Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Feb 1944

Vol. 92 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—Agriculture.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, and of certain services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Under sub-head G (3)—Fertiliser Schemes—we are asking for a sum of £10. There is a subsidy payable on fertilisers, bringing their price down to what it is at the moment, namely, £13 a ton. When framing the Estimate the internal sources of pyrites were not taken into account. We are now using pyrites from Avoca, and it is expected that in this financial year the sum necessary to pay the subsidy on 2,200 tons will be about £3,000. But, as there are savings on phosphates and so on, £10 will be sufficient to cover the sub-head. The next point is the Tully Stud, for which we are asking £9,267. After negotiations with the British Government, the stud was taken over on the 1st January. There will be paid to the British Government for the stock, machinery and so on a sum of £6,960. Of that sum, £5,182 was for farm stock, cattle and working horses. The thoroughbred stock had been removed before that date and, therefore, none of them came over. As against that, the British Government have agreed to pay to the Irish Government a sum for use of the premises since 1922. That is still, the subject of discussion and I cannot state definitely what the amount may be.

The farm is, as Deputies know, adjacent to Kildare town and comprises about 870 acres. It has been used as a stud farm since 1916 and the Government have decided that it will be used as a stud farm again, as soon as we can proceed to stock it. In the meantime it must be carried on as a farm, and this money is necessary to pay for the stock, to buy more cattle and also pay wages up to the 31st March. The amount due for wages up to 31st March will be approximately £922. There may be some proceeds from the farming, but that will not be very much because we will not be selling any of the stock, it is expected, before 31st March.

Then there is a temporary scheme in connection with farm improvements under sub-head M (9). The sum required is £8,690. This is to pay the staff for a longer period than was anticipated in the original Estimate. In that Estimate we thought that these men would work for only 35 weeks, but in fact, they will be working for 45 instead of 35 weeks during this financial year. They commenced operations much sooner than was expected and they will go on to the 31st March. The money is entirely for the purpose of paying the staff.

Sub-head O (10) deals with Emergency Powers (Tillage) Orders. Here there was an increase in the staff. We provided for a staff of 52 inspectors and 51 supervisors, but the numbers have been increased to 62 inspectors and 200 supervisors. The reason for the increase was the change in the tillage Order, the necessity for enforcing the tillage Order on account of the increased percentage prescribed, and on account of compulsory wheat growing. Also, the administration of the Order is a bit more difficult because of the inclusion of first crop meadow as tillage.

Then there is sub-head Q, dealing with the additional emergency bonus, and the amount is £2,900. That has cropped up in all the other Departments; it is the bonus that was given to the staffs from January to the 31st March.

As regards the Appropriations-in-Aid, there are changes in some of the headings there under the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Acts, the Pigs and Bacon Acts, and the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts. In the case of fresh meat, the export of meat is very much smaller. There is very little meat going out now as dressed meat, and therefore the fees collected on that fresh meat are considerably reduced. The same applies to pigs and bacon. The fees collected in pig and bacon factories are very much smaller because there are fewer pigs being killed. In the case of the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts, the business done there is canning. Canning had become a fairly big business and it was estimated, when the main Estimate was drawn up, that we would deal with 30,000,000 1-lb. cans of stewed steak, and there was a levy of 1/12th of a penny per can. We found we could deal with only 22,500,000 instead of the 30,000,000, so there is a reduction from the receipts there.

The Appropriations-in-Aid are increased, on the other hand, by a receipt from Vote 67—relief schemes— and the sum payable in connection with farm improvements. The amount is £8,690. There is also an increase under the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts by way of receipts from licences to deal in wheat and barley and receipts from threshing set licences. The fee for the licence to deal in wheat and barley is £3 and the fee for a threshing set licence is 10/-. There will be a small receipt from the national stud. It is put down here at £10, a token amount. We do not know what it may amount to. There is also a sum here recoverable in respect of the salaries of officers seconded to the Dairy Disposal Company, Limited, the Dublin District Milk Board, the Sea Fisheries Association, the Pigs and Bacon Commission, etc. These officers were lent to these various bodies and that amounts to £5,000. All that arose through a change in the administrative system. Since the 1st April, 1943, the administrative expenses of the Dairy Disposal Company have been defrayed from their own funds and the salaries of the officers seconded to the company are recoverable from the company, and hence there is a receipt for the Appropriations-in-Aid.

I take it the £10 in regard to fertilisers schemes is a token Vote?

The amount would be £3,000. There was a change over from imported pyrites to national pyrites.

The House has provided a very substantial sum by way of subsidy. This is the biggest problem we have to face, particularly in the old tillage areas, because there is severe hardship where you have not some reserve of fertility such as they had in the old grass districts. It is essential we should make every effort to provide artificial manures. Although that substantial sum was in the main Vote, artificial manures are at a very high price still, £14 a ton. I take it that is the emergency compound. What is the price of superphosphate?

It is £13 and £14.

As the Minister informed us, there is an increase of £3,000 by reason of the change from imported pyrites to native pyrites from Arklow. What effort, if any, has been made by the Research Bureau towards devising new methods of treatment for phosphates? The Minister, I am sure, is aware that the German method is to roast the phosphate rock with alkali and at a certain heat the fluorine and the alkali combine, leaving you the phosphate. We all know the Clare phosphate is very hard and insoluble. It is now pretty well known that even in the superphosphate form it is still fairly insoluble and it requires different treatment from that given the North African and the American phosphates. I think the Minister should direct the attention of the Research Bureau to experiments of this sort, because it is very important, from the food production point of view, that we should continue to experiment with a view to cheapening the cost of production. The Clare phosphate is of such a hard nature that it requires a tremendous amount of sulphuric acid and pyrites are required for that purpose. If the German system can be adopted, and I believe that it can be, then we ought to switch over to it as soon as possible.

There is an extra sum here in respect of the Farm Improvements Scheme. I think the House will approve of this and of any sums the Minister requires for farm improvements. It is an admirable scheme and will undoubtedly reflect on the national scheme. The House is now considering a Drainage Bill, but that will be of very little use if we have not an effective system of field drainage.

Here is a method of providing field drainage and encouraging people to open up field drains and to link them up with the main arteries that will be opened up under the Arterial Drainage Bill. The Minister ought to keep that point in mind.

There is a tremendous increase in the number of staff required for tillage supervision—an increase over the original estimate for inspectors of 11 and an increase from 52 supervisors to 200. The Minister evidently intends to see that the people till the prescribed quota in the present year, and I think the House generally will agree that it must be done. Hardships occur here and there in the dairying districts. It may reflect on dairying production and that is a rather serious matter. However we cannot go into that now.

I should like the Minister to tell us how his Department has arrived, without inspection, at the amount of arable land on each holding. Many farmers have been notified of the amount of tillage for which they are liable under the Act, without prior inspection. I do not know how the figure was arrived at except by reference to a map. It is a good thing that, as far as possible, farmers should be informed at an early date as to their tillage requirements. To do that properly, of course, inspection should be made. I suppose with the present staff it is almost impossible to do that in detail throughout the country and that the method of calculating it in some other way has been adopted as the next best thing.

The Minister has informed the House as to the taking over of the Tully Stud from the British Government. I thought the Minister would take this opportunity of indicating to the House the policy of the Government in regard to the stud.

I meant to add, of course, that, necessarily, I will have to come before the Dáil with either a Bill or an Estimate. It is under consideration at the moment, but it will come before the House.

I am very glad to know that because I think the House will agree that horse breeding is a very important and valuable industry in this country. We should maintain the National Stud here in at least as good a condition as the British Government maintained it in the past and, if at all possible, improve and expand it. I am sure the House will not be niggardly in providing whatever moneys are required for the provision of the best possible stock for stud purposes, and in providing expert advice and direction, with regard to the stud. Anything that will enhance the value of the Irish horse will be a great national asset. I look upon the acquisition and development of that stud and the provision of the best type of stock that money can buy as a very important national work I think the country is fortunate in having some excellent studs at the present time. They may prove to be a valuable asset in the post-war period when first class horses will be required. A great deal of credit is due to certain Irishmen who have given great care and attention and have gone to great expense in providing in this country some of the finest studs in the world. I think the aim of this House and of the Government should be to make the National Stud second to none in the world.

In connection with Appropriations-in-Aid, there is just one thing I should like to put to the Minister. Receipts from threshing set licences amount to £1,050. I should like to know what value the country is getting for that, what type of inspection of threshing sets is carried out, and whether the people making the inspections know their job and are capable of deciding whether a threshing set is in good and fit condition or not, and what provision is made to ensure that the existing machinery is maintained. We all know how difficult it is to secure new machinery and how badly in need of such machinery are some areas in the country. It is vital to ensure that whatever machinery we have is kept in a fit and proper condition for threshing purposes. If the Minister is collecting a sum of over £1,000 in licensing certain plant I should like to have his assurance that that plant is maintained in the best possible condition and that the inspectors that he is sending out are qualified to inspect the machinery and to make recommendations to threshing set owners as to what is required to keep them in proper condition.

I wish to get some information from the Minister for Agriculture in regard to certain matters. I notice under sub-head G. 3—Fertilisers Schemes—an additional sum is required. Does that mean that there is to be an increase in the amount of fertilisers available this year? If that is the position, I should be very glad because in part of my constituency fertilisers are very much needed—that portion where they go in for the growing of certified seed potatoes. Recently I was informed—not officially —that 150 tons of fertilisers, in addition to the usual amount, would be made available to that area through the Department of Supplies. I shall be very glad if that is the case but I should like to know what machinery will be set up to distribute it. Will it be distributed through the usual channels, the merchants, or will it be sent direct to the individuals using it? In view of what the Minister has stated in reply to Deputy Hughes, that the price of fertiliser will be in or about £14. I should like to know what is the analysis of it. I heard that the price would be £18 a ton. If the manure is of good quality, I know that the farmers will be very glad to get it at almost any price. I should like to ensure that it will be equitably distributed and that it will not be confined to one particular area. As the Minister and the inspectors of his Department know, there are more areas than one in Galway where certified seed potatoes are grown.

In connection with the farm improvements scheme, which has been mentioned already by Deputy Hughes, I am very glad that additional money is being voted for that purpose because it has proved to be a very useful scheme. A grant under the Farm Improvement Schemes is made in some cases to persons to provide a fence across their holding. In that connexion the fence has to be erected to a certain specification. It has to be four feet six inches in width and five feet three inches in height. In the small holdings in the west of Ireland that is not suitable and I think it would be better if that provision were not enforced. I hold that a fence properly erected, three and a half feet in height, if it is sown with thornquick, is a much better fence and will not waste anything like as much land as the big fence that must be erected according to the specification set out. I hope the Minister will give that point consideration.

I should like some information as to the Minister's intention with regard to the National Stud at Tully. This stud was originally donated to what was then described by some people as the United Kingdom, and, on the change of Government in 1922, the British Government, for administrative reasons, apparently desired to continue control and administration of the stud. The matter has been allowed to drag on in that way since 1922. Recently there was apparently an intimation from the British Government of their intention to forego their interest in the stud and to take the bloodstock back to England. I think it is the desire of everybody that there should be a national stud in the country which is so renowned for the bloodstock industry, and I think the whole House would welcome a decision by the Government to continue the National Stud at Tully.

I am rather anxious to get from the Minister some more information about the Estimate which he has brought in. I understand that all the bloodstock, with the exception of perhaps two yearlings, have gone back to England, and it might very well be claimed for us that we had an interest in the bloodstock which was exported. I take it that we have also an interest in the lands there—in fact, a national interest in those lands, even though they might have been at one time temporarily owned by the person who donated them to this country. I should like to learn from the Minister what claim exactly is being made on the British Government. Is any claim being made in respect of the bloodstock being removed to England and is any other claim being made on the British Government in respect of the use of the Tully lands by that Government since 1922? Has any claim been made for expenses in respect of the repair of the stud, because I understand that there was necessity for repairs due to the fact that, knowing they were leaving, the British did not carry out their normal expenditure on the stud?

I should also like to know whether it is intended to retain the existing staff of the stud. The stud has given very valuable employment in the past. It is the desire of the local people, and, I think, of the public representatives as well, that the stud should continue to provide employment on the former scale, and it would be reassuring if the Minister would tell the House that it was intended to retain the existing staff for farm work at present, and later on for work normally associated with the stud.

I understand that certain persons were interested in having the stud acquired and divided by the Land Commission. If that should happen, it would be a national tragedy. The place at present gives very valuable employment, and, as a matter of fact, it is the cradle of our bloodstock industry. There is an abundance of land in the area, and elsewhere in the county and the country, for division, without impinging on the Tully Stud.

I should like the Minister to say definitely that it is not the intention to permit the stud or portion of it to be taken over for division, when there is an abundance of other land available. The stud is a very valuable Irish asset and ought not to be dissipated by being acquired and divided in any kind of thoughtless way. These are matters which affect not only those employed locally in the stud but those interested in the bloodstock industry, and I should be glad if the Minister could see his way to amplify the statement he has made.

There are one or two matters to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention, one of which is the National Stud. Could the Minister give an indication of what steps he proposes to take to run it, now that we have taken it over? I suppose he wants to wait until the Bill comes in, but I should like to know if he proposes to set up a board or committee to run it. He is probably aware that there is at present a shortage of first-class bloodstock, or at any rate that the numbers available are not as great as they were, and that the price of suitable quality bloodstock is going up fairly rapidly. Last year, the price of Irish bloodstock in England reached a very high level. It is, of course, possible to derive foundation stocks from a couple of the studs here, but I desire to impress on the Minister that there is a certain degree of urgency in the matter of the setting up of whatever system he proposes for running the stud in order that stock may be put into it immediately, or as soon as it is possible to get them, because the quality and quantity are comparatively limited, and, if hostilities cease, there is likely to be an unprecedented demand for the stock which would be required. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that in County Dublin there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the owners of threshing sets and tractors in regard to the rates which they are charging.

So far as one can see, there is no regulated rate either for the employees, the men who follow the threshers and tractors, or in respect of what the owners of the mills and tractors for ploughing and harrowing charge. In most parts of the country, they start by getting as high a price as they can, and, having done two or three farms, they put up the price by 2/- or 2/6 a day. Last year, tractors were charged at a rate of 22/6 a day, and it is quite likely that the price will start at 25/- this year, and then rise. The Minister should consider carefully the question of fixing a price which they will be allowed to charge, and similarly fixing the rate which the men who follow them will get, because there were strikes on numerous farms last year, and I am sure he is aware that at present, or certainly up to a fortnight ago, a great many farmers had not threshed. The mill was only going to their place and it was not solely due to the amount of work which the mill owners were doing.

I am happy to support this Supplementary Estimate, particularly as portion of the money is to be utilised in connection with the production of pyrites from the Avoca mines. I should like to ask the Minister if there is any prospect of this production being increased in the future, and what are the prospects of production being put on a permanent basis. The industry is giving considerable employment and is of immense benefit to the area as well as being of immense national benefit.

So far as farm improvements are concerned. I note that the staff are now working 45 weeks out of the 52. It has become practically an all-year round service. I should like the Minister to say if it would be possible to bring the scheme for the coming year into operation somewhat earlier than last year. My reason for so doing may sound rather strange to some Deputies. My contention is that the scheme should be in operation almost as soon as harvest work begins. That may seem a very peculiar policy to advocate, but I have found from practical experience that the best way to ensure that the harvest will be properly saved is for each farmer, or as many farmers as possible, to have an additional man or two on the farm engaged perhaps in improvement work during broken weather and available for the saving of the harvest when the opportunity offers. That is particularly desirable in the event of a wet or unfavourable harvest.

There is another aspect of this question to which I think the Minister should devote his attention. Farm improvement was rather a new experiment a few years ago but now, in the light of the experience of a couple of years, I think an effort should be made to see that an improved standard of work is demanded and an increased estimate is made for the work by the inspectors. The general experience is that the inspectors under the Farms Improvement Scheme estimate the cost of the work too low. In addition to that in many cases they are satisfied with a standard of work which is not as high as I think is desirable. There is no use in constructing a new fence, or reconstructing and improving an old fence, unless it is put in a proper and permanent condition, unless the work is done thoroughly, and unless, as Deputy Beegan pointed out, the fence is sown with quicks. In some cases that is not demanded by the inspector and I think it is a fault which will become more noticeable as time goes on.

In connection with drainage also it is desirable that the work should be thoroughly and completely carried out, otherwise the money expended on the improvement works may produce very little result. There is a general complaint that the inspectors estimate the cost of the work too low and are also satisfied with a fairly low standard of work. I think that general improvement would be desirable in view of the experience gained over the past couple of years.

In regard to tillage, I have been wondering, like Deputy Hughes, how the arable acreage on each farm is calculated. I have had complaints from a number of people that the acreage calculated on their farm is too high. In my own case I found the acreage calculated is considerably below what I estimated it to be. I am not regarding that as a personal insult, but I am anxious to know by what system the acreage is calculated. I would be very anxious to know if the Minister could tell what is the total arable acreage of this country as calculated by his Department under the tillage scheme. From time to time various estimates have been given as to the arable acreage of this country, but most of them appear to be only guesswork.

There is another matter which, I think, arises on this tillage estimate and that is, in connection with the inferior type of arable land. Considerable hardship is being inflicted on some farmers in the poorer districts, where the land is inferior and is on a high altitude, in connection with the wheat quota. I know that some farmers have brought their cases to the notice of the Department, but there are many others suffering grave hardship. I know one particular case of a farmer who had to purchase 20 barrels of seed wheat to sow on his land, and I am extremely doubtful, having regard to the nature of the soil on his farm, whether he will reap 20 barrels of wheat next harvest. That is a matter which should be the serious concern not only of Deputies but of the Department of Agriculture. It may be possible by some arrangement to devise a scheme by which people who are given partial exemption on account of the inferior type of their land can contract to grow an increased acreage of potatoes, or in some other way compensate for the fact that they are not growing their entire quota of wheat.

I should also like to know, in connection with this inferior type of land, whether any serious steps are being taken to promote rye growing. I do not know whether my information is correct, but I am informed that the reason why the production of rye has not been extended in this country in recent years was the objection of the millers to rye as grist for their mills. There may be serious objection to that from the millers, but that may be merely due to the fact that they have not the necessary plant for the production of flour from rye. In view of the large areas of inferior land in this country, I think it would be desirable——

There is nothing about that in this Supplementary Estimate.

I quite agree, but we are dealing——

The Deputy can deal with the matters contained in the Estimate.

I have made a suggestion to the Minister which I am sure he will take up and ensure that for the coming year an effort will be made to produce at least sufficient rye seed to assure that the acreage next year can be considerably expanded. I quite agree that it is desirable, when we have a tillage Order in operation at all, that it should be enforced universally and that no person should be allowed to escape from his liability, because the fact that in many areas there are people who have evaded their obligations in the matter has had a bad effect and has caused grave dissatisfaction to people who have been complying strictly with the terms of the Order from the outset. I welcome the fact that the staffs have been increased and I hope, now that the staffs have been increased that a thorough investigation and survey will be made in our areas of arable land and of the nature of the arable land, and that we will come through this emergency with a clearer picture of our agriculture and soil resources, and will be able to know in the future how to plan our agricultural policy with a better knowledge than we had in the past.

This is a supplementary estimate for a very large sum of money, and it is very important that the country should get good value for the expenditure. On the question of the Tully Stud, I wish to say a few words.

It is true to say that the best bloodstock in Europe was in that stud. I would like to know if any effort was made by the Minister to retain that stock here before it was removed by the British Government. If the Minister came to this House and asked for any amount of money to purchase and retain that bloodstock, I am satisfied that we would gladly give it. It would be very hard to replace that quality. As the stud was probably subject to the law in this country, the question of an export permit and so on applied to it, just as it would to my horses or anybody else's.

It is imperative, of course, that the bloodstock be re-established on the stud, but it will take years; and while there is an opportunity now of buying some of that blood strain, the Minister should move very quickly in the matter and the Bill be proposes to introduce should not be delayed. He should get on with the work in that particular connection in the fastest possible manner.

On the question of increased inspectors for tillage, it is true to say that 98 per cent. of the farmers are making the effort required to comply with the tillage regulations. There are some irritating pin-pricks to the farming community, which should be eliminated as far as possible. Complaint has been made, very properly, by some speakers here, of an estimate of arable land in a farm which is non-existent, made without inspection or by inspections at certain times of the year. Owing to the lack of drainage at the moment, what was arable land at the time of the Griffith valuation is, in some cases, now no longer arable, but is a swamp. There should be some accurate survey.

The people do not realise they have a right of appeal to the Minister against the assessment of arable land, if they feel that it is over the mark. The inspectors should be diplomatic with the farmers and should not assume that a farmer is trying to evade the law. They should not convict the farmers themselves there and then, but should first assume that the farmer will do his duty and, only after wards, when they see there is no effort made, should they assume a belligerent attitude. Many of them are young fellows and, coming out fully armed from the Minister with very great powers, there is a danger of slight abuse. I would ask the Minister to see that they get a fair drilling before they are sent out, that they are paraded for a while first and given instructions as to what they should do.

Some cases have come to my notice in which action was taken by the inspector where, by very simple investigation, he could have found that he should not have taken action. There is a case of a widow-woman having a farm of land which she was unable to till herself. She has two nephews in another county on a good farm of land. She writes to the two nephews telling them of the difficulty and they agree with her that they will come and do her tillage, and they do that. There is no investigation made by the tillage inspector, but the power of the Order is invoked and the Department goes in and takes over that woman's land. They set it to another person and, as a result, there is a double quota of tillage done for that particular farm. If that were a hefty fellow like Deputy Cogan or Deputy Hughes, the inspector would not do that, as he would not be let, and there would be a row about it. But, because a poor unfortunate widow is in difficulties, the double tillage is done.

In another county, a widow was non-resident on her farm this year through illness. She was there last year and did the required amount of tillage. This year, she went to reside with her sister during the illness and, a fortnight ago, she gave the auctioneer instructions to put up the farm for tillage letting, and the announcement was in the paper last Saturday. An inspector walks out with a tractor and ploughs up the holding without any notice to her, good, bad or indifferent. It is only a small farm of 35 acres and the amount of tillage to be done on it would not make or break anybody. When she was not there, there was nobody to meet the tillage inspector.

No notice was served on her, although the people in the district used to plough her land in previous years for her and they knew where she was resident at the moment. I have a letter here, in which the auctioneer says that he went to make the letting and found the place ploughed up. Again, in that case, if it were Deputy Hughes' farm that was not tilled, the tillage inspector just would not run his tractor into it so quickly.

Reason must be instilled into these tillage inspectors. If they are going to attack somebody, let them attack the strong; there is no necessity to attack the weak. If they have to compel the weak to comply with the Order, that should be done at the least possible expense or loss to the person concerned. The farm is that person's source of income and only livelihood and there should not be pellmell rushing in. I know that a farm of land without tillage being done in it is not good in a district but, at the same time, there are so many petty jealousies in this country that neither the Minister nor the Department should listen to the petty stories told to them. The Minister should investigate the matter, have someone meet the people involved and find out the facts. This is a very small amount for the tillage supervisor—100/- a week—but, little as it is, I would not agree to pay it, if he had not the little bit of courtesy that he should have.

On the question of farm improvements, I do not understand the mentality of the Department in some cases. Some farm improvement can only be well done in the summer-time. Some drainage work and shoring can only be done when the winter floods have run off. It is when it is at its highest that the farmer really sees that, if he is to do tillage in a particular field, he should do a bit of drainage there in the summer.

If he applies now for the grant he cannot get it. I cannot think of the exact months within which the farmer must make his application. If it is made one hour or one day after the fixed date the grant will not be given. The matter is very important, especially where there is low-lying land and where the water is stagnant. It is only in the summer time that really good work can be done and, as we say, that the bottom of the drain can be shovelled. As regards the bonus, I presume this is provision for the bonus payable to the inspectors.

It is provision for the general bonus.

With regard to the Tully Stud, I would ask the Minister not to delay in the introduction of the Bill that he has mentioned. If he gets into the stud as good a strain of bloodstock as was there in the past, he will, I suggest, be creating an asset that will be of benefit to the people of this country for a long time to come.

I come from the County Tipperary, which one may say has its finger in every pie. I want to renew an appeal that was made to the Minister when he was in our county recently. He received a deputation courteously, as he always does. He is most approachable. Deputies know that our part of the country is steeped in the dairying tradition. The appeal made to the Minister, which I renew now, is that 35-acre farms in that area should be exempt from the Tillage Order. Bread without butter is not pleasant. We fear that there is going to be a great shortage of liquid milk. The people are now down to six ounces of butter per week.

There is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate about milk.

Except that it comes into farming.

The Chair cannot permit a discussion on any matter other than the matters referred to in the Supplementary Estimate. The Deputy will have an opportunity on the main Estimate of discussing all matters relating to agriculture.

With regard to the question of the mapping of arable land on a holding, I have about 55 statute acres. I take some conacre as well. My neighbours and myself feel that some method of appeal ought to be allowed from the decision of the tillage inspector. The maps of our farms are in the Land Commission. The tillage inspector might be asked to map out portion of our land that is arable. When that is done the right of appeal should be given to owners. On some farms the limestone may be within four inches of the top. If tractors are put in on that class of land the parts of them will get broken very quickly.

With regard to superphosphates, I was down in Lahinch and gathered that the raw material that is there will not last more than a year or two. The only remedy that I see is to try to increase our shipping and get in rock from North Africa. I have spoken on a previous occasion about the effects of wheat growing on land. I have seen land offered for £2 an acre that was good land a couple of years ago. The point that I want to make is that we cannot get increased tillage without artificial manures. There is also the question of tractors and machinery for farms. My experience has been that some of these threshing machines are not threshing-worthy.

There is no reference in the Supplementary Estimate to machinery.

Everything that borders on agriculture can be said to be closely connected with it.

But, according to the Standing Orders of the House, the only matters than can be discussed on this Estimate are those which are set down. I am sure the Deputy appreciates my position.

I do. A couple of my friends spoke on various matters, and perhaps I have been following the bad example which they set. I am quite in agreement with Deputy Hughes, Deputy MacEoin and others with regard to bloodstock. We have already dealt with the tractors and the other machinery necessary in our food-production campaign. I think we have something like 100 threshing machines in our county, and I suppose the same applies to other counties. Mowing machines and threshing machines are a very important factor in an emergency such as this.

Perhaps a more important factor is labour, and I think some attempt should be made to utilise town labour. It is unfortunate that so many young people are leaving the country. I saw the trains packed with them last August and September. The Government must do something to provide adequate labour this time. I feel you want some form of dictatorship, so that you will be able to provide all the labour required in the bogs and in the fields. That subject was drawn to the Minister's attention in Clonmel and he admitted that it presented something of a problem. I quite appreciate his difficulties. The conditions are quite different in England. The day before you require labour you communicate with the labour exchange and give the officials notice as to the number of men required for harvesting potatoes or beet or any other crop. The next morning you have all the labour you require. In this country something along those lines is required.

The farmers in Ireland have been working ten and 12 hours a day, sometimes well into the night, in order to assist in producing food. It is nothing less than white slavery. This is not a free State; it is a slave State. Eight hours a day is the recognised period for most workers, and it is considered a long enough period for a horse. In these circumstances, why should the farming community be asked to work 12 or 13 hours each day? We are told we must get on with the work and we will be blamed if the people starve. That has come to us from pulpit and platform. We have worked very hard to keep the whole crowd going, and if you want to save the next harvest you must supply the labour.

So far as compulsory tillage is concerned, the only fault I have to find with the Minister is that he did not go so far as he has gone, much sooner. The land of Ireland should be used to the full to feed the population. Why should large farms lie derelict, or raising bullocks for a foreign country when many of our own people have not sufficient bread? I congratulate the Minister on the stand he has taken in connection with increased tillage. The farmers are bound to produce a certain quota of wheat. When you ask the farmers to do that, you are merely asking them to do their duty. I am a farmer's son and my sympathy goes out to the farmers but, nevertheless, the Irish people have the first claim on the nation's soil.

Deputy O'Donnell made a rather important statement when he mentioned the need to provide all the labour possible for the harvest. I am proud when I go through County Dublin and portions of Meath to see all the land broken up, in many cases land that was not broken up for many years. No Deputy need be afraid that the fertility of that soil will run out for at least six or seven years. We are lucky to have land of such a type that has a store of fertility which, with God's help, will take us over the crisis. The labour problem is a serious one. If there is a scarcity of labour it is because those engaged in farm labour do not get sufficient wages to encourage them to stay on the land. Do you think farmers' sons would have any anxiety to work in Britain if they got a living wage here? I believe I would be in order on this Estimate in raising a matter with reference to the Agricultural Wages Board.

That does not arise on this Estimate.

I understood the Minister to say that the bonuses were general.

For civil servants.

If the Agricultural Wages Board is included in the bonus scheme, I should like to raise a question relating to the wages of agricultural labourers. I would first like to deal with the way the Agricultural Wages Board is set up.

Not on this Vote.

The Minister referred to a general bonus scheme and he has not told me if the chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board or any of the staff is exempt. I feel I have a right to raise the matter.

Not the constitution of the Agricultural Wages Board—that does not arise.

Perhaps some of the officials come under the bonus. I appeal to the Minister, when he is appointing the Agricultural Wages Board——

The constitution of the board is not relevant.

All right, I am accepting that. As regards increased tillage, I do not think there are any cases of hardship. If a person is not in a position to till, his neighbours are ready to take the land in conacre and I am sure there are very few cases of hardship—they would be few and far between. I hope there will be no going back in the case of the farmer who has so many acres of arable land; he should be compelled to till his quota. I can quite see that there will be a scarcity of farm labour next harvest unless some precautions are taken. The proper precaution is to give the farm labourer a living wage—enough to induce him to stay on the land.

I supported the Government wholeheartedly on the compulsory tillage question. I was in favour of compulsory wheat-growing, but in my opinion the ordinary farmer at no time needed compulsion to grow wheat. The source of the trouble was the rancher, and there is a terrible difference between the farmer and the rancher. There are many members of this House and many people outside who are inclined to mix up the farmer with the rancher. That is where I admire the Minister for Agriculture, for having the courage to make the ranchers grow wheat.

I submitted a case to the Minister some weeks ago. I asked him to send one of his inspectors to inspect two farms in Offaly. One farm is quite convenient to the village of Cloghan and the other is quite convenient to the village of Cloneygowan, near the town of Portarlington. It was pointed out to the Minister that up to six weeks ago the barley on those farms was still lying in the ditches and hedges, while there were people in the district who could not get a rood of ground in which to sow potatoes or a perch of grass to graze a cow. I would like the Minister to take note of that and request at least one inspector to meet me. I will go in on the farms with him. It is comical to say that there is no inspector sent around a district like that.

I wrote yesterday to the Minister for Agriculture, giving the names of two persons with whom I had arranged to meet the inspector, to make sure that he would inspect these lands. I assume that my letter was at the Minister's office this morning and I ask the Minister, as a personal favour, to see that the matter is attended to next week and that these two farms are inspected and reported on with the least possible delay. The reason why I am so interested in the farm near Cloghan is that there are cottage tenants and landless men there who are unable to secure land for the growing of potatoes and vegetables for their families, while there is a large farm in connection with which, in my opinion and in the opinion of the local people, the tillage Order is not complied with. I would ask the Minister to ensure that his inspectors report on these two cases as soon as possible.

I should like to pay tribute to the work that is being done under the farm improvements scheme. Thousands of acres of land that had been covered over with furze and bush have been made arable. It was a good scheme, one of the best that the Government introduced, and I am glad that the farmers have taken advantage of it. I did not know that it was a Laoighis man who was responsible for introducing the scheme until I heard the other night, in my constituency, that it was Deputy Gorry who was responsible for it.

I must say I am proud to be a representative for the same constituency with a man who is responsible for the farm improvements scheme. I had thought that it was the Minister for Agriculture and the Government who were responsible, but last week I discovered that a Laoighis-Offaly Deputy is responsible. I am very pleased to know that and I hope that Deputy Gorry will remain in that constituency. With other Deputies I wish to refer the Minister to the shortage of labour. There will be a great shortage of labour during the coming year and I should be very glad if some steps were taken to meet the difficulties that I believe will be met. There is one difficulty that I am sure can be surmounted. I may not be in order in raising it now but before the Chair rules that I am not in order, I would like to mention it. I would be very glad if the Minister for Agriculture would get in touch with his colleague, the Minister for Defence, with a view to releasing farmers' sons from the Army. I am tired making representations to the Minister for Defence to grant periods of indefinite leave to soldiers serving in the Defence Forces who have land to till. I think it is the duty of the Minister for Agriculture to make strong representations to the Department of Defence with a view to having these men released, because, I think, the work they could do on the land is far more important even than the work they would be doing in the Army.

In my opinion, it is essential that the Minister for Agriculture should exercise some of his powers in seeing that a little more of the Curragh is tilled. If the officers and soldiers of the Army were allowed to till so many acres, for instance, if half of the Curragh were tilled, it would produce enough wheat for half of Leinster.

I think the Minister said, when introducing the Compulsory Tillage Order, that he had the right to make some provision for exemptions. The reason I ask for exemptions is that in Portlaoighise we have a typical case of the mental hospital farm. The manner in which that farm has been worked is a credit to the R.M.S. and to those in authority but now, because a certain percentage of the land must be sown in wheat, the institution will have to go short of potatoes, turnips and other essentials. In cases of such institutions the Minister should very sympathetically consider giving exemption in this matter. Where a large amount of tillage is being carried on, growing potatoes, turnips and other necessary crops, surely the mental hospital committee of management are complying with the Tillage Order.

I should be very glad if the Minister for Agriculture would let me have an immediate reply to the communication to which I have already referred and which I assume arrived at his office this morning. I can assure the Minister that I will make it my business to go with the inspectors to visit the farms.

The first matter with which I shall deal is the power of inspectors appointed by the Minister for Agriculture. I think the inspectors should be well instructed before they leave the Department as to the terms of the Tillage Order. It is a well-known fact that in certain mountain areas, and so on, even though the people are willing to comply with the Tillage Order, they may be forced to sow wheat on land that is not suitable for that crop and where an attempt to grow wheat would be a very uneconomic proposition from the national point of view. I know many places where wheat has been grown for a few years past and where the yields are very low—two and three barrels per acre—whereas the same land would produce ten to 12 barrels of corn per acre. I would ask the Minister to instruct his inspectors to use their discretion and to be very careful in such areas not to enforce the Tillage Order to the letter.

Another point that was raised in the discussion is the inspection of machinery. It was suggested that there is a considerable amount of waste. All I have to say in regard to that is that if the people who grumble about the inspection of machinery that is used for the threshing of wheat, inspected the crops before they were harvested, there would be very little waste, because I hold that many crops, particularly wheat, are being harvested much too soon, when no thresher, no matter how well made, can get the wheat from the straw.

In connection with the farm improvements scheme, I hold that it should be an all the year round scheme, particularly in wet land. There were several persons last year who were late in making application. At the particular time, even if they were in time with their application, they could not go on with the work if they were to proceed with tillage. I think such a scheme should be an all the year round scheme so as to give people an opportunity of starting earlier, particularly in connection with drainage in wet land. When the spring months are over, many farmers could do a certain amount of drainage in the months of May and early June. I suggest to the Minister that he should make the farm improvements scheme an all year round scheme, so as to meet these points.

What would also be a great help to farmers would be an extension of the scheme to farm buildings. We all know that very few farms, particularly in view of the intensive tillage programme at present, are able to provide accommodation for seed wheat, corn, barley and other crops, for the simple reason that there is a great shortage of sacks. Furthermore, if the scheme were extended to farm buildings, it would give an opportunity to many farmers to hold over their seed wheat until the spring months, and I consider that a farmer who holds over his stocks of seed will be much more careful about the condition of that seed than many of the stores in the country would be. I suggest that a farm buildings improvement scheme is as essential and as important to the country generally as the farm improvements scheme as it is operating at the moment.

With regard to machinery, to my mind, the distribution of machinery is handled from a very wrong angle. So far as I can learn, it is the managers of co-operative societies who have the allocation of machinery in their own areas. We know very well that where a co-operative concern handles machinery, they employ men to cut the crops of the shareholders in a particular area, but we also know that, when evening comes, such men are anxious to get home, and the farmer will not get from these men the returns he will get from private owners who are out to do as much as they can in the matter of hiring and who will do twice as much as the co-operative men have done in the past.

I pointed out previously one particular case to the Minister in which the machinery was used to cut corn for shareholders in a co-operative society, while they had binders idle in the stores and horses idle in the fields. I also knew of corn being lost in a locality for want of machinery to harvest it, and I suggest to the Minister that, when dealing with machinery in the future, if there is any hope of importing it, if there are suitable applicants coming forward, good hiring men who are able to put up the money, they are the first men who should be considered and not the co-operative societies.

With regard to manures, I suggest that whatever manures are available should be equally distributed, particularly for the growing of beet, potatoes and green crops and that farmers generally should get an adequate supply for the growing of such crops. As farmers, we all realise that we have a duty to perform to the nation and there is no honest-minded man in the country who objects to doing his share in providing food for the nation. As farmers, we also realise that, no matter whether we agree with the Minister or not, the Minister and the Government have a duty to the people and we do not propose to obstruct them. We will do our best, but Ministers have a duty to perform to the country and to the farmers as well.

Mr. Lynch

I want to say one word in reference to the request by Deputy Flanagan that an inspector should be sent down to inspect some farms and to meet him. I think that is a most objectionable practice. It has happened, to my knowledge, in the past that inspectors going out from Government Departments have been met by Deputies, mainly of the Fianna Fáil Party, and have been "toted" around the constituency by these Deputies. I think a general order ought to go out to all inspectors, instructing them not to go out with any Deputy, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Independent, or any other Party. It is a scandalous practice, because it is obviously intended to convey the impression that the particular Deputy has the inspector in his pocket.

I think I made it quite clear that I wanted to see that the inspector would visit the farm. I also referred to the fact that I had written to the Minister and had given him the names of two ordinary individuals whom the inspector could meet. I do not think I would have a whole lot of influence with any of the inspectors at present.

You might—monetary reform, you know.

I notice that the Minister is asking for an extra sum of £34,275 which, due to savings in other sub-heads, he reduces to £10. I have a particular interest in one of the items, namely, the temporary scheme in connection with farm improvements, for which I see he requires an additional £8,000. It is a scheme which I feel is of particular importance to that part of South Mayo in the Swinford electoral division. That is an area which could not be considered arable, in the proper sense of the word. The holdings there are from seven to fifteen acres, including grazing, bog and tillage land. The fields in size are about three roods to an acre, and on some of these fields which are generally cultivated, an oats and barley crop is grown, and then they are let out and broken up again every three or four years. Due to the smallness of the farms, they cannot rotate their crops and leave the land in grass or pasture for a number of years.

In the case of many of these little farms, the land is what we call moory land. It has not got a deep soil or rich fertility. It is land which has been reclaimed after, I suppose, 100 years of hard labour by our forefathers. I hope I am not going outside the Estimate by asking the Minister to see that, during the spring tillage, his inspector operating in that area will not be too hard on the people there. Other Deputies from Mayo who represent that area will agree with me that the farmers there, and in the greater part of Mayo, are industrious and never fail to till not only in war time but in peace time, because they look at it not so much from the point of view of the benefit to the State, but of their own benefit first and then the benefit to the State.

I ask the Minister to see that his inspector operating in that area will be as lenient as possible. The farmers there generally sow oats and potatoes and a certain amount of barley. Last year, the barley was sown, but, due to weather conditions, many farmers lost the crop. We had about an acre of barley sown. It was stocked up loose and left for a week. It fell to the ground, was turned over, stooked again and tied, and eventually put into cocks like hay and thrown into the dung heap as a result of weather conditions.

Barley and wheat are not suitable crops for the Swinford electoral division. Potatoes and corn are generally grown, and if the farmers there are willing, as I am sure they are, to increase their tillage by putting in an extra rood or half acre of corn and potatoes, I ask the Minister to see that his inspector will be as lenient as possible. So much for compulsory tillage, but, before leaving the point, I should like to say that I am in full agreement with the Minister, or with any Minister representing any Government, who stands for compulsory tillage in a time like this if the farmers fail to respond otherwise. Some Deputies have pointed out the necessity for providing labour. I believe, of course, that the Minister should try to provide the necessary labour, but only on condition that the labour that is provided is paid an economic wage. At the moment Mayo and parts of Galway are what are called scheduled areas. A lot of young men from 18 to 19 years of age will be prohibited from emigrating to England. They are to be employed here in cutting turf and helping in agricultural work, such as putting down seed and reaping and saving the harvest.

The Minister may not be aware that for 50 or 60 years or more there has been a tradition that young men go to England at a certain period of the year in order to earn money to help their fathers and mothers and the younger members of the family. Now that such young men are to be kept at home, I want the Minister to see this point. They are to be kept at home under an Emergency Powers Order. The wage they will receive for working on a farm or in a bog will not be sufficient to enable them to allocate a part of that to help to maintain a father or mother or the younger members of the family. It will be only barely sufficient to maintain themselves. That will cause grievious hardship and dissatisfaction in Mayo. I am in full agreement with the compulsory tillage scheme, but I would ask the Minister to consider the question of the areas I have indicated. There are other parts of South Mayo, such as around Ballyhaunis, where the land is better.

The farm improvements scheme has bestowed great benefits in my area. The assistant agricultural overseers and the supervisors carry out their duties very efficiently. I understand that an agricultural overseer gets about 60/- per week inclusive. It is a small wage considering that these young men have a lot of cycling to do. The man who lives in the little town of Kilkelly has to cycle to Swinford. That is a big area to cover. Considering that bicycle tyres are scarce and hard to purchase and that a man has to pay 30/- a week for his board and lodging, that wage is a very small one.

He is getting at least one and a half times that.

If that wage could be increased by 10/- or a £1 it would help a lot. These are industrious young men and they are fulfilling their duties in the letter and in the spirit. I have been requested by some farmers who have taken advantage of this scheme to put this point before the Minister. If a farmer undertakes to reclaim, say, two acres of land, he may have two sons who have returned from England. The weather may not be very suitable for the work and when spring comes along he may only have had time to break it up and shore it. He may not have had time to fence it, but during the summer or later on he may be able to complete the fencing. I think that the grant or portion of the grant should be given to that man even though he has not completed the work within the time allotted, due to the weather or other causes. These farmers have asked me to put that before the Minister so that the period for the completion of the work may be extended to give them time to do the fences and the other minor matters which would not prevent them from putting the seed in the land which they had broken up. As regards seed potatoes, in my area the seed potatoes supplied are Kerr's Pinks, which they do not grow very much in my area and which are not very good for table use.

Will the Deputy say what sub-head of the Supplementary Estimate that comes under?

I am sorry. I agree that it is not in the Estimate.

You could raise a great controversy about the value of Kerr's Pinks.

I am only talking about my area. Deputy Linehan can talk about Cork if he wishes. We generally use Champions or other types in my area and in many other parts of South Mayo. I shall leave that for the time being. I should like to say that the farm improvements scheme is worthy of all praise, and I would advise the Minister to make it permanent. Farmers have been very pleased with it. It is helpful to the farmers whom I have described. Many of them have asked me if it would not be possible under the scheme to give a grant for the erection of glass houses. A grant is given for manure pits, water tanks, private roads to dwelling-houses and for the reclamation of land.

From inquiries which I have made, however, in the Department I find that no grant is given for the erection of glass houses. Even if it were to be given, I suppose the Minister would tell me that there is no glass available. That may be a good point, but many people who have asked me about it have glass available, if a grant could be given. It would be a great encouragement for the growing of tomatoes which at present have to be imported in large quantities.

Is this debate to be concluded to-night?

I have not been so informed.

If it is not concluded to-night, I am afraid we shall have to sit to-morrow.

The Minister for Finance gave an assurance that the House would not sit to-morrow.

That was on the understanding that all the Supplementary Estimates would be finished.

That was not the understanding.

Would it not be possible to sit beyond 9 p.m.?

Personally I do not mind, as I can say what I have to say in one minute, but there are other Deputies who are anxious to speak.

Could we not sit until 9.30 p.m.?

Could not the Minister conclude when the Deputy has finished?

The Deputy has asked whether the House could sit until 9.30 p.m. Yes, but for unopposed business after 9 p.m.

Will that suit?

Is it likely that the Vote will be finished to-night?

I think we ought to make an effort to finish it.

It must be understood that there can be no division taken after 9 o'clock.

Agreed to sit until 9.30 p.m.

I was very interested in Deputy Cafferky's pronouncement on the question of agricultural labour. He indicated that he was quite prepared to say that the young boys would be kept in his area for work on the farms provided they were paid an economic wage, but that a prohibition on boys of 18 or 19 travelling to England would give rise to great hardship, as the income they would receive from the present standard wage in this country would not permit them to give as much aid and assistance to their families as was possible by their working in England. It is a very easy thing to say that any Government in this country should not prohibit the export of agricultural labour unless prepared to pay an economic wage at home. That is something that sounds very popular, but I would like Deputy Cafferky, on some other occasion, representing the Farmers' Party, to indicate what he considers to be an economic wage for a farm labourer. It is entirely unfair to the House in general to make a statement that prohibition of agricultural labourers going to England should be removed unless we are prepared to pay them an economic wage here in Ireland. That is a principle everybody would agree with—the paying of the highest possible wage to the agricultural labourer. At present, people would stretch their pockets a little, even beyond a wage they felt ought not be paid.

However, what I would like to hear from Deputy Cafferky is what he considers to be an economic wage for a farm labourer. The Deputy and his Party recently introduced other motions in this House, something like the £3 for tillage motion. When they show their sheer anxiety to see that the agricultural labourer is remunerated as well as possible and are asking for concessions by way of subsidy or otherwise for one section of the community, in order to retain people here, and suggesting they are at great loss in not being allowed to go abroad, they should say whether they are satisfied that the present wage is inadequate and, if it is, what they consider to be an adequate wage.

Could the Minister let us know the stocks of seed wheat? I am informed the stocks are practically all cleared and that there is not very much hope of building up fresh stocks. A number of people will be requiring seed—Spring wheat, particularly April Red—and none of it at all available. That may be right or wrong, and I hope the Minister will tell us what the position is.

I think, from Deputy Hughes' speech, that he misunderstood a remark I made in introducing this Estimate, where I said that £3,000 would be required for subsidy on Avoca pyrites. Deputy Hughes thought that that was additional. It is not: as a matter of fact, it is a big saving. The subsidy on Spanish pyrites was £14 15s. per ton and the subsidy on Avoca pyrites is only £1 7s. per ton, so on every ton of Avoca pyrites we save £13 8s. If we use 2,200 tons of Avoca pyrites this year, we will have saved about £30,000 on the original estimate. In reply to Deputy Cogan, I may say it is hoped that this will be developed more as time goes on, and become a permanent source of pyrites in this country. He also asked about the system of conversion of phosphates into superphosphates by sulphuric acid —as to whether we are investigating other methods—and he referred to the German method of heating. The Scientific Research Bureau has been working on that, with Clare phosphates. I do not know whether they have met with success or not, as I have not had any report. The Bureau has already given some very useful information with regard to the Avoca pyrites, and we have investigations going on as far as possible.

In connection with the national drainage scheme, Deputy Hughes said we should keep field drainage in mind. That is covered by the farm improvements scheme. There is an intermediate stage between field drainage, done by the farmer on his own land, and the drainage of the small arteries —you have the rural improvements scheme whereby farmers can join together for drainage purposes. Deputy Hughes also asked about the object in licensing threshing sets. There were two objects: one was to have a register of threshing sets for the purpose of checking up on the distribution of fuel—oil in the case of threshing sets and coal in the case of steam sets. Secondly, we hoped, in respect of some of these threshing sets, to see if they were capable of doing good work and threshing properly.

We have not succeeded in making very many inspections, but we are investigating the question, with a view to doing more inspections during the coming year.

Deputy Beegan asked what the supply of fertilisers in general would be like. I think I gave that answer here before. I expect that the supply of fertilisers will be somewhat the same as it was in 1943. Every farmer who got a supply last year may expect to get the same this year. Farmers get a certain quota based on the quantity they were in the habit of purchasing in previous years. Specialised farmers get a special allocation of manure for the growing of beet, root seeds, certain seed potatoes, and a few things of that kind. Allotment holders get some artificial manure and, in the congested districts, in addition, there is a certain allocation over and above the particular allocations I have mentioned. I think it will be the same for the coming year.

Deputy Beegan asked if it was true that 150 tons of fertilisers had been allocated specially to North Galway through the Minister for Supplies. That is not true, as the Department of Supplies does not interfere in the distribution of manure at all. It is distributed under a special Order by my Department. I do not think that any special manure reached North Galway, but I do know there was a firm here in Dublin negotiating for the sale of manure in that area. It was not a very reliable kind of fertiliser, in the opinion of the Department. I do not know if it had any very regular analysis, so I could not give it; and the price, I understand, quoted for it was £15 per ton. When we got to hear of it in the Department of Agriculture, we pointed out the charges that could be brought against the proprietor of manure which had no regular analysis.

I think the negotiations fell through for the sale of that particular manure. Since then we have made an Emergency Order dealing with manufacturers of this kind and it will be necessary in future to have such manufacturers registered and the business carried on in a more regular way.

A question was raised by Deputy Beegan with regard to fences. He pointed out that, under the farm improvements scheme, the fences must conform to a certain specification, and he holds that the specification is not suitable to the West of Ireland. All I can undertake to do in that case is to examine the position and, if we agree that there is substance in that argument, see if we can make it right.

Deputy Norton asked some question about the Tully Stud. First of all, he wants to know if all the bloodstock were taken away. They were. I was not very long in the Department of Agriculture before the file dealing with the Tully Stud came before me. I found that the argument had been going on between the two Governments for many years principally on the point, who owned the bloodstock. That argument continued, as long as I have been in the Department, up to last year, and it would have continued, I think, for another 40 years or so if we had not tried to reach some finality, because neither side was inclined to give in. A compromise was suggested. It was easier for us to agree to the compromise because the bloodstock had all gone by this time and we were only arguing an academic question. The compromise was that we must regard them as being tenants since 1922 and, therefore, that a rent from them would be due for that period. That is the principle on which we took over the stud farm in the end. We have not yet decided exactly on what amount is due to us, but the principle is there, at any rate, that they will pay as users of the place since 1922. There is no claim, therefore, being made for bloodstock because, as I say, it was already gone.

In answer to Deputy Norton, there is a claim for using the place. There is not any claim made for repairs due to the place. I do not think we could claim very much there. I think that there would not be any more repairs to be done than would be done by any farmer going into a place that had been sold to him. Nothing excessive, I think, anyway, could be claimed under that heading.

The existing staff will be maintained. Twenty-six grooms, labourers, stud hands, and so on, have been taken over. Some of the employees were rather old and elected to retire. They were given some form of compensation by the British Government before they withdrew, so we had no responsibility for those who elected to go out. The remaining 26 decided to stay on and we have taken them on under the ordinary terms of employment. I can assure Deputy Norton that no land will be given away to the Land Commission for the purpose of division or anything else. It is intended to keep the farm as it is and to use it as a stud farm.

I was asked how do we intend to use this farm, under what machinery and so on. I cannot answer that exactly. It could be run as a company. That would mean setting up a board and giving the company the necessary capital to carry on. It could be run by a committee under the Department or it could be run, on the same lines as an agricultural farm, under the Department, by appointing a principal officer to run the place. I cannot say at the moment how it will be run because the only thing that the Government has agreed to so far is that it will be a stud farm and, having got that decision from the Government, I am now preparing a scheme to put to the Government of how the place will be run. Then, of course, it will come to the Dáil. At the moment I cannot say whether it will come to the Dáil by way of Estimate or by way of a Bill but, in any case, it will come to the Dáil for discussion.

I think Deputy Cosgrave raised the point that there was dissatisfaction in the County Dublin with regard to charges for the hire of machinery, tractors, ploughs, binders, and so on. We have had this point under consideration on many occasions. As Deputies know, we did fix a charge for threshing. We found it impossible to get a basis on which we could fix a charge for tractors, in ploughing, harvesting, and so on, and we had to leave it to settle itself. I am afraid the more Deputies go into that matter the more difficulty they will find in doing anything. The question was raised at a meeting of the Consultative Council in the Department which was held only a week or two ago, and I think I can say that the members of the council agreed that it would be impossible to do anything further than what we had done with regard to threshing.

Some Deputies referred to the Farm Improvements Scheme and welcomed it. I think the suggestion made by a number of Deputies was that it might be kept in operation throughout the summer or, at any rate, that it might come into operation earlier than has been the case for the last two or three years. I am very anxious to move in that direction. I am very anxious that the scheme should come in earlier and, in fact, I think we might consider seriously having the scheme in operation practically the whole year round. There are, of course, certain difficulties with regard to accounting, and so on, if we do not take the scheme year by year, whatever time we might start or whatever time we might finish. It is rather difficult to work unless we make it a yearly scheme. It may be possible to get over these difficulties and our tendency is to lengthen the period every year. We have gone as far as 45 weeks, which is very close to the 52.

I was asked what is the estimate in the Department of the arable acreage of the country. I do not think I can answer for every member of the Department who is dealing with this question; I think there might be different opinions from different officers; but I would say that there is an impression in the Department that the arable acreage is lower than we had thought. It used to be generally accepted, I think, that the arable acreage of this country was 12,000,000. I think it is lower than that. It is probably nearer to 10,000,000, possibly 10,500,000. I think our deduction from the experience we have gained from the compulsory tillage Order would be that the arable acreage is about 10,500,000.

Before the Minister leaves the question of the Farm Improvements Scheme, does he deny that an individual member of this House is responsible for the introduction of that scheme or does he say it is the Government that is responsible?

I will have to do some research into history to answer that question.

That is not a straight answer to my question.

I want to know, is an individual member of this House responsible for the introduction of the scheme?

The Deputy may ask a question, that is all.

I have asked it. All I want is "yes" or "no".

An individual Deputy is responsible for the Farm Improvements Scheme?

It is quite possible. Somebody must have thought of it first.

That does not do the Minister much credit.

What difference does it make?

I cannot think of everything—I never claimed to.

Is an individual member of the House to be held responsible for a scheme?

On a point of order, should a Deputy be allowed to continue interrupting after he has been given an answer?

I have not been given an answer. The Minister merely said he did not know and that he would make inquiries.

I shall make inquiries.

I will put down a question to the Minister on this subject.

I was asked about rye growing, and if any steps were taken to promote it. We did help in a small way—I can claim that for the Department—to make more seed available this year than in previous years and, as a result, we may have a fairly extended area of rye next season. I do not think there is any foundation for the suggestion that the millers object to it. I think they would prefer rye to barley. They would have objected to rye in pre-war days when they were turning out 72 per cent. extract of white flour, but now when we have to put some diluent into the wheat, I think they would not object to rye.

With regard to the tillage inspectors, what Deputy MacEoin and other Deputies said is quite possible, that young men appointed to a responsible job like that may not be as careful in dealing with the public as they should be. In the Department we bring these men in after appointment and give them a week's drilling telling them the points they must keep in mind when inspecting land and giving them general instructions. We give them three or four days' instruction in the technical part of their duties. I have never given those men a lecture—I do not feel competent to do so—but they are always warned about being as careful as possible in dealing with the public—being courteous, for instance. I must say that for the one complaint I get about these inspectors being too severe, I get ten complaints that they are too lenient. I have been told that these inspectors are far too lenient in dealing with farmers.

And that they are reasonable.

I cannot understand the complaint made by Deputy MacEoin, that an inspector ploughed up a place without giving prior notice. As a matter of fact, notices are issued before we take over and I think there must have been some mistake in this instance. I do not know where it happened, and I should like Deputy MacEoin to let me know the circumstances, so that we can investigate that case.

Deputy Flanagan mentioned two cases. I did, as a matter of fact, investigate one of these cases, which was reported to me by an individual from Leix. The report was that on one fairly large holding there were 105 acres classed as arable. The quota would be 26¼ acres in 1943 and actually there were 47 acres tilled, but only 30 acres were properly cultivated, so that there were 17 acres neglected, as it were. We did not feel in the Department that we had power to take action against the person concerned as long as the quota was tilled. There may be a defect in the Order, which I mean to investigate further. But, if a person cultivates the quota properly, and even attempts to till a little more than the quota and is guilty of a little negligence in that connection, we could not take action for bad husbandry. I am having the other case investigated.

That is good.

I agree with Deputy Lynch that it would not be an advisable practice to ask the inspector to meet a Deputy from any Party. It would be better that the inspector should investigate cases on his own. I know that Deputy Flanagan's anxiety is that the inspector will call out and do his duty. I will try to make sure of that, so far as I can.

I think the Government should adopt the same principle when dealing with land division, and not have the inspectors calling only on Fianna Fáil supporters. I was a secretary of a Fianna Fáil club at one time and I know things from the inside.

I am not responsible for that. So far as I can do it, I shall see that the inspectors will act independently, but they will act, nevertheless.

Can the Minister say whether the inspectors inspect land held by the Land Commission, and do they determine the amount of tillage?

I do not think that the inspectors visit lands held by any Government Department, but we do ask Government Departments to give us an assurance that they are doing the requisite amount of tillage.

Why should it not be done? Is it not desirable that there should not be an exception made under the Order? Is it not proper that you should make no exception?

There is no exception made.

Perhaps the Minister will answer the question I put to him? The matter is important, because people have been informing me that they cannot get the seed.

There is a good supply of spring seed wheat and if the sowings of winter wheat are as good as we think they will be, there should be no shortage of spring seed. I could not say if there is much April Red, but there is a good supply of Atle and a fair supply of Diamante. There is, too, a supply of Red Marvel, but I am not sure about April Red.

The position in my area is that we grow nothing but spring wheat, and if the people cannot get spring wheat a certain difficulty arises.

I did not catch the Minister's reply to Deputy Cosgrave about controlling threshing prices.

I said we had control of threshing charges and on many occasions we examined the possibility of controlling charges for ploughing, harvesting and so on, but we found it impossible to get any good basis on which to go, because the conditions vary. We did consider the matter at the meeting of the Consultative Council and the members agreed that it would be difficult to arrive at any decision.

They are charging more in County Dublin than elsewhere.

The County Dublin charges are much higher than anywhere else.

I should like to mention the position of the dairy farmers in my area. Some of them waited on the Minister at Clonmel. I forgot to mention that the dairy farmers are quite prepared to till a reasonable proportion of the land, but they wish to retain as many cows as possible so that there will be no shortage in the supply of liquid milk. They are quite prepared to devote 10 per cent. of the arable land to wheat, but they ask the Minister to waive the compulsory percentage.

Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again on Tuesday.
Top
Share