Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Mar 1944

Vol. 93 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Agriculture (Resumed).

Captain Giles

In winding up the debate last night, I dealt with the many exaggerated statements made on every side of the House with regard to the agricultural position. I think if there were less exaggeration and nothing but the truth at all times the position would be much clearer to everybody. It should be clearly understood that the farmers are not the monopoly of any Party. It is common knowledge that there are just as many farmers supporting the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party or the Fianna Fáil Party. Everybody in this House claims to represent the farmers. We know that a good many of the farmers were responsible for putting Fianna Fáil into power. The existence of the present Government is their responsibility. We heard a lot about the economic war, and the troubles of the agricultural community during that period, but if the majority of the farmers did not vote for Fianna Fáil the present Government would not be in power. Then there would have been no economic war. During that time, when so many John Browns were needed to carry out the dirty work in this country, it was the farmers who were got to do that dirty work. The responsibility for many of the troubles of the agricultural community is on their own shoulders just as much as on the shoulders of the present Government.

I do believe that agriculture in this country never got a fair chance. There were too many upheavals during the last 20 years or so. We had the economic depression in 1921. Then we had the economic depression in 1931 and 1932. Then we had the economic war, and now we have the tillage drive which is so very hard on the farmers, so we cannot expect agricultural economy to become stabilised under those conditions. We would need a long period of stability before agriculture could prove its worth. I do believe that until all Parties in this House arrive at an agreed policy on agriculture, leaving politics out of the question, there will be no prosperity. We are told on all sides that agriculture is the backbone of the country. We are tired of hearing that, but what good is it if there is no agreed policy? Surely, in a country whose prosperity depends on agriculture, we ought to be able to hammer out an agreement between all Parties with regard to an agricultural policy. Until that happens, there will be no prosperity here. No matter what we say about our isolation and self-sufficiency, I think that until we have friendly relations with Britain and the people across the Border we will have no stability in agriculture here. Whether we like it or not, we all know that our surplus products must be sold across the water. They must be sold in our best market, and that is the British market. Until we have a friendly understanding with them, there is little hope of a prosperous future for agriculture here.

I agree with Deputy Dillon and other speakers in connection with our agricultural policy. I believe that, in order to get proper agricultural conditions, you will have to zone up this country. There is no use in trying to apply one policy to the whole country. My county is not really a tillage county; it is a county for grazing, and that is the key to the British market. Grazing should be intensified in that county and in Westmeath and Kildare, just as tillage should be intensified in other districts. The same policy will not work for the whole country. I should also like to point out that we have far too many uneconomic units here. Take, for instance, a man with five or ten acres of land. He is neither a farmer nor a workman, and his land is no good to anybody. He might raise a cow, or a broken-down horse or a donkey, but outside of that he just goes and gets work from his nearest neighbour. He is neither a farmer nor a workman, and that type of farm is really only waste. I think we should have a far more revolutionary policy in land division. It is too long drawn-out. We have spent 25 years on the job, and it has not been finished yet. We should have a proper policy of land division over a period of five or eight years, and get on with the work. There is too much tinkering with it. As I have said, we have far too many uneconomic units, which are useless to anybody, and, on the other hand, in my county there are vast tracts of land; there are men with 2,000 or 3,000 acres of land, and those holdings are certainly not giving the best return to the people of the country. They may employ eight or ten workmen, but there is a lot of waste land in those big ranches, and if it were divided up it would give economic units to many a good farmer or his son. It is wrong to have those extremes. The small uneconomic units should be balanced up by the division of large estates.

As somebody said here yesterday, it is a damnable state of affairs to see one man, perhaps an old bachelor, rolling in wealth, with 2,000 acres of land, and all his money invested in foreign securities. He takes up the Irish Times every morning and before he looks at the news he studies the stock exchange reports to discover where his money will give the best return. That is unnational and un-Irish. It is something which should be corrected. We want our people to have a more human outlook. We do not want to see them living entirely for money, then dying and leaving their wealth behind for somebody else to squander. We have too many of those idle gentry, full of wealth and full of narrowness, with no national ideals. They are getting too much out of this country, while other people are starving on uneconomic holdings. Therefore, I think the Minister for Agriculture should be in closer touch with the Minister for Lands, and that we should get a proper land policy over a period of four or five years. Even if it cost £1,000,000, we should get the land of this country divided into proper units. It is the same in connection with agriculture generally. We have no real agricultural policy here. Before the war, there was more waste in the ordinary farmer's haggard and land than would pay his rent and rates two or three times over. That was no fault of his; I know a man who had eight or ten tons of potatoes lying at the back of a ditch from January to May or June, and he could not get sale for them. I know people who had a surplus of five or six tons of mangels and could not get a man to buy a load of them, so they rotted or were thrown out to the cattle, who did not eat them.

We want a more intensive organisation of marketing. It is all right for farmers who live near Dublin or some other city. They have their market. I myself live about 30 miles from the city here, and the farmers in my district and from that down to Mullingar have no place to sell their surplus products There is no co-operation. We have not now got the country fairs they had in the past, where a man could bring his surplus produce and sell it like hot cakes. There is none of that now. I should like to see committees of agriculture tackling that side of the problem. It is all very fine to have committees of agriculture looking after fertilisers and that sort of thing. What we want is the personal touch in the different parishes. Even if it necessitated the appointment of ten or 20 extra officials in a county for one or two years, each parish should be converted into an economic unit, so that there will be no waste. In that way, you will achieve far more than you will achieve by having committees of agriculture looking after doles, and sops and subsidies.

I believe that what is killing the agricultural industry is this system of doles, subsidies and sops for everything. The mainstay of agriculture in this country is the balanced farmer who looks neither to the State nor to any of these organisations for assistance. I find in my own county that the farmer tilling from 30 to 50 acres never wants to hear any rules or regulations from anybody. He is a consistent, sound man. He does his work in an independent fashion and never stops to consider whether he is going to get lime or anything else through Government agencies. I hold that in the case of uneconomic farmers some effort will have to be made to bring about a balanced economy. We must introduce some kind of co-operative movement, whether compulsory or otherwise. Unfortunately the farmers of this country are the most individualistic of our people. It is very hard to get any cohesion amongst them. Every man wants to go his own way. Occasionally one finds a farmer who is very well supplied with all kinds of machinery, while his neighhours are not so well supplied. These neighbours may ask him for the loan of a spring harrow or a plough. The farmer will generally lend his implements to the nearest neighbour, but it rarely happens that the man who gets the implements will leave them back when he is finished with them or if he does, he will leave them back in a broken condition. As I say you really have no choesion amongst farmers and that is the reason I suggest that some system of a co-operative movement should be instituted. The parish could be regarded as the unit. The State would then provide the machinery necessary and force the farmers of each parish to work in co-operation.

I remember that when the Government brought up migrants from the West to the Midlands they supplied every group of three families with a plough, a harrow and a horse, and they told these people they would have to work in common, that the implements belonged to each group of three. What was the result of that experiment? That there was absolute bedlam between these parties. A man would refuse to give the harrow or plough to his neighbour; rather than let his neighbour get it, he would break it up. That is a poor spirit. I think the Minister for Lands will admit that his office has been inundated with letters and appeals asking that each individual should be supplied with implements for his own use only. That is an unfortunate feature of the character of the Irish people, but unless a system of co-operation is introduced agriculture will be not worth while in this country. I think that, if necessary, we must make co-operation compulsory. I know that Muintir na Tíre has made great efforts in that direction and that it has succeeded in breaking down barriers and prejudices amongst farmers. A continuation of that work is necessary if there is to be any hope for agriculture.

In my county we have three classes of farmers—the large or the very wealthy farmer, the middle-class farmer and the uneconomic holder. Any man living in that county can ascertain for himself that of these three groups one only is an asset to the country and that is the middle-class group. The middle-class farmer carries on a balanced economy. He is able to work independently but the other two groups are really pulling against each other and are not very much use to the country. I would urge on the Minister to have a proper census taken of all uneconomic holders in the country, say those with valuations up to £40. I would ask him to do that for the sake of agriculture and for the sake of himself. These men are in a very bad position to-day. I agree that the land annuity in their case is almost negligible. Some of the annuities are as low as £2 or 30/- per year but I think that some scheme should be devised whereby these small uneconomic holders could be provided with facilities to build proper dwellings. I do not mean grants of £30 or £40. I mean that the State should defray the whole cost of providing the houses, as they did in the case of labourers' cottages because these men are really labourers. Houses should be provided for men who have only ten or 15 acres and they could be let to them at a rent calculated on the basis of repayment of the capital cost over 50 or 60 years. As I say a census should be taken to ascertain what these men mostly lack. It may be that such a man needs a cow, a plough or a horse. He could be provided with a cow, a plough or a horse as the case may be and the cost of that could be added to his rent and spread over 50 or 60 years.

We heard a good deal of talk in this House during the last few days about farmers and agricultural workers being slaves. I do not like that mentality. The farmer and the agricultural worker are not slaves. They are the happiest people in the community. They do have to work hard, but all they want is a proper return for that work. If you go to a point-to-point meeting or to Punchestown you will find that the Irish farmer and the country worker are the happiest men there. I hate the slave mind which is always describing the farmer and the farm labourer as down and out. Why, the farmer is the most jovial and the happiest man in the country. Take the farmer who goes to a fair, is he not a star turn? He will sell his beast and fight over 2/6 in the price for nearly two hours. Then he will go in with his neighbours and spend £1 on drink. Yet we are told he is down and out! The farmer as I say is the happiest man in the country and so is the permanent agricultural worker, the man who has spent ten or 15 years with the same farmer. Perhaps his father worked before him on that farm. You would not get one of these workers to leave his employment for any consideration. He is well treated and he gets more than his wages. He is supplied with all the milk he wants and perhaps he will get an old suit or a pair of boots whenever he needs them.

As regards casual labourers, I hold that many of them are not up to the mark. A farmer may take on a casual man at the busy time of the year just when the work is heaviest. He will find that that man will leave him without any notice and enter the employment of a neighbouring farmer who has offered him 1/- or 2/- more per week. Such men will fight shy of honest work. I think that some system should be devised whereby a man who is taken on for the season should be compelled to remain with his employer until the season is ended unless there are satisfactory reasons for his leaving. The labourer will know his wages at the start of the season and the farmer should feel secure in knowing that the labourer cannot walk away next morning. It is all very fine talking about the dignity of labour, but I want to see honour amongst the farmer and the workers. Where you have honourable men as farmers and labourers, you will have good results from their combined work. For that reason I do not like to hear all this whining about the farmer and the labourer being down and out. The farmer does not want to hear all this balderdash. We heard some months ago all that the new Farmers' Party were to do for the farmer when they came into the Dáil. How have they fulfilled their promises? They spent their whole time demanding increased expenditure in the way of doles for this and doles for that. Then, at the same time, they want a reduction of taxation. Such nonsense I never heard before. One of them got up here recently and said that he was not a farmer. He described himself as a carpenter and told us that he belonged to the Wood-workers' Union. I hope that the farmers who returned these men will wake up before the next election and see that genuine farmers will represent them in future.

I say that it is the duty of the Government to find markets for farmers and then, when they have found them, keep their noses out of the business and let the farmers develop these markets for themselves. I always find that the practical Irish farmer can go across to England and can conduct business on satisfactory lines with Englishmen. The Englishman who gives his word will not lightly break it. If the Government find the market for our agriculture, the farmers will soon reach their proper level in it. There is no use asking a Minister to go over and insult somebody on the other side, or perhaps the Minister may be too cowardly to go over. If we can get our produce there, we can let the market take its own course. Perhaps the Government is not to be blamed too much after listening to these whiners who talk about giving a dole or a sop of £3 per acre to farmers for tillage. How would that work out? We know that there are men who till 150 acres or who at least get workmen to till it for them. These men would receive £450 for sitting at home or for being at Punchestown while the unfortunate individual who has only three or four acres to till will get only £9 or £12.

So far as the present policy is concerned, I hold that since the emergency set in in 1939 we could not call it a tillage policy. We had the alternative to till or to starve. There were no thanks due to any of us, we had to till whether we liked it or not. We all knew that there was no food coming in, and that if we did not till we should starve. I think that there is a huge problem to be faced in connection with the tillage policy for the future. With Deputy O'Reilly I suggest that the Minister should give special consideration to counties such as Meath and Westmeath.

I said here last year and, I think, the year before that there was an enormous waste of wheat and grain of all kinds. Thousands of barrels were never reaped or, if the straw was reaped, the grain was never brought in. I saw 40 acres of wheat standing there for six weeks before a reaper or binder came along. I do not blame the men who own that land because they had not the machinery and they were waiting for it. The Minister told us that there is hope of a good many reapers and binders coming in. I ask him to realise, not for the sake of County Meath but for the sake of Ireland, that the machinery should be got down there and, if it is not, that the Army or some other body should be called in to assist. Not one barrel of wheat should be wasted not to speak of thousands of barrels. Instead of getting 100 barrels from the sacks, only from 20 to 30 barrels were obtained on the average. It is not the slightest wonder that we have such a wastage; the birds get it.

In many fields in my locality there is no need to sow; we have the finest of winter oats and wheat springing up half a foot high—all because of mismanagement. I blame the Minister. He now sends round tillage inspectors who will bring the farmer to court if he does not till and the justice will make him pay through the nose. It is all very well making the farmer do his job but, when the harvest comes round, where is the tillage inspector? I never saw him at that time. The time for the visit of the tillage inspector is when the corn is being garnered— when we want quick and ready work. So that the crops on these big ranches in Kildare and Westmeath—in some cases there are 150 acres to be dealt with—may be cut and saved in three weeks, there should be a tillage inspector standing on these farms. That would give a good return instead of having the sod turned up, but the corn never reaped. The old threshing sets I see leave more grain in than they take out. Yet, one has to pay through the nose for them.

Labour is a problem in the different counties during that period, and I should like to see introduced some means of stabilising casual labour. In my own county I see men with over 150 acres of wheat offering 5/- a day more than the small or middle-class farmer can pay, with the result that there is a scurry away from the smaller men, as if the Pied Piper were calling all the rats. The ordinary farmer is left to fend for himself. That is very unfair, and I think that it is in the Minister's power to step in and end it. If a man makes an agreement with a farmer he should stand to it. I must say that many labouring boys are very shy of honest, hard work. On the other hand, there are many steady labourers who would work even if they received no wage at all, because the desire for work is in their bones, as it was in the bones of our fathers. But a great many men are spoiled with doles and sops. They would rather draw 10/- or 15/- and go out and catch rabbits or shoot pigeons. Some of them are making from £10 to £20 a week shooting pigeons. This country would be better off if we put an end to that. The farmer's greatest assets are the crows, pigeons, chaffinches and the other birds to be found about his farm. These are being exterminated at present. Some farmers will assert that they eat all their grain. That is a lie—a deliberate lie. When I sow my corn, I do my best to bring the crows into the field. In fact, the field is sometimes black with them. I never shoot them and I challenge any man to say that they do any harm to his grain. The crow picks up the wireworms and leatherjacks which do so much harm. It is a sin that they should be exterminated and the Minister is not doing his duty in permitting it. I raised this question last year. The mean Irish farmer goes out and poisons partridge and pheasants and common birds. In France they exterminated the crow at one time, and had to pay 2/- a head later for crows brought across from England. I ask the Minister to do his duty and to prevent this poisoning and destroying of Irish game and other birds. There is no use in any man telling me that I do not know what I am talking about when I say that the crow does no harm to the farmer. The only time that the crow will do damage is in a long drought when the potato is not properly moulded. If he gets the chance, he will do damage to the potato crop then, but he does very little damage to the grain crops. Our game is being poisoned and our birds are being killed off. The first thing you hear in the spring is the warbling of the birds—perhaps the thrush or the lark or the goldfinch. Their warbling gladdens the heart of a farmer who may be in the doldrums. I appeal to the Minister to end this poisoning of these grand little birds.

I have not much more to say, but I would ask the Minister to pay special attention to counties such as Meath, Westmeath and Kildare, on the farmers of which our people are dependent for their food, because I think that in doing so the Minister would be taking a step in the right direction and would be doing very good work for the country as a whole.

Mr. Donnellan

This debate has dragged on for quite a long time, in my opinion, but it appears to me that in the majority of the speeches that have been made the various speakers did not stick to the Estimate which is now before us. Had they done so, I believe that we would have finished with the discussion on this Estimate before to-day. One would imagine, in listening to some of the speakers in the House here on this Vote, that they were more interested in making an attack on certain Parties in this House than in addressing themselves to the motion before us. Of course, one would naturally expect that, because, in former years, it was the usual practice to appeal to "John Farmer" down the country, and promise him this, that, and the other thing, lest he should become disheartened and not make an attempt in a certain direction, which would suit the particular Party or Parties appealing to him. Surely, however, listening to Deputy Giles, it would appear that his great worry is that we will have to import wagon-loads of crows and other birds into this country from England, because our home birds are all being destroyed. I suggest that that is no way to encourage our farmers, and I am sure that when the farmers down the country read in to-morrow morning's newspapers that they are expected to import wagon-loads of crows, they will not feel very much encouraged. At any rate, they will realise that the proposal is something new, so far as tillage is concerned.

I was listening to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney the other night. He started off his speech which, to my mind, was something that I can only describe as a most unintelligible Irish stew, by discussing Clann na Talmhan, various Farmers' Parties, the Workers' Republic, the League of Nations, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and a kind of mixture of Fianna Fáil and Labour. I must say, Sir, that I was surprised that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was allowed by you to go so far, but I presume you were taking his age into consideration. It seemed to me that he was speaking like a barrister who had managed to get a brief and was doing his best to convince the jury of the justice of his case. In this part of the House, at any rate, we are not satisfied with the present position, because it is just a matter of leaving the farmer or the agricultural worker in the same old rut in which he has been for the last 20 years, and the Minister's speech tends to confirm that because he states, in effect, that the farmer should consider himself very lucky to be left in that old rut. It is my opinion that if this Dáil does not do something to uplift agriculture in this country—and I believe that this Government does not intend to do so—some other Dáil will yet come along which will do justice to the farmers and the agricultural labourers. Thank God, the people on the land, the farmers and the agricultural workers who produce our food, are inspired by loftier ideals than some of the speeches in this House would indicate. Thank God, our farmers and agricultural labourers are inspired by these lofty ideals because, if they were not inspired by such ideals, they would fall down on the tremendous job that confronts them at the present time. It cannot be denied that never in the history of this country have they been faced with such a tremendous job. There is no doubt that they are doing their job well, and I think that everybody in this House who calls himself an Irishman is doing all he can to encourage them to do that job. They are tackling a tremendous job, and they are doing it well. They are doing splendid work, as a matter of fact, but one would expect that they would be given more encouragement from certain quarters.

I was not present in the House when the Minister made his opening statement, but I read it very closely, and I think that the Minister rather over-emphasised some of the weak points, in trying to tell the farmers that they are so well off. For instance, if you look at the Trade Journal you will find that, for the year 1929-30, the total income from agriculture was £62,000,000. That, certainly, was a shockingly low income, but after four years of emergency in this country— four years of compulsion, so to speak —if you again look at the figures in the Trade Journal, you will find that that figure has risen, on paper, to £86,000,000. That is, roughly, an increase of £24,000,000, and out of that you will see that there is, roughly, a little over £5,000,000 from live stock and live-stock products which are the chief source of income for the farmer. Of course, there is another item there, of something over £80,000,000, given as the official figures for crops and turf. Now, I think it is very unfair to put in, as the farmers' income, the income from turf. I think that that should never have been included by the Minister because, in my opinion, it is misleading. According to my calculation, I would put the farmers' income, between 1929 and 1943 at £19,000,000, and for that purpose I am excluding this matter of turf production.

Now, if we take last year: the farmer was asked to till something over an extra 1,000,000 acres of land, and this year he is asked to till an extra 5000,000 acres. Take the case of the extra 1,000,000 of acres that were tilled last year, if you look at the figures in the Trade Journal again, you will find that the farmer has got an income of, roughly, £10 per acre for that land, but surely, if you take into account the costs of labour, of raising his crops, and so on, you will admit that that is a very low margin of profit. Accordingly, there is no use in telling the farmer that he is so well off. In my opinion, as a worker on the land myself, there is no other producer of any commodity who works for such a low level of profit as the man on the land. I believe that this Estimate is only playing with the problem of agriculture. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the people on the land, when they read in the newspapers of the large incomes or profits derived by people engaged in the secondary industries in this country, are dissatisfied when they realise that they are getting so little profit for supplying the raw materials, such as wool and so on, which keep these secondary industries going?

I would ask the Minister to consider the withdrawing of this Estimate, or at least, when the time comes for the Minister to present another Estimate to the House, he will put forward some scheme which will show a sound return for the people who are doing the work, for this year at any rate. There is no good in talking now about the year that has passed, but I think that the Minister should be able to put forward something which would indicate his intention to give the workers on the land an adequate return for their work.

Deputy Giles says this is a matter of bargaining. It is not. Take this country of ours to-day—we are short of cream, of milk and of butter. But, this very day, you are arguing with the milk producers about an extra 1½d. a gallon, the difference between 10½d. and I/-. The same thing occurred last year in the case of potatoes, and you were short of potatoes, and it applied also to wheat and to other crops. This niggardly attitude is not going to help. I hope and expect and I am appealing to the people on the land to forget all about prices this year in the interests of the nation, but here in the Dáil I will fight to the end to endeavour to secure that those who work and produce the food will get reasonable compensation for their labour. I will make a personal appeal to the Minister that when the time comes, if he does not consider taking back this Estimate now, he will present an Estimate to this House which will take into consideration the points I have made to-day.

Mr. Roddy

At the outset of his speech, Deputy Donnellan stated that it was the duty of the Dáil to uplift agriculture. I thought that surely the Deputy would proceed to explain to the Dáil, what in his opinion would uplift agriculture. I thought he would indicate to the Dáil his views and suggestions in that regard before he sat down. Unfortunately, he has not done so, but I can assure Deputy Donnellan that Deputies on this side of the House are all agreed that it is our duty to uplift agriculture. But they are just as anxious as I am to know the views of Deputy Donnellan on the subject.

Deputy Donnellan quoted £86,000,000 as the value derived from agricultural production. I do not know where he got that figure. The figure I have is £76,000,000 and I got it from the Trade Journal of June last. I believe the Minister stated in October last that the figure was £73,000,000.

Mr. Donnellan

The figure I have for 1942 is £82,000,000.

Mr. Roddy

Either of us may have made a mistake.

Mr. Cogan

I think the Deputy has made a mistake. The figure Deputy Donnellan has mentioned in his speech is for 1943.

Mr. Roddy

There is no figure for 1943 yet.

Mr. Cogan

A figure has been published.

Mr. Roddy

But not in the Trade Journal. However, it is a small point. I shall stick to £76,000,000. You would imagine from some of the remarks we have heard, especially from Deputy Larkin, that the farmers were some of the wealthiest people in the country.

Mr. Larkin

There is sworn testimony about it, Deputy, in the courts.

Mr. Roddy

It is interesting to examine the figures of agricultural production and to see what money the farmer is deriving from his industry. I am still sticking to the figure of £76,000,000 for 1941-42. Mind you, that is not an average figure. It is above the average for the previous years, because 1941-42 was a prosperous year for agriculture, as the Minister will admit, and the Minister will agree that it is somewhat beyond the figures for the previous years. Now, sticking to the figure of £76,000,000, there are between 630,000 and 650,000 people engaged in agriculture. If we divide the number of people engaged in agricultural production into the £76,000,000, we find that their average earnings amount to the sum of, approximately, £120—in other words, all the people engaged in agriculture earn on an average about £2 5s. Od. per week. And mark you this, out of that £2 5s. Od. a week the farmer has to pay annuities. After all, that is a static figure. He has to pay rates and, in most counties, the rates are increasing every year. He has to bear the cost-of-living figures which ordinary members of the community have to bear. He has to pay increased prices for the raw materials of his industry, and an increased wage to his labourers.

I agree with Deputy Larkin and every other member on his benches that the labourer is worthy of his hire and should be paid a decent wage for his work. That is the view of every member on these benches, but I do ask this in view of the speeches of Deputy Davin and Deputy Larkin: how can you indicate to this House or to the farmer himself the way in which he can pay a wage of £3 a week if he has only an income amounting to £2 5/- a week? These are official figures, and they represent the facts. In discussing the position of the farmers, we must bear these facts in mind and we must relate our policy to our own views in accordance with these facts. There is only one way to improve the position of the farmer and that is to increase his output, not merely in volume, but in value as well. Unfortunately, for ten or 12 years output has been going down and the value of farm produce has been declining. There is no hope of the farmer's income improving or increasing until we enable him to increase his output.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister said he got £30,000,000 over and above the previous year.

Mr. Roddy

These figures are published in the Trade Journal, an official Government publication, and the Minister has accepted them, or he has not disagreed with them. As a matter of fact, he accepted a smaller figure in October last. It should be the desire and aim of Government policy, year by year, to increase output, because an increased agricultural output is the only hope for this country. Unless we succeed in increasing output, and increasing it very substantially, it is only a question of a very short time until our whole national income is likely to become seriously dislocated. I do not want to over-labour that point. I think I have made it pretty clear.

We have heard a good deal about milk production. I agree that it is a burning question at the present moment and that it has a very important economic aspect as well. Most of the discussion centred around what is called the dual-purpose cow. I agree, perhaps, that we have not yet arrived at the ideal type of dual-purpose cow, but I also agree with Deputy Corry that it is necessary for us to revise our views on the Live Stock Breeding Act of 1926. I think it was never contemplated that that Act should standardise our live stock in this country, and I believe also that circumstances have changed fundamentally since then, and our views should keep pace with changing circumstances. I have very definite views of my own on a suitable foundation dairy stock. Notwithstanding the views of Deputy Dillon and Deputy Corry, I believe that if we keep experimenting sufficiently long, we will probably arrive at an ideal type of dual-purpose cow but I do not think there is any room in this country for the Friesian cow, because I do not think the Friesian cow would ever become a generally useful animal or that her upkeep would ever become an economic proposition for the smaller type of farmer.

I regret that the Minister has reduced the amount provided this year for cow-testing, which is one of the most vital matters that farmers could embark on. It is only by testing our cows regularly that we can hope to weed out the bad ones and to build up good sound economic dairy herds. The system of awarding premiums needs revision. Very often the type of premium bulls displayed, not merely at Ballsbridge but at local shows, is not suitable for breeding purposes. These bulls are frequently reared and fed on hot-house principles, and everybody knows that while these are the very best bred type of animals, in many cases they have failed to get progeny. We want a revision of the regulations regarding the granting of premiums and, above all, of the regulations concerning the type of animals suitable for premiums. The regulations should be more rigid than they are at present. A determined effort will have to be made to have cows tested regularly and thus build up good dairy herds. Regionalising the country in the manner that Deputy Dillon suggested would not work out successfully, nor do I think it a wise proposal. I hold that dairying must remain the keystone of our agricultural economy, with mixed farming as an auxiliary, and the dual purpose cow as the foundation of our live stock.

Deputy MacEoin dealt yesterday with the small amount of money allocated in this Estimate for agricultural education. I agree with him that the amount appears to be very small. The trouble about agricultural education is that the majority of farmers' sons, who are trained at agricultural institutes, rarely go back to the land in order to translate their knowledge into practical effect. Invariably they seek some position with the Government or with the Department, or go to another country. I know some of these students who have gone to England. It is more necessary now than ever that agricultural education should be more widespread than in the past and it should be the primary duty of the Government and of the Department to disseminate that education as widely as possible so as to bring it into closer contact with the actual needs of farmers. Until that is done I do not see much hope of the majority of farmers improving their standards. I agree with what Deputy Larkin said that agriculture has become highly scientific in most European countries and we should make an effort to take advantage of the scientific developments which have taken place in those countries. We know from experience that agriculture has been practically revolutionised in Great Britain since the war and that production has increased from 30 to 40 per cent. The technique of agriculture has been completely revolutionised, and if we want to hold our own with Britain and other countries, that will undoubtedly enter the world markets when the war ends, we will have to develop our agriculture on more scientific lines.

Since my return to the Dáil I find a great deal of unreality about discussions on Supply Estimates. I suppose that is due largely to the emergency. I frankly admit that at present our paramount need to provide our immediate food requirements overshadows all other aspects of our agricultural policy. In that connection, it is vitally important that the Minister should bear in mind the problems that will arise even before the war is over. The Minister stated that the food production drive would continue for some years after the war. I assume that that is inevitable. We do not know yet if the Minister and the Government have made maximum demands on the country in regard to the production of food. If the war drags on for two or three years longer, it seems inevitable that the Government will be looking for an extension of the area under tillage. I wonder if the Department visualises the difficulties which are likely to arise if intensive cultivation of the land has to be carried on for a long period. No matter what care is exercised, and no matter what amount of farmyard manure is produced, it is inevitable that the fertility of the soil will be substantially reduced. The longer the war lasts the greater the danger in that respect. I wonder if the scientific members connected with the Department have devised ways or means of preserving the fertility of the soil at a reasonable standard. It seems to me that if we are to hold our position we must try to maintain the cultivation of the soil at a reasonable standard. I should like the Minister to indicate if he has taken any steps or if he has any plans under consideration whereby it will be possible, while meeting the obligation of increased tillage, to maintain the fertility of the soil.

We heard a good deal about butter, bacon and eggs. I do not intend to discuss them now because I listened to two speeches that covered the ground exhaustively. I urge the Minister to take every possible step to increase the production of bacon, butter and eggs. The 85 per cent. extraction of flour should make available substantial quantities of bran and pollard for pig production. That should be an asset and an inducement to farmers to embark on pig feeding again. The production of bacon, butter and eggs is an indispensable condition of our economic life, and it is the duty of the Minister to take suitable steps to see that we get back to the position we were in before production began to fall about 1934 or 1935. I was glad to hear the Minister mention, when introducing the Estimate that he had made additional financial provision this year for carrying out investigations into cattle diseases. In every county the losses on account of disease are considerable. I think Deputy Halliden stated that the loss to farmers amounted to £7,000,000 yearly. I thought the loss was greater and that it amounted to £11,000,000. Whether it is £7,000,000 or £11,000,000 it is time that suitable steps were taken to reduce the loss and to save money to farmers. As far as investigations of cattle diseases are concerned, we are behind other countries, so that it is time that we got into line with more progressive countries.

I suggest that the administration of the seeds and fertilisers scheme should be transferred from county councils to county committees of agriculture. For some years it has appeared to me that the schemes could be more effectively and more efficiently administered by the county committees of agriculture than by the county councils. I am quite sure that it would be an easy matter for the Minister for Agriculture to arrange with the Minister for Finance to have whatever moneys are required for these schemes transferred to the control of the county committees of agriculture. I make that suggestion primarily for this reason, that I know that it is necessary for the officials of the county council to consult in all cases with the officials of the county committees of agriculture before they consent to give a grant for seeds or manures. In that way considerable delay is occasioned to applicants. If responsibility for the administration of the schemes were, as I have suggested, transferred to the county committees of agriculture delays of that kind would be avoided.

I think that is all I have to say on the Estimate. I agree with Deputy Donnellan that we have spent quite a long time discussing it. I do not know that there was any aspect of it left untouched. I agree with Deputy MacEoin that the cost of the Department of Agriculture, like that of every other Department of State, seems to be increasing year by year. It seems to me that under the cloak of the emergency Ministers and officials have relaxed that vigilance which it was customary for them to exercise in normal times over expenditure, with the result that we have public expenditure soaring to heights which some of us never thought would be reached.

Mr. Heskin

The points that I propose to concentrate mainly on, in dealing with this Estimate, concern the dairying industry. I am not going to make an appeal for the proverty-stricken people who are engaged in that industry, but I do make an appeal to the Government to save what is our most important industry. Dairying, as we know, is the bedrock of our agricultural economy. We find to-day that throughout the country the cow population is going down. For many reasons people are getting out of their dairy stock. The principal reason, I believe, is the difficulty of securing labour. I do not blame the working man for not turning into the farmer's yard to milk the cows—he has to be there early in the morning, late in the evening and on Sundays—when he sees his colleagues employed on ordinary agricultural work turning in to work at 8 o'clock in the morning. Both are getting the same wage. Why is it that the people engaged in dairying are not able to pay a better wage to their workers? The reason is that they are not getting an adequate price for the commodity they are producing. The sooner that the Government or whoever is responsible, realises that they must pay a better price for new milk the better it will be for them—that is if they want to save the dairying industry.

The live-stock industry, which is connected with dairying, is a very valuable asset to this country. It provides us with our chief export trade. If we lose the dairying industry then, as a consequence, we will lose our live stock export trade. Unless immediate steps are taken to safeguard that industry I fear that our export trade will become very small. In order to get the best return from the dairying industry it is essential, I believe, that certain steps should be taken. The first—this may appear to be going a bit too far—is that we should have compulsory cow-testing. An industry that is carrying useless stock cannot possibly prosper because such stock are simply using up good food that should be utilised for profitable production. To be feeding good food to uneconomic cows is bad business. The only way in which one can discover that cows are uneconomic is through the medium of cow-testing associations. If this industry is to be saved, I think it is essential for the Government to take steps to make cow-testing compulsory.

On the question of producing dual purpose cows, suitable bulls are essential. I do not think that the place in which to get the best bulls is the showyard. I have seen young bulls exhibited at centres of inspection and, because the Department's inspectors did not consider that they had sufficient flesh on them, they were turned down. I think I am a fair judge of what a good bull ought to be. I have seen bulls that were purchased at a big figure at shows and I must say that I did not regard them as good serviceable animals at all. I am not at all satisfied that the best bulls are to be got in the showyard. In my opinion, the inspectors of the Department should be rather slow in turning down a good bull calf that is presented at the local centres simply because the owner may not have been in a position to feed it; to have it in the condition that they would like. This question of bulls is an important one in connection with the dual purpose cow.

I wonder how many people in the cities and towns realise the conditions under which milk is produced in the country. I think that a lot of them, if they realised what those conditions are, would not drink milk at all. I hold that a certain amount of money should be made available for the erection of decent cow-sheds and suitable accommodation for those engaged in the dairying business so as to ensure that the milk produced will be fit for human consumption and in good condition for the creameries. As regards prices, farmers generally are looking for 1/- a gallon, and rightly so, during the summer months. They need that price if they are to be in a position to pay their workers and to meet other increased charges on production. There has been a big increase in the price of all dairy utensils, buckets, tankards and so on. Recently, I raised this question of a guaranteed price of 1/- a gallon. I wonder how many farmers got the 1/- a gallon for their milk during the winter period? I find that milk which, on test, showed a butter fat content of 3.60, 3.80 and even 4.20 did not realise 1/- a gallon at the creameries, while we have milk selling in Dublin at 4½d. a pint or at from 3/- to 3/2 a gallon. Surely, there must be something wrong when milk carrying a butter test of 4.20 realised less than 1/- a gallon to the producer, while here in Dublin milk carrying a butter test of 3.05 realised as much as 3/- a gallon.

I think that if the people in the cities and towns realised the conditions which prevail in the dairying industry they would say to those engaged in it that they have a right to look for a better price than they are getting for their milk, and that they have a grievance which ought to be rectified, especially when we find those who handle the milk are able to make 2/3 a gallon for themselves. What about the sacrifices that the farmers and their workers have to make in order to produce that milk? They are out late and early. They have to look after the cows on Sundays when many other people can go to hurling matches or sports meetings. The man with the cows has to be there all day and every day; he must be there. I was at the game myself for years. I often had to go into the cowshed on a cold, frosty morning and I know what it is to have to milk cows under such conditions; the cold was often so intense that my teeth were playing "The Rakes of Mallow" while I was milking. Who is going to stick that type of work if he does not get sufficient encouragement?

This is a matter the Minister should seriously consider if he wishes to preserve the dairying industry. He must offer some definite encouragement if he is anxious that people will keep the dairying industry alive. We heard the statements made here by Deputy Giles and other Deputies. We are told that we come into this House looking for increased prices. I do not give a hang about increased prices, but I insist that you must encourage the farmer if you want him to keep in production. Deputy Giles said they can finish cattle in County Meath. How can they finish them in Meath if they cannot get them from other parts of the country? You cannot produce cattle without dairy cows and where are you going to get the cattle if the dairying industry declines? You cannot have the cattle unless you have the cows and you will not have the cows unless you give farmers some encouragement to keep them.

Those engaged in the dairying industry are entitled to reasonable remuneration. We have a system of doles in operation. Why have we the dole system? If there are ranches in Meath and in other counties for the purpose of raising live stock, why would we not have doles? I would be well able to ranch 1,000 acres with a dog. I would not require the services of any workman to do that. I maintain that we have to keep the workers busy. I keep workers and I pay my workers and I work with them. I did not come up here as a "collar and tie" farmer; I came up here as an honest-to-God farmer, prepared to fight for the rights of the workers and the rights of the farmers. I have every right to fight for my people. I will look for reasonable prices for the farmers and fair wages for the workers.

I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to consider the statements I have made in relation to this important industry. I ask him to give the matter careful consideration. April 1st is near at hand and I appeal to the Minister not to go back to 10 ½d. a gallon. The farmer is entitled to 1/- a gallon for the milk. Give it to him if you want to save the most important branch of agriculture—the dairying industry.

With regard to wheat, numbers of farmers find great difficulty in obtaining an adequate supply of good germinating wheat. Some time ago I suggested that there should be areas set aside for the production and protection of seed wheat. The suggestion was that the Minister should select certain areas that could be adapted to a certain variety of wheat. Those areas should not be allowed to grow wheat other than the particular variety suitable for them. In that way we could proceed to the production of a good seed wheat. The areas cultivated for the purpose of producing that seed wheat and preserving it only for seeding purposes should be under the control of the county agricultural instructor. In that way the crop will be earmarked for that particular purpose. In the harvest time the instructor would visit the farmers in those areas and advise the growers what to do in order properly to preserve the seed. They could decide between themselves what course would be best suited in order properly to save that crop.

If a man was not in a position to hold over his particular crop without getting assistance of some sort, he could get a loan from a seed merchant or from the Government to carry him over until such time as the crop would be threshed and made available for the farmers for seed in the following spring. I have some experience in regard to this matter, because I worked that system for years but, seeing there was no encouragement, I gave it up. I am aware that grain kept in the straw until the spring time will have a much higher germination than the grain that is threshed earlier in the year. That is a point I should like the Minister to bear in mind. He should select certain areas for the production of seed wheat in order to ensure that an adequate supply of suitable seed will be available in the following year.

I hope the Minister will do his best to see that so far as milk is concerned no effort will be spared to ensure that that industry will be protected. That by itself will, to a certain extent, assist in the growing of wheat. If you want a good crop of wheat you must have the land in good condition. You cannot grow good wheat on land that is worn and dragged, land that has been cropped year after year; you cannot have a good crop of wheat unless you can provide an adequate supply of farmyard manure. The dairy cow, the calf, the pig and, indeed, all kinds of live stock, are sources of supply of the farmyard manure that is so much required to produce a greater quantity and a better quality of wheat. I hope the Minister will give this subject his very earnest consideration in order to save that particular industry and all the other industries that depend upon it.

Donnchadh O Briain

Ba mhaith liom focal no dhó, nó trí cinn, b'fheidir, do ra ar cheist seo an bhainne mar baineann se go dluth le Dailcheanntar Luimnigh. Nuair a bhí an Teachta Diolúin ag cainnt indé —ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sé annso anois—thug sé "ughdar mór" ormsa mar gheall ar an gceist seo. Níl sé sin fíor, ach ós rud é go bhfuil mé im chomhnaí imeasc feirmeoirí Chonndae Luimnigh, ni fheadfainn gan eolas éigin do bheith agam ar an scéal. Tá sé in am, agus thar am, dar liomsa, ag an Aire agus ag an Rialtas an cheist seo ar fad, mar gheall ar na huachtarlanna do bhreithniu go curamach agus go mear. On mblian 1932, ní bhíonn ach rí-rá agus achrann imeasc feirmeoirí áirithe mar gheall ar an bpraghas atá le fáil aca ar an mbainne ó na huachtarlanna. Na feirmeoirí seo a bhíonn ag cainnt go glórach, ní dóigh liom go mbíonn siad ag cainnt ar son na bfeirmeoirí go léir, ach tá an rí-rá ar siúl agus tá sé ag dul in olcas, agus ni folair don Aire agus don Rialtas a n-aigne do shocrú mar gheall ar conas a leanfaidh siad den chabhair ata a thabhairt do na huachtarlanna. Bheadh sé suimiúil a chloisint ón Aire cé mhéid airgid ó chiste an Stáit a caitheadh ón mblian 1932 go dti an la indiu chun cabhair do thabhairt do na huachtarlanna, agus ce mheid a tugadh doibh i slite eile o na daoine a itheann an t-im, cur i gcás. Is mó moladh a fuaramar i rith na díospóireachta—molta fónta agus molta ciallmhara, cuid aca, ach bhí níos mó áiféise ná ciall i gcainnt Teachtaí áirithe. Labhartar níos mó áiféise sa díospóireacht ar an Meastachán so ná ar Mheastachán ar bith eile.

Tá £800,000 á chur i leataoibh an bhliain seo chughainn chun cabhru leis na huachtarlanna agus chun praghas an ime do choimead sios. Chuala me an Teachta Diolúin ag cainnt iné agus bhi se a ra gurb e leas agus aon-dochas na bfeirmeoirí atá ag plé leis na huachtarlanna agus ceist an bhainne beith ag bráth ar mhargadh Shasana. Cad a bheadh le fáil ag na feirmeoirí da mbeidis ag brath ar an margadh sin iniu? Ní bheadh le fáil aca ach 5½d. an galún. Ta 1/- le fáil aca fé láthair agus beidh 10½d. aca i rith cuid eile den bhliain. Chó fada agus is féidir liomsa fháil amach—agus bím ag cainnt le feirmeoirí—níl siad míshásta leis an bpraghas sin. Ba mhaith leo nios mo bheith a fhail aca —ba mhaith leo an scilling bheith aca —ach ta an chuid is mo de na feirmeoirí réasúnta. Tuigeann siad na deachrachtaí agus chó hacrannach agus atá an scéal. Ní daoine mí-réasúnta iad mar gheall ar phraghas an bhainne. Tuigeann siad go bhfuil praghas réasúnta aca fé láthair ach ba mhaith liom a fhaíl amach ón Aire, maidir leis an gceist seo ar fad, cad tá ina aigne, no in aigne an Rialtais i dtaobh an ama atá le teacht. Dar liomsa, ni he an rud a bhi in aigne an Teachta Diolúin no in aigne na dTeachtai eile a bhi ag cainnt mar gheall ar mhargadh Shasana.

Muna bhfuighidh na feirmeoiri luach a saothair ar an margadh sin, ta se cho maith againn an margadh sin de chur as ár gceann ar fad. Má tá sé socair againn leanuint de chabhair a thabhairt don tionscail seo-agus caithfear é do choimeád ann óir, mar adubhairt an cainnteoir romham, mara mbeadh an déiríocht agus na huachtarlanna, ni bheadh aon beithigh sheasea againn sa tir, agus ni folair duinn e do choimeád ar siúl—ba cheart an scéal do scrúdú chun a fheictál an féidir le brainnse eile den fheirmeoireacht teacht i geabhair chun na déiríochta do choimeád ar a bonaibh agus go mbeadh an stoc seasc ag cabhrú léi feasta, agus gan a bheith ag brath ar chiste an Stáit agus ar na daoine a chaitheann an t-im. Ba mhaith liom a chloisint ón Aire, más féidir leis é do rá, cad tá ina aigne maidir leis an am atá le teacht.

Moltar dúinn i bhfógra tairsginte atá ag an Teachta O hAodha, an Teachta Beinéid agus Teachtaí eile, rogha-choiste do chur ar bun chun an cheist do scrúdú. Sin sean-chleas, agus ní chreidim go dtiocfadh aon mhaitheas as a leithéid de choiste agus ní bheinn i bhfábhar coiste dá leithéid do chur ar bun. Mholfainn don Aire, má tá faoi aon choiste a chur ar bun coiste de dhaoine go bhfuil dlúth-bhaint aca le cúrsaí na n-uachtarlann. Béidir go mbeadh siad i ndon an scéal do scrúdú go macánta agus go díreach agus moltaí ciallmhara, fónta do chur os cóir an Rialtais. Mar adeirim, ní dóigh liom go dtiocfadh aon mhaitheas as an gcoiste a moltar sa bhfógra tairsginte sin, agus ní thabharfainn vóta ar a shon. Má tá socair ag an Rialtas leanúint den chabhair airgeadais a tugadh ón mblian 1932 go dtí seo do na huachtarlanna, sílim go mba cheart an t-airgead do chaitheamh i slí eile ar fad as so amach. Deirtear linn go bhfuil a lán droch-bha ag na feirmeoirí go bhfuil baint aca leis na huachtarlanna. Ba cheart cabhair do thabhairt do na feirmeoirí chun ba nios fearr fháil dóibh féin, chun tithe nios fearr do sholáthair do na buaibh agus chun feabhas do chur ar gach rud a bhaineas leis an déiríocht. Ba cheart cuid den airgead a cuirfear i leataoibh, chun cabhrú leis an tionscail, do chaitheamh ar an slí sin.

Bhí cur síos anso mar gheall ar easba sclábhaithe fé láthair. Tá sé sin fíor—tá an t-easba sin ann. Bhí sé ann anuraidh, agus an bhliain roimhe sin agus tá sé ag dul in olcas in aghaidh na bliana. Na daoine óga fén dtuaith, bfearr leo obair eile agus ní maith leo bheith ag obair ar an dtalamh, má bhíonn aon obair eile le fáil. Tá cuis éigin leis sin. Níl fhios agam cad é an cúis é ach caithfear an scéal sin do scrúdú leis chun a fháil amach an féidir é d'fheabhsú, mar is cuma conus tá an scéal mar gheall ar líon na mbó, muna bhfuil na daoine ann chun iad do chrúdh, tuitfidh an déiríocht as a chéile ar fad. Is ceist í go bhfuil baint níos mó aici leis na feirmeoirí agus na sclábhaithe ná leis an Rialtas agus ba cheart í do scrúdú eatorra féin. Is ceist í go gcaithfear aghaidh a thabhairt uirthi agus aghaidh a thabhairt uirthi go macánta. Ní mar sin a deintear sa Tigh seo.

Is mó rud eile d'fhéadfainn a rá sa díospóireacht seo. D'éisteas go cruinn leis an gcainnt agus leis an gcomhairle a fuair an tAire ó gach taobh den Tigh. Fuair sé a lán comhairle ón Teachta Diolun iné agus dubhairt an Teachta sin gur fáidh é féin—gur thug sé an chomhairle seo agus an chomhairle úd blianta ó shoin agus go raibh glactha ag an Rialtas leis an gcomhairle a thug sé. Is mó comhairle a thug an Teachta sin sa Tigh seo mar gheall ar chúrsaí cuireadóireachta, mar gheall ar chúrsaí talmhaíochta, mar gheall ar chúrsaí intíre agus cúrsaí eachtracha. Go bhfóiridh Dia orainn—is bocht a bheadh an scéal againn da nglacaimís le comhairle an Teachta Diolún. Ní bheadh an scéal mar atá anois. Bheadh ocras orainn agus béidir an Teachta ar crocadh as lampa sráide éigin. Dar liomsa, níor cheart don Aire puinn suime do chur ina chomhairle sin no i gcomhairle cuid de na Teachtaí eile.

Ba mhaith liom a fháil amach ón Aire cad tá ina aigne mar gheall ar chúrsaí déiríochta feasta. Ba mhaith liom go mór go gcuirfí deire leis an rí-rá agus an clampar a bhí ar siúl in aghaidh na bliana mar gheall ar phragas an bhainne agus caithfidh an tAire a aghaidh a thabhairt ar an scéal sin, mar faid a bhéas sé ar siúl, ní bheidh an gnó dá dhéanamh i gceart ins na huachtarlanna ná imease na ndaoine a bhfuil baint aca le déiríocht. Tá dream áirithe a bhíos ag séideadh fútha i gcomhnaí agus ag tabhairt droch-chomhaile dhóibh. Dá luaithe dhéanfaidh an tAire an scéal sin do scrúdú is amhlaidh is fearr do gach éinne é.

Mr. O'Leary

We have listened to this debate for several days and from all sides of the House we have had complaints. But, so far as the Labour representatives are concerned, I think we have most to complain of. The farmers are complaining all the time. I come from the model county—Wexford—where the farmers have given a lead to all other counties. If all the other counties did as Wexford is doing there would be no need for appealing over the wireless for an increase in food production. Deputies complain of the policy of the Minister. The fact that the Minister headed the poll in Wexford is an answer to people who are condemning his policy. Things are not as bad as they make out. Farmers cannot be as badly off as some farmers' representatives make out, because when a son or a daughter is getting married they can give them a present of £500 or £1,000. Deputy Cole last week said that farm labourers were better off than bank clerks. When a farm labourer comes home on a Saturday night, after working long hours, with £1 19s. 6d. to keep his family for a week, is that man not one of the worst paid men in the State? The Deputy also said that the labourers are brought in on a wet day. Deputy Cole perhaps can do that, because he comes up here and draws his salary, but the majority of the small farmers have not the income of Deputies to pay labourers £2 a week and bring them in out of the wet. He also said that farm labourers have free houses and other things free. If you go along a country road you will see the poor man's goat tied up at the side of the ditch and his donkey grazing somewhere else. They would not even give him grass for these animals, the land is so valuable.

We are looking for additional half-acres for the occupants of labourers' cottages and we have over 600 applications for them. But a compulsory purchase Order has to be made to take that land from the farmer in order to give it to the labourers. Yet we hear them talking about all the good things they are giving to the labourers. Other Deputies said they have no one to milk the cows. I do not believe that. If the men have gone away, surely the women have not gone away. People who can afford it are buying machinery to milk cows in order to do away with the people who used to milk them. Then, servant girls are treated like slaves. They are feeding chickens and pigs and calves and fattening turkeys, and what do they get? They get £1 a month or 5/- a week.

Mr. Cole

Nonsense.

Mr. O'Leary

Some of them less.

Mr. Cole

Where?

Mr. O'Leary

All over the country.

Mr. Cole

No such thing.

Mr. O'Leary

It is true. You need not tell me anything about them, because all belonging to me live in the country; all my friends are poor people living in the country and I know what they get perhaps better than Deputy Cole. There is one matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister which is causing great hardship to poor people, and that is the shortage of buttermilk. The regulations introduced have put out of existence the small dairy people from whom we could get buttermilk. People now have to scour the country and go from farmer's house to farmer's house to get a small quantity of buttermilk to make cakes. That is all due to the regulations. A monopoly was given to the big dairymen and the small dairymen were put out of existence. I suppose farmer Deputies will say that is not true, but it is true. Farmers have a guaranteed price this year of 50/- a barrel for wheat and they are to get an additional 2/6 for the provision of manure. The farmer, therefore, is getting a dole, because he is getting that 2/6. He gets free sacks from the miller—we heard nothing about that—and, in some places, free haulage. He has not to go into town with his horse and cart. The miller comes to the farmyard and brings in the wheat. All the farmer has to do when he gets the cheque is to put it into the bank. There is not a "bob" spent in the towns or anywhere else.

We hear a lot about the provision of plots. I looked for a plot a couple of years ago when I was employed in the flour mill, when we were told that workers could get plots as well as the unemployed. At that time the council wanted 17/- for one-eighth of an acre. The farmers are now looking for £10 per acre for land for plots for the unemployed. In Enniscorthy we pay them £7 per acre for plots for the unemployed, land is so valuable. Yet we hear them crying out that the land does not pay. Deputy Cole said that there were fellows standing at the corners waiting to hear the winner of the last race. That is a poor argument for Deputy Cole or any other Deputy to use. He will probably be at the "dogs" in Shelbourne Park to-night, because he has a £1 to put on. I like men to be fair and honest. Deputies who say that the farm labourer is the best paid man in the country, that he is better off than the bank clerk, are not speaking honestly. I was coming up in the train last week with a young man whom I thought might be going to the bogs to cut turf. When I asked him where he was going he said he was going to the North. He told me he had been driving a tractor and that all he got on a Saturday night was 21/- to support his wife and family of eight. He said: "I had better sacrifice my own life than sacrifice their lives."

Who owns all the money in the banks? It does not all belong to business men. A lot of it must belong to the farmers. Some time ago I saw it stated that the biggest portion of the money in the banks belonged to the farmers. Deputies talk a lot about the unemployed. I think they are not talking honestly. If the farmers in this House put into practice what they are preaching here and stayed at home and worked the land as they say it should be worked, they would be doing a better service to the nation than coming here and talking for hours about what should be done. Why do they not do it themselves? Why do they not put into practice what they think should be done? Another Deputy referred to rabbits. I remember when every farmer in the country considered that rabbits were a pest. I remember when farmers were worried because the woodquest were eating the cabbage and oats. Now, when the unemployed lads are killing rabbits and when rabbits have become a great industry in this country it will not do either. The price of woodquest is now 5/- a piece and it does not suit the farmers that the young fellows who go out at night to get them are becoming so well off. I think we should be glad that these poor fellows have something by which to get a living when the farmers will not employ them. I know that the majority of small farmers are badly off and, if possible, the Minister should do something to subsidise the farmers so that they will be in a position to pay men to work.

Since I came in here I have heard nothing but complaints from the three sides of the House about agriculture. They are all the time condemning the policy. In 1933 when I was attending a flour-milling conference in Bagenalstown I met a Minister of this House and he said, "This country cannot grow wheat." I wonder what that man would say to-day. Of course, he is not in the House now. We had silos built all over the country to hold the wheat, and when they were building the silo in Enniscorthy the Civic Guards had to be brought out to queue up the men who were seeking work from the contractor. Yet we have people saying that the men will not work and are content to stand at the corner. Anyone who says that, is not telling the truth. Thousands of Irishmen have left the country to get work, in places that people would give anything to get out of where there are bombs dropping and houses falling. It is not right to say that men will not work in this country. They prefer to work than to be on the dole because the dole is only a miserable existence. In my area the dole consists of 14/- for an urban worker with a family. Are not the farmers getting a dole in another form? Is not the half-crown voucher for artificial manures a dole? Their guaranteed price for wheat next year is 55/-. I put down a question asking for an increase of wages for the agricultural worker and the Minister replied that he had no function in the matter. He has a function in guaranteeing the price for the farmer, but he has no function in guaranteeing wages to the worker.

Deputy Cole said that if he were Head of the State he would employ every man in the country, not at a top wage but at a reasonable wage. I wonder what Deputy Cole means by a reasonable wage when the top wage is now £2 a week. I should like if the Minister, during this emergency, would remove some of the regulations that are at present hampering the poor people and the small farmer in the matter of buttermilk. The poor people are very badly handicapped when they cannot get buttermilk. They have to buy shop bread, which is dearer than the home-made cake, and the home-made cake is more substantial, particularly when it is made with milk.

Thousands of farm labourers in the Twenty-Six Counties will get no benefit under the Children's Allowances Scheme. A man with two children under 16 and two children over 16 will get nothing. There will be thousands of farm labourers in that position. I hope the Minister will reply to my representations in regard to the small dairyman and those who have a few cattle, who reared their families by selling small quantities of new milk, and who are now put out of business. No one has reaped any benefit from that except the big dairy man, the big monopoly. As far as I see, when any essential commodities go up, the price of milk goes up. The farm labourer must get an increase in his wages. If he is a single man he is not so badly off. On Saturday night he will have 21/- and he will receive his food. Where the married man is concerned and where he is getting his food, he has only 21/- at the end of the week and 6d. is deducted from that for his insurance.

Mr. O'Donovan

This debate has dragged on to a considerable length. I think it is right that there should be a lengthy discussion on this Estimate because I regard it as the most important Estimate in the whole book, dealing with the agricultural industry, on the development and proper working of which the whole life of this State depends at the present time. When one considers the table in the Book of Estimates, giving figures for the years from 1935-36 to 1944-45, and when one finds that the amount of the Estimates for 1944-45 is practically double what it was in 1935-36, one wonders whether the increase is justified in view of what has happened and what is happening, and one wonders how this Department has been worked in that period of time. I wonder is the Minister satisfied that this huge sum is necessary, I wonder how he is doing his job. This huge sum is asked for in face of a muddle that started before the war and is still continuing, in which we have a scarcity of milk, butter, bacon and eggs, a scarcity of almost everything that is required for human consumption in the country. Surely, if the Minister and his Department were doing their work, one would expect, having regard to the continuous advance year after year in the amount of the Estimate until it is double now what it was in 1935-6, results other than the results that have been obtained. I am not finding fault with the amount of this Estimate. If we were getting value, I think the Estimate should be a lot more but I am afraid we are not getting value. That is the fault I find with it and I am glad that this motion has been put down by Deputy Hughes to refer back the Estimate for reconsideration.

The present price of milk and the scarcity of butter have been referred. to by practically every Deputy who has spoken. I think nearly every Deputy in this House has agreed that the primary producer of milk, the farmer, is entitled to the cost of production, and also to some little profit which will enable him to keep going. This demand for an increased price has been going on for a considerable time. The farmers of this country are anxious to produce as much milk as possible. They are anxious to increase their production, but they are anxious also to get a reasonable price for their milk. Week after week, and month after month, demands have been made by farmers, by creamery societies, by managers of co-operative and proprietary creameries. They all say that the cost of production is not covered by the present price. When the demand of a body like the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is turned down, surely there must be something wrong with the mentality of the Minister and his Department? The only way of dealing with the problem would be to have a committee of inquiry set up by the Minister. Deputy O Briain is opposed to the establishment of such a committee, but I hold that that is the only way to find out whether the demands of the milk producers, of the co-operative creameries, and of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society are right, or whether the Minister is right in keeping to his fixed price. The Department should have done that while they were dawdling for the past five or six years. The farmers have been looking for a price that will cover the cost of production, and no attempt has been made to arrive at the cost of production.

I may be asked: Why cannot the farmers do it themselves? We have sufficient to do on the land at the moment. I believe that, if the farmers, situated as they are at the present time, went into costings, took down every item of expenditure from Monday morning until Saturday night, and then totted their accounts at the end of the year, we would have most of the farmers in the mental homes, or committing suicide. It is the duty of the Department to take costings, in order to find out the price at which milk or butter can be sold. If they had done that several years ago we would not have had the muddle we have at the moment. We would not have the present crisis, and a crisis it is in the history of the country, because a situation might easily arise when we will not have milk or butter. The position with regard to milk is not going to improve—I want to impress that on the Minister and his Department—because for the next ten years at least we will have to continue to increase the production of food on the land. The land is not improving in quality. It is deteriorating. In order to produce wheat and beet we will have to go on to the best patches of the land, and the cattle will have to go on to the poorer areas. That has been happening for years back, with the result that there is a decrease in the quantity of milk produced on every farm, and there is no use in blaming the cow-testing associations or anybody else. That is the natural result of putting the best of the land under tillage and leaving only the poorer pasture to the cattle. Under those conditions, the farmers will find it impossible to continue in milk production if the Minister will not ascertain the costings immediately or set up a committee to see what should be done. If the demand of the agricultural community for an increased price is a fair one, that increase should be granted. I hold that it is a fair and reasonable demand.

Again, I think there has been no planning with regard to wheat production. On this Estimate last year, I think I suggested that we cannot produce enough wheat to meet the needs of our population unless there is regional planning. There is no use in sowing wheat on unsuitable land. There is no use in putting 20 stone of wheat into an acre of land from which you will reap only 20 stone or less. Even if you produce three or four barrels, it is senseless to attempt to grow wheat on that type of land. I advocated compulsory wheat growing, but with compulsory wheat growing we should also have a proper system of planning. I speak for an area where we have been growing wheat for generation after generation. My father and grandfather and the fathers and grandfathers of everybody along our seaboard grew wheat. We have gone in intensively for wheat growing in order to meet the present demand, but I can tell the Minister that, owing to the impoverishment of the soil through the lack of artificial manures and the insufficient supply of farmyard manure, we will very soon have to go out of wheat production. I hold that wheat should be intensively grown in areas which have not been producing it up to the present.

Deputy O Briain told us that if we had been depending on Deputy Dillon's plan we would be starving at the moment. I frequently go down through Kildare and Carlow, where they went in for extensive wheat production immediately wheat became a patriotic crop. In those areas which went in for intensive wheat growing at that time, instead of a crop of wheat you will now see a crop of wild poppies; there is no sign of wheat. That is the surest indication of impoverishment of the land. Those places cannot continue to grow wheat—places which have grown wheat, and grown it well, since Fianna Fáil started the wheat campaign. I have never been opposed to wheat growing, within reason, but now, owing to intensive production, those fertile plains will not be able to continue to produce wheat. In those critical years, that area will have to go out of production. Then you will have to go into the fields of Meath, which are not fit for wheat growing and where they have no machinery to handle the crop, or you will have to go down to the Golden Vale of Limerick, where they were milk producing and where they have no tradition of tillage. You will have to depend on people on those lands who have no machinery, or no tradition of tillage, people who are not able to plough the land properly, who would not be able to sow the crops and who do not know when the land is fit to receive the seed. As I say, they have no tradition of tillage, but I am afraid we shall have to go back to those areas, and if the people there are not able to do the tillage, we shall have to get in men who have a tradition of tillage, and get them to produce wheat because I fear that the lands that have been growing wheat intensively for the past ten or 12 years will have to go out of production.

As to the price paid for wheat, it was fixed at 50/- last year but I think that was a fictitious price because wheat in order to fetch that price had to bushel 57 lb. As a consequence very little wheat reached the 50/- mark last year. The price was much nearer 40/- in many cases in my own district where we always grew good wheat. I have no fault to find with the price of 55/- fixed for this year but last year was a bad season and, as I say, the price of 50/- was a fictitious price. The same remarks hold good with regard to beet. Beet is one of our essential crops; we must produce beet in order to get sugar. There have been demands from all over the beet growing counties for an increased price for beet. I as a big grower, am satisfied with £4 per ton for beet. I think it is a good price and with a reasonable return I shall be very well pleased with it, but what I do object to, and what I am not satisfied with is that the Minister has fixed that price only for beet with a sugar content of 17.5 per cent. The Department, even during the Minister's time, when they realised that beet factories and beet growing were not white elephants, advised us, who had been growing beet, that in order to produce a good crop of beet, we should first give a liberal dressing of farmyard manure and, along with that, a liberal dressing of compound manure as the crop required nitrogen, phosphates and potash. That dressing, we were told, should amount to about 10 cwts. to the statute acre. Now, the same Department tell us that we can produce a crop of beet with a sugar content of 17.5, with three or four cwt. of artificial manure to the acre and farmyard manure that is not as good as such manure was in the days when we had good feeding to give to our cattle.

Were the Department, when they told us that we should put 10 cwt. of artificial manures to the acre, more interested in the manufacture of manure than they were in the farmers? At the present time, with 4 cwt. of artificials, I am growing as good a crop of beet as ever I did, but I am not getting the same sugar content from it. I find no fault with the price of £4 per ton if the Minister would get the sugar company to give that price for beet with a sugar content of 15.5 and let us have the usual percentage increase in addition. I feel that that would be an increased incentive to production. I think it would meet the demand of the beet growers who cannot under present conditions, when they are unable to get sufficient potash or sulphate of ammonia to start the crop, produce beet with a higher sugar content. In the absence of these artificials, only people who have the advantage of sea sand and seaweed can hope to grow beet with a high percentage of sugar content. Very few growers can produce beet that would reach 17.5 per cent. sugar content, so that £4 in that case is again a fictitious price. I recommend strongly to the Minister that, if he wants to have an adequate production of beet in the country, he must bring the standard prescribed by the sugar company down to the level of the average beet crop. I hold that by starting with a price of £4 per ton for beet with a percentage of 15.5 sugar content, a great incentive would be given to farmers to produce beet.

I come now to a question that I have raised several times before in this House, but I do not think that the Department or the Minister has ever given it any consideration. I refer to the question of providing sea-sand and seaweed. As I have told the House on many occasions, this seaweed is available along our seaboard. We have 70,000 unemployed in this country, but the men engaged on the land at the moment are not able to get out to harvest the seaweed. Sometimes we have storms which bring it into the harbours and the strands, but we have not had a storm this year. I have not had a load of seaweed this year to put on my land, neither has any of my neighbours. The seaweed is there to be gathered. Why not get the unemployed men who are looking for work to go out and gather the seaweed? The men would be glad to get work of that kind. The boats are there. Let them go out, let the seaweed be cut and brought in. Due to the value of that seaweed, as good a wage could be paid as Goulding is paying in his factory for the production of the phosphate manure we are getting.

The same applies to sand. Ordinary sea sand is available from many strands along our southern seaboard, but there is another sand to which I desire to call the Minister's attention. I refer to the dredged sand from Glandore Harbour in Bantry Bay. It would be unfair to ask the Department to take the whole responsibility on their shoulders of recovering that sand, but the people around Bantry know the value of this dredged sand. There is only one dredger working there at the moment. If the Minister would send down one of his many inspectors to interview the farmers in the Bantry area, I am sure they would be interested in getting a dredger or a couple of dredgers to dredge that sand, which is lying at the bottom of the harbour at Bantry and Glandore. Judging by the information I have from farmers in that area who have used that sand, it is very valuable. I myself know the lovely pasture which is produced where that sand has been used. It produces excellent cereals and roots. Wherever a field has been dressed with this dredged sand—only a very small quantity is required—your attention is attracted by the verdant appearance of that field. Since that sand has been so valuable an asset to the people in that district, steps should be taken to dredge it out in greater quantities, dry it on the quays in Bantry and Castletownbere, bag it and send it throughout the country. If necessary, extra piers should be erected to facilitate operations. I am satisfied that that sand would give as good results as the stuff for which we are paying Messrs. Goulding £14 a ton and which, with the subsidy, is probably costing £20 a ton. The sand is there for the taking and why not take it?

Farmers are willing to produce as much as they possibly can, but one of their great problems will be that of labour. We have a very fine type of worker on the land—a worker with a tradition of honesty, goodness, ability to do his work, willingness to be present at all hours of the day, to work late, if necessary, without seeking for overtime and with as much interest as the farmer himself in the production of the crops. We have a very fine type of farm worker, indeed. I believe we could get another excellent type if we could give him the experience on the land. Work on the land is fine work, healthy work, grand work. It provides open-air exercise; you may get blisters on your hands but they will not do you any harm; you may sweat a bit but that will do you good; you may be tired but you will sleep all the better at night. we have 70,000 unemployed men and, if we could get some of those out on the land, it would be a good thing. Most of our farmers are small farmers. We have not many of the 300-500 acre men. The man of 50 or 60 acres may want extra help. He may not be in a position to pay the standard wage and the man available may not be worth the standard wage until trained for his job. What is against the employment of such a man is the working of the Agricultural Wages Board. Under the regulations of the Agricultural Wages Board, there is no difference between one man and another. There should be two or three grades of workers. The fine type we have could never be paid sufficiently. I wish we could afford to pay such men double the amount we are paying.

A man may come to a farmer who is not able to do the four essentials— plough and sow, reap and mow. He is able to do only odd jobs and both he and the farmer know that he is not worth the standard wages. They may agree upon a certain figure—15/- or 12/- with board. After working for a spell with the farmer, there is some disagreement. Some prime boy tells this worker that he can recover full wages for his six or 12 months with the farmer in question. I have read of cases in the courts in which such decrees were given and I know of people who paid up rather than go into court. I should like to see the Agricultural Wages Act amended so as to provide for graded labour. Grade it up, if you wish. If you grade our prices up, let the wages of the labourer be graded up, too. Give the class A man as much as you can. He is worth all that production from the land can afford to give him. But the other type of worker is not so fully competent. He might not be able to milk or plough. He might be able to clean out outhouses or to put in seed. The ordinary farm labourer must be more skilled than any other class of worker. That is necessitated by the nature of his calling. If the Agricultural Wages Act were amended, a situation of the sort I have described could be met. We have hundreds of farmers who would be prepared to take on such men and to treat them decently. As they added to their competency, they would become entitled to one of the standard rates of wage—and that would not take long. Out of those 70,000 unemployed, I am sure that we could get 35,000 who, after six months' training, would be reasonably competent.

I do not know how we can get over the shortage of manure except, as I suggested, by using dredged sand. That would develop a new industry. I am sure that the farmers or business people, or a combination of both, in Bantry and Glandore would be willing to establish a company to set this industry going. It is not an industry that would end with the war. This work has been carried on for generations and, when people would realise the value of this sand, they would be glad to continue its use. The formation of such a company would be the greatest help to production in the future. At the outbreak of the war, I suggested the utilisation of the liquid manure which is going to waste from the sewerage of the towns and cities. I referred then to the Continental system whereby a big reservoir is built for its reception. We could have something like that done here if the Department or the Minister was not so sluggish or had any desire to help us out. Here is manure which other countries have found to be of value passing into the rivers and the sea. We have the cement to build the reservoirs. If this manure were reserved in reservoirs for the farmers in each area, they could haul it out. In the big cities on the Continent they haul it miles into the country and are glad to pay a nice price for it. The time may come here when we shall be glad to pay a nice price for it, too, but the Minister has taken no notice of any suggestions of that sort. Money is spent on foolish things, but no money is spent on helpful things of that sort.

I have often dealt before with flax production and the Flax Development Board. I do not see any reference to the Flax Development Board in the Estimate, and I wonder what they are doing. They get money from outside sources and they gave grants last year to individuals and co-operative societies for the erection of scutch mills. There is nothing wrong with that. The flax industry is one of the largest industries in some of our counties. It gives a high financial return and it absorbs a great deal of labour. One acre of flax will give employment to four hands all the year round. I wonder what the Flax Development Board have been doing since these grants were made. There is room for development in the industry and I should like to know what are now the functions of the Flax Development Board.

There is nothing in this year's Estimate except £170 for loans to scutch mills. Is that only being given by way of an ornament? If so, then the sooner these mills are dismantled the better, but I do think that something should be done, in this regard. I do not know whether any of the three persons concerned have had any practical experience of flax cultivation or of the different processes through which it goes. I do not think that any of them would have any experience of it, but I do think that when the Minister was appointing the Flax Development Board he should have put on it one representative of the flax growers and one representative of the scutch millers, because then we would have a representative board at least. You would have one man on the board who would know the first end of the various processes: that is, the growing end; and you would have, as a representative on that board, the other man, representing the finishing end of the flax until it goes up to the North to be handled after it is scutched. The present Flax Development Board, to my mind, is all wrong. Last year, the Minister made an Order fixing the price to be charged by the mill owners for flax scutching. I commend his action in that matter. He was right to do so. I do not think that the price he fixed was unreasonable at all, because the man who goes to work in a scutch mill is doing a highly skilled job. I admit that he does not have to work in all kinds of weather and that he is in good enough surroundings, but the job he has to do is a highly technical one, and I hold that that man is entitled to a decent wage, and the man who had the initiative to put up the mill is also entitled to his profit. Accordingly, I find no fault with the price that was fixed, but I do find fault with the fact that there is no discrimination made between a good mill and a bad mill, and there is often a very big difference between good scutching and bad scutching and between the production of a competent scutcher and an incompetent one.

I think that, in the first place, when the Minister fixed the price for scutching, he should also have had regard to the various types of scutch mills that would be carrying out that work. The difference between the production of one mill and another was proved by experience in this country some years ago, before this country was divided. A gentleman in the North of Ireland, by the name of John Stewart, carried out experiments on the setting up of a scutch mill. At that time, the Department was sending deputations of scutch-mill owners and others to see how that work was being done on the Continent—principally, in Belgium. As a result of the visits of these deputations to the Continent, it was decided to erect a scutching mill on Continental lines, altogether different from the scutch mills that we had here. Accordingly, a scutching mill, on Continental lines, was set up in the North of Ireland in competition with the mill that had been set up by Mr. Stewart, and in two years they found that the Belgian mill that had been set up here in competition with Mr. Stewart's mill did not work so well here as it had in Belgium. It was found, by experience, that the work that was being done in Mr. Stewart's mill, and in many other mills in the country, was much better, because there was a competent foreman there who knew how the work should be done, how to regulate the speed of the machines, and so on. You will never have uniformity when it comes to a question of the steeping of flax in this country. It is different in Belgium and other countries on the Continent, where all the flax comes out in a uniform condition; but here, in this country, you may have 20 different types of soil in one parish, and even 15 or 20 different kinds of water. These factors must have a determining influence on the quality or grade of flax that comes from these soils. It is essential, therefore, that the manager or foreman of the scutch mill must know the different types or qualities of the flax that he gets, and must be able to regulate his machines accordingly.

I hold that you should insist on every mill owner having a competent manager or foreman who has been trained and got experience of this standard type of mill which, after 30 or 40 years, has proved to be the type of mill which will give most satisfaction to the growers; and that in fixing a price for the scutching of flax, the growers of the flax should also get some facilities, so that the foreman of the mill will be able to set his machine to the standard that has been found to be correct by wiser and better judges of flax and of scutch mills than anyone that I know of at the moment. I should like to see something being done by the Minister with a view to having a standardised mill in every part of the country, because I am quite satisfied that you would get much better results if you had proper timing and proper handling and setting of the machines.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer, and which I think demands particular attention from the Minister. Everybody remembers that last year was a year in which weeds grew to an alarming extent in this country. I do not think that anybody remembers having seen weeds growing to such an extent as they grew last year. It must also be remembered that, within the memory of anybody in this House at any rate, there was never such a harvest grown in this country as we had last year, although we had a scarcity of labour and very bad weather conditions; but at the very time when we, in the country, were stuck up to our eyes in work, trying to save the harvest, we were being harassed by the Civic Guards for not cutting our weeds. I, myself, had to cut weeds twice last year, and I was warned that I would have to cut them a third time. However, I did not do anything about that, for the simple reason that I could not do anything about it, and although I was warned I was not summoned before the court. Last year, as I say, at the particular time when the farmers of this country were busiest, they were being harassed by the Gárdaí because they had not cut their weeds. They were taken away from essential work in order to attend court over such matters. I was never so mad in my life. In my opinion, those farmers, particularly in this time of emergency, should have been allowed to go ahead with the work of saving the harvest, and let the weeds go to hell, instead of bringing them into court at a time when they were particularly busy, and fining them a couple of shillings, plus 1/6 expenses, when they should have been attending to the essential needs of the country. That is what happened last year, and I hope to the Lord that it will not happen this year.

We, who are engaged on the land, are as anxious as anybody in the country to keep down weeds, because it is in our own interests to do so, but I say that that was the wrong time to be harassing the farmers with regard to the cutting of weeds last year. As I have said, I hope that it will not occur again this year, and I also hope that, instead of harassing the farmers, the members of the Gárdá Síochána and everybody else who may be available will be sent out to help us to save the harvest.

Mr. A. Byrne (Junior)

In introducing his Estimate, the Minister stated that more must be spent on the eradication of live-stock diseases. It has been represented to me by persons whose opinions I respect in matters of this sort, that the inducements held out to live-stock owners to destroy or surrender diseased cattle are inadequate, and we know the consequences. I will not go into further detail about that, but I should like the Minister to look into it. I should like to know whether he has had representations about the matter. I know that under sub-head M (2)—Boyine Tuberculosis— the amount has been reduced this year rather than increased, and I wonder if that is a fair estimate.

I also suggest to the Minister that when we had a shortage of potatoes in Dublin last year, the distribution was very unfair. He has promised us, or indicated to us, that he does not expect any similar shortage this year; but he does not seem to be so sure of himself, because he has announced his intention to set up a board similar to the one operating last year, and I want to represent to him that that board ought to include representatives of retailers and consumers. In the last shortage, very many retailers who formerly dealt directly with country suppliers were left without potatoes for long periods. Undue delays occurred in sending as little as a bag of potatoes to some of the smaller shops catering for the working classes in East Wall Road, Church Road, Pearse Street and Dorset Street, and other districts. I got several complaints last year—so many that at one time I thought the Minister had appointed me as the Potato Marketing Board.

I would ask him, if there is going to be a shortage of potatoes, to see that the job of distribution is properly done. In matters of this sort, a fairly well-done job is not good enough. The Potato Marketing Board did a fairly good job, I will admit, but to be satisfactory, the job must be done perfectly and the Minister should see that not one family in Dublin would be left without potatoes for as much as one day.

There has been a good deal of talk during this debate as to whether or not the farmers are well off, or as better off as they were before the emergency, or as they were 20 or 30 or even 100 years ago. I want to say to the House that there is a growing opinion in Dublin City—I am not saying that it is a considered opinion —that some body of farmers, and probably of other persons as well, but the farmers are included, are exploting the present position of shortage and we cannot altogether blame these people for thinking it, whether it is true or not. I feel deeply confused about the whole thing. For seven years, I have been listening to debates on agriculture, and I cannot quite make up my mind what exactly is the position of the farmer. Sometimes I hear them here grumbling about the prices of commodities from A to G and outside the House I hear the same members rubbing their hands and clapping each other on the back about the great prices for commodities from G to Z.

There is a grave danger in the growth of this opinion in Dublin City and there is a feeling that there ought to be no more increases in the prices of foodstuffs, that no more increases should be granted without absolutely clear proof of their necessity. The Dublin housewife doing her shopping in Moore Street or in Stoneybatter or some other place does not know what is going on in the country at all. All she knows is that every Saturday when she goes down to the shops the price of something or other has gone up since the previous week.

Mr. O'Donnell

Does she know that we are working 15 hours a day?

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

That is the point I want to get at, the point I want to be assured about. If the Irish housewife has to meet an increased price, she should know the cause of it, but these increases are clapped on suddenly without any notification and apparently without justification. If there has to be any further increase in the price of foodstuffs in future, the reasons ought to be given. Apart from that, it is not really relevant to agriculture, but if the retail prices of foodstuffs have to go up, because the prices to the producers have to go up, well then, the balance will have to be met by subsidies, or by some other means.

Mr. Maguire

The debate on this Vote has been probably one of the longest we have had for a considerable time in the House, and it is fully justified by the immensity of the issues involved in agriculture. The criticisms of the Department of Agriculture, while fairly general, would on the whole be fairly well met. I do not say it in any carping spirit but from the general discussion here, it does not appear that the agricultural industry is in any happy position. We have seen the demands made by the various interests of the farming community. These requests go to show that the farmers are not satisfied that they are getting sufficient out of the present prices. Anyone listening to this debate, in the position of Minister for Agriculture, would find that a great deal of his enthusiasm had abated. If all the suggestions were adopted, I have no doubt that persons engaged in agriculture would find themselves in a worse position than before. The demand for increased prices in the dairying industry and for general farm products has my sympathy, but I wonder if these increases were given would the results be any better? I do not think so. The solution of our problems in agriculture rests wholly in a general reorganisation of production. Every effort must be made in that direction. That must be organised by the State, so that there will be increased production of every kind on every acre. That is the only solution. It is not a question of an economic price for farmers. If the price that has to be fixed has to be paid for by the State in the form of a subsidy, that is an expedient that leads nowhere.

If money is going to be extracted by the State from the pockets of those who have it, in order to pay the farmer 2/- a gallon for milk, or to pay increased prices for the growing of wheat, beet or barley, does it not necessarily follow that the cost of living will go up? If workers have to pay more for boots, clothing and food supplies, must wages not be increased? Will not shopkeepers and other members of the community also have to get larger profits, so that at the end of the vicious circle things are no better? I consider that there is one solution of our difficulties, and that is to aim at maximum production. In that effort we should aim not at having unnecessary profits, but at providing food at the cheapest price possible for consumers, allowing a reasonable profit to farmers and to those working on the land. I hold that considerable improvement could be made by way of increasing dairy production and tillage. I have no respect for those who consistently demand increased prices as a solution for farmers' problems in dairying or otherwise, and who suggest that the Government should find the money out of increased taxation. That is no solution.

The provision of money for farmers is a matter of urgency, because they require machinery and other things. If for any reason they are short of money then their farms are, to a great extent, out of production. That is happening so generally on our farms that it can be regarded as commonplace. The land here has been divided into individual farms, but real ownership lies in the State. The State has not only that right but has always exercised the right of ownership. In times of emergency individual ownership ceases because farmers must do what the State considers best in the interests of the community. In that way farmers who are alleged to be owners of their land are nothing more than caretakers, and rightly so. As the farmer produces the food that the State in its wisdom considers necessary land must be utilised, not for the individual but for the needs of the State. That being so there should be no such thing as waste farms. These farms are the creations of corporations or mortgages on land upon which money was lent unwisely, and which those concerned are unable to recover. It is unjust and immoral to have land which could be producing commodities required by the community out of production because of bad judgment on the part of people who lent money.

Some system should be arranged whereby land, no matter how heavily mortgaged to outsiders, should still continue in production, because production is essential to meet the vital needs of the people. I am not offering any suggestion to the Minister as to how finance is to be found and made available to meet the reasonable requirements of individual farms. Undoubtedly, there is need for some provision so that land could be kept in production, whether annuities were in arrear or whether money was due to banks or other institutions.

I suggest that money should be provided for bog roads. The past four years have taught us that we can gauge the extent to which we are able, out of our resources, to provide for our needs. Many years ago, I read various reports by people who were regarded as experts, indicating that this country was capable of producing food to meet the requirements of millions more than its present population. The experience of the last four years has brought that reality much more closely before us. Yet, in spite of the efforts of the Government for some years to persuade farmers to produce more, and compulsion during the last four years, we found that there was a shortage of bread required for 3,000,000 people while we have definitely fallen down in the production of feeding stuffs for pigs, poultry, as well as in supplies of butter. The collapse of our butter and our pig industries is outstanding. That has drawn attention to a very important part of agricultural production. It seems now that our production in the way of dairying was dependent on imports of feeding stuffs. Without these we were unable to supply full rations for this community. Does the Department believe that we can increase food supplies to such an extent as to provide the whole requirements of our population, as well as increased production of butter and pigs, so that we may, to some extent, regain our export market?

Suppose it does not, then we must check up and say that our exports of butter are dependent on the possibility of our being able to import feeding stuffs; that an increase in the export of eggs, and important part of our farming economy, is dependent on the same source, and that the production of pigs, to the extent of the export market, is dependent on that source also. If that indicates the limit of our agricultural resources, then we are a much poorer community than we had ever believed we were. There is this aspect of our agricultural industry that is striling, that, despite the complete collapse of our exports in butter, the substantial reduction in our egg exports and the complete collapse in our export of pigs—the export of all three represented many million pounds pre-war—we are still able to export a substantial amount of agricultural products in the form of cattle. Are we to gauge this important matter in this way: that now that we have been thrown on our own resources the only exportable commodity we can continue to have as a real economic foundation is in our cattle? Therefore we are driven to realise that the export of cattle is a most important part of our agricultural production.

We are all perfectly well aware that the important thing is to produce our own requirements. That must be the first demand on the land in this State or on the land in any country where there is ordered Government. But, having failed to produce to the extent of our full human requirements, we still have an exportable surplus of cattle. That has enabled us to provide for certain deficiencies. If it were not for our cattle exports our people would have been hungry during the last four years, because without these exports we would not have been able to make purchases outside the country. These are lessons which I am sure will be of advantage to the Department of Agriculture when planning for the future, so far as one can anticipate what the future will be, and so far as outside markets are concerned.

My opinion is that it is impossible to meet our agricultural problems by increasing prices to various sections of the community: by artificial prices, by applying expedients, by State subsidies and by fixing prices which are not real. I believe that our agricultural industry requires to be organised from its foundations. I do not think that any successful planning in relation to it can be achieved by merely confining an investigation to agriculture alone. I am of opinion that any survey decided upon will have to include not only agriculture but every industrial occupation in the country, because agriculture must carry the burden of them all. Without it, human requirements in the form of food for our people, cannot be provided. Without agricultural exports purchases cannot be made outside the country. Every piece of machinery that we import for industial production is dependent on our agricultural exports. Therefore, in investigating this problem of agriculture anew every industry in the country will have to be examined to the extent that they are all dependent for the purchase of their machinery and raw materials on our agricultural exports.

I, like others, see the fight from the land that is taking place. People wonder why that is happening and why the rural population is declining. The Minister for Education happens to be in the House at the moment. He has to meet that problem every other day in the closing of schools, in the rural districts, due to low averages. People still wonder why this flight from the land is taking place. If conditions were right in the rural districts it would not be taking place. We are a virile race, our people are energetic, industrious and ambitious and, in the normal way, if conditions justified it, they would marry young and our schools would be provided with children. But the fact is that our people are no longer interested in the land. Probably that is not a correct statement to make. They are interested in the land; they are fond of the land, but they are being driven from the land by the conditions under which they are forced to live.

Speaking of the conditions in the West of Ireland, as I know them, I think that if one were honest about it, knowing the conditions under which farmers' children are being reared up, one would be almost tempted to say that farmers were guilty of a criminal act in bringing up children under such conditions. Those men have no living wage, they have to work very hard. They live under such conditions, with insufficient food and their surroundings are not happy. There is, however, a solution for the farming population, and that is to give them a fair reward for their work, to find some means by which the drudgery of farming can be, in some way, relieved; to give them normal working hours and a reasonable reward for their work so as to enable them to give their families a fairly decent living. That is all that is required, and that can be done by tackling this problem of agriculture radically. Find out the things that are economic to produce, and then encourage their production. So far as it is possible, step up production, because without that agriculture must dwindle. We cannot go on haphazardly as we are doing. I suggest that the method which I have outlined be applied to agriculture.

As conditions are, one section of agriculture falls down and the Government goes to its assistance and gives some sort of subsidy, some sort of artificial price to help it. Nothing is done with the other sections until they find themselves similarly in a derelict condition. I suggest that the whole industry be reorganised. Let us see what are the things that can most profitably be produced. Let us spend our money not in subsidies here and there to the farmers for this or that commodity, but in reorganising the industry on a sound basis. Let us take into consideration the extent to which industrial undertakings are dependent upon agriculture, let us give to agriculture its reasonable share, and let us ensure as far as it is possible to do so that the condition of those engaged in agricultural production, workers and farmers, is equal to that of the people engaged in industrial occupations. Given such conditions, agriculture will thrive and there will be no opportunities for pessimists to tell us that something has happened the new generation. Nothing has happened, and the people are as good as ever they were. They have been driven from the land by reason of the fact that they are not receiving a fair deal, that they are not treated as well as the workers in the shops and factories.

Mr. Beirne

I have been listening to this debate for a number of days, and, on the whole, I have found it a very interesting debate. It has been, no doubt, a protracted one, but I submit that any time spent discussing agricultural conditions is time profitably spent. We have arrived at the stage when we may well regard this great industry of ours, agriculture, as the predominant industry in this country. It is the foundation on which the commercial and business life of the nation is based, and all other industries, either directly or indirectly, fail or thrive as agricultural conditions vary. Out of our total population, fully 1,500,000 people are engaged on the land and are directly dependent on the land. The remainder of the population in normal times, but more especially at this time, has to depend largely on the land for its foodstuffs.

In the course of this debate, the one item of food which has been very much stressed is wheat. Wheat is undoubtedly the most essential of our foodstuffs. To produce wheat is, perhaps, not very difficult in some parts of the country. The land and climatic conditions favour it. In other parts of the country, however, efforts to grow wheat have not been so successful. I heard it suggested by several Deputies that the officials of the Minister's Department should make a survey in order to ascertain the lands that are suitable or unsuitable for the production of wheat. It is lamentable to observe the failures which have occurred in many parts of the country through not having a proper survey made. I will take as an example my own county, Roscommon. As a result of my experience there, I can safely say that at least two-thirds of the county is unsuited for wheat growing. The climatic conditions, together with the condition of the soil, do not favour wheat production. I suggest we are labouring under a very serious disadvantage in trying to produce foodstuffs such as wheat. On the other hand, if we were allowed to carry out tillage operations in our own way, to conduct our business in accordance with our own wishes, we would be able to produce good crops of potatoes and oats, the production of which is favoured by the land and climatic conditions, and I suggest we would be able in that way to do a bigger service for the nation.

My county, as many Deputies may be aware, has no tillage tradition and the cultivation of the land for tillage purposes is more or less in the experimental stage. On that account we were not provided this year with the necessary amount of seed to meet our requirements. Unlike other counties, such as County Wexford, which has a great tradition for tillage, we were not able to hold over the wheat we grew last year till this spring to be used for the purpose of seed. We were rather suspicious about its germinating qualities. It was harvested in very bad weather and had a damp feel and farmers considered it would be risky to hold it over. The result was that we had to go to the merchants and secure seed supplies in that way.

Some time ago I heard the Minister say that there were adequate supplies of different varieties of seed wheat in this country and that no man need worry regarding his seed wheat in the spring. What has transpired since? We in Roscommon have met with bitter disappointment in many cases. Seeing that we had no seed of our own, we had to go to the merchants. When we went there we found all classes of seed; a mixum-gatherum of every class of seed was presented to us. We would not get the special varieties we favoured. About a fortnight ago the only supplies that were offered to us consisted of mixed varieties—Diamante, April Red and Atle, all the spring varieties mixed together. As an alternative we had Manitoba, which we do not favour. We have not heard of any results with regard to that type of seed and we do not know what the germination is like or whether the climatic conditions here suit it.

Most farmers had to take whatever was available in order to comply with the requirements of the quota. Many people favoured the home grown seed —the mixture. I am very much afraid that when we reach the harvesting period we cannot expect to have satisfactory results from such a mixture. It is common knowledge that those different varieties take a certain length of time to mature in the ground and the result will be an uneven crop, some of it ripening to-day and some perhaps in a week's time, and the whole crop will not be uniform. I thing that in setting out on this big food campaign the Minister should not lose sight of the vital necessity of earmarking for the farmers the seeds which they favour.

With regard to poultry, eggs and butter, we have heard expressions of opinion from all sides of the House, including members of my own Party. They have given very definite views in relation to those commodities and perhaps if I were to add anything to what has already been said it might be labouring the point too much. In this great food drive, if we want properly to achieve our object, we should have more equipment. I am particularly concerned about my own county in this connection. In Roscommon we experienced great difficulty in getting the land ploughed, seeded and harvested. We lacked machinery, and I think some effort should be made to give the farmers there adequate supplies of machinery this year. The Minister should get in touch with the people across the water who are inclined to give us supplies and, when the supplies do reach this country, I trust he will distribute the machinery in a more satisfactory manner than last year.

It may be interesting to Deputies to know that in Roscommon, last year, we succeeded in getting seven tractors. We were very fortunate, I must say. But I cannot congratulate the Minister on the way in which he handled the allocation of those tractors. I happen to be a member of the Roscommon County Committee of Agriculture, and I was informed that the tractors had been placed in the hands of custodians and that instructions were given to our chief agricultural officer that there was not to be a word about those tractors until they were allocated. Everything was to be done behind closed doors. Members of the County Committee of Agriculture or the public at large were not to hear a word about those tractors until they were in the hands of the custodians. He observed the instructions to the last letter of the law, I must say. He did what the Minister and the Department told him. He never told us a word about them. But I will tell you what happened. Quite a number of people got wind of these tractors arriving in the early months of the spring and I, together with many other members of the Committee of Agriculture, made recommendations. We wished to have them put in the hands of capable men with mechanical knowledge who we knew were competent to handle the machines and who had experience of handling these machines.

But our recommendations were turned down. For my own part, I was interested in this way, that on these seven tractors coming into the county, I said it was scarcely fair that one agent should have the handling of them. I said that the handling of these seven tractors, with the commission thereon, should be given to more than one agent, should be divided at least between two agents, giving one agent, say, three tractors and the other four. My suggestions were turned down also. One man got the order for the lot. It is regrettable to have to say that, in the allocation and in the selection of the agent, political affiliations were the first and most essential qualification. The agent who got this order for these tractors stood on the Fianna Fáil platforms and is a very prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Carter

Fair play now. I contradict that.

Mr. Beirne

I know what I am talking about. I am from Roscommon and you are from Longford. One man got the order for the seven tractors. This man assisted at the local elections and at the Dáil elections on behalf of the Fianna Fáil candidates in that area. Not alone did he get the order for these seven tractors, but his brother-in-law got a tractor, together with four other people within a limited radius of the town of Roscommon. These people were already well supplied with tractors, some of them having two. For some reason or another, which I hold to be political, one of these tractors, which was allocated for Roscommon, went into County Leitrim, while County Roscommon had persons capable of managing those tractors, but they would not get them.

Mr. Maguire

On a point of explanation. I do not think Deputy Beirne is right in saying that we received any tractor in Leitrim out of last year's allocation. That is not correct.

Mr. Beirne

Pardon me, it is correct. A Mr. Mulhern, who lives below Carrick-on-Shannon, got a tractor and is working it.

Mr. Maguire

Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Beirne

I know it is a fact. I should not like to see a repetition of that this year. When machines come into a county, such as these seven tractors, which have a history in Roscommon and will have a history for the next 50 years, I hope they will be handed over to the county committee of agriculture, the members of which are the men to judge and select custodians, and that it will not be done behind closed doors in future.

Mr. Cafferky

The fruits of Government policy will go to Government supporters.

Mr. Beirne

We do not want a repetition of that. In regard to the farming industry, we find that a spirit of insecurity exists. We may be at a very low level to-day; probably we may never reach a high level; I venture to say we never will while the present Administration lasts; I think we will be always on the low rung of the ladder. But that insecurity should be mitigated in some way. The farmer should have some idea as to how he will be placed in six months or 12 months' time. He is asked to-day to do various things. He has to depend on the elements, climatic conditions, the labour market, and everything else to achieve the results that he wishes to achieve. At the same time, he has not what you may call fixity of tenure. He does not know exactly what may happen in six months or in 12 months' time. He is not given any guarantee from the Government to cover a long period. Consequently, he has always that nervous, insecure feeling that his efforts will always be crowned with failure rather than success. I suggest to the Minister that he should adopt and put before the farmers some long-term policy under which they would feel that they had some security for the work they are doing.

Quite a number of people, particularly on the benches on my right, imagine that the farmer is rolling in wealth. At the same time, a man who has the courage of his convictions, Deputy Corry, from those benches told us plainly how the farmer stood financially. The Deputy is a practical man who knows what he is talking about. He stated that the farmer is by no means wealthy, that he is by no means a millionaire. Some Deputy on the opposite side said that all the farmer's son gets is 2/6 a week to go to a dance and the price of a couple of packets of woodbines. I agree that that is about as much as he gets. All the other amenities of life are closed to him.

The farmer works from dawn to dark, day in, day out, and at the end of the year he finds he is a poorer man than when he started. I wish to convey to the House—and I hope it will have the desired effect—that the farmers to-day are a comparatively poor section of the population. Let no one in this House imagine that they are living in wealth, happiness and prosperity. They are not. In my business I come in contact with them in more than one way. I know exactly their position. I know their liabilities. I know their conditions perhaps better than others and I know that they are not prosperous or wealthy.

I would advise the Minister and the Government to come to the aid of the farmers in some practical way. I would advise them to make loans available to the farmers at a nominal rate of interest, say, 1 or 2 per cent. In view of the fact that the farmers cannot get the accommodation they need from the banks I would urge the Government to introduce legislation to give the farmers loans at a nominal rate of interest to enable them to purchase machinary and thereby to add to this great food drive that is at present being carried on.

I presume it is permissible to discuss the fuel position on this Estimate.

An Ceann Comhairle

Two days were devoted to fuel recently.

Mr. Beirne

There is a close alliance between food and fuel.

An Ceann Comhairle

Well, turf is not edible.

Dr. O'Higgins

Some of it would be as suitable for eating as for burning.

Mr. Beirne

In many parts of the country agricultural progress is retarded in various ways, one of which, particularly in my county, is the condition of our roads, by-roads and culs-de-sac. I have requested the county manager in Roscommon to give attention to these roads and he has informed me that in this country there is no legislation providing for the maintenance or repair of culs-de-sac. I wonder at that, but I am convinced that the county manager informed me correctly. It must be remembered that there are thousands of small farmers throughout the country living on these roads and they cannot get in machinery either to plough or thresh their crops. It is ridiculous, it is a shame, that legislation to repair these culs-de-sac should not be passed to provide some means of access to these houses. On many occasions I have made representations in regard to cases in my own county and they have been turned down. I know men whose haggards were filled with wheat and oats last harvest and the crops are lying there still unthreshed, damaged by wind and weather, rats, fowl and everything else. There is a complete loss of these crops owing to the complete failure of someone—I do not know whether it is the local body or the Government—to have the existing roads repaired or new roads made into these places.

Mr. Allen

Is not the county council responsible for them?

Mr. Beirne

I am referring to the culs-de-sac. I should also like to refer to our system of education as far as it relates to agriculture. I shall not deal with vocational education but with our ordinary primary education, and I am glad that the Minister for Education is present. In my opinion, the flight from the land about which we hear so much is due in many ways to the education our children receive in their early stages. When I was going to school and, in my father's time, 50 or 60 years ago, agriculture was a subject which received great attention in schools and in school text-books.

As far as I remember the text-books always contained interesting articles on agriculture such as the history of oatmeal, the history of a loaf, the history of a cake of bread. In-contrast to that, the text-books now may contain a story about a bear in Russia or, perhaps, a monkey in South Africa; but great care is taken not to have a word about agriculture in them. A different mentality could be created in the young people if the proper subjects were dealt with in the text-books, and at the same time there would be no infringement on the ordinary school curriculum. You could at the same time teach two subjects. You could teach agriculture to a small degree, and English or Irish, as the case might be By this method you could make the child agriculturally-minded. He would carry out little experiments at home, and agriculture would become a science. I do not think this point has been brought into the debate so far, and I would earnestly urge that it should receive attention. I think if my suggestion is implemented, the people of this country in years to come will have a really agricultural outlook. If you do not start to build on a proper foundation, and if you do not instruct the youth in their early stages, it will be impossible to create that mentality.

I wish to impress upon the Minister one point in regard to which I felt aggrieved last year, and about which I still feel aggrieved, and that is the allocation of machinery. When promises are made regarding supplies of seed wheat or other commodities by a responsible Minister, I wish these promises would be honoured. I wish also to have legislation introduced in this House whereby those culs-de-sac and by-roads can be repaired.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy on that matter should be brief. It is not permissible to advocate legislation on Estimates.

Mr. Beirne

I am sorry. In conclusion, I want the Government to stem the tide of emigration and the drift from the land by instilling an agricultural outlook into our young people in the schools.

Mr. Hilliard

In dealing with this question of agriculture, speakers in this House appear to have been mainly concerned with two viewpoints. Some people approached it from the point of view of a way of life, and they asked for a better standard of living for the people on the land. Others approached it from the point of view of a purely profit-making concern for those engaged in the production of food. That, I think, is the vital difference between the two schools of thought on agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture is charged with the formulation of an agricultural policy under which he can absorb the agricultural activities of farmers with holdings ranging from £1 valuation up to possibly £1,000 valuation or even more. We have not got here standard farms such as exist in other countries with whose agricultural production ours is compared. In Denmark, the farms are of a standard nature. They are small and the people there go in for intensive agriculture. In the other country with which ours is compared in regard to agricultural production, New Zealand, the farms are large. The population is small, and the people go in for extensive farming. Deputy Childers, I think, struck the proper note when he asked the farmers of this country to go in for intensive agriculture and not for extensive agriculture. To my mind, the outlook of every man in this country who is bringing up a family on the land is towards the amassing of enough money to purchase an extensive area of land for himself and his family—to get into a big way in agriculture; to become what is regarded as an agriculturist, a person who owns a sufficient amount of land to allow himself an easy way of life.

Deputy Larkin (Senior), was perplexed by the variety of suggestions made to the Minister here by farmers of every Party in this House as to what he should do to improve agricultural conditions. Every man who speaks on agriculture in this House or outside it expresses the limited viewpoint of the farmer who lives on an individual farm. I come from a county where there are large and small farms. It is not true to say that there is no tradition of tillage in County Meath; that county contributes to our agricultural production. The larger farms to-day feed cattle. Whether or not we agree with the policy of cattle production, this war— as has been stated in this House within the last hour—has brought home to our people the value of cattle as a purchasing power in the foreign market.

When thrown back on our own resources since the outbreak of the war, our farmers have not been in a position to produce an exportable surplus of food. Our exports have been confined to cattle. If you go to any fair in this country at the present time and ask any farmer why he is demanding such a high price for an in-calf cow, he will tell you that that cow is in-calf to a Hereford or black-polled Angus bull. Why will he answer you in that way? Because of the value that the average farmer places on the export of live stock to the British market. But because of the fact that this party tried to get our farmers to realise that they were also valuable in the home market, certain people asserted that Fianna Fáil wanted to destroy for ever the export of cattle to the British market.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, in dealing with this subject, was very anxious that nothing should be done or said in this country which would prejudice our chances of maintaining our place on the British market. He is a person who preaches to us a policy of expediency, but I believe that, in our dealings in the British market, there is no necessity for us to prostitute ourselves as a nation. That is my view on that matter, and that is the view of the Fianna Fáil Party, as far as I understand it. On this question of producing here cows of a high milk yield, I believe that the average farmer in this country is more concerned with the production of cattle for export to the British market. Deputy Hughes, in his speech on this subject, went fully into the question of milk production and into several other questions in connection with agriculture. He asked the Minister for Agriculture to restrict the use of the Hereford and black-polled Angus bulls-here, but he was careful to avoid dealing with the change which took place in the foreign market during the past 20 years. I will take you back now to the year 1918, not to the date of the general election of that year but to the 11th November, the date on which the world war ceased. Subsequent to that date, the cattle trade of this country underwent a radical change. The British housewife demanded from us an animal carrying less bone and more meat. The British people wanted from us an animal of lesser weight than our fathers had been in the habit of sending to them. The Irish farmers were quick to realise that such animals were required from them, and they went in on a large scale for the breeding of Angus and Hereford cattle, to the detriment of our milk trade. That has been going on in the country since 1918 up to the opening of the present war.

At the present time these Aberdeen Angus cattle are at a discount, so that it was clever on Deputy Hughes's part to suggest that we should not now use Aberdeen Angus or Hereford bulls to the same extent as we had been using them. But will Deputy Hughes or any other Deputy tell this House what conditions will be like in the post-war period on the English market? Will our place in the English market undergo the same change as after the war of 1914-18? Will we go into the British market with cattle of from 12 to 14 cwt. or cattle of nine to ten cwt.? Will they take beef cattle from us, or will they continue to develop what they have developed in the last 20 years, a polly trade in which they will take cattle that are 75 per cent. fat and finish them off themselves with imported feeding-stuffs or feeding grown on their own land? During that time they were not content with less than £10 or £12 per head for feeding these cattle for three months. If the Minister for Agriculture can with any degree of accuracy figure out what the demands will be on the British market for agricultural produce after this war is over, we can plan for an outside market, but I think no Minister, or no man in this House or outside it, could indicate with any degree of accuracy what will happen in Britain after the war is over. Everyone who spoke on the subject of planning for a foreign market assumed, of course, that the United Nations would win the war. The Minister for Agriculture is doing that job and he is doing it reasonably well. He is planning to feed the people of this country here and now and in the post-war period. Beyond that, I do not think it is possible for any Minister to go.

We hear a lot of talk about the provision of agricultural machinary for farmers but the more agricultural machinery that is provided, subsequent to the cessation of the war, the less work you will have on the land. Machinery, as we all know, dispenses with human labour and when we are dealing with this question of the flight from the land, it is well that everybody should know that the land can carry only a certain amount of people on it. When the work of those people is accounted for on the land, the remainder must leave it. They must go into some occupation. This Government made, is making, and shall continue to make an attempt, so long as it is in existence, to provide alternative work in the country for the people who have to leave the land. Every farmer can give his farm to one son, and one son only. Other sons and daughters must leave the land whether we like it or not. They will find their way into other occupations, but if such occupations are not available, they will have to leave the country.

I do not agree that people should have to leave the country. I do not think it right or fit that an Irishman or woman should have to leave the country but the fact is that it is better to let them go than to try to keep them here if there is no work for them. The raising of wages on the land or in industry, the provision of subsidies, or any other scheme mentioned here as a method of increasing agricultural production, will not keep them on the land if there is not a place on the land for them, nor will it keep them in the country. The Labour Party, I think, ought to make up their minds to tell the public and this House how they propose to do the job or what policy they have to remedy the situation as we find it to-day. Do they propose to allow single occupation of the land in this country or do they propose to deal with land in a communal way?

Will land used by individuals result in more people being kept on it than if it were used by combines? These are questions I cannot answer. In my view anyway, land used as a way of life, by which a man can keep a wife and rear a family in a Christian way, is being used in the way in which land was ordained to be used.

The Farmers' Party have put down a motion demanding a shilling per gallon for milk and on that and another motion this debate has mainly hinged. Do the members of that Party seriously contend that the people of this country should subsidise the 200 gallon cow? This Government pays a subsidy to creameries. At one time milk was sold to creameries as low, apparently, as almost 2d. per gallon. It was raised to 5d., afterwards to 9d. and now the price paid is 1/- I do not say that 1/- per gallon in present circumstances is sufficient. For any farmer who is milking cows of 200 gallon capacity each, 2/- per gallon may not be sufficient, but the time has come, in my opinion, when the men engaged in the creamery industry, in the production of milk, will have to decide for themselves, whether they are going to produce milk or to produce cattle for export. If they settle down to produce milk from milch cows—cows of known capacity for the production of milk in large quantities, such as the Friesian cow—let them do so and sell that milk at an economic price, but let them forget for good and all their function as producers of stock for the British market, apart from such surplus dairy stock, heifers or milch cows as they may have to sell for dairy purposes on the British market. That, to my mind, is the only solution of the dairy problem as I see it.

We are not a winter dairying country. In certain parts of the dairying areas the farmers allow their cows, I understand, to stand out on the land all during the winter without giving them extra feeding. Then they complain that the cows are subject to tuberculosis. We, in the towns and cities—I am a townsman myself, though reared on the land and working on the land— pay for milk a price greater than the creamery supplier gets. The same applies to this city and every other city. Why do we pay that price if it is possible for the creamery supplier to sell it at a lesser price? Simply and solely because the man who supplies milk in the town supplies it from the 1st January to the 31st December. The people who go in for winter dairying and who feed cows during the winter are entitled to a higher price because of the fact that it costs much more to produce milk during the winter than during the summer. Let it be known, too, that the dairyman in Dublin has to pay as much as £15 or £20 per acre for land on the 11-months system to feed his cows. The same applies to almost every town and village. The only way to remedy that situation, so far as I can see, is for the Government to interfere with the right of the individual to let land on the 11-months system. What Party in this House will stand for any Government assuming such a right? There is hardly a man who will stand on a public platform and say that the individual has not the right to do what he likes, in certain circumstances, with the property he owns.

Mr. Larkin

The Government says so.

Mr. Hilliard

In certain circumstances, yes. That is the position as I see it, and that is my contribution to this debate.

Mr. Broderick

This debate, as I followed it, has been characterised by two phases: (1) the emergency handling of our agricultural production during the war and the necessity for producing more food, and (2) the question of framing an agricultural long-term policy. There is no necessity to dwell on the question of production. Every farmer has contributed as well as possible to production but a great deal remains for the Government to do. With terrible effort, the grain has been got in in Munster. The people who brought it in suffered a great deal of anxiety during the harvesting period when there was danger of losing it. I have heard reference here to the great shortage of tractors. I am aware of the efforts the Government are making to get in tractors and I am aware of their difficulties owing to the central pool from which they have to take their share with the rest of the world. But they have a reserve of strength which can be beneficially used for the saving of the harvest. Owing to the number of men who have left the country and the number who have gone into the Army, the supply of labour is very short. Individual losses have been great, but what I am concerned with at the moment is the loss to the nation.

I might cite my own experience, which will convey more vividly than comment what I desire to impress upon the House. I had, last year, about 65 acres of wheat, which my own help managed to save. We had not sufficient help to save the oats and barley. We did everything possible to get qualified labourers from the labour exchange. While the corn was rotting on the land, I was looking at, at least, 4,000 men—capable and trained —inside barrack walls or in camps. There was no possibility of obtaining their assistance. After 16 days, I approached the commanding officer and asked him to permit men to volunteer for the saving of the crops. He said that he could not order men to do such work. I said that I had not asked that; that I had merely asked that, if men were willing, after their ordinary duties, which terminated at 4 o'clock, to engage in this work, they should be permitted to do so. He had no objection to that provided that I approached the labour exchange and ascertained what labour was qualified and what was not qualified. I deemed that a very necessary precaution. I took all the qualified labour on the panel and supplemented it by military. In that way, we managed to save 50 per cent. of our crop but we lost at least 400 barrels of oats and barley. Do not consider my personal loss; it is the loss of the nation we must consider at the moment. I heard Deputy Giles say that there were considerable losses in Meath also, and I have seen crops uncut outside Dungarvan. Consider the pain and anxiety of the person who planted those crops. Perhaps it was with difficulty he provided the necessary money for seeding the land and, after that, he had to look at his crops being lost.

In the Seanad, the Minister for Defence stated that he was not going to keep the Army waiting to save the crops, that many farmers could save their own crops and that every farmer should make the best effort possible. I agree with the Minister on some points. Where farmers have sufficient help, there is no necessity for calling on the military. But where you have a danger of great loss, with a danger of a very severe food shortage in addition, and where you have men willing and anxious to co-operate in saving the crops, then a different situation arises. I should like to pay tribute to the men who helped to save my crops. I have never seen better workmen or men more willing or more anxious to help. In leaving, they said that they hoped they would be there next year again. The reason I deal with this matter so exhaustively is that I know the importance of food supplies this year and I have a keen appreciation of what was lost last year. We were able to supplement home production last year; we shall not be able to do so this year. When some farmers read the statement of the Minister—that he was not going to lend the aid of the Army to harvest the crops—they said that they would rather pay any fine than see their crops rotting. I ask the Minister for Agriculture to prevail on the Minister for Defence—I know the anxiety of the Minister for Agriculture and I do not hold him responsible in the least for the difficulties which existed last year—to permit members of the Army, who volunteer, to co-operate in saving the harvest where there is no alternative labour and where vital necessity exists.

I want to express a few opinions on the long-term policy to which reference has been made. Before doing so, I wish to join issue very severely with Deputy Maguire on one point, although I agree with 90 per cent. of his statement, which showed that he had deeply thought out the fundamental principles governing the agricultural industry. It is very reassuring to me, as one so intimately associated with an entirely different policy, that the Deputy now sees the full effect of that policy. Deputy Maguire said that farmers are merely the caretakers of their land. With that, I fundamentally disagree. In everything that constitutes ownership —the right to handle the land as we like, consistent with its being in the national and public interest, and the right to hand it on to those coming after us—the complete right of ownership is still in us. I am aware of the section of the Act of Parliament which bears on this question but does any sensible man think that that section is going to be put into operation?

Mr. O'Driscoll

But it could be?

Mr. Broderick

Yes, it could be, but I should like to see the people who would try it.

Mr. O'Driscoll

You would never know.

Mr. Broderick

Perhaps not, but I think that there is nothing more dangerous than that an idea should get out through the country that the farmer, who is watching his land, tending it in every way, seeing how best he can improve it, by tillage or in any other way, would be put in the humiliating position as an individual that he actually had no right to that land but is merely acting there as a caretaker at somebody else's will. That would be an extremely dangerous thing to go out through the country, because there is nothing— and I know that I am speaking for the majority of our farmers—that has held them to the land so much as their natural affection for and pride of ownership in the land, which they regard as a part of their heritage.

There is another aspect of this matter to which I should like to refer. We have heard a good deal during this debate about milk production. I heard my friend, Deputy James Dillon, saying here that one solution of our problems would be to break up the country into different zones: putting milk-producing stock in one zone, Herefords in another zone, Aberdeen-Angus cattle in another zone, and so on. Now, experience has taught me that what is commonly alluded to as agriculture is regarded in most people's minds, generally speaking, as a unit. Most people seem to think that you will have the same form of activity, the same desires, and the same cooperation in agriculture, no matter what form agricultural production may take. Nothing is farther from the truth.

Actually, there is a great conflict— a mental conflict, if you like—between the beef-producing areas, the milk-producing areas, the grain-producing areas, and so on. Naturally, farmers who go in for producing grain will expect to get a good price for their grain; and, similarly, in the milk-producing areas they will want a type of cattle that would not suit the beef-producing areas. Apart from that, I suppose you will also have a natural disagreement as between what is called the small farmer and the large farmer. The policy of the Government, however, should be to try to follow along the line of giving whatever assistance and aid can be given to the various types of agriculture, consistent with the carrying out of the national policy.

Let us take the question of milk production. I was surprised to hear the contradictory views put forward by the last speaker, as opposed to those put forward by Deputy Ben Maguire. Deputy Ben Maguire, in the course of his speech, said that the only thing that we have here during this emergency period, that is saving us from bankruptcy and possible starvation, is the existence of our cattle trade, and that we could not pay for anything if we did not have the cattle trade. The Deputy is quite right in my opinion. It always was so. When you come to visualise the question of milk production, or to deal with the question of bringing about an increased milk output or an increased butter supply in this country you must also bear in mind the conditions that exist here. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand have concentrated on milk and butter production, because they have no way of selling their cattle for beef, but I think that we in this country should go in for the dual purpose of producing both beef cattle and milk-producing cattle. I believe that we should concentrate on the production of beef for the English market, and milk and butter for the home market.

When you talk about butter production, it must be remembered that that is very heavily subsidised. As a matter of fact, it can only be carried on by means of a subsidy from the Government of £1,000,000 a year, and yet it is advocated that that trade should be kept in being, heavily subsidised as it is, as against the beef cattle trade. In other words, you want to destroy the only real asset that you have in the export trade, amounting to £12,000,000, in the interests of the most heavily subsidised industry that you have. There is a manifest inconsistency there. That is a bad and a wrong policy. To show how important are what we call Shorthorn cattle, only last week the English Government started subsidising Irish-bred heifers, with a view to keeping them on English farms in order to produce store cattle for them when the war is over, and start breeding from them.

Deputy Ben Maguire—I hope he will forgive me for quoting him, but I was so favourably impressed by what he said that I feel that I must do so— said that the trade which we formerly had in butter, bacon, fat cattle, and so on, was only possible as a result of the importation of foreign grain and foreign feeding stuffs generally. That is perfectly correct. Does not every farmer know that the production of grain has an exhausting effect on land, and that it is the production of cattle, pigs, and so on, that brings back fertility to the land? There is no farmer that I know of who, in normal times, if he could purchase grain from his poorer neighbours with which to feed his stock, would not regard that as a good policy, instead of exhausting the fertility of his own soil by growing the grain. That is a good policy for the farmer himself, and it is also good national policy to purchase the things that are exhausting to the soil and to produce only the things that will tend to increase the soil's fertility. These things will be listened to to-day, because the war has proved that they are true, but if I attempted, five years ago—and I would not be afraid to do so—to stand over a policy of that kind, nobody would listen to me. Circumstances, however, have now proved that the real national interest of this country is to produce as much as you possibly can in your own country of the things that are best suited to your own land, and to import, where you find it economical to do so, all the seeds or grain for the feeding of your live stock, instead of growing them here and exhausting your own soil. In my view, that is the best long-term policy that you can have.

In conclusion, I should like to say that in dealing with the war situation I forgot to stress one particular point, which was referred to by a member of the Farmers' Party, to the effect that there was something undesirable about the distribution of tractors in County Roscommon. I shall not go any further with that. I cannot say that I have had any experience of that kind, but if such a thing were to happen in connection with the coming harvest it would have disastrous effects on the country. Now, to come back for a moment to the other matter. Will the farmers throughout the country tell me or anybody in this House that on this question of milk production it is only a matter of price? I doubt it very much. There are very many contributory factors, and I think that if you were to give the price of 1/- a gallon for the milk, or even if you went beyond the price of 1/- a gallon, you would not get the production that is required. If I might be permitted to make a suggestion, particularly when it comes to the possible sacrifice of our cattle trade, it would be this: I certainly would be in favour of spending money on the selection of stock, on cow-testing, and on anything that could be done by way of Government action to help in increasing our milk production. I think that the real welfare of this State depends on seeing to what extent you can bring up to standard your present stock so far as milk production is concerned. I think that the real solution is there. I am in favour of evolution, by strict control, by rigid examination, by cow-testing, by keeping the best stock and helping farmers to replace animals in their herds that are not up to standard. By such methods you will be able, on the one hand, to keep your dairying industry, and, on the other hand, preserve your beef-cattle trade. We hear a lot about cow-testing, and I admit that it is very necessary, but take the case of a farmer who has 10 or 15 cows, two of which are not up to standard in milk production. That farmer may not be in a position to replace these two cattle, and he says to himself: "If I go out to sell these two beasts, and purchase two others in their place, I may get worse." In such a case, some aid should be given to the farmer to enable him to replace these animals.

I think, Sir, that I have said enough on this matter to-night. I have already mentioned the few matters that I wanted to put before the House.

I am extremely anxious about the saving of the harvest this year and I regard the two sets of arguments before the House as completely distinct, the long-term policy for agriculture and the other. The point I would make about the long-term policy is this: that you can have no uniform policy for this State except on a few major points on which everyone is agreed. There are four or five different portions of the State requiring different treatment and conditions, and different consideration and help.

The question of destroying the cattle trade in favour of milk production by the importation of Friesian and Ayrshire cows is an absurd and wrong and disastrous policy, a policy from which ill consequences will flow. I do not want to be misunderstood in estimating the value of milking stock. There is no man in this House who feels more strongly than I do that milk production should be brought up to the highest pitch of perfection but I want our activities to be on the right lines, and I believe that time will prove that we can get milk production under better control only by means of cow-testing. We must get the best possible cows. I must say that I am not at all enamoured of the way the licences for bulls are given out, or of the way they are prepared by feeding. I believe that bulls we find in counties like Tipperary produced far better progeny. The advocacy of the introduction of a new milking breed is, in my opinion, altogether misguided. Our aim should be to get the best possible cows and to encourage the farmers to get them and to maintain the highest milk production consistent with maintaining the cattle trade.

The next point I want to make is that I do not believe that intensive grain growing will continue indefinitely. We are now going through the process of exhausting our land. We are doing it willingly to the best of our ability, but the time will come when the land will have to be renewed and revitalised. That can only be done by the importation of foodstuffs and by intensive development, the increase of pig production and the extension of fowl-raising.

Mr. Sheldon

I do not want to delay the House. The broad principles of agricultural policy, past, present and future have been debated at very great length, and one thing that has struck me is that there is a very great tendency on the part of Deputies to assume that the characteristics of their own county are reflected 25 times over in the other 25 counties. There is a tendency, I say, for Deputies to take conditions as they apply in their own county, and to work out broad principles which they think should govern agricultural policy, according to that limited experience. Of course I do not wish to appear impertinent in the matter—there are enough Deputies in the House capable of overcoming that difficulty. Deputy Hughes and others have shown themselves capable, but there is a general tendency in that direction. My own experience is limited to one county. The limit is such that I would be wasting the valuable time of the House if I were to embark on what I consider should be the broad lines of policy. I propose to keep to one or two points which arise in my own county. It may be a sectional way of looking at this thing, but it will at least have some bearing on the problems that have arisen without tending to be a small base on which to build a big edifice.

On the question of wheat-growing, my county—or my constituency because it is only half a county—has always been a tillage area. I would not go so far as to say that the farmers there would care to embark on wheat-growing as a long-term policy. What I say is that, in the conditions which we admit are now upon us, wheat is an essential crop in war-time. I am not going to argue whether wheat should be grown anywhere else in Eire, but in Donegal it should not as a peace-time policy. I have grown it for 11 years so that I can speak with some authority on it. In County Donegal, there are quite a number of acres of what is classed as arable land, but it is certainly of an inferior type and the Minister is aware that on land of that type there is actually a loss of human food by growing wheat instead of oats. Production of oatmeal per acre on land in a great many districts is greater than the production of wheat. Of course, I am quite aware that oatmeal is not a substitute for wheat and the necessity for wheat must override that consideration.

But, I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister. I am quite aware that it is an awkward thing to bring up, because anyone with common sense has a strongly rooted objection to subsidies. I do not know if I possess common sense, but I share the objection to subsidies, except those given in war-time for very specific purposes. In fixing the price of wheat I think the Minister would be very well advised to make a basic payment per acre part of the price of wheat—I will not call it a subsidy. Merely to increase the price per barrel adds to the profit of the man who can grow 14 or 15 or 20 barrels an acre and who should be doing well at present. The proportionate increase in the price per barrel to the man with inferior land is so small that it is no encouragement to him. The fact that we have to resort to compulsion shows that wheat-growing, no matter what price you put upon it, is not looked upon with favour. I am not going to suggest any figure for the basic payment—that is something the Department will have to work out —but I do think it would be a great advantage if part of the payment for wheat was made in that form. Personally, I would prefer to see a drop in the price per barrel, if necessary, because the new system would give a chance to the small man with inferior land, a chance he badly needs.

I was glad to hear reference made to eggs by several Deputies. The Department recently increased propaganda for egg production. That is very welcome, but I suggest to the Minister that the money is wasted if the grievances of the poultry-keepers are not dealt with. It is obvious that they have a grievance. I do not wish to refer to the difference that there is in the price that poultry-keepers get for eggs and the price at which they are marked in the shop windows in Dublin. I have the impression, and it is widespread, that a certain fixed price is being given for eggs for export. I wish that the Minister would deal with that matter when he is replying. The price paid poultry-keepers for eggs was as low as 1/11 in County Donegal, but the remarkable thing is that at the same time a paragraph appeared in a national newspaper about the price being obtained for exported eggs and that poultry-keepers in most remote parts of Eire should receive 2/2 per dozen. At that time I received 3d. per dozen less than what was being paid in remote areas. That is something that the Minister might clear up. It may be due to a misunderstanding, but the sooner it is explained the better. It is bad enough at present to see production being restricted, but I consider that of all the branches of agriculture in which there is room for considerable expansion and which offer a good market both at home and in foreign markets, eggs and poultry must in the future take a very high place. A fresh egg is something that can defy competition. Almost any agricultural produce can be brought from the ends of the earth, and by refrigeration and other means will bear comparison with the fresh product, but it cannot be done in the case of eggs. I do not think that anybody would suggest that any satisfactory means of preserving eggs has yet been found.

In view of the difficulty of securing decent markets for eggs I consider that they should be bought by weight. The Minister will probably say that machinary for weighing eggs cannot be got now, but it is hardly fair for the Department to defend themselves on that ground. It has been done for some years in Northern Ireland and, as a result, top grade eggs from Northern Ireland are the highest priced eggs in the British market. They have a higher price even than British eggs. I believe that considerable improvement could be brought about in the industry if poultry keepers were paid by weight. If people get the same price for big eggs as for small eggs naturally the big ones will be eaten and the small ones sold.

I am prepared to accept the Minister's figures that increases in farming costs had lagged behind increases in farm prices. I do not want to make a poor mouth, because I am quite satisfied that farmers are better off now than they have been for some years. However, that is not saying a great deal. If we are making a little money now it is only going towards repairing the ravages of the last 10 or 12 years. I will want to make more money than I am making at present to bring my farm buildings up to the condition in which they were some years ago. That applies in the case of many farmers. The happy picture of farm costings which the Minister drew, the accuracy of which I am not challenging, while leaving a few pounds over is, however, small after taking into account the costs of shoeing horses, repairing farm machinery and other articles of equipment which have trebled. These items represent a considerable drain on the farmer's income. I paid 45/- recently for an inferior type of fiddle corn sower that in pre-war days cost 13/- or 14/-. The price of it will probably be controlled next Christmas. Some attention should be paid to the cost of small items. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister stated that parts for farm machinery were reasonably available. That may be so, but there were some essential parts that were not available at all. I tried to get parts for a harrow and was unable to do so. I could have bought a new set, but nobody seemed to be able to supply parts. If I have to buy a new implement every time repairs have to be made, it would need a considerable increase in farm prices to meet the expense.

Turning to what is a much happier subject on which I think I can almost unreservedly compliment the Minister, I want to say a few words about the farm improvement scheme. It has given great satisfaction, and I congratulate the Minister on it. I hope that everything possible will be done to extend it. I would especially urge on the Minister to give the maximum grants for the construction of new farm middens so as to help in the conservation of liquid manure. I would like to see some changes made in the scheme. There is the question of estimated costs. I think that in most cases these are fair enough. A difficulty arises, however, where ground has to be drained or where a stream has to be piped. The ground may prove to be hard, with the result that the estimated costs do not bear any relation whatever to the actual cost. I think that the fairest way would be to allow the inspectors some discretion in the matter. They are sensible, level-headed men. They know their work well and give great satisfaction. Some discretion should be allowed to them on this matter, and they should not be held down to hard-and-fast rules. At present the scheme does not operate in the months of May, June and July. I assume one reason for that is that the Department believes that farmers are otherwise engaged during these months and would not have time for work on drainage schemes. I suggest that the reverse is the case. We have not these three months of fair weather during the year. I suggest that it is during broken periods of weather, when we have harvest labour on the spot, that a good deal of useful drainage work could be done.

Rural improvement schemes should also get attention. I know these are not the function of the Minister for Agriculture, but the point is that when they are not carried out they hold up farm improvement schemes. I suggest to the Minister that he should bring some pressure to bear on the Department responsible with a view to expediting the carrying out of rural improvement schemes.

The only other matter I want to touch on is the question of credit for farmers. Divergent views on that were expressed last night by a number of Deputies. Some said they could not get credit facilities in the banks on the security of their land. I must say that that was my own experience. If there are a few counties in which the banks will give credit on the security of Irish land, I must say that experience is not widespread. As regards the Agricultural Credit Corporation, I would have a difficulty in finding words that would be acceptable to the Chair to describe its methods. I think it is the biggest farce that was ever let loose on the country, and that is saying something. As regards myself, when I wanted accommodation I first tried my bank and could not get it. That seemed to be the strong point with the Agricultural Credit Corporation when I approached it—that the bank would not give me credit. Owing to circumstances over which I had no control, the major portion of my holding was not available as security. I was, however, able to offer as security a first charge on 25 acres of arable land of which the county council, according to their valuation, had a very high opinion. It had, in fact, been bought by my uncle a few years previously for £700 and was still subject to a fee farm rent of £16 a year. It could have been looked upon as reasonable security. The amount that I wanted was £100. To my amazement, these 25 acres were not considered sufficient security for that loan by the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

I suggest that if this country is ever going to maintain itself as an agricultural country this question of farm credit must be taken up. Denmark is frequently held up as a shining example of what Irish farmers should be capable of doing. Speaking from recollection, which I think I can claim to be fairly accurate, the amount of credit made available by the banks in this country to farmers, in the form of overdrafts, is in the neighbourhood of £12,000,000. In Denmark the corresponding figure is £180,000,000, or 15 times as much as the sum which is available to Irish farmers. I suggest that in those two figures lies a great deal of the secret as to why farming in Denmark has gone ahead and why Irish farming has not. We are attempting to carry on agricultural production with the producer hampered by 19th century methods. I suggest that the only way in which the Irish producer can get into proper production is by making modern methods of production available to him. The first essential for him is that he may be able to obtain a decent supply of credit.

Dr. O'Higgins

I think that this debate, which has already extended over four or five days, has created a record in the matter of long distance oratory. I think that on the whole it has done a certain amount of good. Very many Deputies have spoken. They have expressed their views and made their points, and there has been very little controversy. I think, however, it was regrettable that the leader of the Clann na Talmhan section of farmers in this House should have spoiled a very brief speech by rather clumsy and offensive remarks with regard to a very old member of this House and a very distinguished professional man.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has, in his time, got to the top of one of the professions in this country. As a member of the Dáil, he was very few years in this House when he was called on to fill the vacant position of the Minister for Justice at a time when it required courage, ability, and very strong character to fill that post; and right down through the years he has been an exceptionally successful farmer. If he is elderly, that is not a fault; every one of us is hourly qualifying for that title. Grey hairs are worthy of respect rather than disrespect, and I think it is a pity that a debate of this kind should be marred by such references.

In the course of this debate we had many realistic speeches. We had speeches from different parts of the House that showed a clear appreciation of our difficulties at present and our problems of the future. I was very much struck, not with the speech of a practical farmer, but with the speech —from the opposite side of the House —of a deep student of agricultural and trade statistics. I think the speech delivered by Deputy Childers showed a very straightforward approach to the question, and a sense of realising the various factors that go to make up a successful industry where obviously the bulk of the produce of that industry must be for export. He pointed out that if we are to increase production, and if we are to expand agriculture, it can only be through an extension of our export trade.

Deputy Maguire, in my opinion, made an equally sound approach to the question with which we are and will be confronted here when he expressed an opinion to the effect that it may, to help us round a corner, be necessary, be desirable, be imperative, that we subsidise various products of the land; that subsidies can never be regarded as a policy for agriculture, but must be regarded as an expedient to meet a certain situation. And even Deputy Corry, in regard to whom I take a certain amount of pride in the fact that I very seldom find myself in agreement with him, showed a realistic approach to some of the difficulties that confront us when we are dealing with the problem of trying to increase milk production and at the same time trying to hold on and, if possible, develop, a great cattle export industry.

We have to face up to our agricultural problems of the future with the knowledge of people who are old enough to realise this, that the one big industry in this country out of which all of us live, either directly or indirectly, is agriculture, and that it must be the concern of every one of us to put that industry on a sound basis over a long term of years. It is something approaching a national tragedy, if not a national disgrace, that that industry is only profitable when the world is plunged into a blood-bath. I am not a working farmer, but I was born and grew up on the land and I work among people who live directly from the land. I am old enough to recollect that there were only two phases during my lifetime when a farmer could be regarded as being assured of a livelihood in meagre comfort, and that was during the periods of the two great world wars. In the in-between period the farmer, even the big farmer, was, in fact, a poorer man than any of the labouring men in his area and, goodness knows, they were poor enough. The labouring man might have to live very close to the earth; he might have to live without any of the meanest comforts that humanity enjoys, but at least he was a man free from the terror and the nightmare of the clutching hand of the debtor. The unfortunate farmer was working as hard and living as meanly as the labourer, and all the time the nightmare of the clutching hand of the banker or the person who had the mortgage or the individual to whom he owed money was there.

That was the lot of farmers, whether Governments changed or not, in the period between the wars. If we do nothing else as a result of this emergency, we should maintain the interest that has been stirred up in this country, in the cities, in the urban as well as in the rural areas, as to the importance of farmers and of the really vital part they play in the public life of this country, and at least we should be able to formulate some scheme with regard to the future so that never again will that industry be allowed to revert to the low level that we formerly regarded as its normal position in normal times.

I think any one of us, irrespective of Party or profession, cannot approach this question without, first of all, facing the facts, even if they be disagreeable. The first fact that is staring us in the face is that in this country there are, approximately, 12,000,000 acres of arable land, and experts and others engaged in the coordination of statistics will tell us that, taking the all-over position of the world, 1,000 acres will provide food for 1,000 human beings. We have 3,000,000 human beings in this country. We have 12,000,000 acres of arable land. Allow an error of 100 per cent. to the experts who supply us with figures, and say that it takes 2,000 acres to feed 1,000 human beings. Even on that figure, it means that exactly 50 per cent. of what we produce from the land is surplus to our requirements here. No matter how high a wall we may build around the country by way of tariffs or anything else, half our production is surplus to our requirements and must be sold elsewhere.

If we once face up to that fact, if we once realise that if we put the whole country into grain, half that grain is surplus and must be sold abroad, and that if we put it all into poultry or into dairying, the same applies, then we have to make up our minds definitely as to what type of product of the land of Ireland can hold the best price abroad, and with what product we face least competition. If we make up our minds that we will grow grain surplus to our consumption, we have to see if we are in a position to compete with the Russian, with the Canadian and with the American in the wheat markets of the world. If we find that that is not a proposition which is likely to provide us with any secure or steady market, we have to examine the various other products of the land, and I think we will all come to the conclusion, irrespective of whom we represent outside or where we sit in this House, that the most steady line of export is undoubtedly live stock.

We cannot control the price of anything we export. We can fix the price of an article at home, but we cannot fix the price of the surplus we export, and, on the whole, allowing for certain variations, we have a more assured and more fixed trade in the export of live stock, poultry, eggs and bacon than in the export of anything else we can produce from our land. I am perfectly satisfied that that is the mind of the Department and that it is the mind of the Minister. I am positive that it was the mind of his predecessor and of the Department before the present Minister's time. At the same time, we are presented with the difficulty that we have to maintain dairying.

The late Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Hogan, probably was one of the most knowledgeable men in the world, and certainly in Europe, with regard to agricultural matters. He was one of the brainiest, the ablest men who ever came into the House and most capable of grasping any subject he put his mind to, but he was a man brave enough to be the first to say when he had made a mistake. He examined everything carefully before he formulated a policy. He then legislated according to that policy. He tried it out and if he found, on trial, that it was not achieving the object he desired it to achieve, he was the first to come back here and say: "In spite of what I put up to you five years ago or six years ago, it is not working out in the way I thought it would and I think we have to change our direction." One of his most admirable qualities was that when he got a chance to try out some things for which he stood most stoutly and when he found they were not working out for the benefit of Irish agriculture, not another day's loss would he allow the farmer to suffer. Back he came to say: "We have to alter that; it did not work out the way I thought it would."

When he introduced the Live-Stock Breeding Act a considerable number of years ago, he was facing up to the difficulty that dairying had to be maintained in this country as the most important branch of agriculture, that we would have a surplus, no matter what line of agriculture we went into, which must be saleable, if the land of Ireland was to be kept from going back into bush and the best form of surplus to have was live stock. It was then that he adopted the policy of the dual purpose herd. His idea was that we would get good milk production along that line and good cattle for sale. Six or seven years afterwards, as Deputy Corry mentioned, having tried it out for that period, he said in this House that it was not working out exactly as he thought it would, and this debate over the last four or five days would convince any observer of the soundness of the advice he gave here years ago from the point of view of the dairy industry.

Deputies most intimately associated with the creamery districts, men with practical experience, men with close knowledge and men, naturally, vitally concerned for the welfare of that industry, have, one after the other, irrespective of where they sit in this House, told us that, with the type of cattle they have, they cannot increase the yield beyond a certain figure. It is lower than that of their competitors, and that is the reason they want extra money in order to keep them in dairying. Deputy Dillon suggested that we divide the country into regions and have Friesian bulls in one region, and so on. That would appear to be a simple way out if it could be worked, but I feel that this country is much too small for that kind of regional system of agriculture, that the flow of agricultural goods is nearly as free as the flight of the wild birds over our fields, that in any case the Limerick calf is the Meath bullock of the year after next, and that if we concentrate on producing only the dairy type of calf down in the creamery districts, it is nonsense to talk about beef beasts elsewhere, because it is that calf which finds its way up along.

If that way of examining the question is anywhere near correct, what it means is that, in order to maintain our position in the export market, we are asking the creamery men to continue to exist under a penalty which we, in our wisdom, imposed on them; that we are asking them to continue to carry on their industry while we impose a very definite handicap on them as compared with any of their competitors. If that is correct, then I think we have to compensate the dairymen financially and, even though it may appear a short-sighted kind of a scheme, or, to an extent, taking it out of one pocket in order to put it into another, we have to keep the industry going under those conditions by having a suitable price, even if that price has to be met by subsidy. That is always on the assumption that there is no better way of keeping the creamery men in the business. If the Minister's Department have a better solution, then I think that it should be applied, and applied immediately. If there is any possibility of finding any solution other than subsidy, then I think time and knowledge should be spent in trying to devise any other solution.

In conjunction with this Estimate, there is a proposal down to fix the price of milk and keep it at 1/- per gallon. Those who are most closely associated with and have most knowledge of the industry say that it cannot be carried on for less. There is an amendment down calling on the Department to inquire into the whole business and see if there is any better way of keeping the industry going on a profitable basis, and meantime to keep the present price while the investigation is pending. I take it that all the Deputies over there are interested in keeping that industry going as a profit-making industry, and that if anything could come out of the inquiry that would keep it on as a profit-making industry they would welcome it as much as we would. That being so, I think there is no conflict between the suggestion of maintaining the price while you look into the matter and maintaining the present price without looking into the matter. In a nutshell that is the difference between the two proposals.

Mr. O'Donnell

Nero is fiddling while Rome burns.

Dr. O'Higgins

There is more fiddling being done by the Neros over there than by the people who are trying to defend Rome here.

Mr. O'Donnell

Your Party never paid more than 5d. a gallon. You killed the dairying industry.

Dr. O'Higgins

If I did, I killed it with the Deputy's support because, as I reminded him, there was no greater stalwart in South Tipperary behind the policy of Fine Gael. However, we all make our mistakes, and the Deputy made his when he departed from that policy. As I was saying, we are all anxious to maintain the industry, and the Minister, I am sure, is as anxious as the rest of us. The problems, which we are calling attention to and which we can more or less dismiss after we have called attention to them, are things which he will have to continue to grapple with, and we can only be helpful to the extent of making suggestions. I heard people advocating reorganisation. I do not think that is the proper word, because I think it has never been organised. I do not think there has ever been a sound organisation of the agricultural industry of this country. We are only just a little spot of land, and we see variations in prices over any 40 miles of this little island where the variations would not be so great from one side of a continent to another.

We have seen famine prices for agricultural produce here in the City of Dublin and the same commodity selling for half nothing, or being worthless, three or four counties away. We see apples in the City of Dublin selling for sixpence apiece and apples rotting by the ton on the ground within 40 miles of Dublin, unsaleable and unwanted. The same is true of practically every common or garden vegetable. Potatoes here are at a famine price, while potatoes are unsaleable in the county Longford. Surely with that fantastic state of affairs none of us would be bold enough to suggest that farming or agriculture has ever been organised. If we suggest it has been organised then, as the organisers, we should be ashamed to assert the fact that it was ever organised. We have the deplorable cry coming up from the creamery districts that they cannot produce milk, that they cannot continue in the business, except they get 1/- per gallon. We have the public in this city buying milk at 3/- or 3/4 per gallon. Surely the swing in price over a few steps wants some explanation.

The fact of the matter is, and I heard a lecture on it some 20 years ago, when the State was only a couple of years old, that you would not find more vultures on a desert carcass than you find feeding on the back of agriculture in this country. There is more profit made by six, seven or eight different middlemen between the producer and the consumer than is made by the producer who sinks his capital, gives his time, and takes all the risk. Can we say that there is any organisation in the agricultural industry in this country when there are four profits raked off an article, whether it is a potato, or a beast, or any other article of agricultural produce, between the farm and the consumer? If the farmers got two-thirds of the price ruling in the City of Dublin for agricultural commodities they would consider that they had reached Utopia. Is there any intention of allowing that state of hopeless, discreditable, unbusinesslike drift to apply in the future with regard to agriculture? Rather than tackle all these intermediate blisters on the back of agriculture, are we, as an alternative to tackling it that way, just to say that the only remedy, the only policy, the only way, to make agriculture profitable is to provide more and more subsidies?

To fix a higher price with one hand and take it out of the taxpayers' pocket with the other? That may be all right where you take the narrow view of people only concerned with the producers. But there is an obligation on us to take the national view and, while recognising the fact that the producer must not only be kept in business, but that he must be kept in profitable business, that he must be guaranteed a degree of security, at the same time it must not be entirely at the expense of the consumer. A nation is made up of both producers and consumers. If there are unreasonable or exorbitant profits in between, if middlemen and handlers in between the farmer and the consumer are getting greater profits than the producer, then something has got to be done to cut out all that slack and to make a bigger price to the producer and at the same time a lower price to the consumer. It often struck me that in countries with which we are competing they can transport goods from one side of a continent into the next country, their transport charges being less than the charges involved in bringing a consignment from Limerick to the City of Dublin. I would rather see, if necessary, a policy worked out something like the arrangement with regard to coalfields in England where the distance over which the coal is hauled does not affect the price of haulage and where special rates are given in order to pull down the cost of haulage. I would rather see an investigation carried out as to whether it would not be sound and advisable to make an annual grant to the transport companies of this country so that all agricultural produce would be carried completely free from any point of the country to another. Whatever the cost of that would be, I think it would be a sounder policy with regard to agriculture as a whole than expensively subsidising agriculture in spots.

With regard to some of the details that arose on this particular Estimate, I have only one point to make. A Deputy from Donegal has already referred to it. I think the farm improvements scheme is a very, very excellent measure. I think it is a measure that is doing an immense amount of good. It is doing so much good that I think the Minister should consider the advisability of extending its scope. At the present moment, under that scheme, farmers can put floors into their out-offices. We have an extraordinary state of affairs, only too common in this country, that a farmer sells his wheat for 50/- and a few months later buys back the seed at £4 10s. Od., £5, and sometimes a very much higher price, merely because he has no facilities for storing it. It is absolutely uneconomical and insane to sell in November for 50/- what you have to buy back in December, January or March for £5. That is the way to bleed an industry to death. That is one of the haemorrhages that are bleeding the agricultural industry white. The explanation is not that farmers are not as sensible and as wise as the rest of us, but that they have not the facilities to hold their grain. In the past, they had not the capital or the credit to provide these facilities. Under a scheme such as this or some similar scheme operated by the Department of Agriculture, I should like these grants extended to the construction of out-offices for one purpose or another without restriction on the type of out-office. I think any observer driving through this country, certainly any outsider, would consider that one of the most appalling things in this country is the lack of proper out-offices on farmsteads or the state of disrepair and decay of those out-offices that do exist. We have to remember that the farmers have gone through a time when their name would not be good for 6d., when they had no credit, when they had no capital. We must have that in our consciences. If farmers are making a bit of money now, I believe it is true that they are only struggling to get out of debt, and those who assert that they are on easy street, in my opinion, have not a very extensive knowledge of the position of the Irish farmers. They are getting out of debt but they have not the capital to spend freely on those things, and I would urge the Minister to consider the advisability of extending his scheme.

There was another matter that is not strictly relevant to this particular Vote, but it is a thing that I shall mention briefly. We are all talking agriculture, and we are all talking about farmers, and those farmers who have too little land are hopeful that some fine day they will have more. Advantage has been taken of this emergency and of the consequential paralysis of the Land Commission, for vastly wealthy syndicates to engage in land speculation of a very unjust kind. In one small county which I represent, five of the vastest demesnes have been purchased within six months by one very wealthy industrialist. All I would say is that in each of these areas there are hundreds of people anxious to get land, anxious to work land, anxious to produce food, and not merely desirous of holding the land as a money-making speculation. The Government as a whole, rather than the Minister for Agriculture, should give consideration to this matter. If it is going on elsewhere to the extent that it is going on in Laoighis, then I think it is a national disgrace. The land, if it is to change hands, should go to others interested in the land, and persons who have amassed wealth in other walks of life should leave the land to the farmers.

There is one other point of a small kind which I would ask the Minister to look into. I have heard complaints from more counties than one with regard to the various types of commodities that are on sale for dosing the land in order to kill crows, etc. If the practice is extended, I believe there will not be a wild bird of any kind left in this country in 12 months. I am further just a little bit anxious as to what effect it may have one of these days on human life. I did get a report, how reliable I do not know, with regard to three woodcrest that were picked up dead and were sold, and subsequently eaten by a family, and the whole family got sick. In any case, I should like it to be generally known that students of agriculture and experienced farmers will agree that, on the whole, birds are a greater blessing than they are a curse.

The one possible exception is the wood pigeon. While birds probably do a certain amount of damage, they are the enemies of other organisms which are more dangerous to the crops. It is easy to understand that if the land is generously sprinkled with those things it will be the end of bird life, if not, to a certain extent, of animal life in this country. As I go about my professional work, I hear tales of birds being picked up in the headlands, not in dozens, but in hundreds. From any point of view, I think that is entirely regrettable. If the Department over which the Minister presides could do anything to stop that kind of destruction, I think it would be advisable to stop it.

Mr. Meighan

I think we all realise that this debate is one of the most important of the year. Unlike Deputy Sheldon, I offer no apologies when I say that my remarks on this Vote will be confined to realities in my own constituency. With regard to the dairying industry, I feel that we are not getting a proper return from the amount of money that is spent on subsidising the improvement of stock by means of special term bulls. On a former occasion, I gave instances, which I am not going to repeat, of abuses that have taken place in my own county, but I am going to refer to special term bulls, and I know that the feeling in my county is that those animals are of inferior quality. It is felt that the Department purchases the remnants of the sale yards. I am personally aware of one case where a man was anxious to get a calf from one of those special term bulls. He had two cows, and he brought one of them on a number of occasions to one of those bulls. He brought the other cow to a scrub bull, which was unlicensed, but which the owner intended to show for inspection later on. The two calves, one from the special term animal, and the other from the scrub bull which was eventually rejected, grew up side by side. In a year and a half or two years afterwards the local show was held, and the calf from the special term animal was so disappointing that the owner would not dream of entering it. The calf from the bull which was rejected got first prize.

I know that, in County Roscommon, the County Committee of Agriculture has been subsidising bull premiums for a number of years, and it is disappointing to think that after all those years, notwithstanding the fact that there are dairy bulls in practically every district in the county, there is still no improvement. There must be something wrong. I agree with Deputy Dillon, who said that too much attention is paid to feeding those bulls. I think that overfeeding is responsible for hiding their defects to a great extent. Several owners have told me that they were ashamed of those animals. One man said to me: "I am really ashamed to see that animal in the field, but if I say a word I am knocked out. I must keep my mouth shut." I would say to the Minister that those owners, who have been keeping bulls for a number of years, must know something about them, and if they are dissatisfied with those animals they should be able to send them back and feel assured that they will get an animal of at least average standard.

I think 1/- a gallon is a reasonable price to expect for milk, and that it should be paid all the year round. A Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches said that those who retail their milk at 2/- or 2/4 a gallon in the country towns or at 3/4 in the City of Dublin deserve that price, because they have to feed the cows probably on concentrated foods during the winter and supply milk all the year round. Even granting that there is something in that, I would ask any reasonable man to say why there should be such a vast difference in price? I think there is something wrong in that. I certainly suggest to the Minister that he should have no hesitation in saying that 1/- a gallon for the whole year round is a reasonable figure compared with 2/- or 2/4 in provincial towns and villages and 3/4 in the City of Dublin. On behalf of the people I represent, I offer no apology to anybody for making those demands.

There are many people living in towns and villages who buy creamery butter. If there is such a wonderful profit to be made out of dairying, it is strange that these people prefer to pay the present price for butter rather than keep cows and produce their own butter and milk. If they feel that there is such a wonderful profit in dairying, why do they not keep cows and try it themselves? I know a few who tried the experiment, and they gave it up after a year or two.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the growing of wheat on unsuitable soil. I have before my mind the instance of a man who is very anxious to co-operate in food production. Two years ago he decided to grow an acre of wheat on what anybody would call good land in County Roscommon. He sowed spring wheat, and, to all appearances, it grew as a fine crop, but when it came to the threshing, all he got for his labour was 8 cwt. of wheat. In the following year, instead of wheat he decided to grow an acre of rye, and out of the same ground he got 17½ cwt. of grain to the acre. He found a ready market for it and sold it at 5/- a stone.

There is the case of another gentleman whose name I am prepared to give to the Minister privately, or to the Minister for Justice who also represents County Roscommon. This man is a personal friend of his. He cannot be described as a ne'er-do-well nor as one who does not farm his land properly. In addition to carrying out tillage on his own land, he took another farm which necessitated his carrying out ten acres of additional tillage. He spent something like 20 days ploughing it and seeding it. He went into the town of Roscommon, where he got 20 barrels of best seed-oats at £2 per barrel. He paid 50/- per acre to the owner of the reaper and binder for cutting it, and 25/- per hour to the owner of the threshing mill for threshing it. Yet all he received out of the grain which he had put down was 35 barrels, or 15 barrels over and above the quantity of the seed which he had used. I think it is a pity that greater efforts would not be made to ascertain what is the most suitable crop for various types of land, so that crops would be sown on the land best suited for them.

Whilst everybody realises the necessity of sowing as large a quantity of wheat as possible during those years, and of having an abundant supply of it, I definitely say that it would be the wisest policy to grow wheat on land that is best suited for it and to grow potatoes and other crops on other lands which are likely to give better yields of these particular crops. I do not think anybody is inclined to grumble in present circumstances, but I think it will be agreed that it would be more useful to the country if land such as I have described, which is at present being devoted to the production of wheat, were put under potatoes or other crops of which it is more likely to give a more abundant yield.

There is a good deal of discontent— and I should like the Minister to note it if he has any control in the matter —in connection with the prices charged by the owners of reapers and binders and of threshing mills, for the use of these machines. I have already mentioned the case of a man who was charged 50/- for cutting and binding. I know that I myself and others got equally good work done at 25/- an acre. This all happened in the one county; the two districts are only about 15 miles apart. I think it extraordinary that one owner of a reaper and binder should be allowed to charge 50/- an acre while another can do the work at 25/-. There is something radically wrong, something that should not be tolerated, in that state of affairs if the Minister and his Department have any control over it. There is also a feeling in the country that the prices charged by the owners of threshing mills, or at least some of them, are too high.

Deputy Byrne (Junior) told us that there was a feeling in the city that the farmer was exploiting the city man and the business man, and that the prices he was charging for his produce were too high. I should like to supply Deputy Byrne with some information that I hope will open his eyes. Potatoes of the Golden Wonder variety were sold in the market at Ballaghaderreen at 9/- per cwt. and I have definite information that they are being sold in the City of Dublin at 3/- per stone for seed. Kerr Pinks were sold is the same market at 6/- per cwt. and Arran Banners at 5/- per cwt. On my way to the Dáil to-day I saw eggs in a city shop marked at 3/2 per dozen. I have no hesitation in saying that eggs of a better quality, or at least of as high a grade, are being sold in the country to the man who goes round collecting them at 20/- per great hundred. That is at 2/- per dozen.

Will the Minister or any reasonable man tell me that it is fair that eggs for which the producer gets 2/- per dozen 100 miles from Dublin, or perhaps only 30 miles from Dublin, should be sold to the city housewife at 3/2 per dozen? I think there must be something very wrong in that. Again I say if the Minister has any powers at his disposal which he could exercise to check this plunder—I call it plunder because there is no other word sufficiently strong to describe it—he should not hesitate to put them into operation. It is incredible that it should cost 1/2 a dozen to cover all the operations that take place in transferring the eggs from the producer 100 miles away to the consumer here in the city. Having regard to these facts, I think that Deputy Byrne and his friends can feel assured that whoever is exploiting the city people, it certainly is not the farmer.

With regard to the scarcity of potatoes, in my district and in the various districts surrounding it there are tons of potatoes to be got at the prices I have quoted, and if the city people feel that there is likely to be a shortage of potatoes at the present time—I am not speaking of later on—it is up to those who think there will be a shortage to see that potatoes are procured in districts where large quantities are available. I move to report progress.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until Thursday, 30th March, 1944, at 3 p.m.