Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Apr 1942

Vol. 86 No. 7

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

One thing which I am anxious to know from the Minister is whether it is his intention to feed the people of this country before sending anything out from this country to other countribs. In the course of his opening speech the other day, he said that if we had 20,000 cwts. more of butter, we could do with them, but I know that for the period of the last four months over 62 tons of butter were shipped from the port of Cork, and, knowing that the people here are not able to get butter, I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is his intention to pursue that policy.

I listened with great interest to the remarks made by several Deputies about milk, and when one considers that in this country we drink sixteen-twenty-fifths of a pint of milk per day per person as against one and a half pints per day in Sweden and America, and a larger amount in other countries, one wonders what the mind of the Government in relation to milk is. I am pretty familiar with the position in Cork, where for a few years what is known as a milk board has been operating. The price paid for milk for distribution in the city to the milk board producers is 1/0½d. per gallon, and, for distribution they get an extra 7½d. I know that within six miles of the city milk is being sent to the creameries at a price of 6d. or 7d. a. gallon, and I often made inquiries as to whether anything could be done with a view to supplying the people of the city with a reasonable supply of milk which they would be able to purchase. I find that, during the 12 months ending last December, of the milk sold by the milk board to these retailers, over 75,000 gallons were sent to the university dairy and sold there for something like 7d. per gallon. That, of course, is termed by some people surplus milk which they could not sell in the city, because the minimum which the poor people have to pay is ? a gallon; but, strange to say, that same milk was sent day after day for a year, to the amount of 75,133 gallons, to the university dairy and sold there for 7d. per gallon. To me, our milk boards are nothing less than restriction boards which impose fines on producers if they sell milk at less than these prices.

I do not want to be misunderstood in relation to the payment of a fair price to the farmer. From the meagre knowledge I have of farming, I am quite satisfied that no man could produce milk to-day at 8d. or 9d., not to speak of 6d. or 7d. a gallon and we are not opposed to giving the farmer a proper price and the standard of living he is entitled to have. No man who was not supplying milk to Cork City prior to the introduction of the milk board can now supply the citizens with milk. If he does so, he is fined; but, notwithstanding that regulation, we find surplus milk being sent to the college for 7d. a gallon for which 1/0½ was paid by the retailer, the retailer getting 7½d. a gallon for distribution, so that the man who produced it got less than the man who distributed it. That is obviously a situation which requires remedying, and one which the Government should take very strong measures to rectify.

On the 23rd of last month, the Taoiseach, addressing the Country-women's Association, made the following statement:—

"In reference to milk consumption, the subsidising of butter exports always seemed ridiculous to him. If they were to double their milk consumption, there would be no surplus butter to export and if prices had to be subsidised, the subsidies would be strictly for the good of our own community."

Anybody can subscribe to that, but one would imagine that it was an ordinary man in the country who made that statement. That statement came from the Leader of the Government, but I am rather surprised that he did not follow it with the query: "What is the remedy?" Why is he not stopping that situation? If we were to go back over the past three or four years and make up the total of the subsidies paid in order to give butter to the English people, we would be more than surprised. There is no good in telling people to drink more milk if we do not give them the purchasing power to buy milk, and if we read some of the reports of the medical officers we shall find a good indication of what is wrong. It is that the people are not able to buy it.

Deputy Beegan last night, speaking on somewhat the same lines, advocated greater consumption of milk and gave reasons for doing so. There is no good in talking loosely about people drinking more milk, if they are not given the power to buy milk, and I wonder do we ever try to realise how much milk and butter a man in receipt of 10/6 a week to feed, clothe and shelter himself can buy, or how much milk and butter an unemployed man with five or more children in a country town who gets 14/- from the State, without a voucher, can buy, or how much a man in a city or big town who gets a maximum of 23/- per week for himself, his wife and five or more children, with five vouchers, can buy. It is about time we faced realities, and dealt with the question of giving people the means to purchase milk rather than discuss why we should subsidise butter.

Yesterday morning I was travelling to Dublin by train, and at Knocklong and Charleville quite a number of men entered the train on their way to England. One out of the number sat alongside me. He told me he was going to England and that he was 49 years of age. I asked him what he usually worked at and he said that most of his time he worked with farmers and he also worked on the roads. He told me that he had ten children and, as, he could get only 14/- a week at the labour exchange when there was no work to be done in his district, he thought the best thing to do was to go to England. Everyone of us here should realise the significance of that. Here is a man who is rearing ten children for the State, who has worked, on the land and also worked for the county council on the roads, and his only hope now is to go across to England in order to earn enough to keep himself and his family. These are the things we should be considering rather than the subsidising of this, that or the other.

Instead of having a milk board operating within an area, the Government should create a national milk board that will give the farmers an economic price for milk. I know what it is to buy milk. I am purchasing milk from a farmer and I know the difficulties experienced in milk production. The farmers have to get up early every morning and work hard; they have very little time for a holiday, and I am satisfied to give them any price they demand for milk because they are doing a national service—they are producing food for the nation.

I am anxious to know what the Government intend to do for agriculture in the immediate future. The Minister gave us a detailed explanation of what was done during the past year. I think that if we continue to deal with agriculture as we have been doing we are likely to be hungry. I am not satisfied that sufficient land is being tilled. I am aware that big fields that should be cultivated are not being sufficiently tilled. We have not tackled the question of allotments as we should have. I have already made representations to the Minister on this matter. I have advocated the acquisition of land for plotholders in Cork. Quite a number of unemployed people there are anxious to get allotments, but when we asked that certain steps should be taken to enable them to obtain plots, we did not receive much encouragement. No real effort was made to enable those men to acquire plots. We should devote more attention to tilling the land and enabling the people who are prepared to till to do so and in that way get as much food as possible out of the soil.

The people who are at all times anxious to till and produce the greatest amount of food are the small farmers. I am satisfied that they are badly handicapped through lack of credit. They have no machinery or equipment; they have not adequate housing accommodation for their pigs or poultry; they have not the necessary capital to put their holdings into a proper state of production. It was indicated here some time ago that if the farmers obtained money from the Agricultural Credit Corporation they would have to have two securities and pay 6 per cent. interest on the money received. If a farmer got a loan of £100 he would pay back £160 over a period of 15 years. My suggestion is that the Government should issue money to the small farmers free of interest for a number of years. If some effort along that line is not made, we may be faced with difficult times within the next two or three years; many people may go hungry, all because the small farmers are not in a position financially to cultivate their holdings properly.

I often wonder what the people of the next generation will think of us. We have any amount of boards, including milk and marketing boards. It regard them all as restriction boards. We hear a lot of talk about bacon. How many of the working-class people are able to buy bacon? In Cork some time ago one of our Ministers told us that he did not see much hope for the agricultural community. One thing he did advocate was that the wages of industrial workers should be reduced so as to bear some relationship to the wages paid to the agricultural community. Is there any reason why the agricultural workers should not have £3 a week? What is the reason they have not got it? Is it because they are unorganised, or the victims of circumstances?

I am satisfied that the whole position of the agricultural community is due to our capitalistic system. We have a large number of small investors and a small number of big financiers, directors of insurance companies, directors of banks, gamblers in currency, and moneylenders, who do nothing at all in the way of actual production. These are the people who are dominating the administration and the legislation in this country. There is no inclination to change that system. I suggest that if more attention is not paid to the requirements of the working classes, they may very soon overthrow that system. I am anxious to hear from the Minister what steps he will take to see that our people will not go hungry.

This debate has gone into the third day, and I think that it is a very good sign. It indicates that Deputies are beginning to realise what an important position in our economic life the agricultural industry holds. For a great many years Deputies representing urban constituencies, Deputies out of touch with rural life, did not attach sufficient importance to agriculture. Perhaps it is by reason of the shortage of essential food stuffs, due to the emergency through which we are passing, or perhaps it is for other reasons, that the industry is now being placed in its proper perspective. My quarrel with the Department of Agriculture is that its outlook generally is not from the correct angle. I think the attitude of the Minister and the Department towards the agricultural industry should be that of a friend, philosopher, and guide. That is not their present attitude.

Speaking as an agriculturist, and understanding the problems of my neighbours, I think the Department's outlook is more that of the schoolmaster or the warder. That should not be so, because the agricultural industry is so important that it requires much careful, skilful and friendly attention. In addition, I do not think the Department realises that farming is as much a business as any other undertaking carried on in any part of the world. Perhaps, it is more of a business in this way: that the farmer has to look ahead and has to plan a whole year in the future. Some businessmen only have to plan their future from month to month or, perhaps, for six months ahead, but the farmer has to plan for a year ahead and sometimes for two or three years. He has to carry out a certain course of conduct and planning in connection with his business. Yet, it is the farmer's business that suffers most from outside interference. Once it has been decided that a certain course should be adopted towards a certain destination in order to bring about a certain state of affairs in his business, it is very hard, then, when he is half-way through with that course of conduct, to have to meet with regulations from the Department of Agriculture which put his business completely out of gear. For instance, he may have been fattening pigs with a view to getting a certain price and to be dealt with at a certain weight, and then he suddenly finds that that is changed entirely. To use a phrase from another industry, it is like throwing a spanner into well-oiled machinery, and no business can be carried on and not suffer if that kind of thing is going to happen. The farmer should be left alone as much as possible, and he is not being left alone at the present time.

Another thing that the Department has to bear in mind with regard to this industry of agriculture in our country is that there is a twofold problem. First of all, there is the present problem of producing the maximum amount of food during this emergency, and then there is also the problem of dealing with the future position of the industry. You cannot separate the two parts of that problem, and I think that there is a great deal too much stress placed upon the present position, and not enough regard had to the future position. For instance, so long as the returns of corn crops can be made large enough for a particular year, it seems to me that the Minister and the Department sit back and that both the Minister and the Department then feel satisfied having got a big yield. But I do not think the Minister and his Department are paying sufficient attention to what is going to happen in future. I think that that is a very serious aspect. It is an aspect that has been generally appreciated by all sides of the House here, however, so far as I can gather from listening to the speeches that have been made during the two days that this discussion has been going on.

Some of the speakers here yesterday mentioned that this country might have to turn over to intensive farming as against extensive farming in the near future. I think that perhaps we do not realise that with the increased requirements of tillage, with the fact that a quarter of the arable land of this country, and perhaps more, is being tilled at the moment, we are more than half-way already towards what is known in the text books as intensive farming as against extensive farming. But we are only half-way in one respect, and what we have to realise, and what I think the Minister and his Department should realise and foster, is that if you are going to increase tillage to the extent that we have increased it—in other words, if you are going to intensify tillage operations on the land you must also, to a corresponding extent, increase live stock, cattle, pigs, and so on, and increase other products of farming, because you must intensify the other end, and doubly so by reason of the absence of artificial manures and the importance of having farmyard manure at the present time.

Now, my two real quarrels with the Department are, first of all, that it has not a benevolent enough outlook on the agricultural industry, and, secondly, that it has its mind altogether on the present and not sufficiently directed towards the future. Some mention of credit, or credit facilities, has been made in this debate. It is always being mentioned in this House, and I know that there are wide differences of opinion on the question of whether or not there should be increased credit facilities for the farming community. I have always advocated increased and better credit facilities for those who have the responsibility for working the land in this country, and such facilities are doubly necessary now when more has to be got out of the land. In order to get the maximum out of the land, you have got to put into it brawn, brains and skill, plus money or credit, and if you leave out the fourth item you will not get results. Increased credit facilities are the duty and function of the Government. It is the duty of the Government to provide credit facilities, but certainly the credit available at the present time is not sufficient to produce the best results from our land.

I think also that we are inclined to be a little bit too conservative with regard to the crops that are fostered in this country. The great problem of the future, when all those people who have left the country will come back again, will be how to absorb them into useful employment. They will not find sufficient employment on the land unless there are subsidiary industries depending upon the land, and I think there is a great future in this country, as there must be in every agricultural country, for the development of certain sidelines of produce. I refer now to the canning and bottling of vegetables and fruit. That can become, and should become, a very big industry, indeed, in this country. It is only a few years now since the canning or bottling of fruit and vegetables reached such a stage that the average person cared to cat bottled, canned or tinned fruit and vegetables, but it has reached such a state of high technical efficiency at the present time, in those countries that go in for it, that sometimes it is very hard, in the midst of winter, to distinguish between canned and fresh food of the vegetable and fruit variety. In some cases, as in that of asparagus, some people prefer the tinned asparagus to the fresh variety.

Now, without having to dig down into the soil for minerals, we have the opportunity of producing an abundance of the raw materials for such an industry. If we were to turn to this matter of bottling or canning such goods, I submit that we have the raw material here to keep all our surplus population in productive and useful employment, because those are the types of goods that can be exported or can be used at home. Perhaps, in dealing with that class of goods, I am thinking more of the future, when times are better and the emergency has passed, but I think it is something that the Department should have their eyes upon and in connection with which they should be experimenting. There are peas, beans, and various other things that, apart from the question of providing such raw material, are of very great use to the land. Experts tell me that such vegetables send back to the land the necessary nitrogen that is generally supplied in some of the artificial manures and that, far from doing the land any harm, they would be doing it a great deal of good. I know that certain people, in a big agricultural way in this country, are already going in for these lines and selling their products to existing factories in this country, but I do not see why that branch of our agricultural industry should not be expanded. I do not see why we should not have very large fields of asparagus along the coast, as it grows in similar climates and on similar soil along the east coast of England, and is grown there for canning also.

I think it would be well for the Department to bear the two points I have made in mind: first of all, to be a little bit more fatherly and sympathetic to those who have to produce the food in this country; and, secondly, not to think altogether so much in the present, but to have an eye on the future so that the land may profit, and that when this emergency passes we may find we have an industry well geared and running efficiently, producing the raw material needed to put into employment those of our population who cannot find direct employment on the land.

I fully appreciate the futility of direct recrimination and will content myself with making a few comments on what has been the effect of the Minister's cereal policy of last year. The delay that occurred in the fixing of a reasonable price for wheat has left us in the position in which we find ourselves to-day when we are threatened with a ration of six or seven ounces of bread. I remember telling the Minister from this side of the House, in connection with the fixing of prices for oats and barley, that in my opinion he had not sufficient force in the country to compel the law in that regard to be obeyed. Although the price of oats was fixed at 18/8, I am told that in Kerry it is being offered for sale at 44/8. The price of barley was fixed at from 28/- to 30/-, and we know it has been making 44/-. The position, therefore, is that the Minister's policy has been effective only in handicapping every law-abiding citizen and trader who desired to conform to the law. That is a position that ought to be rectified.

My object in rising to speak is twofold. First, I want to suggest to the Minister ways and means which would facilitate the farmers in planting their crops, and, secondly, in saving them. I was not at all convinced by his reply on the distribution of free seeds until such time as they were collectively grown with the prices deducted when delivered. I see no insurmountable difficulty in carrying out the suggestion that was made to the Minister. His reply was that to segregate different classes of wheat might give trouble. I think it is generally held throughout the country that those who are engaged in this business have been reasonably well compensated for their national efforts—some people would say more than compensated. To segregate the wheat and make it available for farmers should not present any insurmountable difficulty. The seed could be supplied to the farmer and the price collected when the crop was delivered in the following year. I see no difficulty in that, except, it be a disposition on the part of some people not to co-operate with the rest of the country in the production of essential food.

The next point is the provision of tractors. The supply this year has been insufficient. The shortage of petrol and of crude oil may account, to some extent, for that. I understand that in Northern Ireland the Government there hold a substantial number of tractors so that anybody who finds a difficulty in getting one through the normal channel can get supplied by the Government. They are not supplied free nor do I suggest that they should be supplied free here. Beyond all, the essential thing for us is to produce food. The position is that the people with a cereal tradition who would be anxious to conform to the Minister's desire to increase our food supplies were not numerous enough to produce all that is needed in the present emergency, with the result that new unbroken land had to be entered upon in areas where there was not sufficient machinery to meet the requirements of the increased tillage drive. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many other men, it was the duty of the Department of Agriculture to see that this machinery was made available. If the two points I have made with regard to the provision of seeds and of tractors be attended to during the coming year, it will mean that the work of increasing our food production will be greatly facilitated. I think the Minister on a former occasion did make the point that it was the duty of the local authorities to attend to these matters. It is hardly fair for the Minister to pass on what is a national obligation and necessity to the local authorities. The provision of tractors is a really important matter so far as the production of food is concerned. What the Minister should concentrate his mind on now is the making of provision for the saving of this year's harvest. Some people may say that I am raising this question rather early, but knowing how slow Government Departments are to form organisations, and the long time it takes to convince them of the absolute necessity of doing a thing, I am putting this forward now so that the Department will have time to consider it.

Deputies are aware that many of our young men have left the country, and that a good many more have answered the national call and joined the Army. I am not exaggerating when I say that the majority of those left at home are the elderly men and the women and children. In the opinion of many it would be beyond their power to save the coming harvest. If Providence blesses us with a fine harvest, no doubt strenuous efforts will be made to save it, but in my view a big national effort will be required to complete the work, especially in view of the numbers who have left the country and are still going. The only way I see of making certain that the harvest will be saved is for the Government to organise some of the young men in the Army to help in the work. The majority of them have come from the country, and I am sure would prove experienced helpers. I am sure there will be no disposition on their part not to desire to co-operate in what is, after all, an urgent necessity. I would remind the House that the other elements in the community are likely to suffer more from a bad harvest, or a lost harvest, than farmers, who will manage to get a sufficiency for themselves and their families. Those other elements have to depend on the surplus, so that I cannot imagine there will be any objection on the part of men who have pledged to give their lives for the defence of the country to lend a hand in saving the harvest. What work could be more vital than the safeguarding of the food supplies? This is clearly a time when all sections of the community should be prepared to do their very utmost to see that the crops arc planted at the present time and saved in the harvest. I do not want to be taken as an alarmist, but I have the conviction that if there is not co-operation between all elements in the State in the saving of the harvest, we are going, I fear, to meet with disaster in this country.

It is not sufficient to have it sown; it is equally essential to have it saved. There is no other possibility of saving it but by mobilising the entire forces of the country. I do not wish the forces of the country to be engaged to the detriment of labour. My suggestion is that where labour is not available or is not sufficient the Government should co-operate in saving the harvest. I think that is only reasonable. When they know how vital it is and when they know that the food supplies depend on it, I do not think there can be any objection to that.

I ask the Minister seriously to consider the points I have raised as to the provision of seeds and of the necessary machinery for the sowing of the seeds. Experience has taught me that we will have a lot of very indifferent sowing this year because we have not the necessary machinery, and if we do not get the oil that is required we will have a lot more indifferent crops. I want to have that safeguarded against next year. Many men were disposed to grow more wheat if they could get the seeds. There was a great difficulty in getting seeds and the cost of the seeds was enormous. If a man wants to plant 20 barrels of wheat his capital outlay will not be returned to him for many months. That is a severe strain on the limited resources of our agricultural community. Surely it is the duty of the State to help in that matter. Then there is the question of the provision of tractors in a national way for the coming year.

For the present year, as so much depends upon it, the forces of the State ought to be organised and made available where necessary to help in the saving of the harvest. The Minister may say that it would be very difficult to arrange machinery for that. I do not know whether it would be considered presumptuous to make a suggestion. I might, however, point out that in every area in the country there is a parish council which is in touch with the community and usually the best elements in the locality go to make up the parish council. They are aware of the conditions of every agriculturist in the area. An organisation could be set up by the Ministry in connection with the Army, if they wished. The parish council could make representations on behalf of local farmers who found it difficult to get labour to whatever organised authority you have. In that way you would have, in my view, the simplest form of co-operation.

I would point out to the Minister that I have refrained from any criticism of his responsibility for the present situation and of the delay in giving reasonable prices. As I said, nothing is so futile as useless recrimination. I am pointing out to him now the necessity for the provision of labour for saving the harvest in the coming year, and, secondly, the necessity for considering means by which sufficient crops will be sown next year. We have often been told about the necessity for being self-sufficient in this country. We ought now to have a reasonable, bona fide co-operative movement to make the country self-sufficient. Except we adopt some means such as I have suggested I cannot see any hope in the future either of sowing sufficient, crops or of saving them.

I should like to impress on the Minister the necessity for having some advisory committee to look into the question of our agricultural policy for the future. We all know that after the war conditions will be very different from what they were before. I think it would be a great benefit to the country if the Department of Agriculture set up such a committee, composed of people who know the ins and outs of farming so that we may be ready when the war is over. Things are advancing in the world and our farmers, if they want to make a living after the war, will have to change their way of going. Deputy Childers mentioned yesterday that he foresaw a time when the English would not take our cattle in the way they arc at present exported. After the last war a lot of people thought that too and people put money into the Drogheda dead meat factory and other factories. Afterwards they saw that it was a mistake. A lot of people at present are beginning to think that after the present war it will be necessary for us to have a dead-meat trade. My opinion is that we should concentrate upon having good store cattle for the English market after the war, because we never could capture the dead-meat trade in competition with the Argentine and other countries. If we got into the dead-meat trade anybody in the cattle trade knows that there would be certain cliques in England and the price would be raised 1d. now and then dropped 1d. The store cattle trade is the natural trade for this country so far as any commonsense farmer can see and if we concentrate on that I do not think we will be ousted out of the British market.

At present, the tendency of the English Department of Agriculture is to concentrate on more milk. I am told that any farmer who produces a cow which will give milk will get a subsidy of £10. That will tend, so far as I can see, towards the breeding of an animal that will not be any good for the British farmers to feed. It will be more of a milking strain. If we concentrate on good store cattle, I think it would mean that our farmers would get the benefit of the British market, because I know the English farmers, no matter what happens, will turn to Irish store cattle. If a County Meath farmer buys stores in the County Meath they will not improve very much on his land. If, on the other hand, he goes to Galway and buys store cattle there they will improve on the Meath land. In the same way, if an English farmer buys an English store beast, it will not improve as much for him as an Irish store beast would. No matter what Deputy Childers may think, the English farmer will buy Irish stores in preference to any others. After the last war Canadian stores were brought into England and a number of people invested in farms in Canada on that account, but they lost on them because the British farmers continued to buy the Irish store cattle, as they would pay best. I think the Department of Agriculture should concentrate on improving our store cattle. They are very good at present.

The milk scheme of the Department is all right. At present they are concentrating on the Shorthorn breed. They are trying to breed a dual-purpose beast for milk and beef. I think the Department are going on the right lines, but that they are not giving sufficient encouragement in connection with that. They are not giving a sufficient subsidy to keep the good Shorthorn bulls in the country. The foundation of all our stock is really Shorthorn. Every beast in the United Kingdom comes from the Shorthorn. At present the tendency is to breed whiteheads and blackheads. Whiteheads are all right, but if you keep on breeding them you will get a small beast which will not be suitable for everybody. The whitehead is good for the small farmer because it comes to maturity six or eight months before others. That is why the Department should give a bigger subsidy for Shorthorn bulls. They should give more in order to make them keep the bulls in the country. The Department should see to it that there are enough Shorthorn bulls in each locality. It is through the Shorthorn heifer we will be able to keep our store cattle trade with England, and I think the Department should concentrate more and more on getting the Shorthorn breed. I would not agree with Deputy Childers that we are going to lose the British market. I say that we will not lose it if we concentrate on the Shorthorn breed.

On a point of explanation. I think the Deputy misunderstood me. In actual fact, I was referring to store cattle and not to dead meat at all. I was suggesting that the British, after the war, would demand an improvement in the standard of store cattle.

I thought the Deputy was referring to a standard joint. Deputy Childers also gave some statistics as to the number of cattle per acre. I think he mentioned three acres to the beast. If you feed only that many cattle you will not get much return from the land. I would say a sheep and a beast to the acre, and you would require good land to do that. In Deputy Childers' speech, generally, there were many points that should be looked into. He talked about a post-war policy for agriculture. We are in a changing world, and things will be very different after the war. The Department has a lot of inspectors at the present time, and they should be asked to prepare some scheme for reseeding the land after the war. After the last war most of the land was allowed to go wild, and that should not be allowed to happen again. I think it would be a great benefit to the country if the Department would prepare some scheme for reseeding, even if they had to give free hay seed in order to put something back into the land. Agriculture is the principal industry of the country, and it is the industry that is keeping the country going at the present time. Were it not for the stored-up fertility of our soil we would not be able to feed our people now. After the war, we must try to put the land back into the same state that it is in now, and if necessary try to store up fertility for a future time. If we had not stored-up fertility in the land at the moment the people of the cities and towns would be in a bad plight. Any money spent on putting our land back in a fertile condition after the war would be money well spent.

I do not think it is fair to accuse the farmers of holding up the wheat. There may be isolated cases where that has happened, but the farmers as a body should not be branded with that accusation, and I think it was very small of the Government to summon farmers in a few cases for feeding screenings of wheat to cattle. It was just as if they wanted to shift the blame from themselves. We all know very well that, when the city man hears about one farmer giving wheat to pigs, he concludes that farmers generally are holding up the wheat and feeding it to animals. That is not so. The wheat is not there; the return was not in it, and it is not fair to place the blame on the farmers in that way.

I want to say that in my opinion the farm improvements scheme was the best scheme ever started in this country. Deputy Childers congratulated the Government on it yesterday. I think I myself was the first to mention such a scheme in this House. Three or four years ago I referred to the desirability of an improvements scheme such as they had in Northern Ireland. We are now following on the same lines, and it is one of the best schemes ever introduced in this country, because it helps the farmer to live on his own land instead of going out and working on the roads. Under that scheme, numerous small farmers are now doing useful work for the country instead of having to go out and work on the roads. I think the scheme should be further developed, and that more money should be allotted to it each year.

There are many different views on the question of the germination of wheat. I heard of people who tested the wheat for germination in November, and it was tested again in February, when the germination was not half what it was in November. I asked whether the wheat had heated, and I was told that it had not. The farmers should be given some information on the subject, because at the moment they go to the expense of sowing a field of wheat, thinking it is the best, and it does not grow. That has happened in a few cases.

The Department should fix the price per acre to be charged by tractor owners for ploughing. I know a few farmers who were not in tillage, and who are not very well off, and they were victimised badly by the tractor owners. It may be said that they should have had horses, but they had not the horses and were not in a position to get them. They had to hire tractors, and were charged 30/- per statute acre. I think that is exorbitant. I understand that in Northern Ireland the Department of Agriculture fixed the charge at 23/- or 24/- per statute acre. The charge should also be fixed here, so that the farmers will not be victimised.

I also want to refer to the price of beef and mutton. I believe the Department did all they could to get the price increased, but as far as we can see the price of beef this year is a ¼d. a lb. less than it was last year. I think the Government should press very strongly to get the price of beef fixed at least 1½d. a lb. higher, because freight charges and so on have increased. The Irish fanner is getting 14/- or 15/- a cwt. less for beef than the English farmer gets. It is the same as regards eggs. The price of eggs to the Irish farmer is not right. He has to take ? a dozen——

They are ? in Dublin.

The English farmer gets 3/1 a dozen for any eggs he produces. I think the price should be increased here, because the farmers are going in for egg production a lot now, and the Department encourages them to do so by giving grants, for poultry rearing. I do not think they should be asked to throw away their eggs at ? a dozen when the English farmer gets 3/1 a dozen. There should be some re-casting of the prices.

With regard to petrol, I realise that the situation is not very hopeful, but the farmers are in the front-line trenches and some scheme should be devised which will make provision for them. Not every farmer may want petrol, but certain farmers cannot do without it, and some scheme should be devised—a scheme of committees which would look into each individual case, for instance—by which these farmers would get a certain amount. I have a letter from a lady, an invalid, whose brother lives ten or 15 miles away from her. He is not very strong either and he has other business as well as farming and I urge that some provision in the way of discs should be made for such people. If petrol is available, a scheme should be arranged to provide, firstly, for the farmers and, secondly, for the cattle traders going to fairs. These people could be given special discs, and the scheme could even provide for three or four men going in one car with special discs to enable them to get to fairs. There are numbers of fairs in country districts and hundreds of farmers will be victimised if they cannot send their cattle to those areas where prices are good. They will have to sell their cattle at a couple of pounds less when there is no competition and it is a matter which the Department should look into.

Another matter on more or less the same lines is that of the train service in an important county like Meath. The whole centre of County Meath has been left without a train. There is no passenger train from Kingscourt to Dublin, so that the whole centre of the county is left without a service. There is a bus which runs at midday, but that is the only service through that area, from Summerhill down as far as Lucan. The train came into Mullingar yesterday, but could not take a passenger from Mullingar to Dublin. I know one man who had business in the market to-day who could not get to Dublin by train and who had to hire a car which cost him £3 in order to get here. There is one partial solution which might be adopted. There are numerous goods trains coming up and I suggest that the railway company be asked to put a carriage on to these trains. It may mean a journey of ten or 12 hours, but people will get up here eventually and would be greatly helped. As I say, the journey would be somewhat lengthy, but people would get here eventually.

A further point is that the train leaving Dublin at present is not suitable. The train into Dublin arrives at 5 o'clock in the evening and the train in the morning leaves at 10 o'clock, and I suggest that that departure time should be put back two hours, which would not greatly inconvenience anybody. The townspeople could do their business in the morning and catch the train back at 12 or 12.30. Instead, under the present arrangement, they lose three days. If the hour of departure were put back as I suggest it, would mean the loss of a day less. I impress on the Minister the necessity for setting up some scheme of post-war agriculture. We are in a changing world and we know the value of our land at present and we are anxious to see that land in the same state of fertility later on.

I do not intend to touch at all upon the many complaints that could be, and have been, made by the farmers against the Government. More than once I have asked the Government—and I do not think it necessary to repeat it—to cooperate to the fullest extent with the farmers in their efforts to supply the country with the necessary food. I feel that they have not done so, but, as I say, I am leaving that problem. I speak really as a person without anything approaching expert knowledge of the matter, but with a certain amount of fears, a person who would like to emphasise some of the remarks made already as to the problems which will face this country—problems some solution of which must be found by the people and by the Government. I might divide them into two classes: some immediate problems which must be solved, and solved possibly to a certain extent by hand to mouth methods, with nothing very radical or permanent, because it is quite possible that the causes which give rise to these problems are passing causes and that, therefore, a passing solution may be all that is called for, and on the other, hand the much more difficult problem, the problem that will not yield to purely temporary measures but a problem which this country will undoubtedly have to face and which has been mentioned by more than one Deputy, of prevision of what we, whose principal industry is still agriculture, are likely to have to face after the war.

Let me take one example of the first kind. So far as my information goes there is, for instance, a danger that, unless something fairly drastic is done, and done quickly, the dairying industry may collapse. If it collapses, it will be exceedingly difficult in the period after the war, when conditions may be in some respects more unfavourable, to restore it. I can quite see the point of the objection that from the Ministerial side has been made to subsidising, but there are times when subsidising may be absolutely necessary to prevent a collapse, and, though something may be said against a policy of the permanent subsidising of any industry, a crisis may occur in an industry which may make quick dealing with it there and then very necessary. You cannot afford a long term solution; you have not time for that; you must save the thing while it is still alive, because, once it dies, how can we make it live again?

What has perturbed me always about our subsidising and our general policy of tariffs, which is a method of subsidising, is this: if you take one industry after another, including agriculture, how are you to subsidise every industry and out of what are all these industries —practically every one in the country— to be permanently subsidised? That is a problem. What we have largely done up to the present is to subsidise other industries—secondary industries, important industries, if you like—and that has apparently made it more difficult for us in times of crisis like the present to come to the assistance of the main industry. Much as some of the members of the Government may be inclined to shy at the idea of coming to the aid of farming at the present time by means of subsidies, I think they should re-examine the question if they feel any compunction about that, because what may or may not be sound policy spread over a number of years may be absolutely necessary in a time of crisis and in a time of exceptional conditions that may last only for a couple of years.

Such problems are distinct from the problem of what this country may have to face after the war. I am not convinced that a radical alteration and a readiness to face a radical alteration may not be necessary. I remember a long while after the last war the difficulties that farming had to face. There were times in which a man living in this country and living in Europe had to ask himself whether farming could be made an economic business. I am not speaking at the moment of the very exceptional man who will make a success of any business he takes up, in practically any conditions: I am speaking of the average farmer, and you will have to take the ordinary average farmer just as you take the ordinary average shopkeeper or labourer or industrialist, and you will have to shape your plans for him. The problem is one that confronts not merely us, but the whole of Europe.

Some Deputies may remember that the former Minister for Agriculture, the late Mr. Hogan, was continually dinning into our ears certain figures. I quote this merely as indicating that there is a terrific problem as regards farming and agriculture before every country in Europe. The late Mr. Hogan was continually dinning into our ears the difference, measured from 1914, between what the farmer had to pay out and what he got in. The figures he put before us were somewhat like these. He said that, compared with 1914, the farmer's income, the price he got for what he produced, increased 40 per cent., and his outgoings increased 60 per cent.

In the year 1928 I was in Munich, in Bavaria, and I was speaking to some of the Ministers there. We were discussing the general economic situation of that particular country. We here might regard it as rather an industrialised country, that State of Bavaria as it then was. On the other hand, they looked upon it from the German point of view as being essentially an agricultural community. I was rather taken aback when one Minister said to me:—

"Well, you see, the difficulty farmers have to face here is this. In comparison with 1914, their income, what they get for their produce, has advanced only 40 per cent., whereas what they pay for the necessaries of life and for the farm has advanced 60 per cent."

Exactly the same problem was facing the people there as was facing the people here, with this difference, that he told me an alarming fact, so far as the farmers there were concerned practically every farm in the country at that time was mortgaged—a thing from which we did not suffer to such an extent.

Anyone who has followed the investigations set on foot by the League of Nations knows the various crises through which agriculture went in the period following the last war. There were periods in which, apparently, several countries that depended on agriculture were on the verge of collapse, just as many of those that depended on industry were on the verge of collapse. I find, listening in occasionally to the radio, that the post-war agricultural problem is earnestly engaging the attention of many of the Governments in Europe at the present moment. They do recognise that a radical change will take place. I might, without going into details that might give rise to controversy, direct the Minister's attention to certain things in some recent radio statements which I heard. I heard a charge made —I am not going into the question whether there was any foundation for it or not, because that is not what I am interested in—that Germany intends, after the war, to make a distinction in regard to agriculture, to have higher types of agriculture and lower types, lower in the sense of requiring less technical knowledge, less labour—generally speaking, agriculture of a poorer type. It was stated that the more subject peoples would be forced to go in for the lower type and that Germany would keep to the higher type on her own land.

That same distinction was made at a meeting of representatives of different States-that took place in England. It was suggested that there were certain forms of agriculture that were not remunerative, were not economic, and that it would be necessary that the future agriculture of the European countries would have to be orientated along proper lines. I do not know the value of these suggestions. I merely wish to draw them to the notice of the Minister and his experts. After all, it is not the ordinary man who has a knowledge of farming in this country for the last 20 or 30 years who will be able to cope with this. He will be able to give a certain amount of advice, but I fear there is a situation arising in which something more than such valuable experience as he has will be required if this country is to make agriculture pay in the post war period. The problem was fully recognised at some of these gatherings to which I refer. Again, the distinction was made, and it was exactly the same distinction—along the same lines —as to the types of agriculture, between what is for agriculture a paying proposition and what is not, what is a higher and what is a lower type.

I think it is time that we started to take an interest in these things. After the war we shall have to face the problem of agriculture without any Party feeling, away from any Party prejudice. We shall have to face an entirely new and exceedingly difficult problem. It is important that the Minister should get the best advice from those who are in a position to give it. I do not hold that anybody can speak with perfect confidence, or anything like it, but at least there ought to be people who can speak with more knowledge of our agricultural future than others. It should not be aquestion of Party politics. It is exceedingly difficult for any person who has followed the trend of agriculture and prices, either in this country or elsewhere in Europe, for the last 20 years, to convince himself that there is a prospect, even without the present war, of making farming pay. What it will be when the changes that must follow the present war begin to have their effect, I sometimes tremble to contemplate. It is our main industry, it will remain our main industry, and we cannot afford to let it collapse. We must, if we can, put it on a sound footing in the years that follow the war. For the moment, temporary expedients may be sufficient and they will be necessary, but they will not be sufficient to deal with the post-war period and the post-war problems. We may have to deal with the question of organisation in a way that we have never contemplated up to the present time, and I think that not merely will we have to do that, but I should not be surprised if other European nations may have to do it also.

It is a matter, as I say, that ought now to engage the attention of the Minister and at least of a section of the best advisers that he can get. I often think that a lot of the criticism of the farmers that we listen to is quite useless, even harmful. My experience is that they work hard, as hard as, and very often harder than, the ordinary businessman, the ordinary shopkeeper or the ordinary industrialist. The farmers work quite as hard as any of these people; in fact, I might say that they work harder than most people except, perhaps, the higher civil servants. However, leaving these aside, they do work hard. I admit, as I said at the beginning, that there are some people who under any circumstances can make any business pay, but they are not average people, and it is for the average man that you have got to legislate. There may be an absence of what you would call business sense on the part of the ordinary farmer. He does not use money as a businessman would use it, and you may have to get a number of farmers out of that particular habit. They should be gradually got into the idea of using money for the improvement of their farms. More co-operation between different farmers may be absolutely essential. If we are to have, what we do wish to have, the continued existence of small farms in this country, then I think that, to meet a situation that is likely to occur after the war, you will have to have closer co-operation between these small farmers. How that will be brought about, again, is a matter for the Minister. There must be a change in the mentality with which we approach this problem.

It seems to me that at the present moment when, remember, money is cheap—cheaper than at any time, I should say, since this State was set up, or if not cheaper, at least it should be cheaper—the investment of money in the improvement of land and farming would seem to me to be an ordinary business proposition, if you can only secure that it is used in a businesslike way. Delay in that matter may bring about a crisis which will make our post-war problem all the more difficult. We may be able to stagger through the immediate period of the war without a general collapse, though unless measures be taken certain portions of the industry may collapse even during that period. I would ask the Minister to pay particular attention to that danger, especially from the point of view of the dairying side of the industry. Expedients may be necessary for the moment to keep the industry alive, but, above all, I would ask the Minister and his Department to face now the problem of the post-war condition of farming.

To make farming a paying proposition seems to me to be an extremely difficult job. It is highly likely, just as happened after the last war, that a number of non-European countries, that are not now in such close connection with Europe, may be brought into closer connection, and that will make our problem all the more difficult. It is, therefore, all the more necessary to tackle our problem at the present time, to try to save the industry as it stands at the moment, and to take the necessary steps, so far as expert advice is available—and I think it is only expert advice that is useful for this purpose—to prepare for the problem of the future as well. These are the main remarks I have to make on this particular Vote, and I have only made them because I am perturbed about that particular problem of the future. Other countries that can rely more on what are generally called industrial products may not have the same problem, but we certainly will have this problem and it behoves us to face it and to face it now.

We have had recently two public statements, from the Minister for Agriculture, on the one hand, and from, I think, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the other hand, dealing with the agricultural industry in this country. The Minister for Agriculture informed an audience —I think it was in Cork—that the dairying industry was not likely to be very prosperous in the near future, and that he saw very little hope for it. If he were correctly reported in the Press, I think that was the substance of a sentence in the speech he made there in the university. Recently, the Minister for Industry and Commerce was reported as having said that he saw very little future for the live-stock industry of this country. Now, if those two statements are to be taken as indicating the impression of the Government regarding the agricultural industry in this country for the future, it does not look to be very rosy. One wonders what is the agricultural policy of this country at the moment. Apart from steps that may be taken, hurriedly, perhaps, to deal with immediate needs, presumably, looking over the events of the last ten years, one might be inclined to look more at the statements that have been made regarding what is Government policy than at the results. But if we take the results, they, as far as one can learn from what has been said in this House, amount to this: that there was a change over in agricultural policy since this Government came into office in 1932, and the Government went in for the development of a tillage policy in this country. Now, the tillage of this country is recorded in the Statistical Abstract as corn, roots, greens, flax and fruit; and, starting off with 1931, we find that there were then 1,425,000 acres of tillage. That varied, in 1932, to 1,423,000; in 1933, to 1,455,000; in 1934, to 1,496,000; in 1935, to 1,591,000; in 1936, to 1,621,000; in 1937, to 1,592,000; in 1938, to 1,568,000; and in 1939, to 1,492,000. Now, apart from a rise dating from let us say, 1934 up to 1938, the development of tillage in 1939 meant an addition of 70,000 acres, if the returns be correct—67,000 acres, since one figure is 1,492,000 and the other is 1,425,000. Now, if that is the result of the policy, obviously somebody has been very much mistaken.

Let us take the other side of it. We have had returns showing the numbers of persons engaged in agriculture over that series of years, and these show that in 1931 there were 562,000 persons employed. Somewhere about the year 1934 an alteration was made in the manner in which those figures were taken out, so that persons who had no interest in having their names returned had an added interest in it from that year. It is only right that that should be mentioned because the disposition has been to put the figures up, and they went up for no particular reason except the one I have given. They went up in 1934 from the previous year by nearly 30,000. Now the influence of that has been to have a bigger return. In 1940 the number of persons employed in agriculture was 543,000, almost 544,000, and last year the number was 555,000. In other words, the sum and substance of the policy adopted in respect to agriculture, if there was a policy, has been to reduce the number of persons engaged in the industry. I did not give the number of acres under tillage in 1940, but I propose to do so now. The figure for 1940 is 1,845,000 acres, and for 1941, 2,236,000 acres. There were 13,000 more persons engaged in agriculture in 1941 than in 1940, although the area under tillage increased by almost 2,000 acres. It is plain from those figures that the tillage policy as such added nothing whatever to the number of persons engaged in agriculture. If we go a step farther, it is obvious from the development of land division in the country that if the number of persons who acquired holdings or extensions of holdings in that period—a development which, if we take the returns as being correct, was carried out at a very heavy cost in certain cases, in fact, generally—be taken it, too, added nothing whatever to the number of persons engaged in agriculture.

Yesterday I listened to a Deputy on the far side speak of the value of land and of the great increase in it that had taken place in recent years. As I did so I was reminded of the lines in the Deserted Village

"III fares the land to hastening ills a prey

Where wealth accumulates and men decay."

As Deputy O'Sullivan has said we are now in a rather difficult period of the world's history. We have had experience of the slump which hit the agricultural industry at the conclusion of the last war. Occasionally, one hears statements to the effect that it is not likely we are going to get much consideration in the British market in the future. Well, one thing at any rate is quite clear from the events of those last years, and that is that there is no alternative market now. We are not likely to hear anything in the future about an alternative market, either from election platforms or in this House. That bubble is burst once and for all. It is a great pity, because as long as it was not tried it was there at any rate for bargaining purposes. If we were talking to the other people and trying to make a bargain with them it could be used, but that is gone now. The reserves are gone, and everyone is now in the front line. As regards the future, one of the compelling things put forward against us is our position of neutrality. We read in the newspapers that in London recently there was very cordial appreciation there of the Danes—that compliments were extended to the Dutch, the Belgians and the Norwegians. But at the present moment there are far more people of Irish extraction in the army, navy and air force of our neighbour across the way than there are of all those peoples put together.

A Deputy

Hear, hear!

Why is it then, when an ordinary business bargain is to be made between the two countries, that we would not be in as good a position as any of those belligerents. I hope that, in addition to the blunders that have been made in connection with public policy—industrially, economically, financially and agriculturally— we are not going to have added to them a general dose of the inferiority complex over this country. We are told on occasion that we have made great preparations for the emergency that we are passing through. What preparations did we make? We started to grow wheat and to extend tillage during a number of years in which we imported less superphosphates than we did in the years when we had not got that extensive tillage political push. What we did import was made more expensive for our farmers by reason of that political push. In addition, they got less for their products, while their land was not in as good heart as it needed to be for the emergency. As well, we had tariffs placed on agricultural machinery and so on. The policy of the Department of Agriculture during those years should have been, "help industry as much as you please and at whatever cost you like, and let the people of this country bear the cost of it, but do not let it fall upon the agricultural industry." The development of the manufacture of Irish implements should have been carried out by means of subsidies. It should have been done by some other means than of asking those who were never so badly remunerated for what they had to sell to bear the cost of it. That was the position of farmers over that period, and they should never have been asked to bear the cost. Never within living memory, nor even within the memory of our fathers, was the return for farm labourers and farmers as bad as it has been over the last eight or ten years. To expect an improvement in the position of either class during a period of low wages and of low incomes one would certainly need to be in a very optimistic frame of mind.

In the course of the Minister's address at the Cork University he referred to the milk yield of Irish cows and compared the yield with that of New Zealand, particularly the north island, and some countries on the Continent. To my mind there does not seem to be any good or sound reason given for the low milk yield in this country. It should be the business of the Department to endeavour to increase that yield in every way possible. There does not seem to be any good reason why we should not have any winter dairying here as they have in other countries. It may bo that the climate in New Zealand is more suitable for all-the-year round dairying than is our climate, but surely Denmark is not better situated in that respect than we are. One of the causes alleged by at least one expert for this low yield in this country is that our cattle are not either sufficiently fed or sufficiently well fed. If anybody in this country should have knowledge of that it is the officials of the Department of Agriculture. That should be their business. The person who made that statement is, I believe, a doctor of science, a man who has had some experience of agriculture and who is closely in touch with the agricultural developments of the last 20 or 30 years. If it is possible to increase the yield of our cows we might solve this question of the dairying industry. It is a matter worth while considering. I suggest to the Minister one experimental method of trying it out. There are various agricultural colleges in this country. Why not buy from farmers cows which have a low milk yield, if there is no other way of doing it, and in one of those colleges see if, by any special method of food rationing and so on, it is not possible to increase the yield and, if it is not, demonstrate the desirability of getting rid of those animals which have a low yield and which are a loss not only to those who keep them but to the country?

I will not go into the question of the desirability of pushing the store cattle trade. It appears to me that the policy of the last ten years has practically killed, or has done its level best to kill, the fat cattle trade. But, speaking more as a business man than a man having any knowledge of farming, I think that is a great mistake if we are really bent on increasing our tillage. Obviously, the crops obtained from tillage could not be better employed than in feeding cattle. We ought to get the price for them, rather than to have middle-men coming in. It is desirable that there should be a market for store cattle here to be turned into fat cattle; otherwise we will be left with only Scotch and English buyers, and, of course, they can regulate their own prices.

We have had experience during the last few years of what are called licences for various purposes. So far as agriculture is concerned, there were licences for the export of cattle, and they are now available, we are told, for the export of cows. Will the Minister look into the question of the price paid for cows at Irish fairs or in the Dublin market, and what is the ruling price in England of those animals? If the information given to me is correct, the price here varies from £30 to £40, while the price in England is from £60 upwards. If that gap is traceable to the right to get a licence, or anything like that, it is the Department's business to settle that question.

Recently I heard from farmers that notice was given suddenly regarding a reduction in the price of pigs. I wonder what kind of religion is practised in the Department of Agriculture or if there is any religion practised. I know of no religion which gives the right to persons to steal money from others, and that is nothing short of stealing. If there is a desire to cut down the future output of pigs, notice should be given that on such and such a date in future the price will be so and so. When a man has spent money on producing a pig and is entitled to get his return, do not attempt to rob him of what he is entitled to by reducing the price now. That is common robbery. People can have no respect for the laws of any country that permit such a thing as that. You have no right to do it. You have no right to try to train farmers according to the opinions of mathematicians in a Department by doing a thing like that.

On looking up the Estimate, I found that tillage which was undertaken last year by the Department was estimated to cost £2,276 and that the sum that they expected to derive from the money so expended was £1,920, a loss of about £350. Will the Minister give us some information as to what the exact situation was last year? There is a difference this year. It is estimated that the expenditure will be £4,675 this year and they expect to receive £3,600. In both of these cases there is a big loss. Farmers are entitled to expect at least that the Department of Agriculture in their excursions into tillage would not incur a loss. We would like to know if that means an anticipated loss of £1,000.

The Minister dismissed in very few words the token item in this year's Estimate of £5 or £10 under the heading of diseases of animals, mentioning that there was a very big expenditure under that heading last year in order to deal with the foot-and-mouth outbreak. He merely mentioned that, under sub-head N (1) last year, there was provided a sum of £470,000 for the purpose of compensation under the Diseases of Animals (Ireland) Acts, 1894 to 1938. That was entirely devoted towards the foot-and-mouth outbreak. I want to say a few words on that. First of all, there ought to be reconsideration of those cases in which compensation was withheld from certain farmers. In one of those cases which was brought under my notice the farmer himself was ill at the time. Illness is rather a common excuse; it is nearly always put forward. In this particular case the man had a manager. The case was brought before the courts and the manager was fined £100. When the compensation fell to be awarded, the Minister withheld something like £500 from the farmer. The farmer has since died. It does not usually happen that, following an excuse of illness, the patient dies, but it did happen in this particular case, proving the truthfulness of the defence that he was really ill at the time, and, being unable to look after his farm, paid another man for doing so. The case came before the court and the court inflicted a fine of £100. It is quite true that the Act says that, notwithstanding a fine in the court, the Minister can withhold payment. There were no grounds, in my view, for withholding that sum of money in this particular case, and there may be other cases of the same sort. The trouble is over now. With the help of God, we will not have it any more, and those cases ought to be reconsidered without the heat which was engendered by the terrible infliction which the country had to endure at that time.

In the second case to which I want to refer, it was brought to my notice that, due to an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease on a farm, a considerable quantity of crops of great value had to be destroyed. It would appear that the case against compensation for the loss of those crops which were destroyed was that there was no provision in the Act for it. It is too late in the day now to be putting forward excuses of that sort. The Minister can put in another item to this heavy Estimate providing for an ex-gratia payment in cases of that kind. The crops had to be destroyed. Obviously, if cattle suffering from foot-and-mouth disease were at a hayrick, nobody in his senses would think of feeding that hay to other animals. The same thing applies with regard to mangels and other crops of that sort. It was an obvious duty on the part of somebody in authority to have them destroyed, and, even if the authorities did not ask for their destruction, the farmer himself would be very well advised to have them destroyed. But he should not be at the loss of them. There is a case in all conscience for the insertion of an extra item in the Minister's Estimate to make provision for compensation in this case. I am also informed that the compensation, towards the end of the period, was small; that it had relation to the prices ruling prior to the foot-and-mouth outbreak. The person who was compensated, while he might be compensated in respect of the then value, found when he was endeavouring to restore the size of his herd that he could not purchase anything like the same number of animals. Consequently, he was not able to get back into the same economic position which he was in prior to this outbreak. It was enough to have an unfortunate man visited by this affliction, with all the attendant disturbance and destruction, and we should not have complaints of that sort arising now that the whole thing is over.

The last item to which I want to refer—I mentioned it here quite recently on the Central Bank Bill—is that in the final report of the Banking Commission, a fairly elaborate exposition of the plight of the farmers, particularly the smaller men who needed loans, was very fully set out. I want the Minister on some occasion, through some section of his Department, to look into the question of those farmers who are indebted either to the banks or to the Credit Corporation. The Credit Corporation is no longer a useful proposition in this country. To my mind, the sooner it is wound up the better. It is not by any means as good as the banks. The banks have lent £12,000,000 to the farmers, while this corporation, which was set up at considerable cost, lent £1,000,000. I do not know what the banks got from it. According to some reports and returns which I have had, they made fairly generous settlements with certain people, but I have never heard of a generous settlement with the Credit Corporation. It may be that the Credit Corporation must work to get the last penny out of the people. If that is so, I am surprised that all those scribes who devote so much time to condemning our banking system here should expend so little of their genius in explaining how it would be possible for a bank to squeeze the last fraction out of a struggling people.

Apart altogether from that, the final report of the Banking Commission sets out the approximate number of farmers who have money to their credit in the banks. The number—I am speaking from recollection—is somewhere about 130,000, and they have, or had some four years ago, about £37,000,000 to their credit, that is about an average of £300. On the other hand, there were about 125,000 farmers who were indebted to the banks to the tune of approximately £12,000,000. That is only a small sum per head—something about £100. It is in that group that I am advising the Minister to get a section of his Department interested. They are almost equally divided as far as numbers are concerned, 125,000 and 130,000, but if, in respect of that smaller division, there is in this country a lack of production due to lack of credit, it is a national loss. That concerns every one of us. It is our business to put an end to that national loss as soon as possible, in the interests not only of that section of the community which will benefit directly but also in the interests of the community as a whole.

I suggested one rather simple method of settling that question. The real difficulty about it is that this new institution, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, has to get up its own staff, and has to make inquiries as if it were a new bank. The banks have been dealing with that in their branches in different parts of the country, and have a fair knowledge of the people. The expenses involved in making an inquiry regarding three £5 advances to a branch of the bank would be merged in the expenses of the branch, but, in the case of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, the expenses of three £5 loans in any part of the country would probably exceed the interest on them for a year. The suggestion I made to the Minister for Finance was that there might be an extension of Land Bonds, the amount being added to what the tenant farmers are already indebted to the Land Commission of, say, five years' purchase of the annuity—not in all cases, but in those cases in which the Land Commission was satisfied that there was a fair prospect of its being repaid.

I should like the economists, the expansionists, and all other people embraced in that delightful expression "money reformers" to pay attention to this. Credit to some people is a great advantage, not only to themselves but to the entire community; credit to other people is a danger to them and a loss to the community; and that is why I speak of a body that will not entail any further expense in connection with the distribution of whatever credit it may be desired to afford, in respect of which there should be an indication that it was not to be had for the asking, but was to be had in necessitous cases from which good results would flow. The Minister has heard for three days the general views of the House on these questions. Whatever differences there may be in regard to politics in this country, there is a general disposition now, and only now, to find a good, sound agricultural policy. If the Minister will give us evidence of his bona fides in that matter, he will find considerable co-operation, but it must be on the basis that the agricultural industry is to benefit and that it is not a question of politics.

I should like to offer a few remarks particularly on pig production, and I want to say at the beginning that I think the attitude taken up by the Department with regard to pig production for the last five or six years was fairly sound, in this way, that the price of pigs was increased with a view to encouraging producers to keep up production at a time when production had more or less fallen off. That was done for the purpose of making production cover the whole 12 months' period. What do we find this year? If we look up the advertised prices, we find that on 14th February there was a sharp cut in pig prices. Compare that with the attitude of the Department in the same month last year when there was a sharp increase in price.

This is a serious matter for pig producers, for those people who have gone in for pig production and have made arrangements to make the greater part of their living from it. They went in for improved qualities and did everything to comply with the regulations which are designed with a view to extending pig production over the 12 months. This action has been taken at a time when there was very little reason for it. It has been said, although I do not agree, that pigs were being fed on wheat. That may be the case in some few instances, but the percentage of people who used wheat for pig feeding was very small, so far as I know. That may be the reason for the Department's action, but, to my mind, the pigs were not fed on wheat. They were fed on potatoes, on oats and barley, and, to a great extent in my county, on milk and potatoes. Having no local market for their milk, the only alternative was to feed the pigs on what is called skimmed milk, the better milk being kept for human consumption.

However, at a time when the people had made arrangements to go into pig production, when they had the breeding sows and the stock of pigs necessary for going into pig rearing in February, March, April, May and June, we find a reduction in price. What is the extent of the reduction? Prior to 14th February, the price was 112/- per cwt. and, in addition to that, I am informed that the pig dealers were getting a bonus which brought that price up to anything between 116/- and 120/- per cwt. The price fixed by the Pigs Marketing Board up to 14th February was 112/-, but, on 14th February, we find that price reduced to 106/- for No. 1 grade; from 105/- to 98/- for No. 2 grade; and from 95/- to 80/- for No. 3 grade. That reduction took place at a time when people had their stock and were ready to go on with the work, with the result that everything was more or less held up. The pigs were ready for sale and people expected to get a certain price for them, but found that they could not get that price.

A more serious thing happened in December and I cannot understand why it happened. In my district of North Mayo, we had three fairs—on 15th, 17th and 19th December. The pig dealers attended those fairs and could not get a market for the pigs they brought there. As a matter of fact, at one of the fairs, no pigs at all were bought. There were at least 500 pigs at the fair and there was not a man to buy a pig. Fortunately for some of those men, I happened to be on the spot. I got in touch with the Pigs Marketing Board, which relieved the situation by allowing the local factories to take over these pigs. That was a critical time to hold up the sale of these pigs. Rents and rates were due and they wanted some money for Christmas, and, but for the fact that the situation was relieved in the way I have stated, those pigs would have to be brought home, which would have had deplorable results in the district.

The price of pigs was reduced, as I say, on 14th February. Has the price of bacon been reduced by the bacon curers? I say it has not. The price of bacon has increased. If you look up any week from 14th February to 18th April, you will find increases in the price of bacon. People come in to buy a lb. of bacon or a piece of bacon and they ask why the price of bacon has not been reduced when the price of pigs has been reduced, and it is a matter on which it is very hard to satisfy them. I say that it is wrong that the price of pigs should fall while the price of bacon increases. Farmers generally feel that there should be a good price for bacon, that there should be no difficulty in getting a good price for any surplus bacon we have for export. The people all have the feeling that in England bacon and other types of food are required and we should be able to get a good price for anything we send there. Knowing the price at which bacon is sold here, knowing what we have to pay for the bacon we buy for home consumption, I would like to hear from the Minister what price we get for the bacon we export. We know that the bacon that is exported is of better quality than what is retained for home consumption. We export only select sides. The greater portion of what we use at home is heavier in quality, stouter, fatter; it certainly is not of the same quality as what we export.

As regards pigs, I believe there is a great danger that if pig production is allowed to decline in this country, it will be difficult to revive it. My experience of the farmers is that if they go off producing any class of food, or any animal, it will be very hard to get them hack to it. That has been proved here already. Some five or six years ago the pig producers got into the habit of producing a certain class of pig, a stout pig, and it was very hard to get them back to the production of what is called the proper bacon pig. After a year or two they did get back to the production of that type of animal, and we again had a good quality pig. I feel that it would be a great mistake to do anything that would in any way affect the pig industry.

I should like to refer to the big tillage schemes that have been, and are being, carried out all over the country. The farmers generally have taken off their coats and, from daylight to dark, they are working on the land in order to produce food for the nation. We expect to have huge crops of wheat, barley and oats. There is no use in anybody thinking that we can get grain crops one year after another for three or four years. We must be prepared to have some rotational crop. The only rotational crop that will suit the country and that will be a help to everyone is the potato crop. If we arrange to have a potato crop next year or the year after—and in all probability we shall have to do that— where will we be if pig production has declined? We shall have a surplus of potatoes and perhaps we may have a difficulty in finding a market for them. If we have not a good pig population, where will we stand?

I believe that everything possible should now be done to encourage pig production. If it is allowed to decline in certain counties, there are many people in those counties who will find it difficult to get an alternative means of existence and we shall have many more looking for unemployment assistance than we have at the present time. In my county there are numbers of people who depend for a livelihood on the raising of pigs. They usually raise three sets in the year and that means a nice income—£25 or £30 coming in three times a year. If that industry declines, many people in Mayo will not be able to pay their rent or rates or meet their ordinary bills.

Deputy Fagan referred to the price of eggs. I know that the price of eggs is controlled and our export is also controlled and we accept the bargain that was made. As regards the way the whole thing has been managed— the regulations for exporting eggs and the general conditions affecting the egg industry—I am satisfied that everything possible is being done. Those connected with the arrangements for purchasing and exporting eggs are to be congratulated. The whole scheme is a success from every point of view. I should like to refer to the collection of eggs, particularly in the remote areas. The petrol shortage will undoubtedly affect the lorries that have been used for the collection of eggs. Under the regulations the eggs have to be marketed within a certain time. That raises a difficulty from the point of view of collection and I suggest that the Minister should use his influence in the direction of obtaining a supplementary petrol allowance for those people who have been accustomed to make weekly egg collections. Many egg producers live in remote areas and it was customary up to this to collect the eggs at their doors. The same applied to many small shops in country districts. If the petrol shortage has the effect of preventing that regular collection it will have a serious effect on egg production, and incidentally a serious effect on the quality of the eggs. Perhaps the Minister will be able to arrange for a small supplementary allowance in order to facilitate the collection of eggs. Perhaps he would go even half-way, so that there will be no inconvenience.

With regard to the price of cattle, it is true that fat cattle produced in this country are selling at 14/- a cwt. less than English fed cattle. That is not as it should be. The best quality beef is produced here; Irish cattle are fed on the best land and they are exported in fine condition, yet when they reach England they are sold at 14/- a cwt. less than British produced beef. I think that condition of things should be altered. Perhaps the matter could be raised with the British Government and some bargain made. If we do not get the full 14/- we might be able to come within a reasonable distance of what is paid for the English animal. I think that 14/- a cwt. is too wide of a gap. There should be some remedy because, as matters stand, it is really almost throwing our produce away.

On the subject of oats, I remember when the fixing of a price for oats was discussed last May or June. At that time I suggested there should be a minimum price for oats and barley. I believe that the manner in which the price of oats was fixed last year disorganised the whole situation. The farmers and everybody held on to their oats, with the result that no oats were sent to the mills, and now there is not a grain of oatmeal to be got in any town that you go into. There was really a racket. One man with a licence was tied down to a fixed price, while others were going around with no licence at all and could buy at any price they liked, and other people could get none. There seems to be a regular clamour for oatmeal and flake meal everywhere. It simply is not to be got. The whole thing seems to have been badly managed, and, certainly, if there is to be a fixed price for oats and barley this year, the thing should be done in a different manner from the way in which it was done last year, because if there is not a change to a different system I am afraid you will have the same thing repeated next year. I hope the Minister will consider the whole matter carefully.

I should like to deal at the moment with what is the most important question we have before us and what, I take it, is the most important duty of the Department of Agriculture; that is the question of the coming harvest and how it is to be dealt with. As far as I know, there is a very big increase in tilled land in my constituency. One would expect, of course, and I hope it will be the case, that from that tilled land we shall have a greater volume of food, but a farmer has to take a very long view of things, and last year's faults are now beginning to react. In a county like Meath nobody could presume that we would have, rapidly, sufficient power to deal with the question of tillage and I am afraid that we had not sufficient power last year or, if we had, it was not used economically or in any sort of an organised manner. Owing to the threshing by tractors, land could not be ploughed for wheat in time and, consequently, a very small proportion of October seed wheat, or winter seed wheat, was sown. The result was that the bulk of it remained over until the month of February. People made an attempt to sow it in December, and the December sowing seems to be reasonably good, but the February sowing and the later sowing are not what we would call hopeful. In fact, there are a good many places that clearly indicate failure, and a good many people are sowing that down with spring wheat. That was due entirely to the fact that power was not available to plough the land in the month of October. Accordingly, it is a question now of seeing what way that can be done next year and how we can have sufficient power.

I had an idea that we had sufficient power, but I have certainly satisfied myself that we did not use it properly and that it did not get a fair chance. There were a few instances where farmers had horses that were quite equal to ploughing but who hired a tractor to do the ploughing instead of using their horses, and thereby deprived a man, who had not any horses, of the chance of having his land ploughed. Those were very small faults, and it was only very occasionally that that happened. I am going to make the statement definitely that the Department of Supplies did its utmost to supply paraffin oil, but its utmost was not sufficient. The method was not right. There were too many idle days for the tractors in County Meath, during which the tractors were hung up. I know of cases of the owner of a tractor going in nine, ten and 15 miles to Navan to look for paraffin oil, and then being disappointed. That meant that he lost his day. The same thing happened with regard to spare parts. Take the case of an energetic young fellow who, with very limited capital, purchases a tractor, with rubber wheels. The tractor worked nicely while the weather was fine, but as soon as the weather became damp the tractor skidded and was useless and hung up because the man had not the price of spikes to enable him to work in damp weather. As a result of those things a great number of days were lost, and I say that that was because of a want of proper organisation and of credit facilities.

In the coming year, all that will have to be looked to. If the harvest this year is heavier than last year's harvest, there will be no wheat sown at all until February. In fact, few farmers will sow winter wheat in February but will wait and sow all spring wheat. Another aspect of that is that winter wheat is found to create a greater amount of scutch than spring wheat, but the real difficulty arose from the fact that the farmers had not got sufficient power to deal with the harvest and prepare the land for the next crop. With regard to the rapid distribution of paraffin oil, I see no reason why the petrol pumps should not be used for that purpose. They would be convenient to the farmers who want to get paraffin oil quickly, and these people could keep working while looking for the oil. It was the number of days lost that made the big difference, plus the fact that we had not power enough to do the threshing.

A number of people engaged in the collection of grain have asked me what is to be done with regard to storage capacity or have any steps been taken, or are they to be taken, to improve storage facilities. That was a big question last year and it led to a certain amount of waste in a good many cases. There were many parcels of wheat left at railway stations last year in a rather damp condition, with the result that that wheat was very often lost. Storage accommodation is one of the most important items that we have to consider and men who buy wheat have been talking to me with reference to this question within the last day or two and want to know if anything has been done about it.

The next thing I should like to deal with is the question of the collection of eggs. When this petrol shortage arose last month a great number of people were left with eggs on their hands for well over a week. I think that interfered with the recent Act. However, these eggs had to be collected and, after a week or so, they were collected, but there is a great number of places where they cannot get more than a weekly collection and, as the summer comes along, it is likely that a good many of those eggs will become defective. I am sure the Minister for Agriculture has taken the necessary steps to see that the collection system does not break down. In many districts these eggs are collected by what are called travelling shops. These people used to come along with vans but, of course, they are now off the road and the result is that a great number of people are compelled to hold over the eggs. They cannot manage to get them to the local markets because many of them have no conveyances, and those who have horses are using the horses in other and more important work. Accordingly, that question is one that should be considered, at any rate, in certain counties.

I was very interested in Deputy O'Sullivan's talk on the future of agriculture, and also very interested in the statement he made that agriculture had been depressed in more countries than this. That, unfortunately, is the case, but I think Deputy Cosgrave was inclined to believe, and to try to get us to believe, that this was the only country in which that depression had taken place and that it was because of the change of policy here that was brought about during the last nine or ten years. I do not know whether he meant that, but, somehow or another, I read it that way—that they had two different opinions on the matter. However, Deputy O'Sullivan's opinion, of course, is quite correct.

It is not easy, I take it, now to try and visualise what is going to be the position in this country when the war is over. There is no doubt that during the last 30 years the big ship has done a lot of harm to our agriculture, but it seems to be disappearing very rapidly now. I cannot tell whether the big ships will be replaced or not. If not, the farmers may hope to enjoy reasonable prosperity for some time to come. We are very short of artificial manures. In old tillage counties that is a calamity. In that connection the Minister for Agriculture might consider the question of pig feeding. We do not go in for much of it in the County Meath, but I have an idea that the feeding of pigs helps to provide a large amount of manure which could be utilised for tillage purposes. From that point of view, the pig is a very important animal, and if we are to continue to produce crops from our land we must make an effort to get it manured. One of our biggest difficulties is the scarcity of manure. I notice that some farmers have been complaining that if pig feeding goes out we shall suffer the loss of the manure.

The Minister might perhaps consider an improvement in prices or a lessening in the cost of distribution which is one of the bigger difficulties farmers have to contend with. They find that it costs too much to distribute their products. It is certainly very hard to relate the price charged for bacon in the shops to the price which the farmer gets for his pig. I am of opinion that the costs of distribution and of the iehandling, killing and curing of bacon are entirely too high. Tastes, I know, change. Even labourers and farmers now refuse to eat, comparatively speaking, fat bacon. They want the leaner type. That creates a difficulty for the farmer when he goes to dispose of his pigs, especially the heavier types. Formerly that type sold well, or the farmer could use it in his own home and his workers were prepared to eat it. To-day they are not. The pig industry is an important one from the point of view of the production of manure.

Deputy O'Sullivan said that it was an extremely difficult thing to make agriculture pay. That, apparently, is the case and, as I have said, it can only pay in a situation in which we are passing through now. How to make it pay in the future will not, I think, be solved by a change over to the Agricultural Credit Corporation or some other money-lending body. I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that the Agricultural Credit Corporation no longer serves any useful purpose. I frequently see in the local papers invitations issued to farmers to borrow money from it. It issues booklets and so on, but I think prospective borrowers get a disappointment when they learn of the obligations they are asked to enter into. I think some other form of providing credit for farmers should be considered. If there was a suitable credit corporation in existence many of the difficulties that farmers have to contend with in the purchase of tractors and spare parts would not arise. If the conditions laid down for borrowing were not too severe—and the conditions laid down by the Agricultural Credit Corporation are severe —farmers would be able to comply with them.

The loans provided under the county council schemes are, to a large extent, beneficial. There is one objection that farmers have to them, and it is being asked to get two or three of their neighbours to go security for a loan. I think a man should be able to get a loan if he has good land or is producing good crops, and should not be obliged to ask his neighbours to go security for him. I have observed for some time that seed merchants and shopkeepers who were in the habit of giving credit to farmers until the harvest was threshed are now beginning to give up the practice, and are leaving all that to the county councils. I think we should encourage the merchants to continue the custom that prevailed in the old days of giving credit to farmers. They used to lend them large sums of money. It is doubtful if the moneys loaned by the county councils will serve as useful a purpose as the moneys that used to be loaned by business people and seed merchants to farmers. The shopkeepers were found to be the most convenient lenders. They were given on personal grounds, more or less, and consequently there was not any publicity about them. I think they are fighting shy of giving credit now.

The last point I want to deal with is the question of diseases in animals. I think we are all agreed that we lose an undue amount of livestock of every description from disease each year. Calves are lost from diseases that are preventable. We lose an enormous amount of young cattle from blackleg, another disease that is preventable. We lose a lot of young stock from hoose, another preventable disease. The Minister might consider some method by which veterinary expert advice would be made available for combating those diseases. In some European countries they have a system by which farmers, for a very reasonable amount, are able to obtain veterinary assistance. We lose a large number of calves through bad handling and bad transport as well as a large number of lambs, pigs and fowl. Some estimates have been made of our losses under these heads, and they have been put down at the appalling figure of £50,000,000. Every effort should be made to try and get a veterinary system established by which these diseases could be eliminated.

I should like to know from the Minister what is the position with regard to the many dead-meat factories established here last year. I should like to know if they are working or if many of them are in difficulties. I do not know what his attitude would be in regard to those factories if they are in difficulties. If we have not another visitation of foot-and-mouth disease, possibly we can make no economic use of those factories. But if, unfortunately, we do have another visitation of foot-and-mouth disease we might want them badly. If they are in an unhealthy condition, the Minister might consider how he could keep them going if he thought they were necessary, because I have an idea that there is a great danger of their closing down and, should anything again happen to us, we might be very thankful to have them. Therefore, it might be considered good policy to see what can be done to maintain those factories and keep them working.

As my only contact with farms, fields, fertilisers or such matters is when I go hiking or biking, I will not presume to add very helpful suggestions on the technical matters raised. But I am very greatly perturbed when I go around the city these days and see the empty shops which have no food for the workers. I believe it is the same in other cities and towns. The pork shops in Dublin to-day are empty; there is no pork to be got. The grocery shops are half empty. There is no bacon, no flake meal, no bread, no flour, no dripping, and no butter. I only want to say a word about two of these commodities and I sincerely hope that the Minister will clear the matter up when replying and let us know definitely what will be the future position. As to flake meal, I see that the Minister for Supplies has come in, and lie will remember that on 4th December last, in reply to a question by me as to the shortage of flake meal in the city, he gave the House to understand that the position would improve. Well, it did not improve; in fact, it has become worse. There is no flake meal to be got at all now, either loose or in packages, at any price. Therefore, I hope that the Minister for Agriculture will make a decent effort to explain to the people who are deprived of their flake meal what happened to the oatmeal and whether we can hope that next winter when bread may be rationed more severely than it is now the working people will have some porridge for their breakfast tables.

On the question of butter, there was a box paragraph in one of the papers the other day to the effect that the shortage of butter was seasonal. A seasonal shortage does not last for several months. There has been a certain shortage of butter for several months and an acute shortage for the past two or three weeks. Can we hope that that shortage will soon come to an end? I do not know anything about the technical end of the business of butter or milk production, but if this is a seasonal shortage, when will it end? We must remember that, not alone is there no butter, but there is no margarine or dripping. We must get the butter. I do not know whether it represents a very great proportion of the total production, but we were told in this House that some of it is being exported to the Isle of Man. Perhaps that is the result of a contract that could not be got out of or something of that sort. But I should like to know if we are getting from the Isle of Man any food in return for that butter we are sending there. I hope the Minister will deal with these matters and give the people in the city some hope that next winter the food shops will not be entirely empty.

So many points have been raised that I am afraid it would take me some time to go into all of them if I were to go into them in detail. I will try to deal with the points raised by various Deputies. The only advantage I have in replying is that some of the points were raised by dozens of Deputies over and over again so that the debate became very tedious, without anything very constructive being mentioned. Perhaps I might take the last point raised by Deputy O'Reilly, which was also referred to by Deputy Browne, and that is the collection of eggs. Those who produce eggs are in a very fortunate position from the point of view of convenience in having lorries calling to their doors for the eggs. That cannot be continued. In future the eggs will have to be brought to some convenient centre where they can be collected with a great saving in petrol. Whether Deputy Browne or Deputy O'Reilly expected the Department to organise that or not I do not know. But I think the collectors are in the best position to organise that, because they know their clients, they know the quantity of eggs they get from each person, and they will be in the best position to fix the best centres for these eggs to be collected. It would, of course, as Deputy O'Reilly says, be a very good thing if those eggs could be offered at least twice a week during the summer months. Any help my Department can give in the organisation of that will be gladly given. But, at any rate, I think that the producers cannot expect in future to have people calling to their premises once or twice a week to collect eggs, as has been done in the past.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.
Top
Share