Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Agriculture (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Wednesday, 5 Jun 1946

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

Mr. Hughes

When progress was reported, I was dealing with an article in the Minister's journal of September, 1945, on wild white clover by Dr. Lafferty and with an experiment carried out by Dr. Roberts which showed that, on a wild white clover plot, there was an average increase of 40 per cent. in live weight over the control plot, the ordinary pasture, and that when both plots were cultivated later, the wild white clover plot gave a yield of 28½ cwt. of grain to the statute acre as against a yield of 21 cwt. from the control plot. The Minister was absent while I was reading the details of the experiments from the journal of March, 1945. A series of three experiments was carried out at the three stations, Athenry, Ballyhaise and Clonakilty, where young lea was laid down and a comparison made between that young lea which was laid on half a field, the other half being old pasture, both of which have been stocked. In all three experiments the live-weight increase on the young lea was less than the live-weight increase on the old pasture. I also gave the remarks made on the experiment that young leas rapidly depreciated and became infested with weeds and that lots of tufts showed all over the field, even when it was grazed bare and that the cattle did not relish the feeding. There was a rapid depreciation on the lea.

The Minister, in his White Paper, advocates a lea farming policy and we have all read and talked a good deal about it, but have we no convincing experiments carried out here? The Minister is aware of the experiments carried out in Northern Ireland which showed a substantial increase in live weight on young lea as against the control plot. Is it the Minister's idea that he should come to the House to advocate a compulsory tillage policy based on lea farming when we have no proof of its advantages, except from outside?

Mr. Allen

Would the Deputy say what lea farming is for the benefit of those who do not know?

Mr. Hughes

The Deputy knows nothing about it?

Mr. Allen

I should like to hear your opinion.

Mr. Hughes

A few years ago, the Deputy's colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, had no interest in lea farming. He did not think there was anything in it. He thought we were operating a lea farming policy which was just as good as that in other countries. Evidently he has changed, because he advocates in this White Paper compulsory tillage based on lea farming. He has talked about sending the plough around the farm for the purpose of establishing young leas and thereby stepping up fertility. If the Deputy wants any information on the young lea idea, I can tell him—and it brings me to another point in relation to this question of lea farming.

Scientists, who have examined into this problem of grass cultivation, have established conditions such as will produce the type of lea that is envisaged and planned. If there is a high degree of acidity in the soil clovers cannot be grown and one cannot establish a clover matt at all. As a matter of fact, if there is acidity, one cannot produce the highly nutritious grasses and the highly nutritious grasses will not persist for any length of time. Grasses of poor quality and low nutritional value will dominate the pasture in a very short time. I wonder is that what happened at those centres where we attempted to establish a lea of the type they were trying to establish in Great Britain. How are we going to operate a policy of that sort in this country if we have not got the proper soil service? The Minister gave us some information yesterday as to the type of soil service we have at Johnstown Castle and we have a number of technicians centralised there to whom soil samples can be sent for analysis. That system cannot possibly work. One cannot centralise a service like that and one cannot expect any scientist to give accurate information as to the soil condition by merely testing a sample of the soil. The scientist requires much more data than that. He must know something of the history of the field from which the sample is taken and how it has been treated for some years prior to the taking of the sample. Taking all such circumstances into consideration he can in conjunction with laboratory analysis, give accurate information to the farmer as to the condition of the soil and its requirements. If the Minister, therefore, is thinking of providing a soil service in this country he must provide an efficient soil service. If we continue to operate the sort of service at Johnstown Castle at the moment we shall find people, who will avail of that service and who get wrong results, shaking their heads and saying: "Well, the advice I got from Johnstown Castle was all wrong and the soil service there is not reliable." You cannot centralise an efficient soil service. I think the provision of an efficient soil service is the first problem we have got to tackle in this country because the farmers generally all over the country want accurate information about the condition of the soil. If we are going to launch out into a lea farming policy then that policy must be properly based and the services which are both necessary and essential to the efficient operation of that policy ought to be provided by the State.

I was glad to hear the Minister say last night that we require a lot more lime. It is about time the Minister woke up to a realisation of the situation. Even when the Minister says we want ten times more than we are using at present he is still far below the amount required to correct the existing evil. This problem of lime deficiency is the growth of many years and it is a very big national problem now. It must be measured accurately and the amount of the corrective necessary must be properly calculated; and it must be provided at the right price. In order to do that the Minister must examine this question of providing calcium carbonate at the cheapest possible price. Our chief difficulty is that those areas most in need of lime are most remote from the sources of supply. The present system of lime subsidy is all wrong and it is not related to the problem as it exists.

On a couple of occasions I have asked the Minister for Agriculture parliamentary questions and the answers given to those questions would indicate that the lime subsidy is greatest in County Dublin where the problem is least. There is any amount of alkaline land in County Dublin which does not require any lime. The Deputy who has the honour to represent Wexford probably knows how big the problem is in that county and he also knows that the sources from which the farmers of Wexford obtain their lime are remote from those highly acid areas. The system will have to be operated by delivering to farmers in this country lime at a certain minimum price. The present system is a grave hardship to those farmers in acid districts who are remote from supplies. I suggest that the Minister should thoroughly investigate this whole question now.

I was glad, too, to hear the Minister say yesterday evening that he was now convinced that ground limestone is the proper medium in which to find this essential corrective. Huge plants have been established in Great Britain for the purpose of producing ground limestone; if we follow what has been done there we shall be following a very good example. No experiments have been carried out in respect of ground limestone and caustic lime in this country. Recently I was looking at the results of some experiments carried out in Scotland and those experiments all go to show that ground limestone gives better results than burnt limestone.

Mr. Allen

There have been experiments carried out.

Mr. Hughes

Where are the results published?

Mr. Allen

They have been carried out by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Hughes

What was the result?

Mr. Allen

The results were published. Experiments were carried out in the use of lime, and on ground limestone and burnt lime.

Mr. Hughes

But no experiments have been carried out to compare ground limestone and caustic lime. There have been such detailed experiments carried out in Scotland and the results of the experiments have been published. The results all go to show that ground limestone has advantages over caustic ground lime. The Minister is slow to appreciate the advantages of having experiments such as these carried out. He has taken a considerable time to appreciate the magnitude of the acid problem in this country, and how essential it is to have accurate and up-to-date scientific information available to the farmer who is operating the land in the national interest. I think the stagnation in our production and the low output per man per acre is something which must be faced up to in a realistic way. Technical knowledge and modern equipment are necessary if we are to step up production. No effort has been made to help the farmer in that respect. We have relied on individual efforts so far as production is concerned, but there has been no attempt to provide definite technical assistance and modern equipment.

The Minister tells us in the White Paper that he is going to set up an authority to purchase maize and surplus barley. That may be all right and there may be no difficulty about it while the price of maize is high. For the next four or five years, say, the price of maize will be high and there will be little or no margin to make up between the price of maize and the price of barley. But, if there is a substantial fall in the price of maize at any time and if barley is maintained at a fairly high level, a substantial contribution will have to be made by those who are using maize to those who are producing barley. However, that will not present any great problem for four or five years but it may not prove a sound policy for all time and I do not think we should commit ourselves to that as a definite policy. We must have a policy that will help the small farmer in the matter of producing poultry, eggs and pigs and, if it is possible, ensure a market for those products. Running through one of these White Papers there is very grave doubt expressed as to the possibility of developing an export market in pig products to any extent. I do not think that the gluts and slumps that were characteristic of the period between the two wars will return. The primary producers all over the world are alive to their interests and statesmen are alive to the necessity of ensuring that there will not be erosion or the abuse of nature because the primary producers were forced to sell below the actual cost of production and had to cash in on the most valuable asset that they possessed—the fertility of the soil.

I notice that the Minister does not propose to implement the recommendations of the Post-war Planning Committee so far as fertilisers are concerned, that he hopes to allow the farmers to cash in on the credit notes they got for their wheat, next year, and that it is not likely that the credit policy will continue after this year. I do not think that is a wise decision because there has been, as the result of the emergency, a substantial reduction in the fertility of this country and our concern should be to adjust that at the earliest possible moment.

Whatever assistance may be given for the purchase of fertilisers, by way of subsidy, is a national investment and a very wise investment. The Minister and the Government ought not to be anxious to curtail that. We were advised by the Minister, yesterday, that with our climate we should get exceptionally good results from the use of fertilisers but, as a matter of fact, the Minister is aware that we have been among the lowest users of fertilisers in the world.

In connection with the farm improvements scheme referred to in the White Paper, I want to give this advice to the Minister: I am opposed to bringing in farm buildings under this scheme. We ought to have a separate scheme for farm buildings, if it is necessary, and I believe it is. The farm improvements scheme was introduced for the purpose of improving the land, by way of reclamation. There are certain provisions for liquid manure tanks, and that sort of thing. That is all right because it is helpful to the policy behind the farm improvements scheme. Whatever moneys are voted under this scheme ought to be kept definitely for the particular purpose of improving the land. If we widen the scheme and include farm buildings, eventually, one would find that a substantial portion of the money would be directed to the farmyard rather than to the land. I think we can even increase the amount of money that is being spent on farm improvement and that there is very wide scope for farm improvement.

In connection with the last paragraph of the White Paper, I take exception to the type of committee—this brains trust—that the Minister has set up to deal with the few remaining problems that have not been dealt with by the Post-war Planning Committee. I do not think that three officials of the Minister's Department are the right people to determine what sort of agricultural education service we want in this country. Under that system, the public have no machinery by which they can submit views and memorands. Such commission should be detached altogether from the Minister's Department.

I believe that those who signed the majority report did not intend the Minister to set up a committee of civil servants to deal with these matters. It would be very unfortunate if policies concerning very important aspects of our agricultural life were to be decided inside the Department, without consultation, or without an opportunity being given to the public, and that section of the public that are vitally concerned, of presenting their views and submitting evidence.

In connection with the White Paper on the reorganisation of the pigs and bacon industry, I regret that the Minister has decided to have three officials of his Department examine this problem. I have no objections to the recommendations that have been made by this particular committee, but I do say that we are entitled to the report and memoranda that were submitted to the Minister by that committee and to the evidence that was submitted to the committee. It is very difficult for the House to make up its mind on these matters if we are not in a position to review the evidence.

So far as the report itself is concerned and the recommendations on page 9, I am in agreement with the recommendations made. I think that we must have a standard article, particularly if we hope to have an export trade, and I can see no reason why we should not have an export trade. I think the opportunities are there. The Minister, in his address to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, mentioned Canada as a very serious competitor. That may be. But I believe that we have something in this country to sell to Great Britain in the matter of bacon and bacon products that Canada cannot give. We can produce a first quality bacon second to none. Our bacon has a flavour which no other country's bacon has which we should exploit. If our aim is to produce a first-class article for the British breakfast table, I think we can beat the Canadians in that respect. But it wants organisation and possibly the curing end wants rationalisation.

Whether the method of implementing the recommendations is the best method, is a different question. Paragraph (1) of the recommendations is:—"Provision of effective machinery for prompt expansion or reduction of output as circumstances may require." If that is the sort of industry that we are contemplating, to have some sort of machinery that will contract or expand production according to the market requirements, then the people who prepared this have no faith whatever in the plans of the conference at Quebec or the farmers' conference in London last week. They have no confidence whatever in the success and in the aims and motives of these conferences. The White Paper, at page 6 says, "if an export market is available to absorb surplus pigs and bacon at a price which will give an economic return to pig producers." Again, at paragraph 15, it says:—"What the respective shares of bacon, pork and live pigs in future exports may be it is not possible to predict, but it would seem advisable that export should be so managed that the most profitable item or items receive the greatest encouragement." Running through this whole White Paper there is a doubt expressed as to the possibility of getting an export market for bacon pigs or pig products of any sort. Because of the substantial increase in protective foods that is necessary to implement these proposals and resolutions I referred to, I think we ought not to have any doubt as to the possibilities of securing a market for the surplus pigs in this country. For that reason I agree with the committee in their recommendations, except that in sub-paragraph (1).

So far as the implementing of the recommendations that have been made by the committee is concerned, I do not think that the setting up of a board of the type suggested in this White Paper is the right type. I think it will make for no end of corruption. The Minister did not tell us how he proposes to select the board, whether it is to be an elected or a selected board. One of the cures who made observations on the proposals appeared to take it that the board was to be constituted on a vocational basis. I do not think that the Minister can claim that this board is to be constituted on a vocational basis.

How is the Minister going to constitute the board? Are the members of the board to be hand-picked? Is it to become an absolute dictator board? If it is to be hand-picked, will there not be a lot of political wire-pulling? I am afraid the type of farmer-producers the Minister selected to place on former pig boards did not show their capacity to sit on a board of that type. Neither have we the machinery for the producers' and the curers' interests, the producers' interests anyway, to elect members to a board of this sort. If the curers are to be given an opportunity of electing representatives to this board, will there not be a lot of wangling about it? Will they not be elected on the basis of the curers who are to be left in and of the curers whose interests are to be bought out? Surely a board set up in that atmosphere will not make for confidence so far as the producers are concerned. I agree that the industry is over capitalised and is too great a charge on the industry. It is essential to see that the profits that accrue in the business are fairly divided and that the producer will get his fair share of the profits. I believe that was reported on by a commission set up in 1932 or 1933. After all the commissions that have investigated this matter from time to time, the 1938 commission which is referred to in this White Paper, the Vocational Commission, which recommended certain definite things, and even the Second Minority Report of the Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy Commission, none of their recommendations have been adopted. The Vocational Commission at page 383 of its Report states:—

"It is obvious from our description of this industry that such planning and reorganisation will have to be done by a functional council representative of all the sections concerned. More especially is this true in a time of emergency such as the present. The present practice of establishing advisory committees and consulting them on rare occasions only at the convenience of a Department is not an effective substitute for expert democratic control.

We, therefore, propose and recommend that a pig products council be established, consisting of a chairman and representatives of the following interests: pig producers (selected by the National Agricultural Conference), curers (representing large, medium and small factories), pork butchers, operatives, retailers, State or community, and consumers. The number of producer members should be at least equal to the number of curer members, and the number of representatives of these two interests should be greater than the number representing all the other sections, because their interests are more substantial and more direct."

In the Second Minority Report, Dr. Kennedy makes certain definite recommendations. I cannot understand why the Minister said that that commission did not get time to go into this question of the pig industry. Dr. Kennedy definitely states that evidence was taken. If evidence was taken by that commission, why was the commission not allowed to make recommendations regarding this particular industry? So far as Dr. Kennedy is concerned, he recommends rationalisation, the taking over of the whole industry and running it co-operatively. Three definite commissions have considered this question of the pig industry—the 1938 commission set up by the Minister immediately before the war, which made certain definite recommendations, the Vocational Commission, and those who signed the Minority Report (No. 2) of the Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy Commission. None of them has recommended anything like what the Minister has now produced in the White Paper.

I should like to know why the Minister has departed so completely from the recommendations of the commissions that took evidence and were in a position to arrive at definite decisions, and why we are now to have three civil servants from the Minister's Department to decide what policy shall be operated in the pig and bacon-curing industry. I think there is no justification for the method adopted by the Minister. He proposes to set up a brains trust in his Department where it will sit in secret session. Opportunities were not given to people vitally interested to put forward their views. Civil servants ought not to be on commissions of this sort. The members of such commissions should be free and independent of the Minister or the Government. Officials in the Minister's Department are not free agents; they are not free to criticise or to depart from a policy that would please the Minister and that he believes in. For that reason, it is bad policy to set up within the Minister's Department a commission of this sort. It is not good for the agricultural industry. I do not think its work will command confidence.

The Minister attempts to implement the recommendations of this committee by the machinery which he proposes on page 10. He proposes to set up a board with an independent chairman and representatives of pig producers and bacon curers. They will be given power to acquire and operate or close any bacon-curing factory that may be offered for sale; to negotiate and, with the prior consent of the Minister for Agriculture and both Houses of the Oireachtas, to compel, if necessary, the amalgamation in any town or district of existing bacon-curing firms; to close factories which, as a result of amalgamation, may have become redundant; to erect new factories where, in the opinion of the board, they are needed; to regulate the marketing and export of pigs, bacon, pork and other pig products; to purchase and allocate all pigs offered for slaughter; to require bacon-curing firms to improve the layout, equipment, and management of their factories.

If this board is to be hand-picked, and if the members are to decide what type of machinery is necessary in a particular factory, that would be a very dangerous power to give them.

For instance, if the board wanted to put an individual out of business, they could insist on that individual installing a particular type of machinery and claim that his methods and equipment were not sufficiently modern. I am opposed to a set-up of this sort. It will make for any amount of corruption and it will fail to command the confidence of the pig producers. The machinery we require is machinery that will command the confidence and approval of the people interested in this industry. You must have their co-operation; you must convince them that the machinery you provide is the best that can be provided, and that it will be operated in their interest. I do not think that is the position, and I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole matter in the light of the recommendations made by various commissions. There were at least three independent commissions. So far as the tag-ends, as the Minister described them to-day, are concerned, they have yet to be dealt with.

It is highly objectionable that three civil servants should be charged with so much responsibility. They are not in a position to deal impartially and in a detached way with this subject. They are too much influenced by the very atmosphere of the Department. It is not in the interest of our primary industry that that should be so. We need not be pessimistic about the future. If we go about this job with a proper outlook we have no reason to be pessimistic. With the opportunities that are likely to present themselves to this food-producing country, with the plans envisaged by the conferences that are dealing with food production and the allocation of food in various parts of the world, we ought not to have any doubt about the ability of this country to expand its production to the maximum. We can do a lot through education and demonstration. Whatever hope there is of convincing our younger people that if you do a certain thing you get a certain result, the adult is in a different position, and you must demonstrate to the adult that a certain process will give you a certain result. In that connection we must provide a more efficient advisory service. The existing service does not reach the people who require it most. The people whom it does reach need it least; those who require it most derive no benefit from it.

Mr. Blowick

I regard the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture as the principal one that takes place in this House. Everybody admits that agriculture is the basis of our national wealth, and that in the final analysis all wealth comes from the land. For that reason, it is only proper that we should devote the greatest possible attention to the Vote for this Department, and give the Minister every possible help in its administration. Two White Papers have been issued, the principal object of which is to indicate that the Minister proposes to introduce a permanent system of compulsion for tillage. Let me say at the outset that this Party wants tillage but that we will not stand for compulsion. The Minister advanced many arguments in favour of increased tillage, thereby presumably giving himself authority to impose compulsion. In my opinion there is an argument against compulsion in paragraph 22 of one White Paper. It reads:—

"Many occupiers who had not been in the habit of tilling before the emergency and who have since provided themselves with tillage equipment and have come to appreciate the advantages of tillage, will now find it no hardship to maintain a reasonable proportion of their land under cultivation."

If the emergency has done that, it should bring home to some farmers the advantages gained from a policy of mixed farming. While farmers did not object to compulsion during the emergency, even if the quota was higher than 37½ per cent., there would not be any outcry as long as they understood that that policy was absolutely necessary. In my opinion farmers have done a very good job in producing food and fodder as well as a great quantity of fuel. They did more to preserve our neutrality than any other section, as neutrality could not have been observed if we had not sufficient food and firing. Otherwise the tune would have been altogether different.

The aim of the Government seems to be towards more and more regimentation, more and more compulsion. I assure the Minister that compulsion in the case of tillage will defeat its own end. The average farmer tills even more than the Minister proposes to impose on him by compulsion. The trouble with most of my neighbours in the West of Ireland, where they till about 50 per cent. of their holdings, is that they have not enough land for that purpose. As a race our people will not take kindly to compulsion unless they know that some grave national emergency calls for it. The Minister has deliberately gone against the Majority Report, and against one of the Minority Reports of the Committee of Inquiry on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy. Neither of these reports advocated compulsion. I think Dr. Kennedy put the position well in paragraph 133 where he said:—

"Agriculture in this country is based on individual ownership of farms. It can be made efficient only by the joint efforts of farmers and technical advisers. So long as that system of ownership is maintained efficiency cannot be achieved by legislative enactments. Compulsory tillage is justifiable only in times of great emergency. In peace time it does not necessarily lead to higher or more economical output per acre."

The whole question is summed up in that paragraph. I suggest to the Minister that as far as compulsion is concerned we are definitely at crossroads. One road is pointing towards the protection of private ownership, and allowing farmers to develop their own industry, while the other is leading to collectivism and to communism. We had a recent example of that in a Land Bill that was before this House. The Minister stated that the purpose of that Bill was to deal with certain people who got a gift of land from the State, which they were expected to work but had not done so.

It is strange that in connection with agriculture we have two Ministers, directly concerned with farming and each of them steering more and more towards regimentation and compulsion. I can tell the Government straight that we will not have it. I go further and defy the Minister to put such a policy into operation. In his statement the Minister did not mention the few prosecutions that have taken place against farmers who refused to till their quota during the emergency. The number was astonishingly small. Amongst the farming community, as amongst other sections, there are people who will not pull their weight. There are people who will not do their part, either through laziness or through a spirit of prevarication. It is necessary to have law for such cases. That was all right during the emergency.

There is now no need to trouble about tillage if farmers are paid reasonable prices for their produce; prices that will give them the cost of production and a small margin of profit. That would also enable them to pay their workers a decent wage, which they are unable to do at present. There will then be no need for compulsion. The average farmer from Cork, Mayo, Donegal or Dublin is anxious to make most of his land. He is anxious and to get down to his work. I am not referring to slackers or to lazy fellows whose holdings are a disgrace. There are occasionally a few of these in every county. If the Minister thinks that he will force compulsion on this country in peace time I am afraid he has a lesson to learn. The fact is that in regard to compulsion in tillage we are at crossroads. We have to respect the rights of private owners, or otherwise to go a step further towards the Russian model. As far as I can see, that is where the Government is going. The Minister for lands went a step along that road and the Minister for Agriculture proposes to follow him. I can assure both Ministers that farmers will not follow along that road.

I should like if the Minister could give the total numbers of prosecutions for non-compliance with tillage Orders during the emergency. The information will be an indication that farmers were sufficiently public spirited to comply with the regulations when it was pointed out to them that our neutrality was at stake. I think the Minister's statement was poor recompense for the most important section of our people, who, after Providence, preserved our neutrality. It is poor recompense to come along now and propose to make permanent Emergency Powers Orders which he found it necessary to impose during the emergency. The emergency has gone and emergency conditions will go bit by bit.

Before I leave that subject, I want to say that wheat is an all-important factor and will remain so. In that respect, I think the findings of the Commission whose report I have here sum up the situation neatly. Let us by no means lose the knowledge and technique we have gained during the emergency in regard to wheat-growing. If necessary, I would impose compulsion in respect of a small area of wheat to keep up the necessary knowledge and technique because many farmers who were not familiar with wheat-growing, or had not land suitable for wheat-growing, were not able to grow wheat with the same success as that with which they grew oats, barley or any other crops they were accustomed to producing. The farmer's trade or profession—whatever you like to call it—requires a very long apprenticeship. I can personally vouch for this, that it requires an apprenticeship of 20 years, at the very least, and, even after that period, the farmer has a lot to learn. In case we should have to face another emergency, I think we should grow a certain amount of wheat, so that we would always have a stock of seed to meet that emergency. We got over the last emergency safely enough, but we do not know what the next three, four or perhaps ten years may hold for us.

A great deal of the land on the average holding has been gone over in tillage and we have had to change from one field to another, with the result that, in many cases, through lack of fertilisers and proper equipment, we have plundered the land of its fertility. The result is that a good deal of land is not in the state of fertility in which we should like to see it. That is a very serious situation in case we have to meet an emergency such as that through which we have passed. The Minister and the Government should see to it that every inducement is held out to farmers to restock the land with the fertility of which it was robbed in order to provide the food necessary during the emergency. That is the next big step.

It was wonderful that we had it there to call upon for the growing of wheat, of potatoes and of the other necessaries of life. We surrendered that fertility and converted it into food cheerfully, but the big task in front of many of us now is to bring back the land to its original state of fertility and production, so that, first, the land of the country will go into full production as soon as possible and, secondly, to provide that, if there is any need to call on the reserve of fertility, that reserve will be there. We want fertilisers made available as soon as possible and at the lowest possible price to all farmers. During the war, we had to struggle along as best we could with a scarcity of farmyard manure and other handicaps. Now that things are coming back slowly. We should have fertilisers in abundance and at cheap price, because the fertilisers is the first step towards restoring fertility and bringing the land back again into full production.

Lime is also a very important factor in the farmer's economy. It would appear that, over 100 years ago, more lime was used than was judicious, with the result that the land became depleted of fertility. What happened in certain districts—and I am sure it was pretty widespread—was that farmers, through not being educated properly in the use of lime, came to regard it as a very dangerous article to handle and so we find in every farm old lime kilns which have been out of use for many years. This has resulted in the pendulum swinging to the other extreme, to acidity, about which Deputy Hughes spoke. It is doing great damage in many parts of the country. It is definitely lowering the quality of grass and is reducing and has reduced the production of wheat in many cases. It has done damage to many other crops and I suggest that, in addition to the present output of lime from lime kilns, steps should be taken to provide, on a pretty large scale, machinery for turning out ground limestone at fairly reasonable prices and to make that available to the farmers on the terms suggested in the report of the Commission on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy.

They recommended, with regard to fertilisers, a subsidy of 25 per cent. of the cost of phosphatic fertilisers and in the case of lime, a subsidy of one-third of the cost of ground or burned limestone, delivered to the nearest railway station, to be payable only in respect of land certified as likely to benefit by an application of lime. The latter part of that, I am afraid, will be very difficult to work. That is the big problem before us if we are to face up to our responsibilities. The Minister has not taken account of the recommendations of this commission in many instances. In the case of tillage, he has deliberately opposed the recommendations of the Majority Report and one Minority Report, and he does not propose to accept their recommendations in respect of fertilisers.

The farm improvement scheme is definitely a good scheme. It is a scheme which has produced wonderful results and which is fully availed of in practically every part of the country. The trouble in that respect is that enough money is not voted each year for it, and I am sure that large numbers of applications have to be turned down annually because there is not money to meet them. We have done very good work in land reclamation, the improvement of houses, buildings and so on I think Deputy Hughes said that he was opposed to giving farm improvement grants for the erection of out-offices. Out offices are a very important part of farm management, and, in every farm I know, there are not sufficient out-offices. The blame for that cannot be laid on the Department—it is a direct result of an old system handed down from the British days whereby out-offices are rated the moment they are built. If there is a loan or grant made in respect of them, there is freedom from rates for seven years, but eventually they are rated, and this has frightened farmers and has compelled them to refrain from adding to their responsibilities by putting up further out-offices.

In some cases, farmers, in order to reduce their rates, have had to pull down valuable buildings, unroofing them and selling the roof. I know of one case—I think, in Kerry—where a man unroofed a shed 45 feet long by 20 feet wide which he needed for stock and farm implements. There should be a complete overhaul of the whole matter of farm buildings. The annual loss of farm equipment alone: tools, tractors, ploughs, machinery of all kinds, horse carts and so on, must come to a very tidy figure by reason of farmers' inability to house them, and the loss through lack of sufficient buildings to house stock and thereby have an increased output of farmyard manure must stand at a very high figure also. We intend to take that matter up with the Minister for Finance at a later stage in regard to the rating question on the ground that it is deliberately upsetting farming economy and deliberately holding back the farmers. Apart from loss in crops because of the insufficiency of farmyard manure, the loss in tools and equipment, which are part and parcel of the farm economy, is very great.

Now, I come to the question of the crops themselves. All hay and corn crops should be under the roof in every homestead. It is all very well to say that the careful farmer will house his crops. It is quite true that the careful farmer will, but there are many farmers who, through inability and because of their not having sufficient help on the farm, cannot thatch, and the loss in crops because of that is enormous. I speak from experience here because I myself spent many years on the roads on threshing sets and I know what happens in most farms. Grain is damaged and destroyed. All during the war years valuable grain was damaged; rats may damage it; and, even where you had thatched haggards, the rain came in and losses ensued there. Some attempt should be made to rectify that situation.

The next important item is the insufficiency of farmyard manure. Very few farms have sufficient out-office accommodation to house enough stock to supply adequately the land with farmyard manure; that was particularly true during the emergency years. If we had had a sufficiency of farmyard manure we would not have had the same urgent necessity for fertilisers. The result was that we were trying to carry a huge tillage policy with a totally inadequate supply of farmyard manure because of insufficiency of housing accommodation. Unlike the last speaker, I do want to see the farm buildings brought in under the farm improvements scheme; if that is not done then I want to see a definite section set up in the Department of Agriculture with an adequate supply of capital at its disposal to enable the farmers to build out-offices, repair and enlarge their existing dwellings, and provide suitable shelter for storing grain, etc.

I come then to the question of pigs. In regard to pigs we find that there is still a further effort going to be made now to do something about the pig trade. In the past what do we find? We find in the agricultural statistics that the pig population has fallen from 1931 to 1940. In 1931 it was 1¼ million approximately; in 1935 it had fallen to 1,087,000; in 1936 it was 1,000,000; the year after it was 134,000, 958,000, 930,000 and then up again to 1,049,000. I shall not speak of the drop during the emergency years, but according to the latest available statistics which we have—that is for 1945—we find the pig population is down to 380,000. In the past we have had a Pigs and Bacon Board in operation. They reminded me of the fable in Irish history of Balor of the Evil Eye who withered everything he looked upon; everything they touched they blighted it. They have done that with the pigs and pig trade in this country. There is too much regimentation and too much interference and they have proved definitely detrimental in this particular aspect of agriculture.

Commissions and boards have been set up and not in one single instance have I ever heard of producers—the people who should be there to cooperate and give their advice and pull their weight on such boards—being invited to do so. Once again, they are not going to be requested to help. In Northern Ireland the pig trade went through pretty much the same phases and with the same ups and downs; finally, they were forced there to go back to the point where they set up boards on which the producers were given a voice. Until the producers here have their say and give the benefit of their experience to such a board or council we cannot expect the best results. You cannot get results from a board constituted purely of civil servants. They probably mean well and do the best they can, but they lack the practical experience which the man on the farm has. Day by day we are moving closer to a situation where the farmers and producers are being deliberately cold-shouldered and we see the results of that policy. The present policy is leading us nowhere.

We would all like to see the time when this country will have every farmer and every holding producing to full capacity. We are not going anywhere near that at the present time. In the most recent statistics we get some astonishing figures in regard to land. The total number of land-holders is round about 384,000; of that number we find 305,000 living on holdings of under 50 acres and 79,000 on holdings of over 50 acres. We find the total amount of land held in this country under 30 acres is only 2,600,000 while that held by those over 30 acres is 1,200,000. In effect that means that roughly 18 per cent. of the holdings are under 30 acres; 72 per cent. of the land holders have only 18 per cent. of the land between them. The fact is that the land problem is really the root cause of all our troubles. Too many people are living on wretchedly small holdings and there is not a fair or equitable distribution of land.

To sum up then, we must have cheap and abundant fertilisers. We must have some scheme for a complete overhaul and rebuilding of out-offices all over the country in order to provide accommodation for crops principally, and also for the housing of stock with a view to the production of farmyard manure, and the housing of farm implements, the losses on which must run into a very considerable figure each year. We will not have compulsion in regard to tillage; we will not have regimentation. We have the tillage and we will stick to it. If the Government and the Minister will give the farmer a reasonable price for his crops and a price which will leave him the cost of production plus a small margin of profit and which will enable him to pay a decent wage to his workers then till age will be continued. The wage of the agricultural worker is low but despite that fact the farmer in many instances is unable to pay that wage. That is a state of affairs which should not obtain in this country. We want then a foundation stock of wheat in order to retain the experience and technique for the successful and efficient production of this crop and also in order to ensure that in any future emergency we shall have our own stock of seed and shall not be put to the necessity of hunting all over the world for seed at a time when shipping will be engaged in warlike occupations.

Mr. Norton

There is one aspect of this Vote to which I wish to direct my brief remarks, that is, the plight of the large masses of people who make such a contribution to our agricultural activity, the agricultural workers. Pleas have been made in this House from time to time on behalf of agricultural workers. It has been pointed out that during the past six years they made a magnificent contribution to the production of food, on which the nation depended for its very existence. They have had to endure the mockery of everybody paying tribute to their magnificent efforts while looking on with cynical indifference to the poverty which was rapidly making still greater inroads on their standard of life.

We have been prone to say to the agricultural worker: "You have done a magnificent job; you have given of your best to produce the food which the nation required and could not get elsewhere," and then, with cruel cynicism, we have simply declined as a Legislature to take the necessary steps to ensure that these workers were paid a wage commensurate with the valuable services they rendered to the community. I am sorry to say that I see no evidence that this Government has any intention of abandoning the poverty-stricken mentality which continues to associate agriculture and agricultural labour with the lowest standard of life in the country.

Everybody knows how seriously the value of the £ has shrunk since 1939. It is true to say, even taking the Government's figures, that the £ to-day is worth approximately 10/-. On that basis, we are paying the agricultural worker, a maximum, throughout the greater portion of the country, of £2, but what we are really giving him in wages is £1 a week compared with 1939 standards. Does not every Deputy who is honest with himself know perfectly well that neither he nor any member of his family could live on £1 per week? Does not every Deputy know that it is impossible for an agricultural worker to enjoy even a tolerable standard of living on a wage twice as high as 40/- a week is to-day? Does not everybody know that it is impossible for the agricultural worker, unless he subjects himself almost to an animal standard of living, to subsist on 40/- per week to-day?

Let us examine what it means. The families of agricultural workers are usually large. Take it that the average agricultural family consists of a man, a wife and four children. A wage of 40/- a week means that each member of the family gets 6/8d. on which to live for seven days. You could not keep a prisoner in Mountjoy or Portlaoighise for 6/8d. a week. You could not even keep a prisoner on hunger strike on 6/8d. a week in Portlaoighise or Mountjoy. It costs three and four times that to maintain persons in county homes. 6/8d. a week is less than 1/- per day. Is not it a nice commentary on the Government's agricultural policy that, having been in office for 14 years, we have reached a stage, so far as agricultural prosperity is concerned, when the best we could give an agricultural worker, even during the past six years, is a wage standard equal to 1/- per head of his family per day?

Is it any wonder that Deputy Corry in the debate on a Bill to provide holidays for agricultural workers, painted for us a grim and bleak picture of the plight of the agricultural workers? When we were discussing the Bill, the object of which was to provide that agricultural workers would get holidays the same as every other section of the community, Deputy Corry said: "What is the use of giving them holidays, sure the poor fellows never have 5/- in their pockets; they have not a decent suit of clothes to wear on Sunday and, if you give them holidays, the only place they can go to is the workhouse." That was Deputy Corry's contribution to the debate on that occasion and that was the picture he drew of agricultural life in this country. After 14 years in office, Deputy Corry says his Government is responsible now for an agricultural position which takes the form of less than 1/- a day for those engaged is agriculture, that the agricultural workers have not a decent suit of clothes and that there is no use in giving them holidays because they have no place to go except the county home. Deputy Corry is a farmer. I think he talks a lot of nonsense in many other respects, but I am perfectly prepared to concede that in respect of agriculture he knows a considerable amount and he probably knows what he is talking about. It is a fair picture of the plight of the agricultural worker to-day to say that that description by Deputy Corry generally represents the plight in which they find themselves, but it is not a very high tribute to the Government and is not a great reflection on the intelligence they have brought to bear on the problem of the development of agriculture.

I want to ask the Minister, is he going to do anything to raise the standard of agricultural workers? They are the most exploited class in the community to-day. They are engaged in the production of commodities without which the nation cannot exist and they are paid a lower rate of wages than any other class in the community. I do not think the Government can continue to ignore a situation of that kind. It is bad for agriculture. It is bad for the country generally. It is no wonder that agricultural workers in all parts of the country are yearning for the day when the ports will be opened so that they can get away to where work is available at rates of wages which will enable them to lead a better life and to maintain their families in better circumstances than they endure to-day.

Agricultural workers are paid £4 10s. a week in Britain to-day, regular employment being guaranteed. Here, they get £2 with, in many instances, broken time. In many other respects employment in Britain offers for agricultural workers a higher rate of wages for toil not as vigorous or as fatiguing as toil in agriculture in this country is. But, because we regard the agricultural worker as essential, we clamp him down on the land, we will not give him the same opportunity of getting away as the industrial worker gets. Freedom is given to the industrial worker to go away, if he so desires, while we say to the agricultural worker: "You will not be permitted to enjoy that freedom; we insist on you remaining on the land but we will not insist on your getting a decent rate of wages while we compel you to remain on the land." The Government has a moral responsibility in this matter, to promote by positive action an increase in wages for agricultural workers so as to rescue them from the impoverished conditions in which large numbers of them have to exist.

We have the Agricultural Wages Board. Frankly, I do not know what its functions are. So far as agricultural workers are concerned, it might as well never exist. But we had a statement from the Minister recently that he was contemplating asking that board at least to meet. If a meeting of the board could produce an El Dorado for agricultural workers, they would have been in it long ago. But the board meets and meets and meets, and the agricultural worker is as poor as ever. I suggest to the Minister that he ought now to tell the board to meet, to recognise frankly that agricultural workers are grossly underpaid, and to submit recommendations whereby the standard of wages of agricultural workers can be lifted to a level that will take them out of their present poverty-stricken plight and enable them to enjoy a standard of living something higher than they enjoy to-day.

The unfortunate part of this whole business so far as agricultural workers are concerned is that it is not as easy to organise them as it is to organise industrial workers. The industrial worker has been able to win for himself a tolerable standard of living by trade union organisation. It has not been possible to organise the agricultural workers with the same ease as the industrial workers. I think, however, that agricultural workers are beginning to realise that it is not by reliance on this Government or on the Agricultural Wages Board that their standard of living will be improved, and that, in the long run, it will probably be only satisfactorily improved when they decide to rely on the same weapon of organisation that has lifted the standard of living of the industrial workers. But the fact that they have not so far embraced in any comprehensive way trade union organisation is no reason why the Government should ride away from their responsibility to lift the standard of living of the agricultural workers. I hope that when the Minister is replying we will hear something from him as to the positive proposals of the Government in respect to raising the wages of agricultural workers to a higher level than exists to-day.

Similarly, in respect of holidays, we had a statement from the Minister recently that he would ask the Agricultural Wages Board to examine this matter of giving the agricultural workers a fortnight's holidays with pay, as is guaranteed by legislation to practically every other class of worker in the community. I do not know whether the Minister has taken any action since in that matter, but I do not know how a Minister can justify the granting of holidays with pay to every class of industrial worker, to every class of commercial worker, to every class of shop worker, and to domestic servants, and yet say to agricultural workers: "You are the one class in the community that is not going to get holidays with pay; we introduced legislation and provided for holidays for every class of industrial workers, but we decline to provide them for agricultural workers who are responsible for producing the foodstuffs on which the nation depends for its existence." It seems to me that, both in respect to wages and holidays, we treat agricultural workers worse than we ever dared to treat industrial workers.

While, as I said, I think that probably the best weapon which the agricultural workers can rely upon is the weapon of trade union organisation, the fact that they have not so far embraced that type of organisation, with the same enthusiasm as industrial workers is no excuse for the Government not making a positive contribution to raising the standard of living of the agricultural workers. In Great Britain they recognised the necessity for doing so, and the results are there for everyone to see. In other countries, in conditions somewhat comparable to ours, similar positive steps have been taken to raise the level of wages in agriculture, because they realise how vital it is to have a well-balanced agricultural position, and how necessary it is to have prosperity in agriculture. You can never get prosperity in agriculture by paying the unfortunate agricultural worker a sweated rate of wages and by paying the farmer a price for his produce which is less than the cost of production and which does not give him an adequate return.

If we are to have real prosperity in this country we can only get it when we recognise that agriculture, being our basic industry and likely to be our main industry for many years to come, is the one in which we ought to endeavour to promote a high measure of prosperity. You can only do that when you give the farmer a decent price for his produce and when you give the agricultural worker a decent price for his labour. In that way you will create wealth in the rural areas, and wealth in the rural areas will demand from the towns and cities manufactured goods and services which, in turn, will provide employment in the towns and cities.

When you create employment and new services in the towns and cities, you create a demand for agricultural produce which cannot be bought at present because of unemployment and the low wage standards in towns and cities. But, if you bring prosperity to the rural areas, you start an endless chain of prosperity from the rural areas to the towns and cities and back to the rural areas again. So long as we allow agriculture to be a depressed industry, the farmer to be uncertain as to the price he will get for his produce, the agricultural worker to be ground down to a life of low wages, we will never have prosperity in the rural areas, and we are not likely ever to be able to set up any enduring measure of prosperity in the cities and towns.

I think the Government, therefore, ought to direct their attention to recognising that it is only by stability in price levels, and price levels that will ensure a fair return to the farmer, and, at the same time, a wage standard which will attract workers to remain on the land, that we will have any prospect of lifting agriculture from its present position, and, instead of our bleak agricultural history in the past, placing it in a position which will ensure stability to the farmer in regard to prices, a decent living for the worker, and an enduring prosperity for the industry as a whole.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I should like to say at the outset that if this White Paper issued yesterday morning is to be taken as representing the Government's long distance view of agriculture, then I think the House is entitled to say that it is most disappointing. We have this rather flimsy looking document of a few pages which purports to deal with the report of a commission, three reports as a matter of fact, a majority report and two minority reports, and to give the Government policy for every aspect of Irish agriculture for the future. That is the document which is supposed to be the guide and lead for the farmers of the country for the period in which we are living, the particular conditions under which we are living and, what is of very direct importance and has a very direct bearing on this, the conditions in the world generally so far as certain products are concerned.

In my opinion, this is merely tinkering with this whole question of agriculture. However, I daresay there will be another opportunity provided for dealing in a fuller and more detailed way with this White Paper. If the Government will not provide the opportunity for that fuller discussion, then I think other Parties in the House will have to take the opportunity of doing it themselves.

Dealing with the existing situation, there are certain aspects of agriculture upon which I should like to touch. Let me express again my disappointment at the vagueness and the incompleteness of this White Paper in so far as it deals with what is perhaps the most urgent need of agriculture at the moment, and that is fertilisers. It is very vague. I readily admit that there are circumstances completely outside our control and outside the control of the Minister which may influence very much the position with regard to fertilisers. I am afraid that the vagueness, apart from the incompleteness of this wording, dealing with the provision, the price and the distribution of fertilisers, and the vagueness as to how and when the vouchers which were issued are to be cashed-in, is deliberate. If fertilisers are to become available in anything like the quantities that are necessary, there will have to be a complete recasting of the whole method of handling fertilisers before they reach the farmers. We should have from the Government some indication that close, detailed attention has been given to that very important matter.

While I am dealing with fertilisers I might refer to a matter—indeed, I am not by any means the first to refer to it—which, because of its importance, cannot be over-emphasised. We have been clamouring for fertilisers and bemoaning the way in which the fertility of the soil was exhausted during the last six or seven years. We were bemoaning the fact that neither artificial manure nor ordinary farmyard manure was available in sufficient quantities. At the same time, we were deliberately allowing a criminal waste of the most valuable manure of all, liquid manure. It was flowing into every drain, gully and stream and no attempt was made, either in an individual or national way, to trap that liquid manure and see that it was spread on the land.

Until such time as steps are taken to put an end to the waste of that invaluable manure and see that it is spread on the land, we are not looking after the restoration of the fertility of our soil in the way in which we should. Have any of the Minister's commissions or committees given the attention to that matter which it deserves? Have they made any recommendations about it? If they have, I should like to know whether the Minister proposes to take any steps to see that something effective will be done with regard to it.

I do not want at the moment to deal with lime. Deputy Blowick referred to it. He said that in the West of Ireland the complaint was that more lime than was judicious was used. I think the Deputy would probably be more correct if he said that the lime which was used was not judiciously used. The probability is that lime was applied to soil which did not require a lime application.

Next to fertilisers the two greatest needs of farming, if we are to step-up production and stop the very considerable waste that takes place in relation to what we produce, are the provision of suitable farm buildings and the provision, as soon as it is possible to do so, of proper farm equipment. I can speak only from personal experience in my own county. There, perhaps, you will see as good farming as in any average county; I suppose our buildings are not much better or much worse, and I suppose our equipment is the same as will be found in an average county. Not 10 per cent. of the farmers of this country have sufficient storage for the cereals they produce. If it had not been for the fact, particularly in the principal wheat-growing areas, that we were able to bring the wheat away from the threshing machine, a considerable quantity of the wheat we produced would have been a dead loss, especially if there was a bad, wet harvest. It was no use saying to a farmer: "Put it into the barn or on the loft," because in nine cases out of ten he had not a loft which would store any corn other than the limited quantity he was keeping for his own requirements.

I will not deny—it would be not only untrue but stupid—that there has been a considerable improvement made in farm buildings during the last 25 years, but that improvement, to a large extent, has been so far as the residence is concerned. Of course, it is very proper that human beings would be properly housed, but if you are to have proper, economical farming, and cut out a considerable amount of waste, you must have suitable farm buildings. I am not in any way critical of farmers or their methods. They know far more about their business than I could ever learn. At the same time, one cannot help observing things, particularly when one is dealing with farmers as closely as I have been for a number of years.

The way in which corn is stooked in the fields and put into the haggards is not conducive to turning out a first-class article. I do not say that is true of all farmers, but it is true of certain farmers. One of the reasons for that is that in later years, and particularly during the war, there was no test of the quality of the grain. The same price was paid for the grain, whether it was first-class, second-class or third-class. There was a difference of perhaps half-a-crown a barrel for wheat very well saved. It is likely that what I am saying may be misrepresented, but this discussion is not likely to be of any use, unless we say about this very important matter what we honestly believe to be the truth. I am saying this mainly in the hope that steps will be taken to improve the situation.

With regard to barley, which is referred to in various reports and in the White Paper, apparently we are going to have a difference between what is called barley for industrial purposes and barley for feeding purposes, and that it is the intention of the Government to fix prices for industrial barley, in other words, barley required for malting, brewing and distilling, and barley required for feeding. That is going to be done on the assumption that barley sold for other than industrial purposes will necessarily be inferior to barley sold for malting. That does not always happen. Take the case of a farmer living in a backward area, in a district where when they are finished everywhere else threshing machines make their way. That farmer may get anything from 5/- to 15/- per barrel less for his barley—which is probably not inferior to other barley—than another farmer who got 35/- a barrel.

I have personal experience of that happening. It happened because the market for malting barley was filled before the man was able to get his crop threshed. Although his barley was superior to much of the other barley which was bought for malting, because the market was filled he had to take anything up to 15/- a barrel less than other farmers. I take it that we will have an opportunity of going into that matter before the Minister puts that part of his policy into operation.

So far as wheat is concerned, many aspects of that cereal might be discussed. I hope we have now come to the end of this policy of forcing farmers to sow seed on land that will only grow as much wheat as could be grown if it were sown in the middle of Kildare Street. It is not only grossly unfair to farmers whose land is unfitted to grow wheat, but it is a definite loss of useful labour and of good seed. The other matter I want to touch upon concerns the handling of pedigree seed. The present machinery is not by any means the best machinery for the distribution of pedigree seed. I do not think it is the fairest or the most effective way to deal with it. I should like to see that matter gone into later. I am merely referring to it now as there will be another occasion for discussion. One of the greatest sources of waste and loss to farmers who grew cereals, during the last eight or nine years, was due to the threshing mills that were in operation in many districts. It is true to say that in a number of cases there was more grain going into the chaff than into the bags, very much to the loss of the farmers and the nation. I hope some steps will be taken to see that there will be a test of threshing mills and their efficiency, so that there will not be such waste of farmers' hard-won harvest.

As far as farm equipment is concerned, there are great arrears to be made up, and the capital expenditure that would have to be undertaken by many farmers in order to re-equip their plant will be very large. We know that many of them have only been able to carry on by improvisations of a most extraordinary kind. How some of them were able to keep farm machinery working is a mystery. That is an aspect that also requires the attention of the Government. I think the Government, in fairness to those employed on the land, ought to see that machinery and equipment is provided at the lowest possible price.

We passed through this House recently a Bill dealing with turf production on a big scale. That scheme will cost something in the nature of £4,000,000. Half of that cost would go to ensure that when the turf is cut what was left behind would be useful soil. We have a considerable number of unemployed persons in this State, and anybody who travels to the south, either by road or rail, can see hundreds and hundreds of acres of land growing furze and scrub. I have made inquiries from people, who are more competent to give an opinion on the subject than I am, and they say that these large areas could be reclaimed in the same way as smaller areas have been reclaimed by farmers, and put into useful production. That would provide work for many people who, at certain periods, are now drawing unemployment assistance in rural areas, and land which is now wasteful would be made useful. As far as the policy set out in the White Paper is concerned, I do not think it could be adequately discussed now. I hope the Minister will provide an occasion for doing so at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Corry

During the past few years I have repeatedly looked forward on this Estimate for the same treatment for the agricultural industry that has been shown towards other industries. On this Vote last year the Minister gave us a guarantee as to the fixation of prices. He told us he would have some board set up by 31st March this year. The board has not been set up. I read every word of the Minister's speech which appeared in the public Press to-day—in every paper—and I read it eagerly for one purpose, namely, to find out when the Minister responsible for agriculture was going to put the agricultural industry on the same footing as other Irish industries. We want neither subsidies nor doles. We agriculturists want our cost of production, plus a profit, the same as every other industry in the State and the same as we have to pay, as agriculturists, to every other industry, and through the nose at that.

For every bag of artificial manure that I, as a farmer, put on my land, I have to pay for the wages and the bonus of Messrs. Goulding's employees and for their fortnight's holidays as well and, in addition, I have to pay for the wages and bonus of the Córas Iompair Eireann employees and their holidays as well. The whole lot is thrown down in one lump on the man who cannot pass it on, the man who has nobody to pass it on to, and the man who is deprived of the right which every other industrialist is entitled to and gets, namely, the right to go before a tribunal to put his case for his cost of production, plus a profit.

I read the Minister's statement as to the future of tillage. There was set up here a few years ago a commission to inquíre into post-war agriculture, a commission composed of over-paid and over-fed professors, men with no knowledge of their subject. If they are the people who are teaching and educating our young men, our young instructors on agriculture to-day, may God help the country, so far as agriculture is concerned. I find that the greater number of their recommendations are being implemented here by the Minister. The Minister says we are to have only 150,000 acres of wheat now as against 642,000 acres last year. I wonder has the Minister got any guarantee from Messrs. Joseph Stalin and Company that they will give him 12 months' notice of the next war, so that he will be able to expand his 150,000 acres to 300,000 in the one year? Will he get 12 months' notice? I had hoped that the bread of the people of this country would never again be jeopardised. In 1939, we had some 275,000 acres of wheat. This acreage of 150,000 is 125,000 acres less than the acreage we started with in 1939.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 5 Jun 1946

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

A Deputy

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1946