle were taken from him and, in the shape of free beef, were stuffed down the necks of men who had not even to do a day's work to earn that free beef. How can you expect these farmers to produce the same quantities which it would be possible for them to produce if they had been treated properly? The farmer has learned his lesson but I am afraid it is too late.

The industrial drive was the curse of this country. If the Minister for Agriculture were a man like the late Paddy Hogan, God rest his soul, he would be able to stand up to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and hold his place, but instead he allowed this money to be taken from the coffers of his Department and squandered on those other schemes. To-day the Minister for Agriculture is the man in the gap. He should be there to save this nation, but he is not able to do it. I quite agree that a tillage drive is necessary as, whether or not it pays the farmer, food will have to be produced. I want to say, however, that there is not much use in tearing up the land indiscriminately, because unless it is properly cultivated the land will not produce food. I have seen pitiable sights in some places, inexperienced men with tractors tearing up a quarter of a man's arable holding, running helter-skelter and then throwing in the corn in a careless, indifferent way. Efforts of that kind will not produce food. If there was an attempt at decent cultivation, one acre properly cultivated would produce as much as three or four acres cultivated in the manner in which I describe. If this war lasts for three or four years—and it seems a fairly reasonable assumption to say that it will unless Providence intervenes to bring it to a speedy conclusion—where are we going to get arable land to produce all the wheat, beet and other crops for that period? Is the Minister making any allowance in his calculations for these years ahead? Would it not be reasonable to allow a farmer to fallow a certain proportion of his land this year so that he might be in a position to produce wheat next year, when he cannot get manure for his land? Is it not only fair that the Minister should try to preserve some balance so as to prevent the land running wild and getting into a condition in which it can grow nothing but docks and thistles? Remember you cannot take food from the land without putting something into it. I would ask the Minister to give every consideration to the suggestion that the farmer should be allowed to let some of his land go fallow so that it could be utilised in the coming years for the production of crops.

A very large proportion of our arable land has been tilled for the last two or three years, in many cases with very poor results. It is a terrible thing to see an acre of fine arable land returning only three or four barrels of wheat. I saw myself a case last year in which an area of about 15 acres produced only 27 barrels of wheat, so poor that it could not even be given to pigs. The farmer put it on a lorry and brought it into the nearest mill. The miller gave him five minutes to take it out into the yard, and threatened if he did not do so to send for the Guards, as he was afraid it might be mixed with the good wheat which he had. That was one of the most pitiable sights I have seen. The wheat was black and rotten and smoked so much in the sacks that one would think a railway engine was in the vicinity. Land is being ripped up in the same way this year by tractors, but, in the name of goodness, what are the farmers going to do with wheat of that quality when they come to thresh it? I think the Minister ought to take strong action to curb the activities of many of those gentlemen called tillage ranchers. They have been allowed to take up hundreds of acres anywhere they can get land, and the results they have produced are very poor. I think there should be a limit beyond which they should not be permitted to go. Some of these men were very hard hit last year. They flopped on the job, and I think it was a good thing for the country that they did flop. Their methods of tillage are not to be commended. The wheat was not sown as it should have been sown, nor was it threshed properly.

At the present moment we hear a lot about the amount of wheat which is going into the stomachs of the pigs, but it is not being fed to them directly; they are picking it out of the straw that is being fed to them. In most farmers' yards you see wheaten straw, and if you shake it with a fork you will see grains hopping out like hailstones. That is where the pigs are getting the wheat. Those are matters in which the Minister should take more interest. I believe that he is too secluded here in Dublin. Even if it cost gallons of petrol per day, he should go around from county to county and mix with the plain farmers there. I do not want to see him meeting only the "hobnobs" in a particular county. We know that when the Minister goes down to attend a meeting in the country all the "suckers" are there to see what they can get from him. I want to see the Minister meeting the hard-working farmers, some of whom never read the ordinary daily paper, but spend all their time working on the land. I should like to see the Minister, like the late Paddy Hogan, chatting, smoking, and even having a drink with the people. That is the sort of man that is wanted in charge of Agriculture, not a man who sits in Dublin and listens to his advisers telling him: "That is light, and that is wrong." Most of the inspectors of the Department, although they may be fine men and well educated, are out of touch with conditions in the country. They are out of touch with the position of the farmers. They do not realise that during the last eight or ten years the farmers have been sneered and jeered at, and robbed, right left and centre by every Tom, Dick and Harry who never did a day's work, and some of those people who robbed the farmers are to-day wealthy men. They are almost Count McCormacks to-day, although some of them can hardly write their names, but they were quick fellows, and were quick at the right time.

Everybody knows that the pig industry is in an alarming position, and it is my belief that it will die out altogether unless the Minister immediately does something for it. The foundation of the pig industry, as we all know, was the farmer's workman in the little cottage. He was the man who always kept two or three pigs, and when they came to a certain age he sold them to the farmer. He could afford to keep them only until they reached a certain weight, perhaps six or seven stone. The Pigs Marketing Board has passed sentence of death on that industry. The poor man is the victim of the Pigs Marketing Board. At the present moment, pigs weighing 8-st. 6-lbs. are 80/- a cwt., while the 8-st. 7-lb. pigs are 106/- a cwt. What is the reason for that gap? Is not that definitely against the small man who has to sell his pigs when the food runs short? Why does he not get a chance, as the big fellow does? The man who can afford to keep the pigs a little longer gets the benefit of the difference between 80/- and 106/- a cwt. We find the price of sows fixed at 60/-, while the factories are allowed to give 95/-. Is the Minister in touch with the situation in regard to the pig industry at all, or does he want to let that industry die out? The farmers do not want to see that industry dying out, because bacon has been their staple food.

I want to say, too, that the tillage inspectors have slept on their jobs. It is not fair to the ordinary farmer to have a tillage inspector coming along now for the first time and saying: "You must till five or six acres more." The time for that was last September, October, November and December. It is not fair to the unfortunate farmer, who believed that his land was non-arable, to have an inspector coming down from Dublin now and saying: "That is arable land." Does not the farmer know as well as the inspector whether it is arable or not? Land which was a despicable looking sight a few months ago, when the floods were on it, looks all right now when there is a bit of grass showing, but nevertheless it is non-arable land, and we have inspectors coming along and telling the farmer that he has to till five or six acres more. If he tills it, what will he get out of it? It is not fair that those inspectors should be going around now. They should have gone around three or four months ago, so that the farmers would know where they stood. That is a big grievance in my county, and it is a grievance for which there is sound foundation. Those visits irritate the farmer, when he is up to his neck in work, and perhaps waiting to get the loan of a horse or a plough from his neighbour. In my opinion, too much land is being indiscriminately turned up. It would be all right if we could get the proper amount of food from it, but we are not getting quarter of that amount, because we have not enough practical men, commonsense men, at the head of affairs. It is all very fine going in for this theoretical nonsense that so much land will produce so much food. Every farm is different from the next, and every field is different from the next. One field will grow wheat, the next will not grow wheat but might grow oats or barley, but the farmer must do what he is told by the Department, which knows nothing about it.

Will the Minister take any steps to stop the drift from the land? Will he sit there for the next three or four years—I should not say for the next three or four years; I hope a year will finish them—and allow that drift from the land to continue? The farmers need labourers and cannot get them. Every man who can get a passport is getting it and leaving the country. What will the position be at harvest time? We are told that we can get the Army to assist. How can you get them to the farms in time? A fortnight nearly suffices for the harvest, and you cannot get the Army on to every farm in a fortnight. The people should not be allowed to fly out of the country. Anyone would think they were flying from a plague, and the Government seems to be doing everything to facilitate their flight. Money must be found to put us in a position to keep our people on the land. It is an appalling position that, after 25 years of a native Government, the people should be flying from the land, and that the farmers should be in such a deplorably poor and miserable condition. Then we are told about the great Irish nation, and all we have got from our freedom. We have got nothing but abuse. Perhaps we would be better off if we never got our freedom, because no genuine efforts have been made to secure the benefits of that freedom for our people. I would ask the Minister not to stand up on a platform and appeal to the farmer to do his duty. The farmer does not need those appeals. Pay the farmer and he will produce the stuff. If it pays him to produce wheat, he will produce it. If it pays him to produce oats he will produce oats, and if it pays him to feed cattle he will do so.

It is very unfair to make no effort to relieve the farmer of the burden of land annuities at the present time and for a few years to come. We all know very well that it was the price of three or four store cattle that paid the rent, rates and taxes at the end of the season, but now the farmer's good land has gone into tillage, and he has nothing with which to pay his annuities. He should be relieved of land annuities for a year or two in order to give him a chance to produce food for the people who Deputy Byrne and Deputy Hannigan told us to-day were starving in Dublin. We will produce food for the people of Dublin if we get a chance, but without getting relief we cannot keep on producing food and paying heavy taxes. The day has come for some Minister to take over the Department of Agriculture and work it in the interests of the farmers, and not in the interests of new industries started in this country which go "flop" at the first sign of a cloud on our horizon. We have embedded in the life of our country to-day all types of men from foreign countries—happy-go-lucky gentlemen who are doing well and who flew in here when there was a chance of doing so. They have fattened at the expense of the farmer, and I say: give those gentlemen a taste of the medicine they gave us and this will be a happier country for all of us to-day.

I agree that if the Minister wants to solve the important problem of food production, the best way of doing so is to pay the producer at least the cost of production. According to the report of a speech by the Minister a few weeks ago, he said that the farmers were very prosperous. The Minister for Finance also referred to their prosperity and it was refreshing to read, for once, statements from such good authorities that agriculture is becoming prosperous because the people had grown weary of reading tales of depression and misfortune. Unfortunately, however, the Minister did not tell us on what he based his conviction—because I suppose he believed what he said—that they were prosperous, except it might be that he was working on a basis of auto-suggestion and trying to make them prosperous by repetition of the statement.

There is really no foundation for the prosperity the Minister referred to. If there is, why does he not explain the flight from the land? Why are people flying from prosperity? Why are people leaving the land? They are doing so in order to better their position economically. There is no use in city people saying that they are flying from the land because the country is drab and because they have no pastimes. There are no two counties in Ireland from which there are more young people flying than Cavan and Leitrim, and life is in no way dull there. There is a hall in every parish; there are dances to which they can go on bicycles; and they never had such opportunities to enjoy themselves, it they have the time and the money to spend and can afford to waste their lives. The real explanation is an economic one, although there is very little use in telling that to the Minister if he professes to believe that agriculture is so prosperous. I tell him that it is not prosperous and could not be prosperous.

Prosperity is a relative thing, and if you want to measure prosperity, you must measure it by some standard, and I propose briefly to measure the prosperity the Minister talks about by three standards. There are many standards by which we could measure it, but I propose to take only three. We can measure it for instance by the standard of prosperity which the farmers enjoyed in the last war under conditions similar to those obtaining now, though in many respects the conditions now are favourable; we can measure it also by comparison with the position of other classes of people in the State—industrialists, for instance; and we can measure it by comparison with the position of tanners in the Six Counties. Comparing the position of agriculture with other industries here, we find that the people engaged in other industries are able to pay their employees such wages as attract the very best men and women into the industry. They are able to give them short hours, holidays with pay and better social services, which the farmer could never hope to give his employee, although the farmer is giving his employees better conditions than he and his family can enjoy.

That is the position of agriculture at the moment and that has been its position for the last ten years. How, then, can the Minister say that there is prosperity in that industry? What basis for prosperity is there in that position? You cannot raise a structure of prosperity without a foundation, and there is no foundation for the structure of prosperity to which the Minister referred. Not only are the workers in these industries attracted from agriculture and better provided for in every respect, but they have greater opportunities. What about the people who put their money into these industries compared with the people in agriculture? The people who put their money into these industries are guaranteed by the present Government, in many cases, from 40 to 50 per cent. profit. Monopolies have been created which are making 46 per cent. profit. That is not an exaggerated statement; it is not a statement of a member of a Party who is trying to misrepresent the position. It is a fact which I have taken from a booklet issued by the Catholic Truth Society entitled Social Encyclicals, and which deals with the cost of living, late marriages, unemployment, emigration, housing, poverty, etc. It is written by Reverend C. Lucy, M.A., D.D., D.Ph., and here is a quotation from it:

"Prices are glaringly unjust in many instances at the moment. Our quota and tariff-protected industrialists have not all played the game. Some of them give us articles of either inferior quality or of exorbitant price—or both. The proof is the large dividends they have been able to pay. One monopoly company earns 46 per cent. on its capital—others succeed in keeping the figure less remarkable only by the ingenious devices of issuing bonus shares, dividends free of tax and the like."

There we have it stated that investors in monopolies earn 46 per cent., while the farmer is not getting the cost of production. Yet agriculture is prosperous. We never hear a word about the prosperity of these monopolies which the Government set up and deliberately arranged to enable them to secure these profits. There must be some explanation for it. It is impossible for any country to prosper while that goes on. The principal industry is to be killed and stamped out while these foreigners, as some other Deputy has said, get a monopoly and earn 46 per cent. on their invested capital. It is a shocking state of affairs.

I said at the opening of my speech that I proposed to deal with three standards by which we can measure the prosperity of agriculture. I have referred briefly to one, and made a comparison between agriculture and other industries. Let me take the second standard and let me compare agricultural prices now with the prices obtained during the last war, when conditions were similar in some respects. At that time a cow was worth £75. The same cow to-day is worth £25. Pigs were then sold at as much as £13 per cwt., dead weight. The average price now is 83/-, taking light, medium and heavy pigs. In the last war there was a controlled price and the figure was reduced to £8 per cwt. There was a bonus of 50/- added, and that meant that pigs were sold at £10 10/- per cwt., while the price now is £4 3/-. Butter was 3/6 per lb. during the last war and it is now 1/7. Potatoes were £1 per cwt. and now they are 6/-, and they are actually lying in the fields because it would not pay to feed them to pigs and the Minister knows that.

The country is full of potatoes. We were blessed with an abundant harvest last year. We do not know what the position will be this year. I hope it will be a good year. The farmers who got bitten last year by growing large quantities of potatoes will not plant so many potatoes this year. They have lost money, notwithstanding the good season, and they find it is not even worth their while to feed the surplus potatoes to pigs. There is no guaranteed price for potatoes, and the potatoes are lying on their hands. The next thing will be that we will have a shortage of potatoes, and there will also be a shortage of pigs because it does not pay to feed them.

Eggs are in line with other articles. During the last war they were four times the price they are now. At that time, £2 an acre was given for every acre of land tilled. There is nothing given now to the farmer for tilling. He is compelled to till. In the last war agricultural machinery was cheap, and we had cheap and abundant manure. Now manure cannot be got. Whatever manure is obtained it is scarcely worth buying. There was plenty of cheap seed to be had in the last war, but now there is no seed, except what is smuggled across the Border at fabulous prices. That is the second standard by which we can measure the prosperity of agriculture.

Let me now compare the position of the farmers in the Twenty-Six Counties with those in the Six Counties. I am stating facts and I challenge contradiction. If the Minister is able to correct any statement I make, I should like him to do so. I will relate the position of our farmers with those in Northern Ireland and I will take only a few items, because I do not want to go exhaustively into the matter. I believe that beef, liveweight, is 14/- per cwt. dearer in the North, or about £8 or £9 per head. Milk in Northern Ireland is 2/- and it is only 6d. here. I was told that in the North people pay 2/6 for first-grade milk. I am not sure of that but I am sure it is 2/-. Bonhams were £5 each in Enniskillen, on the other side of the Border, and they are £2 10s in Cavan. The Minister would not allow people to export them and now the people do not find it worth while to feed the bonhams because of the price at which bacon is fixed here. The farmer on the other side of the Border gets £10 per statute acre for every acre of potatoes he grows and we do not get 6d. The Northern farmer can get cheap manure; he can get sulphate of ammonia at 23/- a bag and down here it is £7 a bag when it is smuggled across, and half of it is sand.

What is smuggled across costs £40 a ton here.

I suppose the further down it gets the dearer it becomes. These are some of the disadvantages which the farmers in this State suffer and the Minister says that they are prosperous in spite of all this, in spite of all Fianna Fáil has done against them.

When did I say they were prosperous?

A couple of weeks ago I read it in some paper.

It is nice to be arguing along that line, but I should like to know when I made the remark.

The Minister for Finance said that they are prosperous. I am making a contrast between our farmers and farmers in Northern Ireland. Up there they get £10 for every acre of potatoes and they get plenty of cheap manure, while we have to pay terrible prices. The farmers there get twice as much for their pigs as we do. Taking all these things into account, it would seem that our Minister has little consideration for the people engaged in agriculture. He is at the head of the industry and he should give the agricultural community some thought. When he inquires into these things to which I have referred he will find that the balance is entirely against the unfortunate people who are trying to live on agriculture.

In spite of all the difficulties, the people are breaking up the land; they are doing their very best, notwithstanding that they have every disadvantage to face. If agricultural machinery can be got the farmers have to pay a tax on it. They had not to do that during the last war and the farmers in Northern Ireland have not to pay any tax on machinery at the present time. Our farmers are trying to carry on because they do not want to see the people starving. Farming does not pay here. The farmer and his wife and family are working like slaves; they have no one to help them. Their main anxiety is to keep the country going and yet we hear complaints in regard to them. The papers contain articles running down the farmers, saying that they are starving the people.

I sympathise with the people in Dublin who line up in queues in their effort to get bread, milk and butter. I should like them to know that it is not the farmer who has failed them, but the Department of Supplies or some other Government Department. Those Departments have let the profiteers and the black marketeers go ahead and these are the people who are "doing" them. The farmers, however, have done their duty and are doing it and will do it, in spite of all the obstacles that have been thrown in their way.

Now, with regard to turnip seed and mangel seed, perhaps Deputy Belton can tell us more about it, as I did not bother with it myself, but I know that it can be got more cheaply in the Six Counties and the farmers there can get it guaranteed, and whatever way the smuggling is done I have met people from County Dublin and from the Minister's own county who have gone down there to see if they could get it at any price, and the unfortunate farmer has to pay for all this. The farmer is used to hard knocks now and I hope the Minister will use his influence with his colleagues to induce them to look more leniently and not be so hard upon the farmers and, wherever they can assist and encourage them, to do so, because they are doing their part to feed this nation and also doing their part to defend it, without pay or reward. The sons of these farmers, when their day's work is done, go in and drill till 12 o'clock at night in order to be prepared to defend the country, and all they get are insults. It is a shame, and it is not right.

I think the farmers are also entitled to get some consideration if they want to buy stock and machinery. There is a great shortage of machinery, and I think the Department should buy some machinery and hire it out to the farmers through the agricultural inspectors in the congested districts. In these congested districts there are excellent men who are doing very useful work, but if they had some machinery such as rollers and harrows to hire out to the farmers it would not cost the Department one shilling and, indeed, they would make a profit instead. Some of these articles are only wanted for one day in the year. A small farmer might want a roller or something like that for a day or a half-a-day. That would cost him £5 or £6 to buy, which would be too much of an outlay for a half-day's work, but if the agricultural instructors could hire the machine out, a profit could be made. They could let out the machine at so much per day to the neighbours around and, as I say, it would cost the Department of Agriculture nothing and would encourage the farmers and teach them the use that could be made of these machines.

It is the same thing with regard to providing credit. The farmers are anxious to pay their way and to return anything with which they are obliged. It is impossible for them to carry on without the means, having regard to all the difficulties they have to get through, and I think the Government should have a little more sympathy for these people. Instead of boasting about their prosperity and all the rest of it, they should consider their difficulties, because they have no end of difficulties, and if they fail in producing the food for the nation, the nation will suffer and will suffer more than the farmers themselves. The farmers are suffering at all times, working night and day, but, of course, when the food is produced, they will have the first turn out of it because, unfortunately, the food that is produced has to pass through the hands of the middlemen, and the profiteer and the black marketeer get hold of some of it, and so it runs short before it reaches the city.

I notice also that the Minister talked about the social services that the farmers enjoy. Now, I cannot understand why the farmers should require social services if they got a fair deal in prices, but at any rate the Minister does not seem to be very accurate in that regard. I have here a booklet called Guide to the Social Services, in which there is a statement in regard to farm grants, and I challenge the truth of that statement. The taxpayers' money was spent in getting that booklet printed, but that statement is not true. It is stated that every farmer is entitled to, and can have, these farm grants. Under the heading “Farm Improvements” it says:

"Recently the Department of Agriculture launched the farm improvement scheme by which all farmers can secure grants for: (1) field drainage, (2) reclamation, (3) fencing, (4) improvement of farmyards (excluding buildings), (5) improvement of farm roadways."

Now, I question that statement, and I have here an extract from a letter I received from the Minister's own Department when I wrote with regard to a farmer who had applied for a farm grant. The letter is dated 31st January, 1942, and it is headed "Cavan 2121". It is as follows:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Agriculture to inform you that as the number of applications received under the scheme prior to that of Mr. ——, whose application was not received until November 13, is greater than can be granted out of the funds available, I regret," etc.

Yet, in this booklet it is stated distinctly, and without any qualifications, that the Farm Improvement Grant is open to all farmers, if they want it, with the approval of the Minister. I think the taxpayers' money should not be wasted in printing something that is not true.

There is hardly anything elese that is worth while spending time on, but I should just like to mention one other matter. The country is crowded with inspectors and the farmers are annoyed with them. If they were doing useful work they would be all welcome, and that work would be all to the good; but take, for instance, the warble fly inspectors who have been appointed. I suppose they have been operating in the country now for five or six years and, certainly, that should be time enough in which to stamp out the pest altogether if the work had been properly done. It is obvious that the work was not properly done or there would be an end to the inspectors. I believe that the Minister could get the work done much more effectively and much more cheaply if the Department were to buy the ingredients for dealing with this fly in bulk, and then have the remedy made up and sent out to every farmer, in proportion to the number of cattle, with a small leaflet giving directions as to how it was to be used. Then, after the first year, a fine could be imposed on the farmer, a penny or twopence for every warble on a beast he was selling. If he were fined at the port where the cattle were going off—a small fine at first, and increasing year by year—in about three years' time there would not be a warble or warble fly in the country. If farmers found that they had to pay a fine increasing year by year, they would stamp it out of the herds. If something like this were done, the money which is spent on inspectors would be saved. What is needed is a system to induce people to get rid of the pest. If that is done, the Department would lose nothing. They could collect the fines and that would pay for the staff they would send out. In about two or three years it would cost nothing and it would all be stamped out.

I believe the same thing could be done in many other Departments of this State. Inspectors could be abolished and better results secured by adopting some system of inducing people to do the proper thing in a way that would bring it home to them that it would be in their own interests. Making jobs and having too many inspectors, too much taxation and too many burdens, instead of making any section of the people prosperous, is a policy that will bring real difficulties to everyone. That is leading up to the flight from the land and from the country in general. All our trouble is due to mismanagement, and the Departments must change their methods if the country is to get a chance. I hope the Minister will begin by setting a good headline.

I wish to mention my appreciation of the way the farmers of this country have stood up to the present emergency and have helped to provide food for the people. Coupled with that, I also wish to pay tribute and appreciation to the sound planning of the Minister's Department and to the Government generally regarding the tillage policy. The vast majority of our farmers are doing their bit in tins emergency. I regret that there still are some farmers who are not pulling their weight with the rest of the country, that there still are some farmers who are not complying with the Tillage Order.

I referred in this House before to what could be seen when coming up here through one of the most fertile districts in Ireland. The scene has not much altered since, you still have too many green fields, particularly in parts of the counties Limerick and Tipperary. I agree that the position has improved, but the amount of tillage there, as can be seen by a traveller, would not correspond with the proportionate amounts in other parts of the country. Unfortunately, there are some farmers—very few in number, indeed—who do not seem to have a proper realisation of the seriousness of our food supplies. I would not hold the farming community generally to blame in the matter I am now referring to. When I know of cases—few though they may be—where food that should be reserved for humans was given to animals, I for one would not stand up here and condone them. I thought it pretty bad tactics on the part of some responsible Deputies to shield men of that type. They are few in number. You will never have any flock of sheep without a black one in between, and there should be no mercy for the black sheep.

Deputy McGovern has tried to persuade himself and the House that there is a flight from the land. If he or any other Deputy would consult the every-day Press, and go into localities where farms are being sold, he would find that land offered for sale is gradually going up in price day after day, and that there is far keener competition for land than there was some 15 or 16 years ago. I think that, in itself, ought to dispose of the alleged flight from the land. It is true that a farmer cannot settle all the members of his family on the farm, but that is the same all over the world—everybody must get an economic living. I wonder if a shopkeeper would try to settle all the members of his family in the shop. I know that the farmer's life and lot is a hard one, and that he and his family and help must work long hours, but I do not agree that they are slaves. Deputy Daly stated that farmers and their families were slaves for the past 60 years. Naturally, I felt that Deputy Daly was trying to be rather hard on the present Government, but when I found him hard on the men who fought so much in the old days and who helped to get us fixity of tenure and the passing of the Land Acts, I must forgive him, as that 60 years roughly coincides with the passing of the Land Acts.

Were it not for Government policy over the past ten years—that is, for seven years before this war started— we would not have had as much human food available from our own soil to-day. Some Deputies have argued that, by leaving the land alone, its fertility can be stirred up and made use of when a time of emergency comes. That is an argument I have heard in another place, but let us see the position. In what Deputy Bennett describes as non-tillage areas, he has told us that farmers find great difficulty in procuring the ordinary tillage instruments and machinery for harvesting. Deputy Giles has told us of very bad and doubtful crops of wheat in the fertile County of Meath, while, on the contrary, land that is not more than 50 per cent. as fertile as either Meath or Limerick, has grown, and is at present under, very promising crops of wheat. This is due to the fact that the farmers in those particular districts always tilled the land and followed Government advice and Government policy.

We heard another side of the question from Deputy Byrne. He lays the blame for both the shortage and high price of potatoes on the Minister and the Minister's Department. When the Minister and his Department get the stuff produced, I think they should be finished with the job. If there is a shortage of butter which, so far as I can see, is confined to Dublin, it must be due to some other cause—probably the short-sightedness of the merchants in not having in adequate stores. There is no doubt that the soundest agricultural policy is founded on milk production and on the milch cow, because that is the hub of mixed farming. While I admit that fairly decent encouragement has been given to the dairying industry, I would still request the Minister to increase that encouragement. Deputy Bennett was troubled as to what the 50,000 extra acres of potatoes were required for. The best answer to that is to remind him that we are in the middle of an emergency and, if not required for human food, under present circumstances, potatoes are probably the cheapest food that can be given to pigs, thereby helping to keep alive the pig industry during these trying times.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a few matters. Recently the question of the hardship to cattle being transferred from the southern counties to the County Dublin was brought to my notice. In one case, the cattle were four days in the wagons and the owner lost two or three of them as a result of the hardship they suffered. I fully realise the difficulty of keeping up transportation in times like the present, but I think the Minister or his Department should make representation to the transport companies so as to have adequate provision made for the watering and feeding of cattle during transit.

An emergency powers order was issued some time ago compelling farmers to pay a certain sum for sacks. The amount to be paid for pulp sacks was 2/6 per sack, to be refunded if the sacks were returned in good condition. I know of several cases where these sacks were returned in good condition three months ago and the farmers who paid for them four or five months ago have not yet got a refund of their money. I ask the Minister to get into touch with the Sugar Company, or with the Department responsible for issuing the Order, so as to safeguard the farmer's interests and secure that the money he has paid for an article returned by him will be refunded to him in reasonable time. I have had several complaints from different parts of the country on that matter.

I again bring to the notice of the Minister the help which would result to agriculture if grants were made available for the erection of lime kilns. The Department, I am aware, has given considerable encouragement to the use of lime, but I think it should go further and give some contribution, by way of loan or grant, for the erection of lime kilns where lime cannot be obtained locally.

Coming back to the question of milk production, cow testing for milk production is, undoubtedly, a great help in the improvement of dairy stock, and it is a pity that more farmers are not members of cow-testing associations. I should like to ask the Minister to go into the question of the weighing of the milk and the recording of the yields and see if this procedure could not be made somewhat simpler than it is at present. Under the present system, weighing is carried out one day a week during the lactation period. I do not think that much harm would be done or that the results would be altered to any great extent if weighing took place only one day a month, provided it was carried out under proper supervision. That might entail the employment of extra supervisors, but we would have better and more reliable results than are obtained from the present haphazard method, as it is doubtful if all members of cow-testing associations weigh their milk once a week. as they are supposed to do.

In conclusion, I wish to pay a tribute to the farming community for the magnificent attempt they have made to keep the nation in food and to the Minister's Department which has given them valuable advice and help. I sincerely trust that, during this crisis. the farming community will not let the country down. I am confident they will not.

I am sure that every Deputy agrees that it is the duty of the farmer to grow all the wheat he possibly can and to grow it in the right way—not by putting in a tractor to-day, ploughing it up and sowing it to-morrow. It is a big mistake to half sow any crop. It is the duty of the farmer to grow all the wheat, barley, oats and potatoes he can, and to help to feed the nation. But it is also the duty of the Government to help the farmer to do that. In many cases, he is being asked to work at a loss. It is a great mistake for the farmer to sow wheat on land from which he would have a better yield of barley or oats. Circumstances alter cases. A man with suitable land for wheat should sow wheat in that land. The Minister and the Government were very slow in telling farmers that they would give them 50/- per barrel for their wheat. Every practical farmer knows that the time to sow winter wheat is in the autumn. There is no use in book-farmers telling the people that they can sow winter wheat in February. The Chair seems to be enjoying this.

The Chair is deeply interested, if I may say so.

I am delighted at that. As one who was reared on the land, and who has had knowledge of wheat growing all his life, I know that the practical farmer is a better judge on these matters than the book-farmer. If the farmers had known last August or September that they would get 50/- a barrel for their wheat, you would have thousands more acres of winter wheat sown—not hundreds of acres. The time to sow winter wheat is in the autumn. The old farmer always believed in having his wheat covering the ground before Christmas, so that it would stand the hard weather after Christmas. In the constituency which the Minister and I represent a great deal of wheat sown in February has been ploughed up and the land re-seeded. That is not profitable. I do not blame the Government for the bad weather in the month of March, but I do blame them for not telling the farmers, last August or September, when Deputy Belton had his motion down, that they would give them 50/- a barrel for their wheat. To my mind 50/- is not enough. Wheat is very heavy on land. The Taoiseach and other Ministers may tell us that they have it from professors that it is not heavy on land, but I know from experience that it is.

As regards the pig industry, last December the bacon curers were not able to handle half the pigs which were ready for the market. Any man who takes any interest in the pig industry knows that pigs over 16 stone were cut 10/- per cwt., and over 17 stone were cut 23/-, live weight, so that a big percentage of the pigs remained on the hands of the producers. In January and February, when these pigs were overweight, the Pigs and Bacon Board took them off the farmers at a very inferior price. At that time, if the Minister for Agriculture had allowed these people to ship the pigs, they would have fetched 24/- a score in the British market—the market we thanked God we had lost. They wanted heavy bacon there. In the months of November and December there was always a good market in Britain for heavy pigs. They are used in some districts as pork. Unfortunate men, like myself, had to feed these pigs for six weeks and then lost £2 10s. a head, which they would not have lost if there had been a market in December.

The Minister did get the British to give him 11d. a lb. for our beef in December. We were thankful for that, but he did not go far enough. Stall-fed cattle, which cost five times the amount to feed, were only making the same price up to yesterday, and 11d. per lb. for stall-fed cattle is not an economic price. The man who had to take that price fed his cattle at a big loss. On account of the scarcity of artificials, it is necessary for the Minister to encourage people to feed more pigs and to stall-feed more cattle, because the land is hungry, and will be hungrier, for manure. No farmyard manure is as strong as the farmyard manure that comes from under stall-fed cattle and pigs. You might as well use sawdust as some of the straw that is brought in and later used as manure. The Minister should approach the British and ask them to increase the price of stall-fed cattle. Another class of animals that are not getting fair treatment as regards price are spring lambs. Strong mutton, even ewes, were worth 1/2 and 1/3 per lb. on the home market, while spring lambs are making only 1/2 in the British market, less 10/- for expenses. You would not have 11d. a lb. on these lambs. It is nearly time the Government saw their way to give the farmers a fair price for their stock so that they would have a living wage and a little extra to encourage their children to stay on the land.

In the constituency which the Minister and I have the honour of representing, every intelligent farmer and his wife and children work 14 or 15 hours out of the 24. Unfortunately, they get no allowance for overtime. While food is so dear, I think it would be only right for the Government to give a subsidy to married agricultural workers with families. Although their wages have gone up by 3/- a week—I do not grudge it to them; I should like to see them get more if the farmer could afford it—it is not sufficient for these men. I have been knocking at the door of the Minister for a long time regarding the state of the labourers' cottages in County Wexford. They are a disgrace to the county from which I come. If a man is shivering in his bed at night, he will not be fit to work the next morning and he cannot rear healthy children in such a house. I offered my services to the Minister for Local Government as inspector but I suppose I was regarded as too cheap——

The Deputy will have to wait for the Vote for the Minister responsible in that matter.

I have got in now what I wanted to get in.

The Chair is quite alive to the Deputy's irrelevance and he should not try to wander further.

I am very thankful for the liberty I got. In conclusion, I hope the Minister for Agriculture will remind the Minister for Local Government and Public Health about the cottages.

In connection with this Estimate, I want to leave the question of the present position of agriculture in relation to the crisis to other members of the House and to confine myself entirely to the problem of post-war planning, and in particular to ask the Minister for his view as to how far it would be desirable to institute planning now for all future possibilities in connection with agriculture. The Minister made a speech before the Dairy Science Society of University College, Cork, in which he provided for the people of this country a number of very hard facts which indicate that he himself was quite clearly thinking about the post-war position. I would like to quote one or two pertinent paragraphs from that speech in order to show that I am in no way going beyond the Minister's own mind in thinking of planning. In one paragraph he said:

"Actually, there are more births than deaths in rural Ireland, but it is migration from the land that leaves a decrease in rural population. On the other hand, agricultural production remains practically static. The production per person of those engaged in agriculture is, therefore, increasing, and this tends to improve the individual incomes of those engaged in agriculture. If prices are increasing or remain constant the improvement is absolute. If prices are declining the greater output tends to combat declining incomes. In either case the agriculturist is better off."

In another part of his speech he said:—

"From the point of view of the size of holdings, already not more than one-third of the farms in this country are above the economic level. There are almost 100,000 agricultural labourers in the State. They and their families depend on these larger-sized farms for a living. Suppose, for example, that these farms were all sub-divided into economic holdings and that agricultural labourers were all made peasant proprietors, I am doubtful if there would be much land left over to satisfy the needs of uneconomic holders or landless men. The back to the land movement would, therefore, have the inevitable effect of putting more and more below the economic level."

In other words, the Minister spoke of the limit to which land division can be effective in helping the farmer. The Minister then went on to speak of the difficulties of both the bacon and the dairying industries and spoke of the possibility of whether production output could be increased or whether it might be necessary by artificial means to restrict it. He did not say that the industry was reaching that position, but merely warned the people that the position was becoming difficult. Speaking of the dairying industry, he said:—

"If, on the other hand, we decide after the war to continue in the export business we can only do so by reducing the standard of living of our agriculturists or by reducing costs of production. We can only reach the New Zealand output per person by undoing the work of the Land Commission over the last 20 or 30 years, that is, to clear the small holdings and recreate the large ranches. It is not possible to do this, and from the social point of view not desirable. We cannot improve the climate, and we dare not enlarge our farms. We should, and I hope we can, improve milk yields. And so we leave things as they are until peace and goodwill and free commerce are restored internationally."

In other words, he spoke in a pessimistic vein and also suggested that by increasing production per acre now we might be able to compete to a greater degree with New Zealand. Taking the general statement of the Minister, I say once more that I do not think I am going outside his mind in speaking of post-war planning. It is quite obvious from the present position, that part of our difficulty in achieving a higher production of wheat is that a great deal of the lea land of this country, largely because of our history, consists of relatively poor pasture, and that the further we increase our tillage the more we shall be aware of how far we have failed to improve our whole grassland position in this country: to combine the advantages of tillage and grass cultivation so as to reach the level that the scientific endeavours of countries that have had a more stable history and a more peaceful history than ours, a greater unity on political and agricultural matters than we have, have reached.

The future of our agriculture after the war will, to my mind and to the mind I am sure of most Deputies, be very gravely in doubt. There are a number of favourable factors which we might first of all relate before speak ing of the unfavourable factors. There is the obvious favourable factor that as long as we have our principal trade with Great Britain there is a natural basis for an exchange of store cattle for the products which the English will always wish to export, no matter what the economic position, such as coal, cotton and iron. Secondly, for a number of years after the war there will be an acute scarcity all over the world and particularly in Europe of products of all kinds and, in particular, of agricultural produce of quality such as breeding stock. That may help us for a few years. Thirdly, Deputies may be aware that it is quite possible that by the end of this war all those countries which are in debt to Great Britain, and have been forced to sell and dump their products on the English market at uneconomic levels, are likely to have discharged the largest proportion of their debt, so that we may take it there will be a redution in the pressure exercised on their part to sell at any cost. I think I am right in saying that the Dominions and the Empire as a whole have £253,000,000 worth of assets which they are unable to discharge for the purchasing of goods. South Africa and New Zealand are at present paying off portion of their debt to Great Britain.

Those might be termed the favourable factors. The unfavourable factors are, of course, very easy to observe. It is unlikely that we shall be very high in the list of preferences for the English market except in respect of those commodities which form, as I said before, a natural basis for exchange. Secondly, because there is a war on in England, because of the acute agricultural position there, an enormous amount of money is being spent in developing agricultural land—thousands of acres are being cleaned of shrubbery and gorse—and an enormous amount of money is being spent in giving the farmers grants for reclaiming lea land. Agricultural advisory committees have inspected almost every farm in Great Britain and have given advice to the farmer as to what he should do with his land: in fact they have instituted a land commission to ensure that the land there is used to the best advantage. In view of all that, and although much of that work may have been hurriedly and badly done from the point of view of post-war development, production costs in England may appear more unfavourable in comparison with ours when the brief period of post-war reconstruction has taken place. In other words, because of the pressure of the war the English farmer's costs of production may relatively improve in comparison with ours.

English agriculture has been in a very sad state for many years. It would be invidious to make a comparison between it and our principal industry. Great improvements in agriculture have been made in this country by this Government and the last Government. But, obviously, to the extent that the English production standard has improved, to that extent will they crack the whip, so to speak, in connection with our industry. If they are able to fatten more cattle at less cost they will be in a position, if they want to, to dictate terms to us with regard to our unfinished cattle in a way that they were not able to do before the war. I am not suggesting that we should take the same steps that the British Government have taken, because a country at war can always do things which a country at peace cannot do. I am merely pointing out that it is a fact. Then there is the inevitable struggle between the cities and the interests of agriculture in Great Britain, as to how far agriculture will be protected, how far there will be a greater market for our store cattle and as to how far we will continue to import various goods into England of an agricultural character in connection with any general planning for international trade.

I believe that, no matter who wins this war, it is not unlikely that the small countries, willy-nilly, will have to take part in some international cartel for the exchange of produce. We will be, relatively, for the rest of our lifetime, far less free in matters of exchange than we have been up to now because of the possibility of being compelled by the fact that we are a small country to take part in a cartel, and though we may have some voice in it, the extent to which we contribute to deciding what our part is, may be rather less than we imagine at the moment. The final difficulty which we will have to face will be whether the group of agricultural experts in England who believe in developing milk instead of beef win or whether the group of agricultural experts who dominate after the war will believe in going on with the old mixed beef-fattening and milk farming. A very large number of very intelligent agricultural experts have been advocating for the last three years that, as a compromise with the Argentine beef interests, a great deal more milk should be produced and a great deal less beef. If that process went very far, it would automatically force us on to a milk economy, in line with the British. Obviously, they would not be willing to take so many store cattle for fattening if they were going in for a policy of intensive dairying. It is impossible for us to see in advance what they are likely to do. Knowing the English agriculturists, I would say that, on the whole, they are likely to take a more conservative policy and that anything so drastic as a rapid change to an intensive dairy policy would seem unlikely. Yet, I read articles in agricultural societies' pamphlets, written by most intelligent men, who advocate that policy of increasing milk as compared with beef production. Obviously, as I said before, it is going to affect us.

It is quite evident the unfavourable factors overweigh the favourable ones and we have to prepare to face that. We have our own internal difficulties. We have a very low output and yield on many of our farms. We shall have lands that will be exhausted by tillage carried out under war conditions, without fertilisers—not so exhausted as some members of the House might think—but, nevertheless, the position obviously will be serious. We shall have escaped, so far as many of our farmers are concerned, the acquisition of the most modern knowledge with regard to farming. We have not developed ensilage; we have not developed to any great degree modern grass production; we have not made any effort, because of our tillage position, to concentrate on the improvement of the type of grass grown in every part of the land in connection with the long lea and the short lea type of farming which involves in its turn tillage, and above all, we have continued to adopt what I may call the extensive type of farm production instead of the intensive type.

I do think it is important that Deputies, in considering this Estimate, taking a non-political point of view, looking back on the country for the past 20 years, realising there has been stagnancy, stagnancy both absolute and relative, right from the beginning of the century to the present day, should compare in their minds the two main systems of farming in Western Europe which result in two quite different types of production and see how far we, who have all the opportunity for doing intensive farming, have, in fact, carried out the extensive system. Whereas the results of our farming have been those of extensive farming, the results could have been far better. I would like to put it to the House that as there are these two methods, both are the result of particular originating causes. The countries which have extensive farming, farming on a non-intensive scale, comparatively speaking, are generally those countries where there is backward technique, very low rainfall, deficiency of soil, unfavourable climate and lack of easy access to an industrial market. Those are the originating causes of the extensive type of farming.

The conditions that result from extensive farming are, as may well be imagined, low yields, lower stock density than might otherwise be possible, relatively high cost of meat products, no progressive increase in soil fertility—if anything, a decrease in soil fertility—relative lack of improvement in farm buildings and equipment, except where they are heavily subsidised by the State, no very great increase in the numbers or the quality of live stock or, shall we say, insufficient increase in the numbers and the quality of live stock; a lack of increase in the volume of credit made available to farmers. These conditions result in social conditions of an undesirable character.

In countries which compete with this country and where the intensive system operates, the originating causes are the reverse. There is modern technique, adequate rainfall, favourable climate, soil sufficiency, and proximity to an industrial market. In the case of those countries that adopt intensive farming methods the conditions that result are exactly the opposite to those I have described already. There are high yields, high stock density, wide differentiation of products, increasing soil fertility, increasing amount of farm buildings and equipment, increasing numbers and quality of live stock, increasing output, low interest rates for credit, organised production and marketing, and other favourable factors.

It is perfectly obvious, from studying our history that, as I have said before, we have the originating causes, or most of the originating causes, which should result in intensive farming and in the good conditions that arise from intensive farming. We have the possibility of modern technique; we have adequate rainfall; we have a reasonably favourable climate; we have a reasonably favourable potential soil sufficiency, and we have proximity to an industrial market. I believe that it is very important, in considering any Estimate, to bear the fact in mind that we have the wrong conditions arising from originating causes which are in our favour. There is no need for us to be ashamed of that fact. We all know that our history would have prevented any very great improvement in agricultural production. But we cannot go on representing farmers in this House who have not been told the truth, not because we have deceived them, but because we have never made a supreme effort in all parts of this House to warn the farmers of the danger of their position. Very considerable change in methods of production is required, in which the farmers and the State will have to share the respousibility. There is absolutely no use in saying that the State must do everything or in reproving the farmer because he does not necessarily think out what has to be done himself.

I foresee an age in which farming will be highly scientific and machanised, particularly in the countries competing with us on the British market, when the boundary between industry and agriculture will gradually begin to disappear. Farmers are not aware of that in this country. The very boundaries between town and country are disappearing. We talk about people leaving the land and going into the towns. The actual fact is that in certain countries agriculture has become so industrialised that it is an industry in itself not very distinct from ordinary manufacturing industries.

I should also like to make perhaps a dangerous prophecy, that, whether we like it or not, in a decade from now, or even earlier, the British Government may refuse to accept any cattle from this country unless they are graded and weighed and in exactly the same standard condition as frozen beef which comes from the Argentine; that cattle before they are able to leave this country within ten years from now will have to pass through a fine mesh of examination; that the whole of the easy-going store cattle production in this country for the British market, by which a great proportion of the cattle are coming up in trains and going over in boats to Great Britain, will have to be radically improved that we shall have to have something in the nature of scientific grading and standardisation of cattle; that it will be impossible for a beast with a certain number of teeth or of a certain age, unless it has reached a certain standard, to leave the country, and that we will have to take it or leave it. I ask Deputies who are experienced in this matter to make some observations as to what is needed in the way of an agricultural revolution in order to meet the English importer on that particular point. I should like to ask those who specialise in the cattle industry to make their observations, and if they think I am talking nonsense, I shall be glad to hear it. But from all the reports I read it seems to me to be sooner or later inevitable. No one can say that we have warned the farmers about that possibility. I am not saying that we have not other things to think about now, things that are more important in connection with the war. I am merely putting this forward in order to ascertain the view of the Minister and to find out whether he is willing to consider now the reestablishment of some planning authority.

In order to give weight to my argument and in order that Deputies may have some sort of information so that they may feel I am not exaggerating the position, I should like to give a few figures with regard to production in this country as compared with the production of our rivals. I gave a good many two years ago, and I am not going to repeat these, but I am going to give some new ones. Statistics, of course, have always a certain limited value. Statistics with regard to agriculture are liable to be inaccurate, but the same kinds of inaccuracies are liable to appear in different countries. If an error appears in the statistics in any one country, the chances are that they will be something of the same kind of error in another country. Therefore international comparative statistics have a very definite value in estimating the productive position. Just to take a few simple figures. In 1880, one head of cattle in Denmark needed 4½ acres of agricultural land; in 1937, it needed 2½ acres; in Éire, or the Twenty-six Counties, one head of cattle required 3½ acres in 1880 and 3 acres in 1937. This is a very vital comparison. These figures may not be entirely correct, but they indicate a relative superior improvement in Den mark as compared with this country.

Mr. Brennan

I do not think that is even approximately correct.

I may have given the figure wrongly, but I will examine it very carefully. Then if you take again what is known as the international measure of the number of arable acres per live-stock unit, for the purpose of calculating live stock units a sheep is calculated at one-tenth and a pig one-fifth the value of cattle. That is the generally accepted method of international comparison, and the figures will be found in Lamartine-Yeats' book, The Growth of Food Production in Western Europe. If you take the figures for acres per live-stock unit in various countries you will find that, combining cattle, sheep and pigs together, in Ireland the figure is 3.3, Great Britain 3.2, Netherlands 1.8, Denmark 1.8, Switzerland 1.6, again indicating that we can improve the position.

Then take again the question of milk yield. I am referring to the Minister's suggestion that the milk yield could be improved. Even allowing for the difficulty of the dual-purpose cow, and therefore the fact that we cannot concentrate solely on high milk production, we can nevertheless, I think, get into a higher category of milk yield compared with other countries. If you take the leading countries with not less than 500 gallons per cow per year, they include New Zealand, Great Britain, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland and Holland. You will find that we are in the second category of countries, with over 400 and less than 450 gallons per cow, namely, Finland, Canada, Esthonia and Austria. The remaining countries of Europe have lower yields. I believe we could get into the first category even with the dual-purpose cow. I have heard no one deny it. That is another illustration of what I mean when I say we could improve production.

Then again take the percentage increase in food production from 1880 to 1930 in this country as compared with others. These figures are also taken from Lamartine-Yeats' book, The Growth of Food Production in Western Europe. The book has been very highly reviewed and there was never any suggestion made that the figures were in any way inaccurate. The usual reservations were made by him in giving the figures. Taking it large and wide, I think it is a useful book and I recommend any Deputy who wishes to study comparative production and increasing life-stock production to read it. From 1880 to 1930, figures for the percentage increase in cattle production were: Denmark, 134 per cent.; Holland, 74 per cent.; Switzerland, 43 per cent.; Belgium, 27 per cent.; France, 19 percent.; Germany, 19 per cent.; Great Britain, 11 per cent.; and Eire, 18 per cent. We naturally are not responsible in this House for a great part of that, as we had not our own Government, but nevertheless we have to take account of it when thinking of the future, and when trying to overcome the difficulties created by events for which we had only partial responsibility in some cases and for which we had complete responsibility in other cases. There is no need to repeat that. Deputies know that as well as I do. There is no use in having mutual recriminations as to which Government was responsible for these difficulties to a greater or less degree.

The fact is that the output, even weighed by price, of agriculture in this country has virtually not changed since 1929. There is no need for this Government or the last Government to make political excuses for that. We merely have to accept the fact that that is the case, that the actual output, as weighed by price, was just about the same between 1929-30, and 1939-40. What I am arguing is that through the efforts of Deputies and of the Government we must sooner or later begin to make the people aware, by a clarion call, that we will face supreme difficulties after the war.

Take again other figures. Most Deputies know that in regard to the cattle population and the sheep population there has not been any very great change since 1912 due principally to the existence of economic wars and other discouraging conditions. A very serious feature is that the cattle population of every other country has increased during the same period to a far greater degree. I gave these figures two years ago and I do not propose to repeat them now.

The Minister in his speech indicated that he understood the position which had arisen and that he also realised that there was no use in increasing production unless we were quite sure that we would have a market for our produce. We might find ourselves restricted qualitatively in respect of exports after the war. He appreciated also in a most realistic speech, on which I think he is to be congratulated, what might have to be done in the way of planning after the war. Even if we take the worst that might happen, let us assume that we might have to face a very serious restriction on exports and that we would have to go on producing a vast proportion of our wheat requirements. At the same time we might have to undertake an intensive veal production policy. That will also require planning and a great increase in the fertility of our soil. Equally a plan by which we can export in an increasing degree, so that we shall be in a position to purchase abroad all the necessities which we may have to import, connotes, I think, a revolution in farming technique and methods. It is, however, very easy to talk about planning, but it is far more difficult to apply the plan when that plan has been produced.

I hope Deputies agree with me that it is absolutely essential to break the vicious circle, which exists in relation to agricultural policy and which may be said to consist of a certain lack of leadership in higher agricultural circles, a very great lack of enthusiasm on the part of the farmer, low output, high costs and an entirely unnecessary antagonism between the ranch farmer —who provided practically no employment and little tillage until now and who was only concerned with grazing —and the small working farmer who sells his product to the grazing farmer and casts envious eyes on his untilled acres. Equally associated with that vicious circle is the demand for credit by farmers who wish to restock their lands. In many cases their land requires very great improvement, even before they put any stock on it. There is also the fact that the present operations of the Land Commission inevitably, perhaps necessarily, have made credit difficult to obtain. At the same time, established historical tradition prevents land being creditworthy because land is almost impossible to sell when for instance, it is offered by a bank, owing to the action of local farmers in boycotting the sale.

That sort of vicious circle must be broken at some time or other, but divided counsels in political matters will have the result of retarding any progress in that direction. I could understand the reason for these divided political counsels in the past, but I know that in the first interim report of the Agricultural Commission which began its work just before the war—the report on the pigs and bacon industries—very sane recommendations were made, as I think the Minister will agree. The majority, report was signed by members of every Party in this House. There was no political disagreement there. There was no evidence that there was any serious disagreement between the main Parties, so far as pigs and bacon production is concerned. The reservations to the report were equally signed by a body of members which contained representatives of every Party. That commission included in its membership persons who had been associated with agricultural politics and who have declared very definitely in favour of one Party or the other. It might be described as a very political commission, although it included experts, and yet, these members holding widely different political opinions were able to agree on certain findings. I hope that is a good augury for the future, and that we can have a united agricultural policy, as there is no reason to disagree on most aspects of our agricultural production or economy. A little give and take on both sides will make it far easier for the farmer to follow the lead that will have to be given to him at the end of the war.

It is very easy to accuse the farmer of a lack of enthusiasm and lack of initiative, but, quite evidently, although there has been a very great improvement in the last 20 years in agricultural production in standards of quality, a great deal needs to be done. The farmer has all the intelligence and ability necessary for it, and the reason that the farmer would appear not to have demanded of this Government, or the last, a more drastic policy is quite obvious. First of all, there has been no unity in agricultural matters until recently. Secondly, rural isolation has been disappearing and farmers living in the country are becoming more and more aware of their position as compared with that of industrialists. Farmers sitting by their firesides in the evenings, more than ever before realise that they have no fixed capital as industry has, that they have no fixed prices even for a few months, and that even if they are given subsidies, in many cases the subsidies will result in higher costs to the consumer who, in turn, will charge higher prices to the farmer for the commodities which he has to buy. The farmer in every country is becoming aware that there is something less secure in his position, that credit is obtained with greater difficulty. The owner of a piece of land in Roscommon or Longford is beginning to compare more carefully than ever before his position with that of industrialists. He knows that there is something wrong, and no farmer facing the very low profits made on farm capital desires to undertake new methods, to make radical improvements on his farm, to purchase expensive machinery or even follow the drastic policy advocated by the State of increasing production, unless there is leadership, unless there is a definite plan and unless there is an assurance of a future market. It makes me begin to wonder whether we shall not have to consider a standard price system for cattle production as a plan for ten years from now, for the sake of the farmer. I wonder how long the farmer is going to prefer to gamble on cattle-prices as opposed to the certainty of the New Zealand system of a guaranteed butter price.

I should beglad to have the views of other Deputies on that also. In New Zealand, as everybody knows, the price is stabilised over a period, and the farmer knows exactly what he is going to get. Obviously, no farmer would desire any revolutionary change in cattle production or the cattle price system in peace time, but I begin to wonder if in the future we shall not have to consider even that radical change in order to place the farmer more on a level in his own mind with ordinary manufacturing industries so far as his production and the interest on his capital are concerned.

To repeat what I have said before, we will face a very dangerous position after the war, and there is a good deal of work to be done. The mere teaching of the scientific growing of grass in connection with tillage is an almost frightening thought for any country which has to begin at the beginning and go on to the very end until every farmer in the country is aware of what has been learned about grass production. I have studied all the pamphlets of our own Department and of the British Department of Agriculture. I have read the reports of experimental grass stations in Great Britain, and any other Deputies who have done so will be aware that a new science has been introduced, the complications of which, particularly of a botanical character, are a very serious matter for our farmers. It is very difficult to get them to acquire the knowledge which is now available only to a small percentage of farmers even in Great Britain or New Zealand with regard to the improvement of grass land. It is a science of immense complexity. It seems to me that agricultural education is essential, and I should like to repeat here that there is necessity for universal agricultural instruction from the ages of 14 to 16, not in the elementary schools except perhaps relatively simple rural science. I see no escape from it. According to the instructors in my own constituency, only 15 per cent. of the farmers receive instruction in general agricultural subjects. Again, it is a question of enthusing the farmer, of making him realise that there is a plan, that there is a future for his industry. They cannot be expected to attend in larger numbers until they are made aware of the difficulties that face them, and of the fact that there will be a plan to help them. The fact that only 15 per cent. receive instruction is a serious one. The percentage for horticultural instruction and poultry instruction, I am glad to say is much higher. I am told it is about 25 per cent., which is a very satisfactory figure compared with the 15 per cent.

Let nothing I have said be taken as indicating that I wish to criticise in any way the work of the Department. The Department's grants for land reclamation, for machinery, for seeds, for poultry houses, the veterinary service, the improvement in the grading of cattle, eggs, butter and bacon, the instruction offered and given free, the leaflets, all may have been criticised in detail, but there is no question that improvement has taken place within the last 25 years. There has been a great improvement in many respects, and that is due to the work of the Department. But sooner or later the Department will have to become like a war Ministry of Supply, and the leaflets will have to become propaganda. Some commission or committee will have to sit, and go through that gigantic book of agricultural leaflets, saying to themselves: "How can we fire the minds of the farmers by what is in these leaflets? How can we make them more attractive? How can we interest their minds to appreciate what is in them? Are they perhaps all right for a previous day, but too dull now? Do they require more propaganda, showing the result of applying a particular process to a particular branch of agriculture? Is the leaflet on artificial manures too dull for present use? Does it require the application of expert advertising advice to prove to the farmer that it pays him to improve grass production to a very great degree, and that his expenditure over two or three years will be repaid with interest? Is there sufficient demonstration of the necessity for modern technique?" I think there is agreat deal to be done in that direction. It is one example of the kind of planning which is essential for us to-day. I cannot ask the Department to rewrite the leaflets during a time of war, but we could have a committee planning for rewriting them, and making suggestions for the future. It is a gigantic problem. There are £360,000,000 invested in the farms of this country, and the interest on that capital has been very small during the past ten years. Under the most unfavourable conditions the interest, I think, vanished. The interest on farm capital in Switzerland diminished from something like 7 per cent. before the great economic crisis to nothing in 1932, and rose to 1½ per cent. at the end of the world crisis. I should like to know what is the interest on farm capital in this country at the present time, or even before the war.

To give an example of what can be done in the way of improvement in production, I should like to mention the land improvements scheme. I am told by the officials—I will ask a question in connection with it shortly— that the number of grants applied for in different counties varies very much. In counties that appear to need the scheme as much as others, the scheme has not caught on, and as far as I can make out there does not seem to be any special reason for that. It is a matter of the thing becoming fashionable; one person takes it up and then everyone else takes it up. There is no criticism of the Department in that, but it is a further indication of what needs to be done in stimulating the interest of the farmers even in what is offered to them in the way of grants. I have indicated already that I make no criticism of the farmers. Their position is quite evidently one of difficulty, and unless there is some definite plan we cannot expect them to enthuse. Longford happens to be one county where there has been a very great number of farm improvement schemes. I think it is the highest in Ireland. That may be due to the fact that my colleague in the Dáil, and myself, have done a great deal in the way of publicity, and also because the people appreciated the congested districts scheme which was applied in North Longford and is now being replaced by the farm improvements scheme. I should like to give the House some figures which are very interesting in relation to the value of the present farm improvements grant. A grant of £5 17s. was paid to a farmer who remade 78 perches of watercourse and drains, 4½ to 5 feet wide and 2 feet deep. The farmer himself may have spent the same amount; he probably spent more in order to make quite sure that the work was properly carried out. That individual grant of £5 17s. will make arable five acres of land, if the field drainage required in connection with the ditch drainage is completed. I want to make it quite clear that the field drainage will have to be completed if the scheme is to be a success. That grant of £5 17s. will make arable five acres of land.

What is the cost of the field drainage?

I cannot say. It may need another grant, but the particulars I have quoted show that the scheme is producing very remarkable results. Another farmer was given a grant of £13 10s. for stubbing butts of trees, furze, briars and thorn scrub in three acres of old cut-away wood, making arable three acres of land which were utterly unfit for arable purposes before the grant was given. Another even more remarkable result was in the case of a farmer who was given a grant of £17 2s., and who remade 290 perches of open drains, 26 perches of new stone drains, and three perches of stone passes and gulleys, the result of which, after completing the field drainage, would be the making arable of ten statute acres for £17.

I think those two examples are sufficient to enable all members of the House to congratulate the Minister on the land improvement scheme. The reason it is successful is partly the fact that once the farmer's enthusiasm is fired, he generally spends a good deal more than the 50 per cent. he estimated he would have to spend on making a good job of it and that he often, buys gelignite and blasts out rocks from the land. He takes in an extra 20 or 30 perches of drain in order to make a good job of it. As a result of two or three farmers draining their land, the land of farmers at a lower elevation becomes flooded, and willy-nilly, these farmers have to apply for the scheme in order to clear the water off their land, and, to use a rather unhappy comparison, it spreads like an infection, running along water-courses and river valleys, each causing the necessity for more improvement further down the valley.

I notice that this year the estimated amount in respect of land improvement grants is reduced, and I am told that the reason is that many farmers have had such difficulty with their tillage and turf that they have not had time to carry out the schemes allotted to them. I am told also that another reason is the fact that there are certain counties in which the scheme has not been applied for. I trust that the Minister and the Government will do their best to advertise the scheme even more than before and that members of the Dáil will do so also, because I feel quite sure that, using the Taoiseach's expression about not taking more out of the pool than you put into it, in connection with land improvement grants, credits and our general economic position, nobody can say that we are taking more out of the pool than we put into it by financing these schemes to release land for arable purposes, particularly during this crisis.

I have asked the Minister to let us have his views about the planning of agriculture and I know that most of the officials of the Department are engaged on surveys and inspection work in connection with the crisis, but I should like to put the suggestion forward that one of the best ways of enabling the farmer to realise the position with which we shall be faced after the war would be to make a land survey of the same kind as is being made in England. Even if we have not got the officials now, we could at least plan the work of a survey, because I think it would be a very good thing if every farmer were able to inspect at the nearest agricultural centre map sheets on which he could see what the exact condition of the land surrounding his farm was, and if, in each townland, there could be a survey of the position: the drains that need digging; the field drainage that needs repairing; the hedges that need rebuilding, and if the grass land could be examined as in England, where the need was greater than it is here by reason of the fact that England had fallen so far behind in production. All grass land could be surveyed and farmers could be told what grass land, in the opinion of experts, was bearing a lower quality grass than it could bear if the capital, the Government plan and the knowledge were made available, because, of course, it requires all three. In other words, the grass lands which carry agrostis and which could carry rye grass could be marked in a particular colour, and the grass lands which carry molinia nardus, which could carry agrostis, could be similarly marked. This would promote the idea that in many parts of the country by a planned scheme the whole character of grass production could be stepped up.

There, again, the fact that there is a deficiency is nothing we need be ashamed of. It is merely the result of our history, but what better way would there be of seeing the magnitude of the problem than to have a land survey carried out, and if we could have a plan made for carrying it out it would be all to the good? We could then grasp the extent of the problem. We should know what work we had to do; what money we had to spend; to what extent we should have to have special subsidies for grass cultivation, special propaganda schemes and special schemes of credit. When I speak of grass cultivation, I link it inextricably with tillage because the two go together and there need never be any conflict of opinion on that matter again.

It would seem to me that, for that purpose, the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture should be more closely associated, and I ask the Minister whether he has had time, in between his multifarious activities in connection with the crisis, to consider the possibility of uniting more closely these two Departments— whether, when land is divided, there could not be a greater co-operation between the two Departments; whether, when land is given away, it should not be given away except on the basis of a very definite scheme for increasing production; whether the Land Commission might not discharge the functions of a land improvement commission in addition to its present functions; whether the two functions would not blend very naturally; and whether it would not create a very much better atmosphere in connection with land division if the functions were combined.

Nothing I have said is intended to be critical of the Minister. I am well aware that the Minister requires all the time available to him to consider the crisis. I am merely asking him to let us know what his feelings on these matters are; whether he will possibly have time to consider the promotion of committees for planning agricultural production and preparing for either of the two alternatives—the dreadful alternative or the more hopeful alternative—which we may have to face after the war; whether he could not in the next three months give some of his mind to it, if he has the time, and either re-establish the Agricultural Commission or promote certain committees with the very definite task of reporting to the Minister not on what policy needs to be advocated, but on how to put a policy into operation, taking perhaps three or four simple subjects like land fertility, drainage, land improvement, agricultural credit and ensilage—any five out of 100 possible subjects. As I said, I have left the present position to other Deputies who have fully outlined the difficulties. I am making a speech solely for the purpose of asking for information without any intention of being critical and because I admire the realism which lay behind the speech of the Minister. Although there was in it an undertone of pessimism, there seemed to me to be what might be described as modified optimism also.

Mr. Brennan

I have listened with very great interest to Deputy Childers' speech and I think he rather gave himself away when he said he did not want to be critical. I think that is where his speech was weak. Otherwise, I must say it was good to hear somebody talking very original agricultural politics, and I hope the Minister will pay a good deal of heed to the many things Deputy Childers mentioned. His discourse would possibly be much more impressive as a lecture, and his statistics would probably be rather hard to carry round in one's head. Probably, to the practical farmer like myself and Deputy Keating, who referred to book-farmers, he is the real book-farmer, but nevertheless he is welcome, and I think he is on the right lines. It is quite possible that any person who has not got the practical touch will have an exaggerated idea of scientific methods. That is a very ordinary mistake for any man to fall into, but I think the view put forward by Deputy Childers, tempered by the views of practical farmers, ought to provide a good basis.

Speaking here a couple of weeks ago, I made some remarks which I think Deputy Childers, although he will not admit it, has shown to be correct. I said that, in my view, the Government had no policy for agriculture and, particularly, no post-war policy. Deputy Childers said that I alleged that the Minister said we did not want live stock, that they were not essential. I did not say that, but I did say that, running right through many of the speeches delivered by the Minister and officials of his Department, was discouragement of live-stock production. That is true. My criticism of the Department's activity during the emergency is that it is panicky and that it is leaving us nothing to go upon when we reach the post-war stage. If we are to abandon pigs because the Minister and the Bacon Commission think that pigs are consuming edible human food; if we are to abandon butter because we think we are not able to stand up to the New Zealand prices and if, as stated by a very high official of the Department in endeavouring to encourage farmers to do more tillage, we have no prospect of sale for our cattle, then I do not see what the future holds for us in the post-war period.

I do not want to be politically critical of the Department. I do not think that it would be any good at the present time. Some time ago, I did refer to the setting up of the Agricultural Commission. I felt, as I think the Minister and other Deputies felt, that the time had come when all our heads should be put together to work out a progressive agricultural policy. Were it not for the intervention of the war, we might have got somewhere. After the commencement of the war, I stated that I did not think the deliberations of the commission, running on normal, routine lines, would be of any use at that period but that I thought it should be kept sitting to deal with the present period and see what kind of policy we should keep in view with the hope of achieving post-war prosperity. When the war is over, our great difficulty will be to know what policy we should pursue. Deputy Childers made a prophecy which, I think, is very far-fetched, with regard to the manner in which you may have a British demand for beef in this country. If the necessity for the importation of beef from this country continues, I do not think that there will be any such restrictions imposed by the British as those suggested by Deputy Childers.

I spoke of ten years hence.

Mr. Brennan

Even in ten years. Such a classification of beef as Deputy Childers outlined would not, I think, be possible. It is certainly not probable. Our proximity to the market will very largely leave us free from that as against anybody else. What I fear is that, in the anxiety of the Department and the Government to get cereals and food produced, they have completely forgotten that there will be a post-war period. If we are to abandon pigs, let dairy production down and come to the conclusion that we may not be able to sell our cattle, we shall find ourselves in a difficult position when the post-war period arrives. I was glad that some person put forward what are certainly very original and, perhaps, exaggerated views. Notwithstanding that they are long views and are worthy of consideration. Deputy Childers said that there ought not to be political recrimination with regard to the value of production during the past 20 years and that attempts should not be made to saddle this Party or that Party for any decline. I should like to remind him and the House that the contribution the present Government made towards increased productivity was to put a tariff on imported artificial manures and agricultural implements.

That was a very poor contribution. I do not say that by way of recrimination, but it is just as well to remember that these things happened. There was a time when, in the minds of a great many people on the opposite benches, it would have been national heresy to say that live-stock exports were essential to this country. I happen to have in my possession, though not here at the moment, a leaflet issued by Fianna Fáil in County Galway in 1934, when Deputy MacEoin and myself addressed a meeting in Ballinamore, pointing out the nonsense of the policy of the late Minister for Agriculture in endeavouring to keep up a live-stock export trade to Great Britain. We have passed away from that, but, when we can make mistakes like that, we ought to be careful that we do not fall into similar errors in the future. We have all come to realise that, so far as self-sufficiency is concerned, it is dead and buried.

Mr. Brennan

In an emergency like the present, it is not. We may find ourselves driven further back to self-sufficiency than we are at the moment. Deputy O Briain and the Taoiseach, when on this side of the House, advocated a policy of self-sufficiency to the extent of building a big wall around the country, without ingress or egress. The war did that, and we do not seem to be very happy about it.

The wall is built now.

Mr. Brennan

And our difficulty is to get outside it. We find that a policy of self-sufficiency, so far as the establishment of industries is concerned, while quite right in normal circumstances, is impossible in abnormal circumstances such as the present, because we have not the raw materials and we cannot import raw materials without exporting. What are we to export, if not live stock?

That is true of the whole world at present.

Mr. Brennan

But it is true of us in peace time if we adopt that policy.

Mr. Brennan

If we build a tariff wall around the country, we shall be in the same position whether it be peacetime or war-time, normal or abnormal. Let us be reasonable and realise that. Let us so arrange that, when the war is over, we shall find ourselves in a position to go ahead upon some road, that we shall not in the meantime, in order to meet some critical situation, abandon our production of pigs, butter and live stock, that we will stick to that, even at a loss, for the present time, so that when the war is over we will be in a position to go ahead somewhere. Now, of course, it is not easy to prophesy and I think that nobody is a prophet except a fool, but we cannot, therefore, at the moment plan a policy that will exactly meet post-war conditions. We can, however, at least keep ourselves upon some kind of an even keel so that when the time comes we will be able to go somewhere. Now, I am sure that that is the aim of the Minister for Agriculture and of the Department of Agriculture. I am sure it is everybody's aim but I am afraid that it is forgotten in the panic and in the emergency, and I do not think it is good policy for officials of the Department to go down the country and talk to people like that and say: "You had better do tillage because you may not be able to sell your cattle." I think that the best thing would be to say: "You had better do the tillage, and we will see that you do it, and see that you do all the tillage that can be done, and you must till not only for the production of food for yourselves, but for pigs, cattle and dairy cows, because without them you cannot exist after the war."

To try to get something done merely for the emergency will be, to my mind, a very bad policy, from the post-war point of view. It is a kind of policy of "sufficient for the day", and sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. It will certainly return to us like a boomerang if we neglect what ought to be the basis of our prosperity. We hear a lot at the present time of the new order that is to be established when this war is over. Well, my own opinion of the new order, no matter who talks about it, is that it is just something to bamboozle the people at the present time. That is all it is. Let us not just sit down and think that there is going to be some new order which we will float in when the war finishes. There will be nothing left for the people of this country, no matter what new order or what old order exists, but to work and work hard, and work at agriculture. That will always remain the basis of our prosperity and the basis of our living. It may be, indeed, that it will be a poor living but, such as it is, it will be the basis.

A great deal of dissatisfaction exists with regard to the manner in which the Department and the Government, generally, have been dealing with the price-fixing of various commodities, and I have noticed that, in the Banking Commission's Report, attention was drawn to that very fact as far back as the time of the writing of that report. In the report of the Banking Commission of 1938 (page 115, column 187) talking of costs and prices, it is stated:

"It is impossible not to be struck by the multiplicity of agencies through which prices may at present be fixed. The price of wheat is fixed by the Minister for Agriculture; the price of sugar is a matter for determination by the directors of the Irish Sugar Company, which has a statutory monopoly of this trade; the price of pigs is fixed by a statutory board and the price of bacon by another board; the price of butter is also fixed by the Minister for Agriculture who in this way and through participation in the dairying industry by means of the Dairy Disposal Company largely determines also the price which the farmer obtains for milk from a creamery.

"It would seem to be in the public interest to establish a greater coordination of so much of the work of the different price-fixing agencies as it may be necessary to retain. More attention ought also to be paid to the monetary repercussions of all measures taken affecting the level of costs and prices, a question to which we shall revert in later sections of this report."

That was in 1938, four years ago, and we still have the same type of machinery functioning. We have the Bacon Commission fixing the price of bacon pigs, and we have, apparently, nobody responsible to this House for the manner in which the thing is done. I do not think a greater mistake could have been made than was made by the lowering of the price of bacon pigs. It has been alleged here in this House that farmers have fed wheat to animals, principally, I think, to pigs. I have not known of any instances of its happening. I believe it has happened to some extent, but I believe it was to a very limited extent. I think very few farmers in the country would do it or have done it, but if the Government thought that in order to prevent that they would lower the price of pigs, I think it was a very bad mistake. After all, the pig is a consumer of rough food, mostly, and we had in this country last year a bumper crop of potatoes. The people were advised to grow potatoes—that they would be required not only for human food but for animal feeding as well. The people planted them and, certainly they had a very good harvest. There are thousands of tons of potatoes in this country at the present time that are not marketed, and yet they could be turned into excellent human food by being fed to pigs, but the price of pigs has been so pulled down that they are not worth it. I think that was really stupid, and I do not think that the circumstances at all justified it. As far as the feeding of wheat or barley to pigs is concerned, I think it only happened to very limited extent and that it did not at all require to be dealt with in that particular way.

Looking over the Estimates for Public Services one is struck by some of the figures that meet one's eye. For instance, I have been listening here to-day to people like Deputy McGovern and others, giving costs and figures and pointing out the disadvantages under which the farmers of this country are as against, say, the farmers in Northern Ireland. I do not want to make any comparisons in that way, but I should like to show a small comparison that is here, in page 135 of the Book of Estimates. Under sub-head O (12)— Emergency Powers (Tillage) Orders, 1939 to 1941—I find that last year it cost the Government, in connection with the taking over of farms, for the purchase of seeds and manures, tillage operations, purchase of materials for, and cost of erection of, fencing, travelling expenses and miscellaneous expenses, the sum of £4,675, and that we reaped from the sale of crops the sum of £3,600. If that is Departmental farming, I hope that the farmers of the country are able to do better than that; they would need to do much better than that in order to live, but those are the figures that are given— for a cost of £4,675 we reaped £3,600. Those figures, certainly, do not show that interference by the Department in individual farms would mean very much education for the ordinary farmer. It appears to be otherwise.

Now, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to another matter. I read in the paper some time ago where the Minister for Agriculture announced that he was going to bring before the House a proposal to fix a very stiff penalty on people who failed to do their tillage. I have no fault to find with that. I do not think that anybody who has failed in the present crisis to do tillage is entitled to any consideration. I am making no case for such people. But I do think that at the present time, when we are looking for tillage, when we are looking for a return of crops, that a grave mistake is being made—and I think it is made at the instigation of the Department— in inflicting, through the courts, very heavy fines on people who did not do their tillage last year.

There were two cases which occurred quite recently in my locality and which were reported in the public Press. One was the case of a man with a pretty small holding and who was in delicate health. He was two acres short last year. Nobody told him that last year, but it was found out since then. That man offered to do his full quota this year plus the two acres extra. I think it was five acres he should have had last year and it went up to seven acres this year. He said he would do nine this year, but he was not let off. The justice fined him £10. He was a poor man and he had not the money to buy seed oats. Are we anything the better for that type of thing? That has been happening all over the country. I suggest that the Department, if they are advising district justices, should advise that where they get this year's quota done plus last year's remissness on top of that they ought to accept that, and not take money from a man as well. Then you will have his goodwill and you will leave him the money to produce the crops and have better results in the end. It is foolish policy, and if the Department is in any way behind it they should alter it.

Too much stress cannot be laid upon the necessity for some long-term agricultural policy. We do not know what the future holds, but we must be prepared to jump off from some place. Let us not abandon whatever we have. If we abandon the production of pigs, if we set at naught the breeding of cattle, if we say we will not compete with New Zealand in dairy produce, what are we going to do? The Minister for Finance recently said that he realised that, without the export of cattle, we could not import the raw materials required for our industries. Everybody seems to know that now. Let us realise that, if we are to continue our industries, we must export something in order to get the raw materials. If we keep in view only the needs of the moment, we are committing something like harakiri by abandoning the only chance of our existence, even when the war is over.

I am afraid that if the speeches delivered here to-day were published verbatim for the country they would not impress the public, certainly not the public that I meet, very much. The position in and around the City of Dublin is that there is not enough bread and there is not enough butter. It is a waste of valuable time discussing post-war conditions when one has not enough to eat now. That is the position and we must face up to it. I have about 30 agricultural labourers and a few of them came to me and asked if I expected a day's work on seven ounces of bread. Let Deputies think of that and let it sink in. Any Deputies—not those who read all the pamphlets ever published about agriculture—who followed the plough and know what a day's work on hard clods is like, should consider how they would like to do it on seven ounces of bread per day. It cannot be done.

I am afraid we will miss the bus. When a motion was put down here that would be bearing fruit now, to grow enough wheat to give us enough bread, it did not get support in this House. It was a motion which would pay the people to grow wheat. Power of censorship was given to the Government, and how did they use it? I challenge contradiction when I say that every newspaper in Dublin, and every forward newspaper throughout the country, which attempted to deal with the food problem in an ordinary straightforward business way was censored. I challenge contradiction when I say that leading articles in our daily papers were taken out because they told the Government that the one way to get the food for the people was to pay the growers to grow it. The papers were told they must not say anything about price. Inspectors who, a couple of years ago, were lecturing the farmers that the only salvation for the country was grass were then sent down the country to lecture them that the only salvation was tillage. We all know how the people swallowed that hypocrisy.

If the people were told there was a guaranteed price for wheat of £2 per barrel, I wonder who would undertake to grow 600,000 acres of wheat—and we need that amount to give us bread. People who are too lazy or too ignorant to think, or who deliberately refuse to think, or who, if they do, will not tell the truth, say that £2 a barrel will pay any man. £2 a barrel will pay any man any time to grow a certain amount of wheat oil his farm, but, if he is called upon to grow his share of the 600,000 acres required to give us bread here, it cannot be grown at £2 a barrel and could not in the year that has gone out. I doubt if it could be grown at 50/- a barrel—the price that Deputy Cogan and myself put down here just before the Christmas of 1940, and in support of which we got only eight Deputies in the House. Those who voted against us, or those who would not vote for us, are to-day responsible for the bread queues and they must face up to that.

You are staring famine in the face. Face up to that. There was talk here about fertilisers, but there is no such thing as fertilisers in this country. I would not take a present of them. I put some of them on a potato crop last year and they shrivelled it up. I would not let my men put fertilisers on my land this year. We see the amount of intelligence that is behind Government policy. I am not speaking politically now but as a food producer and farmer. The Taoiseach at Tullamore last year warned farmers that if it came to a choice between feeding live stock and the human population, the live stock would be shot off, killed, or got out of the way, so that they would not be eating food that was otherwise required. Could anyone with the least knowledge of agriculture make a statement like that? The first line of agriculture and of the food front is live stock, and speaking as a farmer with 600 acres of land, half of it under tillage, I ask, how could I till my land unless I had a dairy herd of 100 cows and brought manure from Dublin? It could not be done in any other way. Of course if it comes to a question of deciding whether it is to be food for cows or for man, man must get it. But what will feed the man next year or what will grow crops next year? We are in a besieged country, and the only interpretation that can be put on the Taoiseach's speech at Tullamore was that we would be driven to kill off the live stock in order to maintain the human population.

I remember that when Deputy Cogan and myself—and we are both farmers who know what we are talking about—put down a motion dealing with the price of agricultural produce we were referred to as galloots. However, we have more tillage than most Deputies. I am not speaking now as a galloot but as one with some knowledge of economics. Deputies got up here and condemned the feeding of live stock. In the next breath there was talk about no butter being available in Dublin. Why is there no butter in Dublin? Because we have no concentrated food for our cows.

I have every sympathy with those people who were prosecuted in Youghal. If 10 per cent. of our arable land is under wheat, and if 6 per cent. of the crop is given into the common pool for bread, then I think those who did that have done their job and are fully entitled to feed the 4 per cent. to cows or pigs. Remember this, that the feeding of cows and pigs is not an end in itself. The ultimate end of reeding cows is to provide a future generation of live stock to give milk and butter to the people. In that way that feeding is not lost, and human food is still being produced. A moment's reflection will show that when it pays a farmer to feed wheat to livestock, rather than cash it for bread at 40/- a barrel—remember that is the standard price now, and that the 50/- relates to the crop that will be reaped at the end of this year—that shows that the price has not been properly fixed. It is an economic truism to say that the most profitable way to get rid of, any agricultural crop is when you can sell it and make it immediately available for human food. Bread is immediately available for human food. If farmers get more money by feeding the crop to pigs, then the price has not been fixed on a proper level. I am sure that it has not been fixed in that way, because the corresponding price that the Government pays for imported wheat is £4 4s. I challenge contradiction when I say that the wheat that is being imported now is costing £5 a barrel. Why not offer some such inducement to home growers? It is all a question of price, and a price that will not be paid here.

As an example, take what might happen in the Army. If the Minister for Defence placed an order with a manufacturer for 100,000 pairs of boots, costing, say, £1 in the factory, and if the manufacturer was asked to make the boots for 17/6 would he do it? Of course he would not. Farmers here are going to be exploited, going to be robbed, by being asked to produce food under cost of production. Let me put this question to the Minister for Lands, who is representing the Minister for Agriculture: Are there any workers as badly paid as agricultural workers? Have their wages not been fixed by Government action? A good deal of technique is required in agricultural workers, and yet they are the most lowly paid in the country. Why? Food producers are asked to save the nation. They are told that they are in the front line defences. That is true, but they are going to be paid the smallest wages and are expected to save the nation on the smallest wages.

I employ milkers. One man left after telling me that he could get more money on the dole. He said that he was losing by working for me. He went on the dole. Is not that a terrible state of affairs, and a terrible state of society, at a time when we are facing famine, that men will get more for doing nothing than producing food? The wage was a fixed one. The price of wheat is going up step by step to 50/-, for the coming year, but immediately the 50/- was fixed the wages of agricultural labourers also went up. Why were wages not increased prior to the fixing of the price of wheat? Why do agricultural workers not get as good wages as any others in a corresponding capacity? I had my men working on overtime last year. They started at 7.30 a.m. and during the harvest worked on Sundays and Mondays until dark. Council employees who came to work on the roads, dragging a shovel along, and looking for something to do got £3 10s. a week and knocked off at 5.30 p.m. Why is there not some equity in these things? We must rely upon ourselves for the production of food in order to save the people from starvation. Subsidies or anything else will not solve the problem. From my study of conditions here I say that agriculture never got such a belt from a foreign Government as it got from our own Governments in the last 20 years.

The first shot was fired at agriculture by an Irish Government when fixity of tenure was destroyed. That was enlarged upon by the present Government. It is necessary to recall that handicap on agriculture, because it destroyed our credit. If there is not fixity of tenure in land, and if there is not 100 per cent. ownership of property, farmers cannot pledge their credit with a bank or anywhere else in order to raise money. We will have to go back to one thing—perhaps not until we go through a chaotic period— and that is fixity of tenure.

Deputy Childers finds himself in difficulties when he starts planning. He wants to reduce costs to enable us to compete in the post-war period with foreign countries, virgin countries that have not accumulated debts such as we haye, accumulated. The overhead charges in agriculture are too high, the rates are too high. Deputy McGovern gave some interesting figures showing how agriculture is helped in the Six Counties. I have heard people say that the price of wheat in the North of Ireland and in Britain is not as high as it is here. They overlook the other advantages enumerated by Deputy McGovern, such as a £10 subsidy for every acre of potatoes.

I am at a disadvantage, inasmuch as I have not been attending the House for some time; I did not hear the opening of the debate or the Minister's statement. I heard Deputy Bennett say that the Minister asked for an additional 50,000 acres of potatoes. I saw a photograph to-day of the tillers of the polo pitch in the Phoenix Park, marking out the ground in which, I presume, they will sow potatoes. There would be some sense in that if it were done three or four months ago, but they are going to destroy good grass land by breaking it up now, because we are up against 1st May. We are asked to grow an additional 50,000 acres. What will we manure that land with?

Do the Government not realise that land will not prow potatoes or any root crop without manure and that one acre properly tilled and manured is worth ten acres unmanured and tilled in a casual way? It would bo better to leave it as good grass land, because it will feed a cow or a calf, but if you break it up and do not manure it, it will be suitable only for growing weeds. The Minister should realise that the growing of crops cannot be done by pressing a button; that it can only be done by feeding the land. It is obvious that our best policy now is to grow enough to feed ourselves, and our after-war policy should also be to grow enough to feed ourselves. I feel that we will be entirely on our own for years to come. I shall be surprised if this war, that is shutting us away from the rest of the world, will have any chance of ending within the next five years.

Suggestions were made here with regard to planning for the period after the war. I think we will have enough to do to plan during the war period, while we are, so to speak, besieged. What sort of plans have the Government prepared? We must maintain our live stock population if we are to survive as a nation. If we have not to appeal to the charity of the world to save us from starvation, we shall have to maintain our live stock and feed them on the produce of our soil. What plans have the Government prepared to achieve that? I have not seen any. Half the concentrates for our live stock population were imported pre-war and they are shut away from us by reason of war conditions. We need to increase our production of oats and barley to make up for that deficiency. We are losing 200,000 tons of offal by having 100 per cent. extraction of flour instead of 70 per cent. as in former years. That will have to be made up by way of an increased production of oats and barley.

It is a matter of simple calculation by the Department of Agriculture. taking all these factors into account, how much wheat we must have to give us bread, how much oats and barley we must have to give us our usual supplies of oatmeal porridge, flake-meal, etc., and to give us the foodstuffs to maintain our live stock. That is the problem to which the Minister for Agriculture should have devoted his attention. He has not done so; he has simply made a sort of omnibus order setting up 25 per cent. Every farmer can obey the Tillage Order and yet not grow one grain of wheat, oats or barley. These are the crops we need most and no planning has been done for adequate production. It is a matter of life and death for us.

I am sorry Deputy Meaney is not here. He congratulated the Minister, because he did not produce a plan— that is what it amounted to. When the Minister for Supplies or the Minister for Industry and Commerce—I do not know in what capacity he was acting— came to the House before Christmas, he asked for a subsidy of £2,000,000 so as to be able to keep the price of the 4-lb. loaf at 1/-. The case he made was that in 1940 our wheat cost us £5,700,000, and in the present cereal year it cost us £7,800,000. He wanted £2,000,000 to make up the difference so that the price of the loaf would not be altered. He explained that there was a rise of 5/- a barrel in the price of wheat. Since he got the £2,000,000 from this House the price of wheat has gone up 10/-, so we must assume that to keep the price of the 4-lb. loaf at 1/- when the next harvest comes to be used there must be twice the subsidy provided; in other words, there must be £6,000,000 provided to subsidise our bread, or otherwise it will have to go in a proportionate way beyond the 1/- for the 4-lb. loaf. How will that be paid? How will the poor be able to meet any extra demand? All our industries are slackening off because of the lack of raw materials.

I would be glad if men like Deputy Childers, who have a liking for investigation and planning and apparently plenty of ability and time to work out problems, would give this matter a little consideration. I think their time would be better employed in working out the problems of to-day, working out, for example, the type of problem I have just mentioned, than in directing their minds to post-war planning. I agree with Deputy Bennett that if the dairy farmer, as we knew him, is to be kept going, he will have to be subsidised.

I cannot see where the subsidy is to come from. Agriculture, and we are beginning to see it more and more every day, is the only industry we will have to fall back upon, and to ask us to subsidise a branch of agriculture is to ask agriculture to subsidise itself. Agriculture will have to stand on its own two feet. Having given this matter a fair amount of consideration, I think a mistake was made in having any talk about guaranteed prices for agricultural products. The attitude should have been this: here is the Irish market which cannot be supplied from anywhere else, and the thing to do is to tell the farmers to grow for it. If that had been done, I am sure we would have had plenty of wheat, oats and barley, and no inspectors would be wanted. Those who wanted to work would know that there was a price there, and hence the stuff would be grown. There has been handling and interference with everything, with the result that not enough of any commodity has been grown. Pigs are going out, and butter is scarce. One cannot get oats. People talk about the black market. This country would be in want only for the black market. The fertilisers used last year and this year came from the black market, and we might as well face up to that. As regards the fertilisers that are being offered now, I would advise any friend of mine not to use them, because they are calculated to do more harm than good.

I think the Minister should be more alert in his job, and see that the farmers who are producing intensively and extensively are not denied a fair share of the oils and petrol available. I am satisfied that they are not getting their fair share of the petrol that is here. Everywhere one goes one sees people who have no connection whatever with production flying past in motor cars. The farmers, however, who have a lot of tillage and a lot of farming stock to oversee cannot get one pint of petrol even though their land and their stock may be miles apart. What about all the cars that were at Fairyhouse, the cars that one sees in O'Connell Street and parked outside cinemas and theatres, while at the same time farmers who are engaged supervising the production of food and fuel cannot get any petrol? I have a letter in my pocket from the Secretary to the Department of Supplies to prove that. So far as supplies of petrol are available, I think the Minister for Agriculture should see to it that the demands of those engaged in the production of food should have a prior claim for a share of what is there.

It is too late now to make any provision about producing enough wheat or, in fact, about producing anything. Whatever we have sown now we have sown it, and we must trust the Lord to produce the crops for us. If, at harvest time, we find we have not enough, we shall have nobody to blame but ourselves. Would the Minister say, when replying, why there was no freedom of discussion allowed in the matter of food production? If better plans than the ones the Minister had adopted were offered, why not hear them, and why should not the public be able to put up their plans? If the Minister's was a better plan it would not have suffered from discussion. But every time a word was spoken anywhere and communicated to the Press, and every time the Press itself offered a word of criticism, it was censored. Surely, the censorship was never given to closure a situation that might produce famine.

I hope the Minister will tell us how he stands with regard to the three cereals. He should be in a position to know, to within 10,000 acres, how much oats have been or will be planted this year, and the same in regard to barley and wheat, as well as what quantity of winter wheat and spring wheat has been sown. I want to offer this criticism of the wheat policy, that it is not being handled in the proper way. All the wheats that we are growing do not give a uniform yield. Some give a bigger return than others. Generally, the wheat that gives the bigger return is not of as good milling quality as the wheat that gives the poorer return. We should grow for quality. In the general production of food, it is not fair to give the same price for wheat that is not of top milling quality as for wheat that is, or very near it. I do not know if Deputies arc aware that in the ordinary flour grist we had pre-war there was never less than 20 per cent. Manitoban wheat, because Irish wheat is poor in glutin, and the glutin itself is of poor quality. In order to have the best flour there should be at least 20 per cent. Manitoban, which has a large percentage of glutin of very good quality. A 10 per cent. mixture of Manitoban in the grist with an extraction of 70 per cent. will not be as good as an extraction of 85 per cent. with 20 per cent. Manitoban in the grist. I know that when I was in closer association with the Department of Agriculture, ten or 15 years ago, they were working to produce wheat of good milling quality with a large percentage of glutin of good quality. They were working on, I think, Yeoman No. 2. I would like to know from the Minister if that policy has been dropped.

If we are paid on bulk, we farmers will grow what will bulk the best, regardless of quality. Why should not we? In addition to having a guaranteed price for wheat of any kind, there should be a graduated scale for wheat of better milling quality than the average. I understand that this new wheat, Atle, fills the place of Manitoban to some extent. I do not know whether that is true or not but, if it is true, some consideration should have been given to the question of giving a higher price for that wheat, because the grain of it is hardly half as big as the grain of Queen Wilhelmina, Pajberg, or any of those. I hope our forebodings with regard to the food situation will not be realised; that nature will make up the deficiency that is left unfilled. That is a big hope, but we have nothing but hope to go on at the present time. There is nothing that we can do now to improve the situation.

Ever since I became a member of this House I have advocated the production of our own seeds. We have a Department of Agriculture that costs us millions. Until about 1938 or 1939, they did nothing in the matter of the production of seed. If, when this war broke out, England had said that she would not export any seed to this country, we could not grow a turnip, mangel, tomato, a head of cabbage— with very few exceptions—a carrot, a parsnip. Was that not a terribly exposed state to be in? Firstly, an attempt was made to grow beet. Then there was a hurried, belated attempt last year to produce mangel and turnip seed. These are not only scarce, but there is a famine in them. There is not nearly enough, in the country to meet even 10 per cent. of our requirements. What will be the position of dairy stock if we have not mangels, if we have not roots? It is an extraordinary position to be in. All our small seeds are scarce, particularly mangels and turnips. Beet seed is now being offered to the farmers as a substitute for mangel. It is no substitute and it is too costly. It would not pay to grow as a root crop for feeding live stock. I wonder why the Department that went down the country lecturing farmers and telling them what they should do did not do something themselves. As a matter of fact, there would not be a seed now were it not for some farmers and some enterprising seedsmen.

I am not one of those farmers who blame seedsmen for making money by buying up corn, cleaning it, minding it for four or five months and offering it at a price that will pay them. Why should not they make a profit? If they make a profit out of me, why did not I do it? I had the chance they had. Were it not for those enterprising seeds merchants who, last year, when they realised the position, went around and canvassed farmers to grow an acre or half-acre of different kinds of seeds and guaranteed a price for it, we would have no mangel or turnip seed this year. The Department of Agriculture, that cost us millions, was looking on, and it was only when they got orders from the chief to go out and tell these poor old mugs to grow more wheat that they went out and told them to grow it, but they did not use the machinery that was at their disposal, in Glasnevin, to produce the seed. I wonder will the position be in any way improved for the coming year or must the farmer who contemplates sowing any crop make up his mind that he must be his own seedsman as well as farmer and then perhaps he will be told that he must share what he had the foresight to gather for his own use?

That brings me on to another question—the position of binder twine. An order has been made that binder twine cannot be used for any purpose except for tying corn, not even for tying straw. The man with the steam thresher is at once faced with the expense of employing six or seven men extra, per day, to keep the mill going. I believe there is no use in asking if there is any wire for baling the straw. If we have nothing to bale it, neither twine baling nor wire baling, how much extra is threshing going to cost us? Last year, the Minister sent out warning notices to all steam threshers in the country threatening them with pains and penalties if they had not their engine ready to start threshing at immediate notice. Coal supplies were guaranteed. Conferences were held. The same threshers did not hear another word until they saw in the public Press a public announcement by the Minister's Department that there was no coal for threshing. How are people to produce food, how are people to carry on their business, with this sort of a Government interference?

The people are asked to provide food for the nation but the Government cannot see beyond their noses in providing supplies. Why are we short of twine? What has happened the twine factory at Newbridge? I had a special interest in that because they came to me looking for a site before they went to Newbridge. I thought when my site was not big enough for them that they would be producing for Europe in Newbridge. They are gone and we are told now that, under penalty, we dare not use twine for any purpose except for reaping and binding. Merchants are warned not to sell any binder twine except between a date in July and a date later on. Even the merchant who had the foresight to buy up all the twine he could in the last two or three years, and has stored it, dare not sell a ball of it until July. What was the Minister for Agriculture doing? If we were to grow 600,000 acres of wheat, how did he think we would tie it? Did he think that it could be tied by making a double belt and putting it around each sheaf by hand? No provision was made. These are the people who go through the country slandering the farmers because they have not produced at an uneconomic price. The farmers have stood up marvellously to the situation, but the Government has shown no foresight and has made no provision whatever. Other Deputies have mentioned machinery. Whatever the position in regard to machinery may be, we have to put up with it.

As to wheat, I put this to the Minister. If I offered wheat for sale now and got £3 a barrel for it, I suppose the person who bought it and myself would have committed an offence. But, supposing a tramp steamer came into the Port of Dublin with 20,000 tons of wheat and offered it to the Government at £5 per barrel, would they let it go? Are they getting it any cheaper? I put it to the Minister that they are paying more. If a tramp steamer can hawk wheat to the Port of Dublin at £5 per barrel, why should not a tramp farmer be able to hawk it? A member of the Government Party, who has not enough planning to do for the present time—that is all done—is planning for the future when the war is over in ten or 15 or perhaps 30 years, as it may be another 30 years' war. Why can we not do the thing which is to our hands? I do not know any of the farmers who were prosecuted in Youghal, but I am sure they are all enterprising farmers. If they were not, they would not have done what they did. They got wheat ground to feed cows and pigs after, I am sure, having given in to the common pool more than their share, whereas a Deputy can get up in this House and say that it was a cod to grow wheat at all and no notice is taken of it. But the farmer who wanted to keep his cows and his calves and his pigs fed is prosecuted.

I wonder does the Minister know the position in regard to agriculture? Does he not know that people are not rearing calves? If they are not rearing calves, where will the store cattle be in a year or two? That is a matter to be looked into. I remember when I alone stood up in this House and protested against selling our destiny to England by the Currency Act of 1927. Now we are tumbling to it that we cannot buy anything on the face of the earth unless we export something. We pawned all we had to England then. We are repeating that in the Central Bank Bill; but that is another day's work. We want our agricultural produce to buy petrol, oils and various commodities which we import. How are we to get it? Cattle are the only agricultural produce we are exporting. If we are not rearing calves, where will the cattle for export in the future come from? If we have not the cattle for export, where will this nation be which we have talked so much about and proclaimed so much about in the last 25 years? The only way to kill our aspirations was to hand over the country to us. We have killed them ourselves. We have the country now in our hands. The only problem is to work it so that it will feed us. I cannot see how it will do that if we go on as we are going at present.

What the Minister for Agriculture should do, if he wants 600,000 acres of wheat, is to find out what percentage that represents of the arable land and make every farmer produce that percentage. When a man has produced that percentage, he should be allowed to feed what he has over to his stock or do anything he likes with it. In that way we would not be short of bacon or milk, and farmers would not be giving up the rearing of calves. The position is appalling. We are walking into a pit with our eyes open. I do not blame the Minister and his Department for everything. Perhaps if we who are criticising were in his position we might not do better, or we might not be able to do as well. I am sure the Minister and his Department have the sympathy and co-operation of everybody in this House and outside, as they ought to have. But it was not fair to Deputies that they were not told what was going on in the matter of food production until they either read it in a newspaper or saw it in an order sent to them by post. I do not know how many Deputies read these orders. Why does not the Minister take Deputies into his confidence? When he is up against difficulties, as I am sure he is every day, he should take the House into his confidence. If the public want to discuss this matter at meetings, the reports of these meetings should be allowed to be published without being censored. If the Minister did that he would get quite a lot of help and suggestions. But he goes along in the dark and will not listen to anybody. That is the policy which has been pursued by the Government, and we are now face to face with famine.

Has the Minister thought of what the position will be if there is anything like a bad harvest? Has he considered the dangers ahead of us in connection with the harvest? There is only a limited number of reapers and tractors in the country. It may not be possible to work these if parts get broken or worn out, and we may have to fall back on the horse. Is the Minister satisfied with regard to the supply of scrap iron if we have to fall back on the horse for all our transport? Have we sufficient iron for the making of cars and for shoeing horses? Is he not aware that in parts of the country they are now using old gates for the making of horseshoes and that there is a scarcity of horseshoes? We may have to go back to the hand-made spade and shovel and fork. All these things should be engaging the attention of the Minister rather than the high-class machinery for large-scale agriculture.

The position is very serious and any criticism I have offered I hope has not been destructive. I hope the Minister will take it in that spirit and reconsider the policy of keeping the public in the dark. If there is criticism to be offered or suggestions to be made they should not be censored. They should be considered in order to see what can be made out of them, because it is possible to learn something from every man.

Do bfhéidir a lán a rá ar an meastachán so, a Chinn Comhairle, ach níl fúm-sa tagairt ach do phuinnte amháin, isé sin, scéal an bhainne agus scéal an ime. Tá eagla mhór orm go mbeidh laghdú mór i mbliana ar an méid bainne agus ime a bheidh sa tír. Ní bheidh ár ndóthain againn dúinn fhéin, gan trácht ar aon chuid do chuir thar sáile fé mar dheinimís go nuige seo. Ba cheart feabhas do chur ar an scéal agus, má deintear aon rud, ba cheart rud mór do dhéanamh.

Tá mé ar aon aigne leis na Teachtaí eile do labhair ar an scéal seo agus do mhol go mba cóir níos mó cabhair do thabhairt sa gcás so. Isé an t-im an biadh is folláine agus is saoire atá ar fáil ins an tír seo anois. Ní raibh aon árdú ar an bpraghas le trí nó ceithre bliana anuas. Tá árdú mór ar luach gach aon rud eile atá ghá dhíol ag na feirmeoirí—luach na muc, luach na n-ubh, na cruithneachtan, luach na heornan, luach an bhiatais agus luach an stuic. Isé an t-im agus an bainne— ins na Conndaethe ó dheas, pé scéal é—an t-aon déantús amháin a dhíolann na feirmeoirí nach bhfuil árdú airgid in aon chor le fáil air.

Nuair atá luach chó maith ar stoc anois, agus ar dhéantúisí feirme eile, tá baol ann—agus ní beag an baol é— nach mbeidh bainne agus im go leór againn. Ba cheart don Riaghaltas agus don Aire an scéal do bhreithniú in am, agus é do chur i gceart.

Mar adubhairt mé cheana, isé an t-im an biadh is saoire atá le fáil ins an tír seo anois. Bhí blianta eile ann, ó 1914 go dtí 1918, agus blianta ina dhiadh sin, agus bhí 3/-, 2/6, 2/- agus 1/9 ar phúnt ime. Ní raibh sé le fáil níos lú ná 1/9 ins na blianta ó 1922 go dtí 1929, agus bhíodh sé níos daoire ná sin uaireanta. Níl anois air ach 1/7 an púnt. Tá na daoine a thuigeann an scéal seo agus a labhrann ar son na bhfeirmeoirí 'á rá go bhfuil laghdú ar an méid bainne a thagann do dtí na tithe uachtair in aghaidh na bliana. Agus sin in ainneoin na cabhrach go léir a thug an Riaghaltas seo ó tháinig sé i gcomhacht.

Ba mhaith liom an scéal do chur go láidir os comhair an Aire agus an Riaghaltais, agus do chuir in iúil don Aire go mba cheart rud mór do dhéanamh i gcóir na bliana seo. Ní bheinn-se sásta, agus ní dóigh liom gur ceart don Riaghaltas bheith sásta, árdú beag do thabhairt. Sílim go mba cheart go bfaghadh na feirmeoirí a chuireann an bainne chun na dtithe uachtair, go bhfaghadh siad naoi bpigne an galún más féidir é, nó ocht bpigne ar a laghad.

Mara mbíonn an méid sin le fagháil aca, tá an baol ann nach mbeidh ár ndóthain ime agus bainne againn. Sin é an t-aon poinnte amháin gur mhaith liom tagairt do ins an diospóireacht seo.

There are many subjects debated in this House of which I am very ignorant, but if there is one subject on which my ignorance is more abysmal than on any other, it is agriculture. Nevertheless, I want to ask the indulgence of the House to put forward two points. The first is that those of us who live in cities, and who perhaps never paid much regard to the agricultural community in the past, rather taking it for granted, have had, I think, a severe shock when it was brought home to us that in an agricultural country such as this, with a comparatively small population, in this time of stress we are faced with the possibility that we shall not have enough to eat for that small population. I think that those of us who live in the cities and have given the matter any thought, without having any technical knowledge or any proper understanding of the difficulties, must be driven to conclude that there is something wrong with our agricultural economy when that state of affairs can exist.

The other point which I want to develop is one which has been raised by other Deputies and that is the question of planning for the future. It is not a subject on which I can offer any advice, apart from a few random thoughts which I should like to put before the Minister. Deputy Childers has dealt at some length with the position in which we may find ourselves after the war, and he made several suggestions as to what should be done to meet those difficulties. It seems to me that our position cannot be other than bad after the war. It seems to me that Australia, Canada and New Zealand are likely to say to the British Government: "We must have a preference in this market. We have stood by you during these years of strife. In return for that we must have a preference in this market at the expense of any who did not stand by you." In addition to that, there is, as Deputy-Childers said, the fact that a large-amount of money has been sunk by the British Government in British agriculture since the war began. How soon that will yield any return, if it ever does, I am not in a position to say, but it seems to me that, both from the point of view of the conservation of foreign exchange, and for the protection of the home farmer, quite apart from any pressure which the other Dominions may bring to bear, the British Government itself, for the sake of protecting its own farmers, is likely to have some form of agricultural protection, all of which, quite obviously, will operate against this country.

As Deputy Bennett, I think, said, the bulk of the exports from this country have been dairying exports, taking it that the cattle export trade is, so to speak, a by-product of dairying, and it seems to me that that is possibly one thing which may stand to us to some extent, because we ought to be able to compete, even against a duty, with countries which are situated at the other side of the water from the principal market. We have not done so in the past, I know, but it does not seem reasonable that we should not be able to do so. Deputy Bennett suggested that the cure for the ills of the dairying industry was either subsidy or an increased price, but I suggest that, when a manufacturer is met by another manufacturer in the same line offering goods at a lower price, his reaction is to see where he can save on his costs of production so that he may cut his price and compete on an equal footing with his competitor. That, surely, is more the aspect of the question which should receive the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture and of the farmers themselves, because if the cost of production can be cut then both the home market and the export market will benefit to that extent. There is also a question which I take it is bound up with the cost of production, and that is the production per unit. Deputy Bennett again did not think very much, apparently, of cow testing. I know nothing whatever about it, but it seems to me at least reasonable that anybody should know the production of each unit. If a manufacturer has a machine, and he does not know what its output is, how on earth is he to know whether the thing is economical to run or not? It seems to inc only rational that some record of each unit should be kept, and perhaps the Minister should consider whether or not a compulsory cow-testing system would be beneficial to agriculture.

I take it that the Department is keeping in touch with present-day developments in Great Britain. In many cases, I think notably in Hampshire, the County War Agricultural Committees have been doing some very good work in raising the general standard of the lower-grade farmers by advice and assistance, and also I think to a large extent by the pooling of implements and generally acting in the form of a co-operative movement. It seems to me that it would be a very desirable development in this country if the individuality of the farmer could be broken down, and if he could be persuaded that it would be beneficial both to him and to the community to go in for co-operative ownership of implements and so forth, so that more modern equipment could be made available even to some of the smaller farmers.

Some few years ago, practically all the news that came out of Russia seemed to deal with the bad things that were happening there. In the last year or 18 months we have had that picture reversed, and we have heard of all the great things which have been done. Undoubtedly, some great things must have been done in order to change a nation as it obviously has been changed. One of their departures too has been a movement on those co-operative farming lines. Unfortunately, I do not know the details, but I take it that that too is a branch which the Department of Agriculture has studied. Admittedly, there is a considerable difference in size between this country and Russia, but it does not follow that some of the schemes which have been found successful there would not be equally successful here.

I would plead with the Minister to have the question of the policy to be pursued here after the war thoroughly examined. It may be a long way off yet—I do not know—but it equally may not be. All the belligerents say that the next six months will be the vital six months—not conclusive but vital— and it may be that peace will be restored to this earth sooner than we expect. Let us hope it will be. In any event, it seems to me that some plan, or in fact some plans, should be prepared, because it is obvious that we cannot at this stage see what the circumstances will be after the war. Various plans will have to be made to suit various circumstances. I hope the Minister is not losing sight of that aspect, and that he will have some preparations made so that we will not have to suffer a sudden upheaval in our agriculture such as occurred some years ago when the Government first came into power.

Deputy McGovern and I raised here about 12 months ago the question of abortion in cows. The Minister, I believe, made certain inquiries in County Cavan as to the number of cows likely to be suffering from that disease, but, as far as I know, that ended the question and nothing more has been done about it since. Abortion in cattle is a very serious matter. It is serious not only to the owner of the herd, but to anyone who might be unfortunate enough to drink the milk. The Minister, I presume, knows from medical experience that such a person is likely to get a certain kind of fever, and might be laid up for at least three months. It is important, therefore, that the matter should be carefully gone into, and there is no way of doing that except through the Veterinary College. There is also another disease through which thousands of £ are lost every year, and that is mastitis in cows. I do not think the disease is abating in the slightest, and we have not got any remedy at all.

I saw in the Press that some experiments were being carried out, and that a definite cure was expected to be discovered. Again, I think that is a matter for the Veterinary College. I do not know whether the Veterinary College is hampered through lack of capital or whether it is hampered through lack of room. I suppose most Deputies here are in the habit of going over to the Ministry of Supplies, and they will probably have noticed that around the Veterinary College there is a number of dilapidated houses and a bit of ground which could be easily converted to give the college more room. I believe that they have room for a certain amount of accommodation for horses, and possibly for dogs, but beyond one or two stalls I do not think there is much accommodation for cows. After all, surely cows should occupy the attention of the college probably more than either horses or dogs. A certain amount of care should be taken in relation to this matter and we should go into it very fully. I notice that subscriptions to international and other research are down by £184 and that other investigation is cut by £146. I do not think that a wise policy. I think we should pursue this matter with a view to finding out the cause of these troubles and seeing if we could get any remedy for them, particularly as this is an agricultural country and we live to a great extent by milch cows.

I heard the Minister's opening statement and I must say I did not think it very encouraging. I thought the Minister would have given us some idea of what he was thinking about for the future, and that he might have divided his remarks into three and have given us his views as to the position (1) if Britain wins the war, (2) if Germany wins the war, and (3) if neither of them wins it. He might have given us some ideas in that direction, as to what he was thinking and as to what he hoped to do for the farmers in the post-war period. The farmers during last year and this year have been compelled to bear what I might call the heat and the burden of the day, and the Government were, as it were, asleep, when they should have been making provision for the future, realising that the dark days were coming.

The result was that they had to fall back on the farmers when they got into difficulties, and 99 per cent. of the farmers have come to the aid of the Government and have tried to do all they could to get them out of these difficulties. We want to know now what bargains with the British Government or with other people the Minister is making in relation to the post-war period, or whether he is merely following a policy of waiting and seeing what the lucky bag will produce.

I presume the Minister read in the Irish Times, or in other papers, the speech which Lord Glentoran, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture, made a few weeks ago when addressing the farmers of County Fermanagh. In that speech, he said that he was taking measures to ensure that the farmers of Ulster would not be let down as they were let down last year and that he was making certain arrangements so that they would be able to hold their own when the war was over. I should like to hear the Minister for Agriculture here making a somewhat similar speech as to what he was doing and what he proposed to do for the farmers. We are ploughing up our lands which will not have the same feeding value for very many years to come. These are the lands which made this country so famous for the horses and cattle they produced. As we all know, our horses were second to none, and now the oat pastures have been destroyed. Is it any wonder we should demand that the Minister should tell us what is going to happen in the post-war period? He will not compensate the farmers by the price he is giving for oats, barley and wheat, and he is not going to do much for us in respect to pig production, because the price of pork has been reduced to such a level that the farmers now cannot produce pork economically. We have a couple of boards managing—or mismanaging—our pig production business, but I think, and probably many others think with me, that if the Minister scrapped these boards, he would be doing a good day's work.

I suppose that 90 per cent. of the Deputies who spoke here spoke in favour of long-term credit for farmers. Perhaps I can say with some experience that I doubt if that policy is good for the farmers. Farmers, if they wanted money for legitimate purposes and could put up a reasonable case, could always get sufficient money from the banks to meet any requirements and they could get it at much smaller expense. If they go to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, they have to produce securities and mortgages and pay the instalments regularly with interest, whereas if they have reasonable security, I do not think they have any serious difficulty in getting it from the bank.

Is that the "penny bank"?

No, any of our banks in the city. Respectable men will not have any trouble in getting loans from any such institution and they can get them much more readily than they can get them from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I have been with the corporation on several occasions and I could never get anything from them for people as readily as I could get it from the bank. When a farmer gives a mortgage to the Credit Corporation, he is tied up forever and cannot get money anywhere else.

We have heard a good deal about the farmers here combining. I know that in the country there is a general demand for a farmers' organisation. I am not going to say whether I would like to see a farmers' Government here or not—that would be another matter —but I think that more might be done by the farmer Deputies who come here year after year. I have spoken to some Deputies this afternoon and have made the suggestion that it would be well if a farmers' committee were formed in the House. I do not mean to take away from the allegiance which individual Deputies have to their Parties, but if there was something in the nature of a farmers' committee organised here which would assist the Minister and tell him exactly what we wanted, it would probably bring some good. The Minister may say that he has his advisers, but we come from the country and know exactly what is wanted. I am merely throwing out the suggestion that such a committee would be able to assist the Minister and tell him the position in the country. What is more, it could tell him the parts of the country where wheat or oats might be grown with advantage.

With regard to petrol, many farmers will find it very difficult to carry on without some petrol, and I think there is a great deal of petrol wasted in the country at present. On the day the Minister was in Cavan, I stood at a corner discussing the meeting afterwards and I saw a military lorry with a couple of military men in it drive three times around the town.

I think the military are responsible for a lot of petrol waste and, before the farmers' supplies are curtailed to the extent proposed, the military transport situation should be examined in order to see what amount of petrol they are using, whether it is being used to advantage, and whether there could not be an appreciable saving. Some investigation along these lines is, in my opinion, urgently necessary.

I do not agree with the outlook of the Minister or his Department on some aspects of agriculture. The more I have listened to this debate, the more confused I have become. There is one thing that the Minister and his Department cannot rid themselves of, and that is the confusion they have caused in regard to the sowing of wheat during last winter and this spring. Numerous representations were made to them at an early stage to make the price of this season's crop attractive. With their knowledge of this country they should be well aware of the conditions that existed before they definitely fix a price. They should have been aware that the farmers were sick and tired of promises and they should have known that unless they made the price of wheat attractive the farmers would not grow it. The farmers in this country have had a very lean time in recent years, and the promises of the Minister and the Government did not carry them far. I might say the farmers have had a frightfully lean time, and it should have been quite apparent to the Minister and every official in his Department that wheat would not be grown except an attractive price was offered. The farmers felt that now was their time to get a fair price for their produce, yet it was not until the people of the towns realised their dependence on the farming community and until repeated applications had been made to the Minister, that the price of wheat was fixed at any kind of a reasonable level.

I blame the Minister and his Department for the confusion that has been caused. What was the position? We found that thousands of farmers were waiting on the Government's decision, waiting to decide what crop they would grow. Many of them asked themselves: "Will it pay us better to grow barley or some other crop?" In the end, when it was too late for many farmers to put down a wheat crop, months too late, the Government fixed the price. Many farmers could have put down wheat in November and December, but they waited to see what the Government would do, and we can visualise the result of that. Thousands of farmers were prepared to put down a wheat crop in the winter or early spring, but they were anxious to know beforehand what price, the Government were prepared to give. The Government delayed too long in coming to a decision.

The Department of Agriculture is the most important Department in the Government from the point of view of the defence of the country. Agriculture is our first line of defence and, no matter what the cost might be, the Government should have made up their minds about the guaranteed wheat price long before they actually did. There should have been no shilly-shallying about it, no second thoughts about it. The Government should have made up their minds to offer a price sufficiently attractive to induce the farmers to grow wheat, or else they should have compelled the farmers to grow it, whether they liked it or not.

Last year we were told we would have plenty of wheat. Everyone in the country knows what happened. The Government are now prosecuting people for mixing wheat in the foodstuffs given to live stock, mixing the screenings of wheat with barley and oats and feeding it to the pigs. I do not know how the millers stand in this matter. When wheat was being fed to pigs in the early stages of this year the officials of the Department did not take any notice of it. In my own county I know of people who grew wheat and never sold a barrel of it. Some of them were on platforms with the Minister advocating the growing of wheat by other people. I know that people who grew wheat and would not sell it stood beside the Minister advocating the growing of wheat by other people. I do not want to be an informer, but I am sure the Minister's agents throughout the country, his agricultural instructors and others, can tell him of the people who grew wheat and did not sell it.

There was a census taken by the Gárda in relation to wheat growing and it should be an easy matter for the Government to ascertain who grew wheat and did not sell it. It would be more appropriate to investigate that matter than to be carrying on the prosecutions we read about in the papers in connection with the feeding of wheat screenings to animals. I hope the Minister and the Department will take steps to deal with those who grew wheat and would not sell it for human consumption.

We have a black market in oats. The market is black enough in connection with tea and other things. A definite price for oats has been fixed by the Minister. Frequently money is spent advertising in the papers what the price of oats should be. We were told that nobody in this country sold a barrel of oats except the man who was badly off, the man who had to sell it to procure necessaries for his family. Some time ago I walked into a store and I asked for a barrel of seed oats. I could not get any and, when I asked why that was, I was told they would have to sell to me at the price the Minister advertised but that they could readily sell oats at 10/-, 15/- and even 20/- a barrel more. For three or four Saturdays I have watched oats being sold and it was making as much as 50/- a barrel. There is no check on that. It is an absolutely black market, as black as ever the market was in regard to tea and flour. I advise the Minister to have a free market for barley and oats.

Let him take off his controlled prices, especially when he or his Department cannot control them and neither can the Department of Supplies. They should drop that. The man who sold his oats at 18/6 a barrel because he had a wife and children to support, has to go back now and buy the oats at 50/- a barrel, and he has to try to borrow the money for that purpose from the county council or somebody else. That is what is destroying Irish agriculture, and the Minister knows it as well as I do.

Besides the holding up of the price of wheat and other things, the Minister never thought for a moment of the question of supplying manures to grow the wheat. He knows that from one end of the country to the other there has been a crying out even for lime. He has thrown some sop to the farmers by arranging for the county committees of agriculture to supply a few barrels of lime here and there. The call has been made to his Department a thousand times to provide grants for the building of lime kilns or to provide loans for the building of lime kilns, particularly when there was no hope of getting any artificial manures, in some of which there would be some lime, but not a thing in the world has been done except this matter of a few barrels of lime to be supplied through the county committees of agriculture. We heard last year, or more than 12 months ago, about phosphate rock in Clare, but that has been left at a dead-letter. Evidently it has been dropped. We were never told whether it was useless or whether it would be of use, and there was no development in that matter at all. Now, perhaps I am wrong, but I blame the Minister and his Department for all those matters. Wheat, oats and barley are the things that are really necessary to life in the country while the war lasts.

I shall go on from that now to milk. There has been a good deal of talk about post-war planning. I thought some of the things that were said were a bit foolish and a bit of a "cod" to a great extent, but if food is scarce the matter of milk is most important, and what I cannot understand is that in this terrible emergency, with our dairy stock going down and our herds being depleted, there is not something done, even though at some cost to the taxpayer, to give milk at a cheaper price to the poor. There is no relation whatsoever between the price of milk at the creamery and the price of milk supplied to the consumer. It bears no relation whatsoever. The Minister-himself, in his speech in Cork, I think, stated that the production of milk was-becoming uneconomic, or likely to become uneconomic—I have not the exact words he used, but he stated it in Cork not very long ago. Well, it is felt in the South of Ireland that it is uneconomic because everybody is getting out of cows except those who have to keep them, and the Minister knows that milk, at 6d. per gallon, sold to a creamery for making butter, does not compare with the average price of milk sold to the consumer. The terrible thing about that is— although it is now admitted, and I am glad that the Minister and his Department admit that they were wrong— that five or six years ago their opinion was that our cattle exports were not worth a match. In the end the Minister had to realise that it was the only great export in this country. If the milk problem becomes so bad or uneconomic that people will not keep cows, then we will have no cattle to export. We eventually have learned, and I hope the Minister has learned, that the wall we were building around ourselves, no matter who wins the war, has fallen. If he does, our only hope of economic salvation is to have something to export, and the only thing that we will find in the end to export will be cattle.

I have a grievance against the Minister for exporting butter. There was a mess over 12 months ago about butter. Our people were left short. Now, this year, when all precautions should have been taken and when we were told that we had more butter in cold storage than ever before, we find that a shortage has occurred again. I think that it was some night last week in the House that the Minister told us, in answer to some question, that neither butter nor bacon had been exported for a long time, but I happened to be down in another Department of State, last Thursday, I think, and somebody pointed out to me that there was the Maxonia across the way, being loaded up with butter, bacon and so on—some of it from Limerick, I think. Yet the Minister, the night before, told us that there was no butter or bacon or anything being exported. I do not want to be catechising the Minister or arguing with him. What I want is that at least, in this time of emergency, we should be honest with one another and not be “codding” one another and trying to put a face on something that has been going wrong for years or trying to justify what has been going wrong for a long time. Everybody makes mistakes, and it is time to try to do something right in this country. If we are to plan for postwar matters, as Deputy Childers, Deputy Benson and others mentioned, the one thing we must plan for is to keep our milch cows in the country, and we must keep them on the same basis as we did before, unless the Minister is prepared to spend money upon making them better through scientific research or compelling something to be done so that farmers will keep better cows. I do not hold that farmers always keep the best cows or do things as scientifically as they should, but they are doing the best they can. If the Minister is going to plan, however, for any post-war period he must plan that our cows will be kept and that our dairy farmers will get a fair price for milk. That must be done. It is nearly as necessary as keeping food at the moment. I wonder if the Minister has ever thought—there has been booming enough about it in the Press—of planning some kind of “drink more milk” campaign in the country. I feel that there are a great many people in Ireland who would drink milk if they were encouraged to do so and if they got it at a reasonable price.

The farmers got a very bad price, while, at the same time, the public, especially the poor, cannot get milk. I wonder if the Minister would think of trying to have supplies of good milk made available for the poor at a reasonable price, even if it was necessary to subsidise it. If over £500,000 of a subsidy was provided in order to supply England with 100,000 cwts. of butter exports, would it not be better to spend that amount of money in Ireland educating the people on the importance of drinking more milk?

I want to draw the attention of the Minister and of the Department to cow-testing, with which we have only been fiddling at for a number of years. I feel that, instead of doing good, the present arrangement has done harm. The ordinary farmer is not a voluntary co-operator in these matters, especially when he is not well-to-do. He pays a subscription to an association because he has to do it, but he may not continue doing so. It should be apparent to the Department that these associations will not be a success when it is a case of farmers in one townland paying subscriptions while in four other townlands they will not do so. Cow-testing has to be made compulsory in some way and I do not think that can be done except through the creameries. Until then the standard of our cows will not be improved. Here and there pedigree cattle are being produced, and when there is a sale on these animals, being extra well fed, are given precedence. As there has been discussion about that practice it is better that it should not continue. It is up to the Minister to see that it does not continue. With regard to the rearing of some breeding stock they were a drug on the market a couple of years ago. In a great many cases they have been too highly fed and the progeny was weak.

These animals go to farms on which they receive ordinary feeding and accordingly are not suitable for the purposes for which they were purchased. The breeders of these yearling calves are awarded prizes for animals that have been fed on cod liver oil and gallons of milk. If they are to be productive they should be at least one and a half years old. The Minister knows that young cattle that have been fed on cod liver oil and new milk, perhaps three or four times a day, would not be suitable for breeding when reduced to ordinary feeding on farms. In dairy-bred cattle the purebred shorthorns are the weakest in that respect. These animals should be at least one and a half years old before being sold for breeding purposes.

I think the Minister and the Department have acted wisely in the steps they have taken to deal with the future of agriculture, because nobody really knows what the future holds out for us. The present policy is a very good one and is on a sure foundation. I hold that the Department and the Minister have planned very well for the present emergency, and if their planning had met with the co-operation that it deserved, rather than with criticism, we would be in a much better position to-day. A great deal has been said about a reduction in pigs, and anybody who listened to the debate might imagine that the Department had been malicious in its efforts to reduce the pig population. I remember when we had the admixture scheme and, when cereal farmers had the opportunity to get a good market for oats and barley, without any fixing of prices, we were told that it was most uneconomic to feed pigs either with lbarley or oats. Seemingly it is economic to do so now.

There are two alternatives. One is to allow the pig population, in the absence of sufficient food for feeding, to be reduced, or to let human beings be short of food. I hold that if the admixture scheme had been kept in operation, in spite of the howl that came from many parts and the propaganda campaign carried on against it, we would not have the present position. Some Deputies on this side and on the opposite benches were always strongly in favour of a continuation of the admixture scheme.

Farmers have been called upon to till 25 per cent. of their holdings this year. Some people say that while that has to be done there is not going to be the same return because sufficient fertilisers are not available. I did not hear any of these prophets telling us in 1938 or even in 1939 that the present situation was likely to arise, and consequently I consider that it would be very difficult for the Department or the Minister to be expected to foresee such an emergency, or to take steps to allow artificial manures to be imported free of tariffs. In the coming year and for years to come, I believe that our position as regards food supplies will be quite similar to that of the present year—that there will be no hope, even if the war ended to-morrow that we would get in any big supply of the essentials required by the people in such a manner as they came in in the past. For 1943 the acreage should be increased to 33? per cent. of the arable land.

It should be a condition that, when the farmers are compelled to do that, they will also be allowed to grow a certain area of that under rape. There may be difficulty about shortage of rape seed at present, but we have a year to go to 1943 and it ,is likely that the supply by that time would be increased considerably. If farmers were allowed to sow a certain acreage of rape, to be included in the area to be cultivated, they would be able to have the land manured—by feeding the rape to either sheep or cattle—sufficiently to grow a very fine crop of cereals.

That would be a very fine form of manure and better than any artificial manure as it would leave more on the land than it would take out of it. All the talk about artificial manures is not, after all, so very sound. There are at least some critics and writers on agriculture who do not hold to the view that a very liberal use of artificial manure is the best in the long run for the land. Some of them hold the very opposite view.

In regard to propaganda for increased tillage, such as we have had for the past two years, that was all right for the time being. In future, however, if there are to be meetings throughout the country, they should not be meetings where the Minister or officials of the Department would come to county committees of agriculture or other committees of that kind. When there is an election to be fought, everyone in this House goes out on public platforms, and uses the fairs and markets and other meeting places where there are likely to be crowds, to put their views and policy before them. The county agricultural instructors are a highly efficient and intelligent body of men, and the lectures they have given in schools and other places are now bearing fruit; but I would like to see them go to the fairs and markets in their respective counties and get up on the platforms and use the microphone to address the crowds. It is quite possible that there may be some very unintelligent persons there, but they might also meet—and very often would meet—suggestions or interjections which would help to clarify the position.

I have known agricultural instructors go out to lecture during the past winter, and I have known men go to the meetings with the intention of embarrassing them and putting questions which they believed would place the instructors in a rather difficult position; but, hearing the lectures and the fine explanations that were given, the very people who went there with that intention in mind came away and said: "This man knows what he is talking about; we are delighted that we have come to listen to him." Having these lectures out in the open before the public would bring the instructors more into contact with the people. In the past there was a certain prejudice in the minds of people regarding agricultural instructors—they were looked upon as not being "of the people" and were left unheeded. In fact, some people would not even read a leaflet, though I am glad to say that is dying out. The better the instructors get around among the people, the better will it be for the agricultural policy.

A lot has been said about milk production, and I am glad to say that Deputy Ryan made a point which I have been considering for a long time. Most of the Deputies who have spoken in this debate have said that the dairying position is not sound and that it is very difficult to carry on, and they have asked for a further subsidy for that particular industry—to which I have no objection. Any subsidy given to an industry which produces goods for our own people would be money well spent; but I am not at all sure that subsidising a commodity for the foreign market is so good. After all, if you have to subsidise something to ship it to the foreign market in order to procure either raw materials or essential goods instead, it means that you are paying for the raw materials or imported goods at a price much above that which it is within our economy to pay.

Some change could be made in the whole policy regarding dairying, and this is an opportune time to make it. When I go into a town in any part of my constituency at present, and the question of tea shortage is mentioned, or something like that, the people of the town say: "That is no loss to you farmers at all: you have everything you want, your own milk, butter, bacon and so on; but what about us who cannot get even our ration of tea?" They will say also that tea is not by any means as good or as nourishing as milk. If that is so, I think it should be taken up much more strongly than it is. Some years ago there was started in Dublin the "Drink More Milk" campaign. That could be extended now.

If every person in Ireland, including those in the towns, would drink a pint of milk per day, that would provide nearly as good a foundation for our live-stock industry as is provided by continuing to subsidise the creameries for the production of butter for consumption in foreign markets. That is a point I would like the Department of Agriculture and all others to consider. It may be a rather costly scheme to operate—perhaps it is not even practicable—but I believe that it is a scheme well worthy of consideration. It would also bring home to the people, as has been brought home to them in respect of other articles of food produced here, that what is produced in this country is best suited to our people, and that the milk and wheat produced here for the people, if they would only use enough of them, would give us a happier, healthier and stronger race. It is quite likely that there would be more heard of our people on the athletic fields of the world—as was heard 25 or 30 years ago —than, unfortunately, has been heard of them at the present time.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Top
Share