Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1947

Vol. 106 No. 18

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration—(Deputy Hughes).

Mr. Halliden

In former years, on the Vote for Agriculture, considerable time was devoted to a discussion of the uneconomic price for milk paid to farmers by creameries. Owing, however, to the praiseworthy efforts of the Minister for Agriculture, that longstanding grievance has now been removed. I wish to congratulate the Minister on so readily attacking the question of the low price of milk supplied to creameries and on giving what is to my mind a satisfactory price at the moment for that milk. We are particularly glad to notice that the period has been changed and that the winter price will be paid for the month of April in future. As time goes on, and when costings are in from the Costings Tribunal which we hope will be established very soon, the Minister may find that the price of milk must be revised and that it may be desirable for him at a future date to fix a further increased price for milk so that the dairying industry will be restored to its old position in the country.

In fixing that price for milk, the Minister made an appeal to the farmers of the country to do all they possibly could to increase milk production during the coming year. Owing, however, to the poor condition to which cows had been reduced during the winter and spring months as a result of the abnormally bad weather and the great shortage of feeding generally, I am afraid that the increase in milk and butter production for the coming year will not be very much despite the best efforts of the dairy farmers. He has appealed to the dairy farmers to do their best in the matter. I desire also to urge the farmers to do their best and I am sure they will. There are many circumstances, however, seriously militating against the dairy farmer. Perhaps the worst at the moment is shortage of labour. That shortage of labour has resulted in smaller herds and in many cases the dispersal of many large and useful herds throughout the country.

In that connection, I would appeal to the Minister to consider the desirability of strongly urging farmers and facilitating them to use milking machines. For some reason, which is fairly obvious, milkers seem to have a hatred of milking cows on Sundays. Of course, cows must be milked on Sundays. How can that best be done? How is the dairy farmer to be safeguarded against the loss which might arise from the bad milking of cattle on Sundays or the neglect, perhaps, in some cases, to milk them at all? I suggest that he should introduce a scheme to encourage farmers to install milking machines. In New Zealand, to which our eyes are very often turned in connection with dairying problems, we find that fully 85 per cent. of the cows there are milked by machinery. In the United States we know also that a very large percentage of herds, practically all herds above 12 cows, are milked by machines. Many farmers throughout this country do not like milking cattle in that way. I think there are many reasons why they do not. One reason I think is that the machines that were available up to a certain period were not very efficient and I am afraid, too, that the manipulation of these machines was not efficient and that, therefore, through lack of efficiency in the handling of the machines, a difficulty has arisen. I have known many farmers who have used these machines for years with great success. Others got them and very quickly dismantled and scrapped them.

Consequently, I think that in any scheme of education that may be introduced and in any courses through which young men have to go in the agricultural colleges in the country, there should be on the curriculum some scheme of practical instruction on the proper handling of milking machines. I would also suggest to the Minister that he should consider the advisibility of issuing attractive loans, either free of interest or at a low rate of interest, to farmers who would like to install milking machines. I know very well that with the introduction of rural electrification these machines will become popular. I think it would be well that our young men should be trained in the proper method of manipulating these machines and using them with the great success that has been achieved in other outstanding dairying countries of the world. There has been a great deal of current comment lately on the Live Stock Breeding Act and the value of our dairy cattle. My contention is that we have in the country a breed of cattle—the dairy Shorthorn— which produces the best all-round general purpose cow available. We can breed into her sufficient milk not only to supply our needs but very often to give a surplus to enable us to regain the export market so that we will be able to import the goods we need most.

I believe the dairy Shorthorn, if properly bred, can be a very efficient milker and we all know that the dairy Shorthorn cow is the foundation of the store cattle trade. That trade has been a very great source of wealth in this country and the dairy Shorthorn cow, mated with the Aberdeen Angus or Hereford, can always be relied upon to produce milk in the most economic fashion. I think we would be wise to concentrate on the dairy Shorthorn rather than entertain breeds which may be exceptional in other directions. There is an old tradition among our people, and they will hold on to that tradition, and if we want to improve our cattle trade, we must face the fact than any sort of change would be unpopular.

Agriculture is the basis of our national economy, and on it depends our standard of living. Consequently, I think the policy of our agriculture should be one that would ensure a prosperous peasantry. In particular, that would help to increase the rural population. I am afraid it must be said that the agricultural policy followed for a number of years has probably stripped the country of the best of its population. We have had control of our destinies for the past 25 years, and even so, the production of the land, our greatest potential asset, has not been increased in a changing world with the result that we have people leaving the land, flying to the City of Dublin and even leaving the towns, to go to the cities. Unfortunately, a larger percentage of the people leaving the land is crossing over to England. Emigration in my opinion is the greatest evil of the present day. I think it should be the policy of the Minister to do everything he can to keep our people on the land. I know that he has a colossal task ahead of him in trying to do so but seeing that he is a man with a mind of his own and with, I believe, a determination to help the country and the farmers, he is expected to produce an agricultural policy which will ensure that we can preserve and maintain in this country that rural population which is "a bold peasantry, the country's pride". Unfortunately, people are going from our shores year after year in great numbers and that is why we advocate every measure which the Minister can put forward to procure greater production from the land. There is plenty of room for reclamation, drainage and development throughout the country.

The country is calling out for more money for agriculture, and will look to the Minister to see that that money should be made available for expenditure in the right direction. If we consider the City of Dublin alone, we have practically one-fourth of the population of Ireland in it. We believe that Dublin is getting top-heavy—that there is considerable expense in bringing in food to feed that teeming population. The time is ripe for the Government to consider, as an urgent matter, the desirability of decentralisation.

It seems rather strange in an agricultural country like ours that in all matters relating to agriculture—our Department of Agriculture, the Albert College and the other colleges and institutions—there is too great a tendency to centralisation in Dublin. Our young farmers and young scientists are being educated in the heart of this big population and in the middle of highly artificial standards. I believe that all those services and institutions should be sent down to the heart of the country instead. Many of the industries that have been established in Dublin and other cities should have found their way to the rural centres, because they would be nearer the centre of production from the land.

The country is crying out for decentralisation, and I would very seriously ask the Minister for Agriculture, who should have a very big say in the matter, because this is an agricultural country, to do all he can to stop the suicidal policy of stripping the country bare of its young people.

Somebody has said in this debate that co-operative societies have cut a rod to beat themselves. Of course, we cannot agree with that. Co-operation in every walk of life is essential and where farmers are concerned it is absolutely indispensable. We find the Papal Encyclicals advocating co-operation, and in recent statements by the Pope the tendency towards co-operation has been supported. If co-operative societies have purchased farms throughout the country they have done a very useful work. There is no desire to enter into competition with other farmers who want to purchase land.

The idea of the co-operative movement in the country was that because the Government refused to set up demonstration farms, farmers should do it themselves. So far as they have done it, a great deal of valuable information has been given to the people by these demonstration farms, and we hope the day will come when the Minister for Agriculture will see that such farms are established under the auspices of his Department. The time is ripe for such farms and for an extension of inquiries and researches into diseases of plants and animals. I think the Department are moving far too slowly in connection with research in animal diseases. I referred to it on previous occasions, and we have read in the report of the Committee on Post-War Planning that the losses to farmers from diseases in live stock each year run into millions of pounds. I would, therefore, urge on the Minister that he should take the earliest opportunity of ensuring that the research station which it is proposed to set up should be put into benefit at once, and that he will push forward its work as quickly as possible so that the diseases that we complain of may be eliminated at the earliest moment.

The Minister in his opening statement told us that £200,000 is to be set aside this year by way of additional subsidies for fertilisers. The position at the moment with regard to artificial manures is very unsatisfactory, and if it continues it will militate very much against production. I believe that we can make no progress in the way of increasing production until our farmers can get artificial manures at world prices. This additional subsidy may be substantial enough, but it has to be remembered that our land is badly in need of more fertilisers. The price of fertilisers here compares very unfavourably with the prices obtaining in England and in Northern Ireland. An Englishman to whom I was speaking recently told me that his grass land was in fairly good condition because, as he said, he had dressed it some time ago with basic slag which he purchased at £5 15s. Od. a ton while the cost of it to the Irish farmer is £12 10s. Od. a ton. There is the same unfavourable comparison to be made in the case of other artificial manures. In this country the 50 per cent. grade of muriate of potash costs about £22 a ton, while in Northern Ireland the cost is £13 a ton. In Northern Ireland the farmer there pays 10/5 per unit for nitrogenous manures, while here we pay as much as 25/9 per unit. The most valuable of all fertilisers are the raw phosphates for which we have to pay £10 a ton, while the price in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is £5 3s. Od. a ton. I am quoting those figures from the Farmer's Weekly of the 23rd October, 1946. I presume they are correct. If not, the Minister will correct me. If the figures are correct, they indicate that our farmers are suffering from a very severe handicap and cannot be expected to compete with farmers outside this State who are able to get their fertilisers at a much lower figure.

I understand that £300,000 is set aside to pay out to farmers on the credit dockets for fertilisers. I hope that money will not be paid out as a subsidy to the Fertiliser Manufacturers Association. I make that suggestion because I know that on a former occasion when a very substantial subsidy was given for fertilisers —we were getting 10/- a ton at the time—the farmers in Northern Ireland were getting their phosphates at 35/- a ton cheaper than we were, so that I am afraid the subsidy in that case went to the manufacturers rather than to the farmers. It would be very unfortunate if such a thing were to happen again. The Minister should see that no tariff is placed on the raw phosphates which come into this country, and which, as we all know, are the real fertilisers. I refer to raw phosphates and basic slag which, if made available, will help to fertilise the soil and restore the fertility stolen from it during the war period. Superphosphates and other fertilisers are mere stimulants. For some reason or other the manufacturers do not like handling the raw phosphates, presumably, because there is not enough profit in them. Unless the Minister ensures that the raw phosphates are brought in free of tariffs, the credit dockets to farmers for fertilisers will, I am afraid, be of very little value. The fertility of the soil as we know has been depreciated. We see that from the wheat returns. They have been gradually decreasing because of the low fertility of the soil. I know, of course, that it is very difficult to get fertilisers, but when they become available I trust the Minister will have an attractive policy in connection with them, and will see that the greatest quantity of them are obtained. They should be imported free of duty, and no monopoly or preferential consideration should be given to any particular firm. I am sure the Minister understands what I mean in that connection.

I would urge on the Minister to do all he possibly can to carry out the recommendations made in the report of the Committee on Post-War Agricultural Policy, particularly with regard to cow testing and dairy development. We have in the country a very efficient body—I might say they are a neglected body—of workers on behalf of the dairying industry. I refer to the inspectors in our cow-testing associations. They have got very small increases, and indeed the method of paying them is most unsatisfactory. I think it would be a good thing if the Minister were to take over the scheme and work it on proper lines because at present the position is most unsatisfactory. If he were to do that, I believe it would result in adding materially to the milk yields from our cattle. It would also help to assist our farmers in finding out something which they do not know at present— that is whether they have an economic cow or an uneconomic cow. Everybody knows that the uneconomic cow is a desperate drag on a farmer. It is only through these cow-testing schemes that a farmer can find out the merits or the demerits of his cows. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to put into operation the recommendations of the committee I have referred to, recommendations which were published practically four years ago. It is about time now that they were implemented.

This is the time when we should go all out to increase production from the land. We require more and more food. Due to our scenery and to the generosity and courteousness of our people immense numbers of people are being attracted as visitors to the country. That is all to the good. If we can attract people to the country and, if they consume our surplus agricultural produce, that is the best way we can dispose of it. For that reason everything possible must be done to encourage the production of more butter, bacon, eggs and other commodities that we require for tourists.

The poultry industry has suffered greatly during the past year because of a shortage of suitable feeding stuffs. Many poultry keepers are doing their best but they have been hampered by lack of petroleum for incubators. It has been possible to get over that difficulty. There is one question that is upsetting poultry keepers a great deal, that is the levy imposed by the previous Minister on turkeys exported at Christmas. I hope the present Minister will not follow that example.

Mr. Smith

Why?

Mr. Halliden

The ladies do not like it.

Mr. Smith

That is not a sufficiently convincing reason.

Mr. Halliden

Is it not? I thought it might appeal to the Minister. The position is that those who rear poultry very often are small farmers of, perhaps, three, four or five cows. They are the poorest people in the community at the present time and they look forward to receiving a little extra money at Christmas to tide them over the festive season. They do not like any deduction from the cheque they receive from the man who collects the turkeys. For that reason, I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter. These people go to a great deal of trouble to provide food for the turkeys, such as curd from skim milk, nettles and other things. I would, therefore, appeal to the Minister very seriously to consider that aspect and not to impose the levy.

I wish to thank the Minister for his readiness in responding to the appeal made to him to increase the price of milk. The price has been fixed and, as times goes on, will be revised to suit the circumstances. I am sure the Minister in future will be as amenable to reason as he has been up to the present.

Mr. Sheldon

Whatever shortages the Minister may feel he can complain about, I do not think he can complain about a shortage of advice. There has been so much that I do not propose to do more than refer to one or two specific matters which occurred during the last year. I do so in the hope that these serious mistakes will not be repeated.

The first is in regard to the importation of seed oats. I raised this matter by way of question and in reply the Minister explained what the Department had done with imported seed oats of a potato variety. In my opinion, what the Department did in that respect was a very serious mistake. In my constituency we are almost entirely interested in potato oats. It is a seed growing area and, due to obvious causes, for the last few years it has been impossible for the seed growers in that area to renew their stock of seed. The Minister proceeded this year to import a certain number of tons of potato oats, but instead of seeing that they went to the seed growing area, which was in great need of fresh stock, he sent it to a consuming area, that is, an area where they grow oats not for sale as seed, but for direct consumption. I suggest that that is very much as if the Department went to Perth Sales and bought an expensive and valuable premium bull, brought him back to this country and, instead of sending him to the proper purpose, took him to the Dublin cattle market and sold him for slaughter. I am not denying that the areas to which these imported potato oats were sent were in need of good seed, but I suggest that that seed could have been got in this country in the area where potato oats are grown for seed and that that area could have got this fresh seed.

The Minister, I am sure, will appreciate the desirability of getting fresh seed into an area which is largely interested in the production of seed oats. I shall not now go into the question of why the Department offered victory oats to County Donegal. That is something which, so far, passes my comprehension. Probably the Department do not know themselves. However, I am really drawing attention to this now in the hope that if the Department is able to get seed oats of a potato variety, from abroad, next season, they will see that proper use is made of it.

I would like to refer to one other point in that connection and that is the unfortunate way in which the whole business was handled. It was announced that seed oats would be imported. The details were very long in coming. In fact, it was not until after the merchants in County Donegal had been offered victory oats that anyone knew that only victory oats were going to be available in the area. The result was that many men who had heard that seed oats were to be imported relied on that and neglected to purchase oats from some other area so as to get a change of seed and at the last minute they had either to sow their own over again, which they did not want to do, or, in a hasty fashion, purchase seed in another area. Complete confusion reigned and very undesirable results ensued. I know several men had to sow very inferior seed—because they could get nothing else—in the very field that they had been keeping for the fresh seed. I hope the Department, having made the mistake once, will in future take greater care.

The other point I want to deal with is in regard to seed potatoes. It is almost impossible to describe the chaos that reigned in the seed potato industry in this area. Admittedly, the bad weather in the early spring which, of course, was not due to anything the Minister did or did not do, added very greatly to the chaos. Unfortunately the circumstances were already such that chaos of some sort was almost bound to ensue. What happened was that the Department was much too late in settling the details of price and delivery. I admit that the Department was certainly very wise, in the interests of the growers, to get the best possible price, but time is also an important factor in dealing with a thing like seed potatoes.

I think the Department should have been aware that it was a very dangerous practice to delay till November—in fact I think it was early December—the fixing of the price for seed potatoes. It meant that early varieties which in the normal way are cleared in September and October could only start to go at Christmas when the late variety should then be dealt with. In any event, potatoes which normally go in December were still going in May. A person does not need to be very conversant with the potato trade to realise the immense losses which were bound to ensue from that delay, apart altogether from the weather which, of course, added greatly to the losses. I speak with a good deal of feeling on this subject because I myself suffered. I know that my own losses due to that delay were in the region of 30 per cent.

Another piece of confusion which arose in the seed potato business was due to the extraordinary amount of leaf roll disease. I would like the Minister to settle definitely one point. I have asked several officials, including one at the last show in Ballsbridge, but I cannot get a satisfactory answer, as to whether leaf roll is seed borne or not? The awkward point from the Department's angle is that if it is seed borne how could it get into Department-guaranteed healthy stock, because it did. If it is not seed borne, why are crops condemned for sale for seed because of that?

I would be very interested to know just precisely what the facts are with regard to leaf roll. I will only say this, in addition to what I have said, that I am rather inclined to believe that the Department were not fair about leaf roll last year. Not a word about it to any grower! I heard nothing about it when potatoes were being inspected in July. Not a word about it in September! Not a word about it in October! It was only in November and December that everyone was suddenly electrified when told that their potatoes would not pass. People who grew healthy stock were cut down to a "H" certificate. Many people who got certificates of the "A" type were condemned. I am rather inclined to believe that a great deal of the so-called leaf roll was not leaf roll at all. I hesitate to say this but I even have had the advice of some officers of the Department on the matter and they were inclined to agree that, in the end, they were rather of the opinion that possibly a certain amount of the so-called leaf roll was really due to the peculiar weather in July which could make a potato plant show some signs of leaf roll but which were not, in fact, leaf roll at all. Admittedly the Department should be extremely watchful in the case of any disease particularly in cases where the incidence of a disease, from the report of the potato inspectors, is unusually high. In such circumstances it would not be any harm to take a check and make sure that it is the disease and not some other effect which looks rather like it.

There is another matter about potatoes which I raised only last weekend with the Minister and which has developed quite recently. I merely refer to it now in order to emphasise what I wrote to him in the hope that he will do something very urgently about it and that is the question of the disposal of surplus ware potatoes. The position at the present moment in County Donegal is that though the Government is spending money on newspaper advertisements urging farmers to grow more potatoes we have a surplus of something in the region of 2,000 tons which no one will buy at apparently any price. I do not want to overstress this matter. I am sure there are machinery difficulties in getting over this point but I hope the Minister will give it very urgent attention because in a couple of weeks the whole lot will be a complete loss. Their diversion to the alcohol factory, after urging growers to grow from the point of view of ensuring the nation's food supply, would be a very odd end to the matter. If we do not need them in this country I am quite sure the Minister could very easily arrange to export them. I hope that he will see that one or other of those two courses is followed and that they will not be diverted to the alcohol factories. I am sure the people in the alcohol factory do not want to see them at all. They are working on molasses and they do not want to change over.

I wish to make a few remarks with regard to nitrogenous manures. I remember that the Minister and myself had some discussion on the question of the supply of nitrogenous manures for my county. The Minister was as helpful as he could be but, in spite of that, no nitrogenous manures came to the county. I think there were 4,500 tons of nitrate of ammonia available this year and, as the Minister has stated in his opening remarks, it was freely available to any area. There was no control from the Department, but there certainly was control from the manure trade. They flatly refused to send any of it to County Donegal; probably they could dispose of it much more easily somewhere else. I do not think it is fair to a county that if someone in the trade does not find it convenient to send it, the county should be deprived of an important manure—a very important manure this year on account of the late spring. I hope if the Minister is lacking in power to deal with that situation in the future he will take measures to secure the power for himself. It is an extraordinary position that a private company can turn round and make silly excuses—for that is all they were—as to why they did not send a particular commodity to a county. They could give only two excuses. The first was a shortage of containers. I would be interested to know if this shortage of containers meant that the manure was never distributed. Presumably it was distributed and once it was in the container I do not see why it could not have gone to County Donegal as well as anywhere else. The other excuse was that it was of a nature that was very easily injured by exposure to the air and as the containers were made of paper, they might get burst in going to County Donegal because of the amount of handling which would be necessary—not that there is really much handling necessary. The odd thing is that people can send to Donegal all sorts of things like plaster of paris, etc., which are certainly as easily affected as nitrate of ammonia. I consider that the excuses offered were light and insufficient. At the same time I want to say that I fully acknowledge the assistance the Minister attempted to give. He was very kind and he certainly did everything that was apparently possible. But the gentlemen concerned dug in their toes and we did not get the nitrogenous manures. I hope that if the Minister lacks any power he will seek it so that such a thing will not happen in the future.

I should like to touch lightly in conclusion on the farm improvements scheme, not as a scheme, which comes under another Vote, but with regard to the officers concerned. So far as I can gather from the Book of Estimates, these officers are paid at a lower rate than tillage inspectors. I suggest to the Minister that that is very wrong, because they do much more useful work. It may be a question of arguing from the particular to the general, because I certainly do not know all the officers under the farm improvements scheme, but those that I do know are highly efficient at their work and are of great benefit to the farming community.

On some other occasion I should like to go more fully into the question of the further use that might be made of these officers. My suggestion is that the system which pertains in New Zealand with regard to agricultural advisers and the type of agricultural advisers made use of there might be brought into operation here through the officers who operate the farm improvements scheme. Those of them that I have met are men with a sound knowledge of agriculture. They are not young men of the office type who will talk in a theoretical way. They are able to talk to the farmer as a farmer and give him good advice in a way which he will appreciate and which he will not resent. That is very important. I think that possibly a scheme for instruction might be based on these men in the way that operates in New Zealand.

As to agricultural education so far as the Minister's Department deals with it through the colleges where the students receive an education of a higher type in agriculture, I do not know that I agree with Deputies who have advocated a great extension of that. I do not know enough about the method that is used, but I have seen it suggested that in Great Britain too much attention is paid to class-work, and not enough to outdoor experience. As I say, I have not sufficient knowledge of the matter to make any criticism of it here, but if that method obtains I think it should be changed, because farmers are extremely sensitive—so is anybody in any other position in life—to advice from somebody who they think is talking down to them. To try to improve the agricultural technique in this country in the way in which it has been tried in the past by means of lectures and leaflets is, to my mind, a pure waste of money.

I remember giving evidence before a commission on agriculture which sat in 1938 or 1939 and this point came up. I was suggesting that some further steps should be taken to bring to Irish farmers a knowledge of the very latest improvements in pig keeping, better methods, and so on. I suggested that not enough attention had been paid to that side of agricultural education. I was met with the rejoinder that a great deal had been done, that leaflets had been issued for the last 30 or 40 years. To rely on leaflets as a means of improving the technical methods of agriculture is a pure waste of time. Only those who are already converted will read the leaflets. To my mind, there is no method of improving the agricultural technique except that of using expert advisers whose training is such that they can convince the farmer that they know his job as well as he does and that they have some further advice to give him. As I say, I do not want to go into details now, as I do not know enough about it to do so, but I think it is an avenue that the Department might explore.

The Minister received a great deal of advice of a general nature and I have an amount of sympathy with him in the matter, because, so far as I can see, the trouble is that we have a great many cooks and each cook is firmly convinced that his recipe alone is the one which will save the country. Which recipe the Minister will pick I do not know. At the moment I think we are at a sort of crossroads and that almost any line can be taken. One thing I would urge on the Minister is that he should hurry up and make it perfectly clear what the future policy of his Department is to be with regard to agricultural matters. There is a great deal of hesitation at the moment. That is only natural, because the world is in a chaotic state still, but I think the Minister should do that, and I think the Minister is very likely to do so, because, to my mind, he is not the sort of man who will go on shilly-shallying for very long. I think he is of a direct nature. I would rather see him going in the wrong direction than not going in any direction at all.

Mr. Allen

There are a few matters to which I want to refer on this Estimate. One is sub-head G (2)— Improvement of Live Stock. I should like to point out to the Minister the necessity for providing more money under that sub-head for the purchase of thoroughbred stallions. I notice that there is a sum of £5,500 provided for loss on resale of thoroughbred stallions and purchase and keep of thoroughbred yearling colts. I suggest to the Minister that that sum is totally inadequate. The county I come from has always gone in for breeding a good type of hunter. There was a ready sale for them there and ordinary small farmers went in for the breeding of such animals. They trained them and probably hunted them which such people do not do in other counties. For many years these farmers carried on a successful business. Now we find that there are large areas of the County Wexford where there is not even one thoroughbred stallion, with the result that farmers have to travel up to 30 miles with their mares. I suggest to the Department that if they cannot get these stallions in England an opportunity will be afforded to them by the coming sales at Ballsbridge of purchasing yearlings. It is not necessary for a horse to have been raced or have a record in order to make a suitable type for the stud for the production of the hunter type of animal. I think that the sum provided is altogether inadequate. Treble the number of yearlings of the thoroughbred type should be purchased.

I suggest much more could be done in relation to the Irish draught. The amount provided for the development of the Irish draught is small and the Minister should make a change right away. I notice there is only one chief veterinary officer under the live-stock breeding scheme. There is room for improvement there, and there should also be more than one veterinary inspector under the Horse Breeding Act. Horse breeding, especially by the ordinary farmer—I am not talking about the breeders of racehorses and thoroughbreds, but the farmers who breed from the Irish draught mare—is of considerable importance. Animals of this type have not been catered for during the war years and something should be done in this connection in the future.

There has been a pretty lengthy debate on various matters connected with the Department. The Livestock Breeding Act was discussed from several angles by Deputies on all sides of the House. I listened to Deputy Bennett, who is an experienced man in regard to cattle breeding. He seemed to blame the Livestock Breeding Act for the fact that farmers in his county are cross-breeding their dairy cows with Abendeen Angus and Hereford animals. I do not think the Livestock Breeding Act has any effect in that respect. The farmers are free to cross their dairy cows, even if they get half-bred Herefords or a half-bred Aberdeen Angus. I was surprised to hear Deputy Bennett blaming the Act for that.

Mr. Bennett

I am not sure I did so.

Mr. Allen

The Deputy is an experienced man and I wondered at him falling into that trap.

Mr. Bennett

I mentioned that the Department give premiums for them and register them in the dairying districts.

Mr. Allen

They do register the Aberdeen Angus and Hereford bulls, but the farmers are absolutely free to breed cattle any way they like. The Live Stock Breeding Act has not had such an effect as is thought on the production of milk. The deterioration of the good milking cow did not start with the advent of the Live Stock Breeding Act in 1925, 22 years ago. It started— and I have heard old farmers say so— in the early years of this century, or before that. The general impression of older men is that it started with the importation of the Scotch beef bull. While the advent of the Scotch beef bull did improve Shorthorn cattle from the point of view of stores or beef cattle, it deteriorated them from the point of view of milk yield. I think Deputy Bennett will agree with me there.

There has been a marked deterioration in the type of Shorthorn dairy cow. I am sure all this will be referred to when the commission the Minister spoke about is set up. At the Bull Show held each year in Ballsbridge there is a judgment given on the best type of bull for the country. The judgment is given by Scotch judges all the time, so far as I know, and they seem to have set up a standard there for our Shorthorn cattle. That has had an effect on the milk yield of the Shorthorns. I have gone out there for a good many years and I have observed that trend. It may be good for beef cattle, but you cannot have beef and milk at the same time. Too far east is west in any breed.

All these things have a greater effect on the present trend in relation to milk yield than the Livestock Breeding Act. The Act did good for some time in getting rid of the scrub bull. That type of bull should not be kept in any herd, under any conditions. The cross between a Shorthorn and Hereford, or a Shorthorn and Black, is the type that the Act was meant to eliminate. It did eliminate bulls of that type. There was a certain switch in the matter of conformation. Unless he has definite instructions to the contrary, any inspector quite naturally will take the bull with the proper conformation. That has led, to some extent, to a deterioration of the milk yield in Shorthorn cows.

I expect the commission will review all the factors. What I am afraid of is that with all the cross interests on the commission they may find it impossible to come to any conclusion. There are too many cross interests represented. You will have questions arising about milk production and store cattle. There are two different interests all the way. One farmer is interested in producing so many gallons of milk. It is quite understandable that he will select a pure milking breed. He is not interested in what the calves may turn out to be, if he gets sufficient milk. Probably it might pay him well to slit their throats when the calves are born. That is quite possible if he has types of cattle which will give sufficient milk. He is not interested in the rearing of store cattle.

You have probably three types of farmer interested in cattle. You have the store or fat cattle man, whether the animals are fed on grass or stall fed; you have the farmer who sends milk to the creameries, and then you have the type of farmer who produces milk for direct sale for human consumption. He is not interested in what type of calf the cow has; he is only interested in how much milk the cow will give in the year. You have all those cross interests and it is hard to reconcile them. I agree with him when he says that the people who are solely interested in the store cattle trade will in the future have to take more interest in the farmer who rears the calf. In other words, all the work must not be left on the dairy farmer. and the calves must not be left on his hands over a couple of winters. Formerly farmers could sell them as yearlings. In latter years, especially since the war, they have failed completely in the months of September and October to find any market for these yearlings. That situation has existed all over the country in the past five or six years. That is one of the reasons why the farmer probably prefers to destroy some of his calves.

In the future the people who live in the Midlands will have to provide themselves with housing accommodation for young stock and with food to carry them over the winter. If they do not do that they will find themselves without any young stock whatever, because the dairy farmers in the southern counties will no longer be able to provide stock. Farmers in the Midlands should take some responsibility and not leave all the burden to the dairy farmer. They have very little appreciation of the difficulties facing the dairy farmer and the trouble to which he has to go. The man who goes out to the fair and buys nice cattle there in good condition upon which his fancy falls and carries them for six or nine months on grass, and sells them off again, has a comparatively easy time of it. He is not really a farmer from the point of view of handling cattle or from the point of view of doing his duty by the country. He should do something at both ends and it is possible that if he does he will then have a fuller appreciation of the difficulties of the dairy farmer and he may be prepared to ensure that the dairy farmer gets a fair price for his produce. I hope that this proposed committee, when it is set up, will achieve some good results in that direction.

We all heard Deputy McGilligan last night speaking about the low agricultural production in this country and the condition of the people as the result of that low agricultural output during the past winter. Deputy McGilligan, as well as every Deputy who lives in the country areas, must know and realise why it was we had such a low milk and butter production during the past winter. Deputy McGilligan should know that from July to November of last year we had a particularly wet season with a resultant poor milk yield. We had a bad hay crop. The bulk of our cereals was lost. The turnip crop was not up to standard. In fact the root crop generally was below standard. That was followed by one of the worst winters in living memory. During the summer there were, I think, eight or ten days during which it was possible to save hay. The farmer who did not succeed in taking advantage of those eight or ten days lost his hay crop. There were big losses in stock during the spring because of the poor quality of the feeding stuffs available for cattle. We heard a lot about disease but I think mortality was due more to malnutrition than to actual disease. You cannot blame the Government for that. The weather is, after all, an act of God. The weather was responsible more than anything else for the low milk yield and the low butter production during the past winter and spring. That is my opinion about it and I know something of this subject.

There is another rather interesting fact to which nobody adverted in the course of this debate. I have often wondered what effect the rearing of greyhounds—a comparatively new industry, if you like, and the poor man's industry—has on the food situation in this country. It is an industry which is bringing in a substantial sum of money every year. Last year something over £1,000,000 sterling was received for exported greyhounds. That is a considerable sum of money. But it is held in some parts of the country that the greyhounds are eating as much food as the pigs. Possibly they are eating more. I do not know if it is true but various estimates have been given from time to time as to the amount of food which they consume by people who should know. It has been computed that there are roughly between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 greyhounds in this country of all types and ages. There are some good ones, some middling ones and some probably which are not worth rearing at all. But greyhound rearing is something in which people are entitled to engage if they wish. A man need only own the boots he stands up in and yet he may possess a greyhound worth as much as a racehorse. It is the poor man's sport. No matter how poor a man may be he may be the possessor of a very valuable greyhound. I would not advocate any interference with greyhounds. When people, however, talk about the food available for pig feeding or cattle feeding or anything else they should take into consideration too the amount of food which this new industry of greyhound rearing is taking out of the food pool. To my mind it must be fairly considerable, both as regards milk, bread and meat, but particularly as regards milk and bread. I suppose a man is just as entitled to keep a greyhound as he is to keep a pig.

Mr. Smith

I am afraid the Deputy is going off the rails slightly.

Mr. Allen

I do not know. There is nothing wrong about it. At least I do not think there is unless perhaps greyhounds become too plentiful. It may be necessary for the Minister and his Department, or some other Department, to make regulations governing the breeding of greyhounds in the same way as you have the Livestock Breeding Act to-day. That would be useful and it would be in the interests of the breeders that only the very best types should be permitted. There should be selective breeding of greyhounds just as there is selective breeding of cattle and horses. I think it would be in the interests of the industry to raise the standard of the breeding so far as greyhounds are concerned.

There are a few other matters to which I want to refer. Deputy Hughes spoke at some length on the question of the British market and the necessity, as he put it, for this country selling all its cattle and guaranteeing the sale of its cattle in the British market. I am sure nobody in this country has the slightest objection to that and we would be delighted to sell all our cattle in the market that has consistently purchased our cattle over the years. It has been to our interest to sell our cattle in that market. But there is one proviso that must be made and that is that the purchasers in the market must be prepared to give us an economic price for our cattle and a fair price and not do what they have been doing for the past 14 years.

Deputy Hughes told us about the prosperity of the British farmer. I am not surprised that he is prosperous. He is prosperous, to some extent, at the expense of the Irish farmer. Since 1932-33 the British Government, in their wisdom, have given preferential treatment to cattle and preferential prices for cattle which they call "home-bred"—home-bred if they were only one month out of this country. They qualified for 7/6 or 10/- more per hundredweight than the cattle in this country. In my opinion, the farmers in this country are subsidising the British farmers to the extent of £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 each year. We will send them all our cattle when they give us the same treatment as they give their own farmers in the matter of price. I think they are entitled to get our cattle if they are prepared to pay us as much as anybody else. But it is time that some of that humbug was brought to an end from the point of view of the British farmer. Every British farmer is made prosperous only at the expense of the Irish farmer who produces the cattle in this country. It is about time we called a halt to that situation and I hope that in the future they will see the wisdom of changing their policy in that direction, giving the Irish farmer the same price for his cattle as they are prepared to pay the British farmer.

Deputy Beirne was most indignant because there was a closed agreement under which we are bound to deliver so many cases of eggs to Great Britain within the next two or three years. He suggested there should be an open agreement to let us deliver what we like, but in respect of cattle he wanted a closed agreement and he wanted us tied hand and foot. I cannot understand the Deputy's attitude in that matter. In conclusion I should like to emphasise the necessity of the Minister altering his policy in the matter of providing additional thoroughbred sires We want sires of a strong type. We do not want so much the fancy types. We want thoroughbreds of a strong type for counties like Wexford, which had a record in the past for breeding horses of the good hunter type.

Mr. Coburn

There are just one or two matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. At the outset, may I say that I do not look forward to the Minister setting the heather on fire simply because he is new to the job. Many Deputies who have spoken here seem to think that because we have a new Minister everything will go well, in other words that he is going to bring about such a change overnight as to make our chief industry more prosperous than ever. I should like to remind those Deputies that no Department of State by its own efforts alone can make the country prosperous. It is the people themselves upon whom we have to depend in the last resort to make the agricultural industry prosperous. You can, of course, get a certain amount of help from the Department of Agriculture, because of the fact that there are experts in various branches of the industry in the Department, who are always available to give such advice as is necessary.

Although I should like to address some observations to the Minister in regard to cattle breeding, I am rather timid in approaching this subject but I feel that, when there are such differences of opinion even amongst experts, an amateur is justified in entering the arena and giving expression to his views. A doubt seems to exist at the moment as to whether we are pursuing or have pursued the right policy in regard to the type of cattle that have been bred in this country since the passage of the Live Stock Breeding Act in 1925. That Act was introduced, according to Section 1 for the purpose of improving bulls and other live stock used for breeding. Of course there were various sections of the Act dealing with the issue of licences, the type of bulls that were to be bought, etc. Farmers who were refused licences for bulls could appeal under Section 15 and have their cases referred to a referee. When that Act was going through, the then Minister for Agriculture did not claim that it was going to make the cattle of this country the best in the world overnight. I think he prefaced his remarks by stating that it would take time. Of course it does take time to discover whether the provisions of an Act will be successful or not but I think that the Minister should be very careful, judging by the experience of the 22 years that the Act has been in operation, before deciding on a reversal of policy.

During the period that the Act has been in operation our cattle could compare very favourably with the cattle of any other country in the world, so much so that our cattle, especially our store cattle and until recently our fat cattle, were second to none. They could compete with the best imported into England or any other country and they always commanded the highest price. Therefore, I would say, that when this council is set up the Minister will have to be very careful. Mind you, I have not a great deal of faith in councils. I think that somehow or other they all see matters through jaundiced eyes; they all speak from an egotistical standpoint or the standpoint of self-interest. The Minister will therefore have to be very careful when this council come to make out their report which, I anticipate, will not be a unanimous report. I say that the Minister will have to be careful because of what has been stated by a Deputy of his own Party, Deputy Corry, who in a speech here the other night gave me the impression that as far as he was concerned he did not care what happened the farmers in any other part of the country so long as he could get a good price for his milk. He referred to the farmers of Meath, Westmeath and Kildare—the lazy farmers he called them—and said he did not care if there were no calves or bullocks for them to rear. I could not help reflecting when I heard Deputy Corry make that statement, although comparisons seem rather out of place in this connection, that if people adopted the same attitude in years gone by none of us would be here now.

"Kill the calves" Deputy Corry said. Kill what nature sends us! I think that is a very bad policy to advocate and we have had very painful experience of that for the past ten years. A statement of that kind displays very selfish motives. According to the Deputy it does not matter to him what happens the rest of the country. In fact he is showing very little consideration for his own Minister of Agriculture who is placed in a very difficult position and whose duty it is to see that any measures he brings forward are not directed towards sectional as against general interests. It is a rather unfortunate fact that many people in this House seem to be able to speak only from the point of view of self-interest. There seems to be no though at all for the general interest. We all seem to speak with the consideration in our minds all the time: "If I do a certain thing am I going to lose votes?" The Deputy who has not sufficient confidence to do things that are not popular at times should not be in public life. You must stand on other people's corns at some time.

In view of what Deputy Corry said, I think the Minister should be very careful in changing any of the provisions embodied in the Livestock Breeding Act of 1925 until he is fully convinced that it will be in the best interests of the cattle industry of the country. If Deputy Corry's ideas were carried to their logical conclusion, what would become of all our fairs or where would we get all the yearlings, the 18 months' old cattle or the two-year-old cattle we see at our fairs? Where would we get the thousands of store cattle that we see passing every week in the cattle wagons and that I see in the "specials", going to Belfast, if everybody adopted the same attitude as Deputy Corry? What would become of our railways or what would be the use of the Minister for Industry and Commerce establishing a maritime service if we were to destroy all the calves except just a sufficient number to keep Deputy Corry going? I would say that the Act did improve, as the years went on, the breed of cattle in this country.

I should like to say also that, leading up to the discussion on that Bill, the late Minister, who has been styled "the Minister for Grass", said over and over again that the man who goes in for good cattle is the man who is going to till more. That man is the backbone of the country. Those statements of the late Minister for Agriculture are on record and I think it is only due to his memory, in view of the statements that have been made, that what he said should be recorded. Every Deputy who has a practical knowledge of farming knows beyond doubt that the mixed farmer who keeps cattle and does a fair amount of tillage provides more employment and employment of a continuous nature than the man who goes in absolutely for tillage.

We come to the question of policy. I am amused sometimes when people ask: "What is your policy?" especially when one considers the times in which we are living, and especially when one considers, too, that, overnight, nature can wipe the lot of us off the map or put us on the broad of our backs, just as she did for three or four weeks this year. We have hardly recovered from that yet. We are making plans and preparations for the future, and we are looking forward to a most successful harvest, please God, but nature put us on our backs last season and left us on tenterhooks for a good while whether we would be able to get in our crops or not. You cannot dictate policy at the moment, but, I suppose, in view of the position the Minister occupies he must more or less refer to it, and I should like to ask him what would be his policy in regard to bacon, butter, wheat, poultry, etc.

As regards wheat, let us forget what has happened during the past eight or nine years. We had to grow wheat during the war period. That is definite and, of course, it did not take the farmer five years to serve his time; he simply grew wheat by way of the ordinary rotation of crops, just the same as he grows barley and oats, and we must understand that we were never self-sufficient. If we could get that into our heads and stop annoying the Minister for Agriculture about this pursuing of a policy of self-sufficiency, we could make some progress. I ask the Minister not to be afraid of accusations that he is running away. All of us change our minds from time to time and it has been said that it is a good man who is able to change his mind. Greater nations than ours have had to change their policy to suit the time and the fact that we were never self-sufficient, even in 40 or 50 years, should be borne in mind. We could import large quantities of foodstuffs in those days and, as Deputies may remember, we were never short of bacon and flour, because we could get Canadian or American stuff. We were never short of butter. In the winter time, when it was scarce, we got in Australian butter, so that in the strict sense of the term we never were and never could be self-sufficient.

We are not alone, and I do not think there is a nation in the world that is self-sufficient in the full sense of the word. I acknowledge the fact that the Minister may be twitted for getting away from the old policy. I congratulate the Minister, if he has the moral courage to get up in this House and give us an inkling of what his policy about wheat-growing is going to be. Every Deputy should have a particular interest in that because we saw in the Press some time back the news that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has applied to the International Food Conference for something like 400,000 tons of wheat. At a ton to the acre that will represent about 400,000 acres here, and according to the accounts of the yields we have had for some of the years, it will represent 600,000 acres to us. I think it is recorded that one year we sowed 600,000 acres, but we only produced 350,000 tons of wheat. Even if we were to produce eight barrels to the acre in future, the Minister has applied for 400,000 tons.

If that quantity is going to be imported and I hope it will—I am sure there is no Deputy on the Government Benches who does not feel the same way—it will mean that there will not be so many acres under wheat next year, and as the Minister knows at the period of the year when lands are being let on the 11 months' system, the price depends on the crop that it is intended to put in. I would like the Minister to see to it that farmers whose holdings, because of their size, are largely uneconomic, are not victimised about the growing of wheat.

Everybody knows that some land runs for conacre above £15 an acre, according to competition, and the time the land is let, and therefore, in justice to those farmers, it would be well that the Minister should give some indication of what quantity of wheat he intends should be put under the plough this year. I hope he will not be influenced by those selfish people who would like to keep up a higher price for conacre and squeeze the last halfpenny out of the congested and little hardworking farmers who sometimes have to pay up to £20 an acre for land for conacre. I say to the Minister that he should take his courage in his hands and tell us what quantities of wheat he expects will be required next year.

Now, as regards the bacon production, I am genuinely anxious to get some information with regard to the present position. Why is it that it has got into such a state of chaos in the last few months? Why has there been such an enormous decrease in the production of pigs within a comparatively short time? At one time we used to produce about 1,000,000 pigs a year. The number then went down to 900,000 and to 800,000 until it eventually came down to 300,000 or 250,000. The reason that some people give for that big decrease is the price paid for the pigs while others attribute the decrease to the lack of feeding stuffs. These reasons may be true to a certain extent. The fact, at any rate, is that we used to be able to rear a number of pigs sufficient to produce all the bacon our people required and have, over and above that, an exportable surplus. We are now so short of bacon that the popular dish of bacon and cabbage is reserved for the new aristocracy. One can have a meal of bacon and cabbage now once in a blue moon, while in the old days it was quite a common and a popular meal.

I think myself that one of the causes for the decrease in pig production was the policy of self-sufficiency pursued by the Government ten or 11 years ago. Deputy Corry at one time stated that he did not care if the whole outside world were to go to the bottom of the sea—that we still could produce all the pigs, cattle and everything else that we required. He has learned his lesson in the case of wheat and admitted it the other night. He said that eight barrels to the acre was only a joke, and that it would not pay him at all. We can leave him there. The fact is that without imports we cannot do what we were able to do in the past. We then tried an admixture of maize meal, crushed oats and bruised barley, but in spite of all that, the number of pigs fed by farmers has decreased and all because they could not get the feeding stuffs which we had been importing from time immemorial.

In the old days, when we had high production in pigs, we had the maize meal. It was better known as yellow meal. The farmer used to refer to it as the "yallow" meal. He went into the shopkeeper and asked: "What is the price of ‘yallow' meal to-day?" At that time it was about 6/- per cwt. I do not know who prevented its importation, but anyway something was done and it went off the market, and the consequence has been that we have this decrease in pig production. It will now be the Minister's job to see, as far as he can and with the co-operation of those who are interested in that branch of agricultural economy, that it will be restored as soon as possible. My advice to him is that he should lose no time in importing all the feeding stuffs that are essential for the production of pigs. I suggest to him that he should not mind those tariff reformers or the people who want to get tariffs for their own individual gain. We all want to see the country built up industrially and in every other way. We cannot grow maize to make the maize meal any more than we can grow oranges or lemons. We may grow them in glasshouses, but we cannot grow them to sell at 2d. or 3d. each. Therefore, we must bow to the inevitable, and get in the raw materials that we require at as cheap a price as possible. If we do that, then the farmer in his turn will do what he and his father before him did—he will rear the pigs and put them on the market at a price that will pay him and at a price that the consumer can afford.

That is the important point because, after all, we cannot be one-sided in our argument. We must remember that we have a lot of poor people in our back streets. Charity alone should compel each and every one of us to remember all those who are vitally interested in the subject that is under discussion, and that it takes all classes to make a world. If what I suggest is done, it will help to reduce the cost of production, and that is one of the main factors to bear in mind so far as the bacon trade is concerned.

Deputy Dillon was laughed at the other night by men who considered themselves clever when he stated that price did not matter. He was absolutely correct and proved himself correct. Any child in the third book could understand the point that he was making, that price does not matter in so far as the cost of production is concerned. Take this simple example. If I employ a man at £5 a week, and that part of the bargain is that I provide him with a house for which I charge him £1 a week, his net salary is £4. If I say that I will give him a house at a rent of 10/- a week, then the net sum he receives is £4 10s. Od. It is all the same to him so long as he gets the value. The same applies in the case of the farmer in the rearing of a pig. If a farmer can rear a pig for £3 he can afford to sell the pig and make more profit at a less price than the man who has to pay £4 10s. Od. or £5 10s. Od. to bring the pig to the same condition. It is really a question of value when all is said and done. The same argument would apply to wages. We hear a lot of talk about wages, but there is no consideration given at all to the value that people can get for their wages. Some people seem to base their standard of living on the amount of money they have jingling in their pockets and not on the value that they get. That is really what is wrong with the whole position at the present time.

In regard to pig rearing, the important thing is to be able to import feeding stuffs at the cheapest possible price. I remember the late Mr. Hogan, when he was Minister for Agriculture, being twitted on that point by Deputy Corry. He stated that the Irish farmer was no fool—that he reared his pig, brought it to the market and sold it at 7d. or 8d. a lb., and then went to the shop and bought American or Canadian bacon at 4d. or 5d. a lb. The result was that he made a profit of about 3d. a lb. on the transaction. I know that at the time Canadian bacon made the cabbage a lot sweeter than the Irish bacon. That was his answer to Deputy Corry, that the farmer was no fool and did what I have stated.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It was the other way around. He was getting 4d. and he paid 7d. for what he bought.

Mr. Coburn

No. It is one of the things that I have in my memory. I never forgot that.

Mr. Smith

Were the people who bought our bacon fools?

Mr. Coburn

No. The farmer sold the pig for 6d. or 7d. a lb. and bought the other, as I have said, at 4d.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It was the other way around. I know because I sold it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not matter. We can have only one speaker at a time.

Mr. Coburn

I am quoting the then Minister for Agriculture, and I know it also from personal experience.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

That is what I am talking about, too.

Mr. Coburn

That is one of the points with regard to the rearing of pigs in this country that must be borne in mind. The farmer realises that if he once gets out of the production of pigs it is not so easy getting back. That is one of the factors responsible for the decreased production of bacon.

Another factor is fuel. When our imports of coal dwindled to nil we had to rely 100 per cent. on turf. When coal was available the farmer generally bought a few tons of Scotch slack at 16/-, 17/- or £1 a ton. In my early days he could get it for 8/- a ton. A few shovels of that slack under a boiler would keep it lit a whole day. When the farmer could no longer get the slack and had to use turf, it meant that he had to keep a man putting turf on the boiler all day and the turf was costing about 50/- a ton. I do not blame the Minister or the Department for that. It is a matter over which they had no control. I was speaking recently to a farmer friend of mine who formerly kept at least 20 pigs at a time. I asked him how many pigs he had and he said he had only two because, if he kept any more it would mean having to keep the boiler going all day and that it would not be economic at the present price of turf. Anybody who knows anything about it will appreciate that.

There is another factor contributing to the decreased pig production. Regulations were introduced with regard to the control and supervision of pigsties. Pigsties had to be a certain distance from the house. In my early days pig jobbers could half fill the local steampacket boat with pigs they bought around the town that had been reared by the wives of the workingmen. Thrifty people in those days reared a few pigs and that added very considerably to the number of pigs available. That part of pig production is gone, because of regulations—I am not condemning them—introduced in the interests of health although I doubt that we are one bit more healthy to-day than we were then. To be candid, I do not see a great deal of improvement. One cannot blame the Department for the reduction there.

Now we come to the question of the battle royal that has gone on between the bacon curers and the pork butchers. Naturally, when a thing is scarce we all get suspicious of one another. The present discussion reminds me of a group of youngsters who get 12 sweets each. They are all very friendly with one another so long as each of them has a sweet but some cute fellow keeps one or two until all the others have eaten theirs and then, of course, they say that he got more than they. In the present dispute one of the parties says the other is getting pigs by some underhand method, getting more than he should. I want to emphasise that if the pigs were in plentiful supply there would be no such difference of opinion between the curers and the pork butchers. It is because the pigs are not there that all this grievance is ventilated by the curing association and by the butchers. It should not be a difficult task for the Minister to find out what is the position, whether pigs are being illegally cured or not. I do not know what is meant by illegal curing, whether it means pork butchers are curing pigs that they should not cure or that the farmers are curing pigs. The fact is that if the pigs were in plentiful supply there would not be any grumbling. The cause of the complaint is the scarcity of pigs.

So far as the farmer is concerned, he wants the competition. We would all like to see the bacon factories working full time and we would like to see the pork butchers prospering. Both of them have claims. It is very hard to tell a man that he must not engage in a particularly business because, if he does, he will injure another party. The only solution to the problem is to increase the supply of bacon pigs to its former level. When you arrive at that position, please God, there will be none of the jealousy that exists at present and there will be no need for the issue of circulars on the subject of the plight of the bacon curers or the pork butchers.

It must be remembered also that the pig dealers are as much entitled to have their rights protected as any other section. They visit the farmer at his house, and if they can make a bargain with the farmer the money is paid on the spot. That money is much sweeter to the farmer, possibly, than the money he obtains from the factories, for which he has to wait. All the interests concerned should be considered when the Minister is formulating his policy. It boils down to a matter of supply and demand.

In regard to the supply of butter, people ask how is it that we have to submit to a ration of 2 ozs. of butter, sometimes increased to 4 ozs., when years ago we had a plentiful supply. No doubt there are various factors which can account for that. I do not want to talk politics. What is the use of doing so? We all want to do the best we can. We all want butter. We all sink or swim together. I do not think there is much use in blaming the weather we had last winter for the shortage of butter. Butter was short before last winter. Whatever the reason, I have no doubt that the Department of Agriculture will see to it that, as far as is humanly possible to do so, the industry will once more be put on a proper basis. Of course, here again I am more or less under a handicap, because I never believed we were a self-sufficient country. I always knew we had, years ago, to get butter from abroad, when things were scarce. I do not like to criticise but, those who, in season and out of season, swell up their chests and say at the cross-roads that there is plenty of butter, beef, etc., must feel very small now that there are only four ounces of butter per head for our people. I did not know, until I was going through the figures, the amount of the subsidy we are paying for butter. It is enormous. It really does irritate me and I am sure that it would irritate other Deputies if they were to examine the figures.

It is irritating to see the thousands of visitors to this country—not begrudging it to them—who are in a position to throw their fivers and tenners about and to reflect that we are paying £2,000,000 a year to give them butter at certain prices. It is especially irritating when we consider that the poor people living in the slums or in Gardiner Street have to pay the same price and possibly, also, by direct or indirect taxation pay towards the provision of subsidies. It is rather ironical and rather irritating that that should be so. However, that is the position. I am not speaking against the tourists. I am only putting that point forward in order to show the rather peculiar position in which we find ourselves as regards butter. The fact is that we have only four ounces of butter per person. I do not know the reason. I am sure the Department will see to it that, in so far as is humanly possible, the production of butter will be increased. I have often wondered if we are getting value for subsidies such as we are paying for butter. I think this matter concerns all Parties. Very shortly the people as a whole will have to consider the matter. We simply cannot afford to go on paying subsidies all the time for this, that and the other unless we are assured of getting some return. It is about time we had a little moral courage. It is about time we went throughout the country and told all concerned—making no distinctions and without speaking in two voices—that we want some return for all the moneys expended. We cannot always look to the State for subsidies because naturally the State can come to the end of its tether. The moneys for all these subsidies have to be found and these moneys come out of the pockets of those who are, possibly, least able to bear the burden. As a result, the standard of living will be, year by year, reduced. I make these suggestions in view of all the things that have been asked from the Department of Agriculture during this debate as well as all the things that have been asked from every Minister and from every Department in regard to the general run of the country.

The same thing applies to poultry, the numbers exported, etc. I would say that Indian meal or maize meal is the type of feeding-stuff for fowl in their early weeks, and for young turkeys, etc., especially in those counties which are not noted for grain growing. We must remember that all areas are not the same. Certain counties have to import oats from other counties, and a policy which might suit one county might possibly have the very opposite effect on another county. We must consider the claims of those people and their economic position as well. We must consider the claims of counties such as Monaghan, Leitrim and the counties along the western seaboard which cannot grow sufficient cereals of a type suitable for the rearing of poultry. The cutting off of maize was one of the biggest factors in the reduction of the number of poultry.

I have another point to make. Deputy Allen, who seems more or less to act the part of the Minister—he replies to a lot of Deputies—spoke about the price of cattle. He said that the English can have our cattle if they are willing to pay a good price for them. England does not want our cattle, or ask for them. So get that into your head, Deputy Allen! The farmers of this country can sell their cattle to any country in the world if they can get a better price than they are getting in the English market. They are not constrained to sell in the English market. They are doing so simply because they have nowhere else to sell them. There is no use in Deputy Allen saying that the English Government is putting the English farmer in a first-class position at the expense of the Irish farmer. That is their business. If we do not want to send or sell our cattle to Great Britain nobody is compelling us to do so. We can sell them anywhere we like, but the trouble is that we have nowhere else to sell them. There is no use in the sort of camouflage adopted by Deputy Allen—as if we had another market! We have not, and at the moment we are glad to have the British market to send our cattle to. We do not do that from any selfish spirit. We do it because England wants the cattle and because our farmers accept the price, and so long as they accept the price that should settle the question.

I should like the Minister when he is setting up all these grand councils—consultative and otherwise —of men of great experience to give, if possible, a few moments thought to the question of black scab as it affects the Cooley area in North County Louth. That area, of course, has been scheduled for the past 25 years. It seems strange that science has not, so far, found a remedy or a cure. Many of the farmers contend that the black scab no longer exists in that area. The Department take the view that, while that may be so, there is the danger that the disease may be carried in the soil—the soil would adhere, say, to the potatoes, turnips, or any other agricultural produce that might find its way out of that area and thus spread the disease. But the funny thing is that no trace of that disease has been found for the past 20 or 25 years The farmers in that area feel that they have a certain grievance in that they are confined to that area. They cannot sell a potato from that area in any other part of the Twenty-Six Counties and they cannot export except under licence, although they cannot always find a home market. This year they were fortunate enough to be able to export a few thousand tons. I wonder if the Minister would take up with his officials and his Department the question of black scab as it affects that area and see whether any progress has been made in regard to its eradication or not.

The farmers feel that they have had a grievance for too long a time. They have been obliged to sell potatoes at £4 and £4 10s. Od. per ton when the price prevailing outside that area was in the region of £7 or £8. If they are to be hedged in to protect the other farmers of the country, they think that they should be compensated by getting a better price for the potatoes which they have perforce to send to the factory there. I think they were able to get £8 per ton for the potatoes they exported this year, as against an average of £4 which they got for the potatoes from the factory. Of course, it is only right to explain that the £4 or £4 10s. 0d. which they got from the factory represents over £5, because they had not to pick the potatoes, which is a very good thing. I appreciate that; yet there is that grievance that they are hedged in. It is very hard for a farmer to feel that the person at the other side of the ditch is probably getting £10 or £11, while he has to sell at £4 or £4 10s. 0d. I am sure it does not require very much argument to bring that home to the Minister

I would advise the Minister to take his courage in his hands and say to himself that one of the factors that would put the agricultural industry back on its feet is the provision of cheap raw materials for the farmer, whether artificial manure in the form of phosphates, nitrate of soda, etc., or machinery, or any other thing incidental to the successful working of his farm. The Minister should try to get these things into this country. He should not mind any opposition which he may meet with in the beginning from vested interests. We want all the stuff we can possibly get into this country for the next year or two. We can absorb it all and we will have ways and means of disposing of our own. The Minister would be well advised to do what he possibly can in that direction. As time goes on and the position of those nations which were ravished by war and which, owing to certain circumstances, have not got into full production, becomes settled, I am sure the Minister will be in a position to get many of the things which are necessary and which he finds it difficult to get at present for our agricultural industry. I hope that his efforts will succeed and that, with the co-operation of the farmers and all concerned, we may hope to get back to the position that agriculture enjoyed some 15, 20 or 25 years ago.

I wish to emphasise again that the Minister and the Department cannot of themselves do that. It requires something more than speech-making either here or at the cross-roads and something more than Acts of Parliament to make the country prosperous. It requires a certain amount of hard work as well, together with goodwill and co-operation. Given these things, I think the Minister should be soon in a position to be able to provide amply for the needs of our people and, possibly, have a little to export to our friends across the water or, for that matter, to any country which needs it.

Major de Valera

From what I have heard in the House and from what I have been told about the debate during the periods I was not here, this debate has been largely concerned with the question of pigs. This subject has taken an enormous amount of time, just because at the moment there is a certain dispute in progress. I think the matter finally boils down to one fact which has been referred to by the last speaker amongst others. Deputy Coburn said that if pigs were there we would have no grievance and no dispute. That remark interested me and I think it is true. I happen to have had the opportunity recently of meeting somebody who had an interest in the trade. I am a city dweller and I knew little about it and I was interested in getting information. The information that I got pointed very much to the same conclusion: if the pigs were there, there would have been no talk about them in this debate.

Naturally, the next question to be asked is: Why are not the pigs there in sufficient numbers? There is a certain number there but, if there were more, there would be no dispute. That is what I was informed. Why are they not there? Again Deputy Coburn has given the answer, and the straightforward, simple answer to the question is the shortage of feeding stuffs. I understand that the question of fuel comes into it as well. As an impartial listener to the evidence, and without having any axe to grind in the matter, I think that is the plain fact of the situation. It is perfectly understandable that in present conditions feeding stuffs should be scarce, scarce for animals and scarce for men. Is it necessary to recall to this House that there has been a war, that there has been isolation, that there has been a very serious foreign situation, to put it mildly, together with difficulties in getting supplies?

This matter has been discussed at length. The solution, if there is a solution, appears to be to do what we can to provide the feeding stuffs. I ask myself, in so far as the Minister for Agriculture has any responsibility and the Department of Industry and Commerce has any responsibility in this matter, what is being done? This is being done. Every effort that the Department or the Minister could make to encourage production at home of such feeding stuffs as we can produce has been made; every effort that could be conceived. The test of that is that I have heard no concrete suggestion from the Opposition of any other methods than the methods which are being tried at present which could be adopted to produce feeding stuffs; no other method for producing these in addition to those which the Minister and the Department and the other people concerned have adopted. So far as what we can do at home is concerned, as far as human imagination can go, that is the best effort that could be made to meet the situation. That is one side of the matter. What about getting in supplies to supplement what we can do at home? Unless my information is false, we have made purchases. We are attempting to get all the feeding-stuffs, including maize, from abroad that we can. What else can you do?

There is a situation here which has been brought about by circumstances to a large extent extraneous and forced upon us. We are taking every possible step to meet that situation. Wherefore this wholly critical debate, without a complementary or constructive conclusion? That kind of thing is wasting the time of the House and the people. I have no objection to what Deputy Coburn said, or the quite frank way in which he put it. That is quite useful. I am not criticising what he said on that matter. What I am criticising is the whole effort of certain other speakers who are simply taking this up as another platform and another plank for causing dissatisfaction here by pretending that the Government is failing in its duties.

In the last analysis the big question is, what can we do to meet a certain situation that exists, that has been brought about largely by the circumstances of the recent war and, to some extent, by the circumstances of the weather last year? What can we do about it, and is what we can do about it being done? Both these questions have been answered. Can anything further be done as far as this side of the House is concerned? We have racked our imaginations to see what can be done, and we are doing it. I have not heard one additional practical suggestion on the far side, and so let us pass from pigs.

I listened with, I must confess, interest, to Deputy Dillon yesterday Deputy Dillon's approach to this problem is, I fear, fundamentally mistaken and for this reason. Deputy Dillon may have read—and I am sure he has— a good deal on the question of economics, and Deputy Dillon is probably influenced by a prevalent theory—for which there is a great deal to be said —that the universal adoption by all countries of the world, in the days prior to the war, of policies of isolation and protection for their own produce, contributed not only to the war but to the deterioration of the economic situation in the world at large and particularly in Europe and as regards the relation of Europe and America. That policy, he said, did that, and therefore there is something to be said for a universal policy of free trade.

As I said in a debate before, I grant Deputy Dillon all the points in his favour on that particular argument. I am not joining issue with him on that argument, but he must accept the fact that the situation developed and became a fact, and he must accept the fact that those other perturbations to which he would refer and to which I have referred occurred, and that the present-day situation is as it is. He must accept these facts as realities. If he does, the simple question to Deputy Dillon is, is a small State, with relatively small resources, the first State to strike out to meet that situation by the abandonment of its own self-protection in a protected world? Is that what he proposes? If it is, then what he is proposing is virtual suicide for a country such as this. It may, according to your point of view, be a very gallant and honourable thing to do, but I wonder are we in this country prepared to do it?

I will put it this way. Supposing that your society has got into a chaotic condition, which has happened in the past, where every man had to go armed for fear of his neighbour and had to protect himself and his property. It happened in periods of history in Europe in the past where a man had to fight to live. Imagine a society such as that. Imagine you are one of these people. It may be all very noble to say: "Let us all be brothers. I will not fight; I will thrown down my arms, disarm, and I will leave myself at the mercy of others because, if everybody did the same, then we would have a perfectly peaceful society." It would be a very nice thing to do and the Deputy's argument would be perfectly logical and reasonable if everybody did likewise. But if he were the only person to do it, and the others did not do it, what would happen? He would be lucky if he was left with his naked skin, to say nothing about his property.

The answer to Deputy Dillon's general proposition is this: Whatever substance there is in your general theory, we are a relatively small State; we will have to mind our own corner, and if this general trust is to develop and these barriers and protection aids are to go in the world, it is the bigger people who will have to take the lead in that and, in the meantime, we shall have to mind ourselves. That is the general reply to his arguments.

Now to come down to his specific arguments. Deputy Dillon was very caustic, as usual, on a policy of protection here and the policy of production at home of such things as wheat. Deputy Dillon has harked back to the past and has criticised these things. But has Deputy Dillon forgotten that we have to face a particular situation at the moment, a situation of quasiemergency? In fact, when I asked him across the House, he referred to normal times, but surely, if we are to be realists in this matter we have to look to the year 1947? What is the use of talking about stopping the growing of wheat, about stopping the growing of beet, about stopping the cutting of peat and talking about getting things in from outside when we cannot to-day get in fuel from outside, when we are put to the pin of our collar to get the wheat that is necessary to supplement what we grow ourselves at home, and where we have a situation in which we are perpetually worried and harrassed about the bread we will have—notwithstanding the fact that, thanks be to the good God, we have been so far able to meet our requirements in regard to bread? What is the use of talking about stopping the cutting of peat when we cannot get coal —the coal so unfortunately necessary for the running of such essential services as the Dublin Gas Works, and the coal so unfortunately necessary to keep our foundries going—in Wexford, for instance? What is the use of talking about stopping the cutting of turf when the Department concerned and every man in it is strained to breaking point in trying to keep essential services going? What is the use of talking about stopping the growing of beet when we cannot get in sugar?

Deputy Dillon is no fool. I did not laugh at him, in the sense of laughing at his arguments, when he talked about prices. But I do ask him to be at least a realist in these things. General economic theories are all right in their own way and in their own place. Talking about hypothetical normalities may be all right but, surely to goodness, we in this House should at this stage address ourselves to the year 1947. We have not only had a war behind us but we have been through a state of emergency which was equivalent to war conditions. Look at Europe to-day. Look at the whole world. Does anyone see real security anywhere? Does anyone see any reason why we should not continue to try to ensure that we produce at home as much as we can of the vital necessities for living and for life. Perhaps there is too much stress on money in all this when one approaches the matter from that particular aspect. But it is sufficiently serious in so far as we must have these real essentials for living and the cost is a secondary item when viewed from that particular aspect. We have been through a war period and we should be now more concerned with ensuring that we have these essentials, such as food and fuel, in the future than haggling over the economic cost when reckoned in terms of the conventional currency, sterling. That is the situation which we have to meet.

Deputy Dillon may, perhaps, think that I am making an attack upon him. I am not but I do think that it is quite legitimate for me to point out where I conceive the fundamental fallacy to lie —namely, his failure to appreciate, firstly that it is not sufficient to tackle our immediate problems on the basis of a hypothetical or general theory or on the basis of a hypothetical normality and, secondly, that we are still faced with a state of emergency. Deputy Dillon's contention that the prices do not matter rather amused certain Deputies in this House. I must confess that I smiled at the way in which he made the statement. Deputy Dillon is in some ways a most captivating speaker. But I was not smiling at the idea he expressed because, as I said before, Deputy Dillon is no fool. He is—and I say this without any hint of malice—the only "Fine Gaeler" left to-day if we are to take the Fine Gael policy of the past. We will agree with him that the profit does matter, but he insinuated that prices should be left as they are and he said the way to do that was by shoving down the cost. That is all very nice. That is very true. But the snag immediately arises as to how one is to shove down the cost. Let us consider now how to shove down the cost. It is all very fine to tell the farmer the price does not mater; but is it all right to tell the farmer the price does not matter when the wages he has to pay are going up and when the prices he has to pay for his feeding-stuffs are going up? Does the price not matter then?

If I accept Deputy Dillon's argument that it is the profit that matters the only way in which I can hold the profit is by letting the price go up. In a nutshell that is a specious argument because you are still tied to the basic fact that your real wealth, in such circumstances as we are faced with, is the food you have, the fuel you have and the other esentials and semi-essentials which you have and which enable you to live in a reasonable standard of comfort and security. As Deputy Coburn said, you can put too high a value on the coins which are jingling in your pocket. When all is said and done what matters is the breakfast you eat, the house you live in, the fire you have and the roof above your head. I think all Deputies will agree with me generally in that.

Where I join issue with some of the gentlemen on the Opposition Benches is that their approach to this whole subject has been one in which they seek to attack a Government and attack a Minister for competitive reasons. There was very little approach to the realities of the situation as they exist. What really appals one from the point of view of future Parliamentary government in this country is the barrenness and the sterility of the minds on the Opposition Benches. Plenty of criticism they have to make. Quick they are to point out that such a situation has deteriorated. But never do they show, in a positive or a direct manner, how one can better that deterioration or do better than is being done. That is my main criticism now. That is my fundamental criticism. I, for one, would be only too glad to hear some concrete suggestions made to us as to how, on top of what is being done now, we could still further alleviate the fuel position. If some member of the Opposition could come over here and tell us how we can increase our fuel production at home, or get fuel from outside so as to ensure that we shall have enough fuel in this country and in the City of Dublin in particular during the winter months, I would embrace him. The Government and the Ministers responsible are doing everything they can to have turf cut here at home. Amongst other things we have had to contend with the weather. I think everybody in the State realises the seriousness of the situation and is trying to co-operate.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is not responsible for the cutting of turf.

Major de Valera

Turf has been referred to at some length during the course of this debate. However, I will leave it at that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The production of turf for the preparation of food for animals has been referred to. You are dealing now with the actual production of turf.

Major de Valera

I bow to the Chair's ruling. Let us take then the production of food. Let us take the production of fodder for our animals. That is something which is essential. Can anyone suggest any additional steps for supplying the possible deficiency or for ensuring a greater measure of safety in the winter to come than the steps that are being taken at the present time? I have heard no additional suggestion simply because, when you get down to the basis of the problem, you have only two ways of dealing with it: (1) to produce at home whatever we can— and we are trying to do that—and (2) to get in from outside what we cannot produce at home. We are doing everything we can to do that and not unsuccessfully.

Here we are in a debate on agriculture and what have we been doing to try to help towards meeting the problem of the present moment? Again, A Chinn Comhairle, with your permission may I repeat that we have had six years of war, a difficult aftermath and, in company with other countries situated close to us, we had what one might call an almost disastrous winter last year. Our weather at the moment is not all that it might be. The international situation outside is, to say the least, gloomy and one which gives us little hope of getting supplies from abroad, at least for next winter. Please God, it means nothing worse than that though the signs are there. There is the situation but, thank God—and this is what we are too slow to admit— compared with other countries in Europe, compared with our next-door neighbour, we are still relatively well off in the essentials of living. I say relatively well off; it is inevitable that we should have felt the pinch but we still have certain advantages.

What is the rational thing to do? The rational thing to do is to be thankful for our blessings, to realise our difficulties, to buckle up together, to put our shoulders to the wheel and try to meet the situation ahead by doing all we can to encourage the production at home of the commodities which can be produced at home and to get other necessities from outside—in short, to pull together as we pulled together in the war years. Is that not the sensible thing to do? How little of that spirit have we heard expressed in this House during the debate and, I am afraid, during a number of debates in the past?

Just to get down to a little detail, take the city for which I can speak with a certain amount of knowledge. I have listened to recitals of the farmers' problems. One has sympathy with the farmers and the country-dweller. One realises that when we are in such a situation as this, more than ever are we dependent on the farmers, that they are the mainstay and the support of the community. Let me at the same time refer to the city-dweller who in his turn can give something back to the farmer. We are all one community, as Deputy Coburn said. I should like to commend this aspect to the rural community. When food supplies run short, when fuel supplies—which I am precluded from discussing in detail—run short, it is the unfortunate city person who will feel the pinch, really badly in his person. It is the little children in the cities and towns who will feel the pinch badly. I should like you to think of that. No matter how hard conditions hit the farmer or the country-dweller, he will manage to have a fire for his children, even if the only fuel available is the brambles off the hedges along the road. He will manage to feed them if he has only potatoes. Anyway, he will feed them because the first shortage of food will involve a contraction of the surplus that comes from him to the city rather than a cutting down of his own supplies. But the poorer quarters of the cities and towns—and indeed they may not be the most seriously affected because we shall always try to do something to relieve their necessities—and the next stratum which I often mention in this House—the tradesman, the soldier, the lower—paid civil servant and so forth—will feel the pinch. They may find themselves without fires or without essential articles of diet in such a situation.

I would like our farming community to think of that in the effort which we ask them to make, as far as they can, particularly those farmers adjacent to the towns. If we can be assured of essential supplies, like vegetables which are going so short in the city, milk and those things which are so necessary for children, we need have little fear. Since we have all to help in this emergency, that is one direction in which I would appeal for help from the farming community, even though it may not be for them at the moment the best economies. I appeal to them to produce as much as they can. I am concerned at the moment as I say, in making that appeal so that the struggling classes of the community in the towns and cities, particularly the children, will not be left short of the three principal products of the farmer during the next winter—meat, vegetables and milk. I am precluded from mentioning the fuel problem. So far as the town-dwellers are concerned, what can they do? Well, last year they tried to go out, and did go out, in answer to the call to save the harvest. That may be necessary again next harvest and I think we can confidently expect that such a call will be answered. There is the spirit that is needed—one part of the community helping the other. I have taken up so much time in such a long debate that I think I shall leave it at that.

At the moment, what is the use of criticising and bemoaning a situation that we cannot avoid because of much wider issues than the merely local one here at home? We should feel that we are better placed than many to face what may be ahead of us next winter, to face it optimistically and to make those efforts, by co-operation and personal self-sacrifice that I have suggested—in other words, to put our backs into production and to waste less time in futile talk. I felt, listening to Deputy McGilligan last night, that we have lost in many ways a sense of reality of the present situation. Deputy McGilligan is a lawyer. How does a lawyer conduct a case? If he has a good positive case, he generally ignores his opponents and propounds the case.

But, if he has no case himself, there is no way open to him but to attack his opponents, take the offensive, go back to his opponents' ancestors and indict their posterity, and say nothing about his own case at all. Deputy McGilligan's speech was just that, and I am sorry for it, because a man and a Party with experience of being in office and with experience of Government might be expected, at this stage of our history, to have some idea of a positive nature to put forward, instead of this eternal harping back, and this eternal unproductive criticism.

I have dealt with Deputy Dillon. There was more sense and more logic in what he said, but it was based on a completely shaky premises, an unreal situation. I can only say, if the Chair will permit me, that having listened to his speech, I might compliment him on his exposition of the application of histrionics to politics, but as regards convincing me or, I think, many others, that there was substance in his argument, I am afraid that Deputy Dillon has failed.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

My mind has been roaming around in the last few hours in an effort to hit upon the point at which I should enter in closing this debate which has lasted now for almost four days. It is my first experience as a Minister and I cannot say just in a few words what I think of the debate to which we have listened. I was at times inclined to become impatient and then on thinking the matter over, I asked myself why we should in a debate of this kind have so much repetition — repetition by Deputies of arguments that they themselves had listened to being demolished in this House. As I could not find a satisfactory explanation in that behalf, I just concluded that perhaps— and maybe this is not complimentary and does not represent the real facts— it was all because of a statement made by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, down in his constituency, recently. That statement appears to have been interpreted by all the splinter Parties of this House as meaning that we were near a general election.

Of course, being a tactician myself and having a considerable amount of experience, I can, perhaps, see the reason, but I must confess that if my colleague really was responsible for what we have heard during those four days, I am not a bit thankful to him. Although I have tried to take a fairly extensive note of many of the points that were made here by Deputies, I could not possibly be expected to reply to all of them, and I suppose the best I can do is to pick out the principal ones and try to deal with them as best I can.

There seems to be an admission by those Deputies who have listened to the many points of view that have been expressed on the question on which I am setting up this consultative council, that the country will realise the vast extent of the problem and the difficulty of solving the problem to the satisfaction of all concerned. I am not going to say anything now, nor have I said anything in any other place, that would in any way pre-judge this issue.

Last night we heard Deputy McGilligan, who confessed that he personally knew nothing about the subject. We listened to this reading of extracts from a paper read somewhere to some organisation by Dr. Kennedy. And, after he had dealt with it, and drawn attention to the comparison between conditions here and in New Zealand, I invited Deputy McGilligan—much to his surprise, I think, because he suspected I had not read the paper itself—to continue to give the House Dr. Kennedy's own conclusion as to why the situation here, as far as milk products were concerned, was different from that in New Zealand. I may be wrong in saying that he gave those reasons reluctantly, but one of them that would be regarded by Dr. Kennedy as perhaps the most important recommendation, was that we should go in for milk breeds. I shot the simple question to the Deputy: "What about the store cattle trade?" to which Deputies behind him, including Deputy Fagan, who comes from Westmeath, had referred earlier in the debate.

I had in mind the speeches made by a number of other members of Deputy McGilligan's Party in order to indicate the many different lines of thought there were, the different approaches, to this problem, all depending upon the district from which the Deputy came. If, as I have said, this discussion has not been very helpful, it has at least brought home to me very forcibly that there is not, in any of the splinter Parties who have contributed largely to this debate and who have been banking upon a general election apparently in the near future, any policy or any clear line of thought on this particular matter. I am really not blaming them because I, too, appreciate the difficulties that confront me and that will confront anybody to whom my responsibility is given in determining this question.

Immediately I came into this office my own mind was clear as a result of the experience which I have had. When the Munster farmers came to me and made a case for an increased price for their milk, I looked up the figures and saw that 78 to 80 per cent. of the milk supplied to the creameries was supplied by the province of Munster with the County Kilkenny thrown in. When I saw that milk meant so much to the people of that area who were agitating with me and, through me, with the Government, for an economic price for their milk, when I saw the importance of the area from that point of view and then asked for figures to show the average delivery of milk per cow and saw that it was 380 gallons, when I turned to the Report of the Committee on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy, in which advice is given to the Government as to the line it should pursue in relation to milk in the future, suggesting to the Government that the subsidisation of milk should be abandoned—when I related all these matters: the importance of this area, the average delivery per cow to the creameries, the fact that the post-emergency committee had recommended that no subsidy should be given to those farmers, and on top of that the fact that the Munster farmers were knocking at the Minister's door telling him something that he had already suspected was correct as to why the average delivery should be so low—was it any wonder then that, when they challenged me and the Government for a higher price, and when I challenged them as to the reason for the low delivery of milk, they would go back and say: "There is one explanation for it—your cattle breeding policy." When the Minister's view, without prejudicing the issue, was inclined to coincide with that expression of opinion, was it any wonder, even though I do not expect wonders from the tribunal, that I should set it up?

I have been asked by Deputies to justify the exclusion of the rest of the country from this consultative council. I have already given them my reason. I come from what is, partially, a creamery district. It is not a creamery district in the sense that Cork, Limerick, Tipperary or parts of Kerry and Waterford are creamery districts. I recognise the difficulties that will confront this consultative council, but for the reasons that I have given I have decided to set it up and to make it very wide in its scope. Organisations interested in the production or handling of milk from that area are to be given representation on the council. I have taken the course of leaving it to the suppliers themselves to select the personnel. I have done that deliberately because of my appreciation of the difficulties with which that council will be confronted, and because of my desire to ensure that when it has concluded its deliberations nobody can come to me or to any member of this House or to anybody outside and say: "Your consultative council was handpicked by the Minister from the Fianna Fáil cumainn in the areas concerned".

During the course of this three or four days' debate, I have heard some peculiar statements made here. Some of them were real gems. We had a speech from Deputy Heskin. He is a farmers' representative. He was an Independent farmer for a while. He lost his independence within the last couple of months, and there are three of them now. Deputy Heskin described a show that had been held in Munster—I think it was in Cork— where there was a bull paraded for inspection, with a history on all sides— dam and sire—of 1,000 gallons.

Mr. Allen

Written all over him.

Mr. Smith

Yes. Deputy Heskin was directing his criticism not to me, because I had only just come across in the boat, but to my officials on my right, and he said: "Imagine the officials of the Department of Agriculture, seeing a bull paraded around the sale ring, with 1,000 gallons to the dam and 1,000 gallons to the sire, with a premium of 20 guineas on his horn, after all the effort that had been made in order to get this particular beast with this high-yield history behind him, allowing that bull to be withdrawn from the ring because he was only making 33 guineas." How can one be expected to have patience in face of that sort of reasoning? I could not resist the temptation of asking him the question: "Where were the farmers who wanted a bull? Where were the farmers of Munster who were anxious to get cows with milk?" If there is anything in this breeding business, and there must be, surely here was their chance. What were they doing? The bull was cheap. The top premium was running with him. His history was good. Why did not they buy him? Was he plain in colour? Was he long of the legs? Had he a fish back? What was the reason for the Munster farmers' hesitancy about buying this bull? If we have established this consultative council in order to help the Munster farmers to get what I have been saying they are entitled to get, where is the use if, after all the efforts, when we have reached the point where we produce the type of bull that was described here by Deputy Hesking, they will not buy him? In that situation what will the Minister for Agriculture do, whoever he is?

These are the thoughts that I would invite amongst Munster farmers. If they come to me asking for a higher price for milk, I have got not only to think of them—and they must be my first concern—I have other responsibilities as well. If they say to me: "Your breeding policy is wrong. It imposes on us a burden," and if I say: "Here are bulls that will not impose any burden upon you; here are bulls that have been bred for milk," and if they turn up their noses and do not buy them, where are we? That is a line of thought to which the farmers of Munster can give some time.

My mind has been running along the lines of some of the speeches in this debate. I have given expression to my thoughts at some of the food conferences. I do not know what I may ultimately do about it, but I do confess that I cannot see much reason, unless in the poorer areas, for the subsidisation of Hereford and Polled-Angus cattle. I think it can be justified in the congested areas all right, but when I was challenged during these conferences about my Department's policy of not allowing premiums to be given to these animals and when those who wanted them made the case to me that the whole run was on those bulls I said: "If that is the case, why should you want a subsidy? Why do not you go to the shows and buy these animals? Is not it going to be a paying proposition for you and why should the State then come along and give you additional assistance?" In regard to that matter then my mind is moving in that direction.

I do not know who it was that said I was trying to be tough or giving the impression that I was tough but I want the House to understand that I will always listen to anybody who has anything to say that will be of any value but the chances are that I will have my own "know" at the end and whether you call that toughness or not does not matter. I have not, then, made up my mind on this. It looks to me, as I see it now, a bit foolish to concentrate on and spend public money in encouraging something that is already, apparently, in very keen demand.

This consultative council has a difficult task before it. I have told you as clearly as I can why I have set it up. I have told you why I have broadened out its whole personnel. I have told you why I have taken no part in nominating anybody to it. I appreciate the importance of that area from a milk producing point of view. I appreciate that the rest of the community is not entitled to throw them a baby and then refuse to give them a contribution for the up-bringing and maintenance of the baby. I am isolating them from everybody else, and saying to them: "This is your own problem", and I am asking them without mixing them with the other districts that are interested in other phases of agricultural production, to tell me what I am to do about it.

Mr. Hughes

Does the Minister intend to implement fully the recommendations?

Mr. Smith

I would like to see the recommendations first.

Mr. Hughes

You are not committing yourself.

Mr. Smith

I never do. I am as safe as a house.

Mr. Hughes

I was merely wondering as you were stressing this point.

Mr. Smith

I will leave the milk question at that point and I will turn to this other matter of bacon— the bacon shortage, the inactivity of the Pigs and Bacon Commission, the futility of Government intervention and interference, the injustice of Government control, all these and more. The beautiful part about it was that you had no sooner listened to a Deputy denouncing this interference and attributing the shortage of bacon to this interference than you heard another ask, "Has the Minister power to do so-and-so?" and when the Minister replied that he had no power to intervene in that matter, they said that if the Minister had not such power he should seek such power immediately. It was beautiful to listen to that kind of talk here. We changed about just the same as if we were in a four-hand reel. You would think, you know, that we were all a lot of innocents and you would think that we were incapable of taking our minds back to the good old days that were described here to us about "yalla male" and yellow meal—"yalla male" at 6/- and "yalla male" at something else—free trade in pigs, dead and alive and everything beautiful in the garden! You would think to listen to that kind of story that we had not, even as boys, been in the markets with our fathers looking at the beautiful picture.

Let us take our minds back to the beautiful scenes when the "yalla male" was there, when the pig buyers represented all these business concerns, all these curing establishments, —the gentlemen or the people to whom we could now trust our lives. "Let the Government move out of this business. We would just be in God's pocket if we let those people handle all this." In those days of the "yalla male" the representatives of these concerns met at the corner before the bell rang and decided the price that was to be paid. Yes, and the Minister for Agriculture is told that he should not be interfering when, in fact, he is not interfering. Apparently those who told him not to be interfering will not go to the trouble to find out whether he is interfering or not, and those who told him not to be interfering with the next breath will ask him: "Why do you not interfere in this?" Then, of course, as I say, we have this question of "yalla male"! That picture which I have painted dates back not 20 years, nor 15 years, not since Fianna Fáil came into office, not since Cumann na nGaedheal came into office—it was there before either was heard of. It was there when the farmers went, as was their custom in my county, to sell their pigs in the dead pork market. That market was not known in the South or in the West. When you killed your pig you put him in the cart and you had to take for him what they gave. If he was even alive you might have some chance of running him home on the road.

In that particular setting, even with the "yalla male" coming in free, even when the merchants of this country were able to handle it in quantities that were pleasing to them, and even when they were able to get their profits out of the "yalla male" all was beautiful in the garden. It was at that particular time and it was in that setting that the farmers of this country, when they had been offered the price that had been fixed at the corner before the bell rang—fixed for the day, fixed perhaps 10/- lower than the price paid the day before in a neighbouring town—came together, talked together, drank together, groused together, and wondered when the time would come when some system of control would be introduced that would give them some assurance that when they went out into the market and bought the Northern "suckers" and the Southern bonhams, all depending upon the place in which you lived, they would know when buying them that if they lived they would mature in from four to six months, that they would turn out about 1½ cwts., and that they would have some idea then of the price they would get for them per cwt., dead or alive.

That is the background of this Fianna Fáil intervention in business, of Fianna Fáil's unnecessary fiddling and meddling in matters about which they are alleged to know nothing. It was because of that, therefore, that this House, in the year 1935, had proposals presented to it in a genuine effort to deal with that problem. It was as a result of the introduction of these proposals that every Party in this House decided to set up a Committee of this House representative of all Parties in this House. It is the only piece of legislation that has ever been treated in that way during my 20 years here as a Deputy, a Parliamentary Secretary, or as a Minister. That effort was made at that particular time in order to bring to an end the situation I have described. Although, as I say, this matter had been at that time referred to a special committee, I am not trying to push over or apportion the responsibility for perhaps the partial and may be the absolute failure of that legislation to achieve the purpose that this House had in mind.

I do not want to do that because I think that would be a cowardly approach to a Government's responsibilities. I am not afraid to share responsibility with my colleagues, to meet the farmers of this country anywhere, and to admit to them that even if that original effort to bring to an end the situation I have described was not a success, well, after all, we are not the first people to design a Bill which ultimately became an Act of Parliament and through which somebody drove a coach and four. That has been going on for a long time—long before Fianna Fáil came into existence! I could go to the farmers as one who was a member of that special committee in this House in 1935 and who endeavoured to contribute my honest share, perhaps in a limited way, to the solution of a problem with which I was and am as intimate as the ground I am standing upon. Efforts were made afterwards to strengthen the weaknesses, to fill in the holes, if any. Then the war intervened.

The curers are now suggesting a solution. They know all about this. They know just exactly how this whole matter can be clarified and the whole position eased. They sent out their circular to Deputies and, having done so, they contacted county committees of agriculture, and if you took up a morning paper you saw that such-and such a county committee of agriculture passed a resolution demanding that the Minister should proceed to a solution of the bacon difficulties by an acceptance of the recommendations made by the curers. County committees of agriculture, while not agreeing with everything that I say and everything that I do, might be well advised after the statement that I have made, before passing any resolution to say: "After all, we are the committee of agriculture and as such we represent primarily, in fact entirely, the interests of the producers, and before passing any resolution suggested by interested parties it would be no harm if we listened to the Minister for Agriculture, even though we may not see eye to eye with him politically and may not agree with everything he says or does." If, as the committee of agriculture, they are genuinely interested in doing their job for the farmers, it might be better to do it in that way, rather than attempt to score some little political advantage, because of the unrest and turmoil in the trade, over the person in this responsible and important position who is trying to do his best, not for the Fianna Fáil farmers, but for farmers in general of every class.

In the course of this debate on pigs and bacon, I listened, not in all cases, but in a few cases, to a lot of political, electioneering, tuppenny - ha'penny, soap-box oratory. If those who are in public life and who think they can remain in it imagine that they are going to get away with that sort of misrepresentation while I am here, whether I am tough, as somebody said, or whether I pretend to be tough, I can assure them that I will be tough enough to make certain that that will not happen. Deputy Cogan described in the most vivid language a pig which he saw scratching his neck against the door of a trader in some town in County Wicklow. We had a lovely description of this pig which ignored everybody, did not know whether it was in Carnew or Shillelagh, and did not care two hoots about the trader, or whether Deputy Cogan was the Leader of one of the splinter farmers' Parties. It was all very nice to listen to, but, at the same time, the picture was overdrawn and, when you overdraw a picture, it is not just the right thing to do. Whatever faults or failures the farmers of this country have, they are a very shrewd lot of men. If Deputy Cogan wants to pit himself and his story-telling against me he is free to do so. But unless the standard of his story-telling is raised, I prophesy that he will remain Leader of one of the splinter Parties for a very long time.

Deputy Fagan was honest enough to tell why the bacon shortage exists. Perhaps he did not tell the whole story, but he told most of it. Even though the Minister for Justice did talk about a general election, why should we lower the level of this debate on such an important subject to such a point that if farmers were listening they would laugh at us? Every man has his own way of holding his constituency. It may be that you can tell fables or stories and get on. It may be that you can say a word for the curers, then for the employees and, after you have covered all the other interests, you can give the consumers a bit of a show and then, at the end of it all, come to the unfortunate, downtrodden, worn-out producers. Maybe it is that kind of display here, when it gets into the local papers, does the job. I never thought it did, and I have a long experience. At any rate, I never followed that course. In fact, I never spoke in a debate on agriculture here until I became Minister and, somehow or other, I pulled myself through with my constituents and got elected.

I suggest that in future debates of this kind, if we should all be here, it would not be a bad idea to remember that if we apply ourselves to the problems that confront agriculture in an open and honest way and make short, nice speeches of 15 or 20 minutes, telling the Minister how we think certain matters could be done, how certain matters could be improved and certain wrongs rectified, it would be much more effective. If we were to approach the task in that way, regardless of whether the Minister for Justice has talked of a general election, we would make far more progress and contribute much more towards helping the unfortunate, downtrodden people called producers, about whom we have heard so much lip service.

This problem of bacon is one about which, while not being a business man, I know a great deal. I know most of the snags in it and I know most of the difficulties. I know that this pig business will come back to itself and I have given the reason. I have told you how it will come back and why it will come back. I am terribly anxious to bring it back, because it means a lot to the small people. But when it does come back in great volume, as I hope it will, it could bring to us, and to me in particular, problems that would not be easy of solution. I am thinking of those problems now, because if you are a good general you have to think of the possibilities of retreat. I am thinking of the advance first and I am hoping I will not have to retreat, but I am providing for every emergency if I am to come before this House with any proposals for the reorganisation of this business.

There are people to-day suggesting to me that I should not have this or that control. There is no control now as to the price that curers can give. I have shown you that because of the scarcity of pigs, the producer is in an excellent position to get perhaps more than the pig is worth to the curer. But, even with all that freedom, when there was an effort on the part of the curers to reduce that price, and when I knew well they could not succeed in doing it, there were howls from all sides of the House that I should intervene. Let us make up our minds that there are circumstances in which, in regard to this industry, we may have to take a hand.

I want to assure the House that I have no desire, if I could avoid it, to interefere with businessmen in the performance of their tasks. I have told you that here is a business in which there were difficulties long before this State came into existence; here is a business in regard to which the farmers were agitating, praying and hoping that somebody would come along to take a hand in the reorganisation of it, and here is a business in which we may in future have to intervene. Then, when I made a statement that because of its importance, because of its difficulty and because of the errors of the past. I had not time to make up my own mind clearly as to the lines along which I would proceed, what was the position facing me? After making it clear that I could not add one pig to the population of pigs now in existence, I was taken to task for an hour and 40 minutes, and the whole line of criticism was: "Why has not the Minister time?"

For me, there is only the same number of hours in the day as there is for anybody else. I can assure you, without making any bones about it, that I have given all the time and attention to my office that I can afford to give and live. But apart from that, I have proved by the very history of this trade that it is of such importance that I should not intervene further unless and until I have satisfied myself to the best of my ability, because it is not always possible to be dead sure of everything, that I am proceeding along the right lines.

If I could get from county committees of agriculture, however politically composed, an appreciation of the fact that I am the Minister for Agriculture and, irrespective of my own or my Party's or my Government's outlook or their political future or prospects, if I could get from them an appreciation that I was as likely to be right and as likely to be as interested in the producer as the curer could possibly be, we would not have so many resolutions framed and dictated and accepted without hearing the other side of the story. I cannot, as I say, determine the tactics to be followed by any member of this House. I do suggest, however, that it is not good politics in a matter of this kind, and it is not good tactics in a matter of this kind, nor does it help to enhance the individual chances of the Deputies concerned, to be flirting about with every interest. There is an old saying that "Lanna Machree's dog runs a bit of the way with everybody." I suggest to the Deputies on the Opposition Benches that the policy of emulating "Lanna Machree's dog" in an effort to retain a seat, for whatever Party, is not good business. Neither is it fair to this most important industry, which occupies 50 per cent. of our total population, that it should be used year in and year out almost as a butt for the Opposition members of this House. The Opposition members proceed, year after year, to tell the Minister and the Government what they ought to do, what they should do and what they should not do. Having listened to them and tried to analyse their arguments, one finds that there is no coherence and very little policy.

Mr. Davin

You evidently do not want anybody to criticise you, even constructively.

Mr. Smith

Who is to determine when the criticism is constructive and when it is merely destructive?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is out of order.

Mr. Smith

The hypocrisy in this House almost drives me mad. I am not here to defend anybody. I am not here to level criticism at someone who has done wrong. I may not always be right myself. The Puritans who talk here might, perhaps, least bear an inspection themselves. Who is to decide who is pure and who is not?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have ruled the interruption out of order and the Minister should proceed without reference to it.

Mr. Smith

The knights of old——

Mr. Donnellan

You were getting on grand up to now.

Mr. Smith

Was I? Did I touch the brotherhood?

Mr. Donnellan

No.

Mr. Smith

I do not mind what brotherhood I touch. I, as I have said before, am interested in the bacon industry. I believe that it will come back to its former state both in regard to production and the provision of feeding stuffs and in regard to the production of the finished article. I and my Department will do everything in our power in endeavouring to protect the producer. We shall take whatever steps are necessary, whether legislative or otherwise, to put the industry on a proper footing at the appropriate time.

In regard to the fixation of prices, there are difficulties in the way. Sometimes I wonder whether fixation is a wise policy. Hitherto we produced a considerable number of pigs in this country by means of the small farmer organisation and the labouring man. They had one, two three, four, five or six pigs. There was no large-scale farming properly so-called. Once you fix the price for the producer the question arises as to whether its results will be beneficial or not. There are circumstances in which it might be helpful. There are circumstances in which it might be desirable. There are circumstances in which it might be neither helpful nor desirable. Once you fix prices you immediately bring into existence a different type of production from the type of production to which we have been accustomed in this country and the type of production that we are anxious to encourage and maintain in the future. When you fix prices, you eliminate altogether or reduce the numbers of the small men engaged in the industry. If it is only a matter of 5/-, 10/- or 15/- a hundredweight the return to the small man will be comparatively low in comparison with the return to the big producer. The small man will immediately decide that it is not an economic proposition for him to continue to produce pigs at that small profit and he will go out of production. There are then, as I say, circumstances in which the fixation of prices for the producer might result in a development along that line to the detriment of some other line which might in the long run prove more beneficial.

Many efforts were made in this House to prove that I was wrong in my conclusion as to the cause of the present shortage. A Roscommon Deputy told me that there was plenty of corn in Roscommon. Deputy Roddy asked me a question as to whether we were producing barley or as to whether we were not producing barley. What were we doing with it?

Mr. Roddy

That was not my question.

Mr. Smith

The general trend of the debate on the part of some Deputies seemed to me to be directed towards proving that I was wrong in the explanation I had given as to the cause for the present scarcity. I am hardly ever wrong.

Mr. Donnellan

Good man. Always think that and you will never be right.

Mr. Smith

And I think I will succeed in proving that I am not wrong on this occasion. You cannot take more out of a bag than you put into it. Is not that so? Some people do not seem to understand that very elementary principle. I am glad that it seems to have penetrated at last to Deputy Davin's head. Deputies in this House are in a position to inform themselves as to our tillage achievements. Surely, they are capable of finding out how the acreage is distributed over the different crops—wheat, oats, barley and root crops.

I will admit that if, as Minister, I were to single out some agricultural products, such as pigs and bacon, and if I were to say that I was going to get the farmers, by giving them a certain price, to divert whatever feeding-stuffs were left after meeting the necessities of human beings, entirely and absolutely to the production of pigs, the chances are that I would be successful in increasing the pig population within a very short space of time but there are poultry and other classes of live stock and they have to be fed. As I say, they can be fed only out of the pool of feeding-stuffs that we secure from our tillage achievements. I have the figures here for the production of oats, wheat, barley, potatoes and roots, and if the surplus over what we need for human consumption is diverted entirely to the production of pigs and bacon, how are we to meet the demands of our people for milk and butter and other products required for human consumption? If we said in relation to bacon that we would fix a price of £30 per cwt., there is no doubt that we would soon increase the pig population, but then some of the other animals which have to depend on the pool to which I have referred would have to disappear.

I think it was a Deputy from Roscommon who, after talking about pigs and bacon and regretting, as we all regret, the condition of that industry, invited me to go easy with a few old ladies who own some land down in Roscommon and who could not see their way to till it. What can the Minister for Agriculture do? Am I not justified in inviting members of the House to face up to the realities and the responsibilities of the situation, to try to be helpful and constructive, not to be denouncing me in one breath for having controls and denouncing me in the next breath for not having controls, denouncing me in one breath for not having feeding stuffs and an increased pig population, and denouncing me in the next breath for insisting on having the legal percentage of arable land tilled in order that we might have food produced to relieve the bacon shortage?

Mr. Beirne

I mentioned only one or two isolated cases.

Mr. Smith

The principle is the same in all cases.

Mr. Beirne

There were extenuating circumstances in these cases.

Mr. Smith

I see a Deputy on the opposite side who comes from a neighbouring county to mine. I like to keep my neighbours on my side; at any rate I do not like fighting with them but I cannot help thinking of a remark Deputy Giles made about some speech I had made in County Meath. I like the people of Meath. I know a lot of them. I have had a lot of association with them, and I have a great many friends in the county in one way or another. In addition to their being neighbours of mine, I am closely connected in every sense with them. Deputy Giles expressed the opinion that, if I were correctly reported in the papers, as to my attitude towards farmers I seemed to be—I do not know whether it was a prodder or a driver— I was a pounder of some kind.

Captain Giles

It is the Press report.

Mr. Smith

It does not matter. When I speak on a matter of this kind, my mind is clear as to what I want. When my mind is clear as to what I want I think I can express myself in such a way that there cannot be any misunderstanding or doubt as to what I mean. When dealing with this matter at that particular conference, I did say that there were a number of people, small or large, who were not complying with the law and that as far as I was concerned, I would use every weapon, legal or otherwise, in order to ensure that they would. That was what I said, and I will say that at all the corners in Ireland. I do not care what they call me for saying it. I will say more than that. I will say it in relation to the district from which I come, in relation to the district in which many of my friends reside, in relation to the neighbouring county and other counties in which there are a number of people who do the same thing. When I made this statement the papers got on my track. They said: "This fellow is a little bit too cocky and we will just give him a bit of a dressing down." They went off to discover how many prosecutions there were. They assumed that I did not know the number. The leader writers know everything; they know more than the Minister for Agriculture or the Executive Council. The wisdom of editors is amazing. The leader writers said: "There are over 300,000 farmers in this country who are required by law to till a certain portion of their holdings and here is the list of prosecutions. Here is the new Minister with all this talk but it was not worth his while to indulge in such extravagant talk for such a small number." Of course the leader writers, like some of the Deputies in this House, would like to tell the story the other way round.

The number of prosecutions proves nothing. It is difficult to get a conviction against offenders as the leader writers and Deputies know. There are many cases in which the Order is not being obeyed in the spirit and yet a prosecution would not be justified because it could not succeed. There are many cases—I know some of them—in which farmers are tilling the same field for the last eight or ten years—sowing oats one year, wheat the next, oats the next, wheat the next, oats the next, thistle the next, weeds the next, "praiseach" the next and so on. I shall tell you that I had them safely tucked in the back of my mind when I was talking in Navan and if it had not been for the kind of season that Providence decided to send us, I would not have had them tucked in the back of my mind; I would have had inspectors tucked after them, and I would have tucked them out into fresh land, and I would compel them to break fresh land, and if they did not do it I would tuck in the tractors through the ditches and through the gates and tuck out the land for them.

It is all very well for the leader writers. They can all get down to the job of giving the Government hell, as the fellow said when he was listening to a friend of his preaching a temperance sermon. He came into the hall about three-quarters "shot" and said: "That's right, give them hell." They can give the Government hell as long as they like, and they can talk about the extravagant language of this young Minister who went down to Navan and, as they said, unleashed his fury on 300,000 farmers.

I understand that well enough, but I also understand how well the majority of the farmers have done their job. I was not referring to those farmers, and if some people misunderstood what I had to say, the majority of the people did not misunderstand. When I am travelling along the roads, I have not my eyes on my feet and I am not seeing only what I would like to see. If the Lord Almighty provides us with good weather that will enable us to make a start, and if there should be a necessity next season to be as rigid as heretofore—and there may be—I am going to tell them here and now that I will recruit the full of ten fields of inspectors, and I will spend plenty of money in paying them travelling expenses and everything else, and I will hire all the tractors and machinery I can get and I will go down and pick every one of the "cods" out and I will say: "Take down that piece of wire and put it around the other corner, and just break it up until we see will you get more than four barrels or four and a half barrels", no matter what their lamentations are about wheat-growing. We hear when they come to the Minister that the community should not ask them to do this job until they get a fair deal for it. Now, the price may be fair or not, but, in so far as expressions of opinion as to the price come from that quarter—and they come from that quarter—they come from owners of land who when they are told to till pick out the most inferior piece of land to try to comply with their quota.

When I do that, you can call me a thug or a clod or a driver, whatever you like, I do not care. If I am here in the position of Minister, so sure as I have the Almighty to face some day or other, I will end this nonsense. That is my attitude to this question of production. I have heard more of this word "production" since this debate started than I have heard for as long as I can remember. My back is nearly broken listening to it. Maybe I should not say much more. We were talking earlier in the debate about Guinness, but Guinness is never about at the right time.

I was advised by Deputy Hughes, and by Deputy Fagan, I think, not to be bickering with these different interests, not to be squabbling with them. The strange thing about it is that I am the easiest man in the world to get on with, but I know that a Minister for Agriculture, because of the very importance of his job to the community and of his office, comes in for a lot of abuse and a terrible lot of misrepresentation even from people who should defend him. Even these county committees of agriculture will side with the curer—these committees which should form his first line of attack and defence. Of course, they are interested in the producer, but, anyhow, they give the curers the bar first.

I am not anxious to bicker with any interest. I do not want to bicker with anybody, but if any association in this land thinks that while I am here they will just be able to sit up and throw misrepresentations at me, they are making a very big mistake. I will hit them back twice as hard and every time they come in for more they will get more. I may be accused of trying to be tough —I am not—I am just telling them what will happen. If the advice they give is good advice, I do not resent it, I accept it. I do not want to bicker, but when the little nests get together and just tell their story according to their own lights, and according to their own interests, always with a sting for the Minister for Agriculture, who is supposed to take every sting and every kick from all the parts from which shafts are fired, whether from leader writers or elsewhere—if they think that he is going to take their message and like it, I will behave otherwise.

There are many matters about which I could talk, matters which I suppose you could call matters of policy. Some of the Deputies have referred to them already. The Parliamentary Secretary behind me, responsible for the business of the House, may think I am doing too well or going on for too long, but I am taking no notice of that. I am just interested in securing an increase of production. There are certain lines along which I would love to encourage the farmer to travel. I have been speaking about these matters. I have indicated in some of my speeches, and again I am being twitted because I am continually harping upon it, that there is a need for education. I am twitted when I tell farmers that their industry is not what it is cracked up to be. I am twitted when I attempt to paint the picture that it is not a dull, dreary and rotten job. I am twitted when I try to break the wave for those who are interested in the land, and I am twitted when I condemn those who pretend they are interested in the land, and do a lot of harm by denouncing the land and painting a picture which is not the real picture.

I am interested then in stemming that and in propping my foot tightly against it. I am interested, as I have claimed outside, because not only am I Minister for Agriculture but my roots are deep down in the land. I mean to leave them there and to drive them down deeper if I can. Whatever work I put into this office will not be through any fear of Fianna Fáilism, Fine Gaelism or any splinterism, but it will be because of the opportunity that I have in this office of doing something for the industry and the class from which I and many other members of the House have sprung. It will be done also in order to make more secure the representatives of those who have been battered by landlordism and every other ism. That is what I am aiming at and that is what I want to do. I do not expect that I will do everything just right. I do ask the members of this House not to behave as they have been behaving for years by regarding every agricultural subject that is introduced here as a matter for contentious debate, something about which they must make speeches.

If there are contributions to be made, why cannot my office be treated as the other offices are by the members of the House? Why cannot it be taken from the field of political struggle and endeavour, and why cannot we as a class settle down to try to fight our corner, and get our industry not on its feet but on the road to advancement? It is going to be a difficult task even with that co-operation. I am reminded at one time of always repeating myself. In the next breath the same individual will tell me to do something to educate the farmers. Again, I am told about the wages that are at present being paid to agricultural workers and about people wanting to fly from the land. I want the people who are genuinely anxious to help to stem this flight from the land, I want them to appreciate my point of view because it is the right cne, and to give me whatever co-operation they can. If there is any criticism to be made they can give it too, but I ask them to give it in such a way that all of it will not be just coated with something else.

Deputy Sheldon had some sympathy for me because of all the suggestions that had been made to me during the debate for the improvement of the agricultural industry. One of the suggestions made was—it was recommended by sensible people and I suppose that in a way it is sensible—to have increased mechanisation on our farms. The suggestion is sensible only in so far as those who made it keep in mind the extent to which we can mechanise farming here because of a number of circumstances over which we have no control. I ask Deputies to bear in mind the figures relating to the size of our farm holdings. I would imagine that, in some cases, the occupiers would not be called farmers, yet they are people who are living in rural Ireland. They have bits and scraps of land and are regarded as farmers. They can engage in the production of eggs, poultry, and pigs, however small their acreage. If we take a few figures we will see to what extent the mechanisation of farming is a feasible proposition in this land of 383,735 farms. Here is how they are made up: Not exceeding one acre, 60,624; you could not do much mechanisation there.

Mr. Bennett

You would not have much room for a tractor.

Mr. Smith

Not very much. In the next group, one to five acres, the number is 20,003. Some Deputy twitted me about a tax which the Department of Finance has put on jeeps. You would not have much occasion to use a jeep on those holdings. The next group is five to ten acres and the number is 32,842. You could not do a lot of mechanisation there. In the group ten to 15 acres, the number is 32,029. In the group 15 to 30 acres, the number is 89,311. In the group 30 to 50 acres, the figure drops to 62,786.

Captain Giles

A 30-acre farm is not very big.

Mr. Smith

It might not be regarded as a big farm in areas about which the Deputy may know a good deal, but I want to tell him that it is amazing what can be produced off a farm of 30 acres in the part of the country that I come from.

Captain Giles

It would not carry two horses.

Mr. Smith

In the group 50 to 100 acres, the number is 50,594; in the group 100 to 200 acres, the number is down to 21,000. The figure begins to fall at that point. Of holdings over 200 acres, there are only 7,230. The Minister for Agriculture and the Government get wonderful assistance from the leader writers as to the way that the Minister should brush up this whole job of agriculture. They tell him that he will have to see that more modern methods are adopted. I invite those who are genuinely anxious to indicate the means by which production can be increased and the methods by which the increase can be simplified. I have given those figures and I suggest to Deputies and to people outside that they are easily understood. In addition, I want all to remember that holdings of from 30 to 50 acres, and from that point up to over 200 acres, are mostly in areas where, as far as I can see, the people concerned do not want any mechanisation because they do not want to go in for mixed farming. I know that amongst them there are certain exceptions, but what I have said is in the main true.

When we talk about mechanisation we have to keep in mind the number of these 383,735 holdings that cannot be mechanised because of their size and the small number that are capable of some sort of mechanisation. The qualifying thing in relation to those that are capable is that they want to engage in a particular type of farming—the production of beef from grass. If that is the accepted policy, where is mechanisation going to come in? In that case, too, I agree that there is a limited amount that can be done even on the small farms.

Here is where I join issue with a farmers' Deputy who made an extraordinary kind of case, not only in relation to the story of the bull, but in relation to the co-operative societies. I used to think that farmers, even though they never co-operated, liked to talk about it and if anybody else said that it was not the right kind of thing to do they would say: "He is a shopkeeper and even though we were never in a co-operative movement, we will not let him away with it". This farmers' Deputy made a speech and I am suspicious about that speech. When I heard it I said to myself: "That is a cute political speech" and again I am a good judge. He says: "Why are these co-operative societies buying farms?" Then he says: "Why do not they go out to the farmers' sons and say, come on here. You are a lad who wants a farm of land and we will guarantee you in the bank and you can buy a farm' "? The co-operative society will have to be somewhat stronger than most of the co-operative societies I know to stand up to that kind of generosity.

The gem of all, from the farmers who would suggest to me that there should be mechanisation, was a condemnation of the co-operative societies because of their buying agricultural machinery and hiring it out to farmers, thereby depriving some farmer's son of the right to earn a living. To a certain extent I have sympathy with that. To a certain extent I can see the sense of it. To a certain extent, where it would be possible for the farmer's son to get the machine and work it and earn his living by it, I know that he would give a better return both for himself and the community than would be given, perhaps, through the co-operative society that would have all paid labour. But where will the farmers' sons or the farmers, as individuals, whose lands do not exceed the acreage I have already given, succeed in getting mechanisation? If co-operative methods are defensible, justifiable, desirable—and we all believe, if they were achievable, that they are—is there any purpose they could apply themselves to that would be better than the hiring of machinery to farmers whose farms are not sufficiently large to warrant their buying machinery for themselves?

That is the whole idea of co-operation. If co-operation is ever to make any progress in this country, if farmers are ever to be assisted, if mechanisation is ever to develop it can only develop by and through some organisation buying the machines that the individual farmers could not afford to buy but for which they have a limited kind of work for a limited time. Surely that is the purpose of co-operative movement and even though the traders in some Deputy's town are not too kindly disposed to the co-operative movement, and even though the traders are an influential kind of people, even though they are as influential even as the bacon curers who succeeded in getting the county committees to see their point of view rather than the Minister's, even though they have influence and votes and all that kind of thing. it would be better for farmers to face up to the question as to whether the co-operative idea means anything. If it means anything, it is that the co-operative movement should be used in order to provide the implements, tractors, binders, harrows, ploughs, seed sowers and all the rest. As a matter of fact, until I heard that speech from a farmers' Deputy, I was full of the idea of trying to do something in my time to help and encourage some sort of mechanisation of farming through that or some similar organisation. A farmer Deputy stands up in the House and throws a wet blanket over my head.

"They are not to buy land. What business have they with land. How dare they think of buying a bit of land around a creamery and, if they do buy land, why should not they produce milk?" I was in the South of Ireland. I found it was a nice place and they found that even though I am a Northerner, I am not as bad as I sounded. But as well as establishing all these things, I saw a number of things for myself that I liked and some that I did not like. I saw some of these co-operative societies that had bought land and even if the farmer Deputy on Farmers' Party does not like the idea of a co-operative society buying land, I say here, as Minister, that I am quite pleased with it on one condition, and this condition was satisfied in most cases I saw and as long as it is satisfied then I say, "You are on the right road." As long as they are on the right road I will give them encouragement. Why should not I? I have been critical of the co-operative movement. I went to their annual conference. I provided funds for them and I am entitled to ask what they are doing and I am going to ask. But here is surely a road that they were travelling and travelling with my full approval. I had no fault to find with them because they were not producing milk. In some cases, the movement is helping to produce milk, as they set up the only artificial insemination centre in the country, on a farm which they acquired outside Mallow. I saw nothing wrong with that genuine effort—it might not result in effecting any wonders but it was an effort—on the part of the co-operative movement to indicate the lines along which it should travel if it is to help itself.

Then I come to another place and I thought of the matter I hear Deputy Hughes talking about. He spoke about it in this debate and on a number of other occasions and also at my conference in Carlow. It is a matter in which, although I do not claim to be in any way expert, I am deeply interested, namely, trying to encourage the improvement of our grass land here. I found the co-operative society buying a farm and demonstrating there, at the crossroads and at the back of the creamery, what can be done with land, where the farmers drove up on the carts in the morning and were able to look in and see. What would the Deputy of the Farmers' Party say to me? What would he advise me to do? He would advise me to buy a farm in every county—I could make his speech —for demonstration purposes—"why should not the Minister go down to any other county and buy a farm and start to show the farmers how to do the job?" Yet here was the Minister looking at the co-operative movement doing the job that movement was designed for, and here is the Farmers' Party denouncing them because of that effort, because they would not buy the land instead and hand it out to a farmer's son.

Let us talk only when we have thought of what we are going to say, especially when talking about farming. I do not know whether the co-operative movement is worthy of praise or of criticism. It has done some things well and, maybe, other things but poorly; but it certainly does not deserve to receive, at the hands of a farmers' Deputy in this House, the criticism that has been directed towards it for travelling in the only direction in which it can justify its existence. I have not singled out that particular Deputy for the sake of getting at him. The ideas he expressed were so novel, when coming from a farmers' Deputy, and raised such important issues that I could not resist replying to them.

I think it was Deputy Hughes who invited me to consider handing over the bacon industry to the co-operative movement. I would dearly love to do that if I could find on the records something that would justify me in so doing. There is nothing on the records, nothing in the history of the co-operative movement, that would entitle me to take that step. It is not and it never will be in a fit condition, or carry the qualifications, entitling it to minister to the industry which Deputy Hughes suggested I should hand over to its care.

Mr. Hughes

They are incapable of processing their own produce.

Mr. Smith

Twenty years ago in this House I listened to the late Deputy Paddy Hogan introducing here a measure to buy out the proprietary concerns all over Munster, setting up a Dairy Disposal Company for that purpose, to buy out the private concerns and hand them back to the farmers, to give a chance to the co-operative movement, which through the struggle that had taken place between themselves and the proprietary concerns, had been reduced to a sorry plight. About this Dairy Disposal Company, this Colossus of the Government, the leader writers write, in criticism of the Minister's failure to bring to an end the activities of an organisation that was set up 20 years ago, to cover the transition period between the taking over of creameries from the proprietary concerns and their transfer to the farmers. I suggest to those who want to write leading articles, in criticism of the failure of my predecessors, or of me in the future, to bring that company to an end, that they should—if they want to be fair, and if they do not want to be fair we will know it—give me a chance to tell the whole story. It is a long story and from it the Minister for Agriculture, whoever he is, will emerge without a scratch.

The co-operative movement and the farmers in general have not fitted themselves or equipped themselves to take over all these businesses. As a result, we have the Dairy Disposal Company owning about one-third of the creamery organisations of the country. In that situation and with that difficulty confronting us and confronting the farming community, in the thought that this company is going to be continued and that these creameries will be run only because the Minister for Agriculture keeps in existence an organisation to facilitate the farmers, we find a farmers' Deputy in this House decrying the co-operative movement wherever it is to be found trying to beat and batter its way out of the fog and the mist, trying to get out into the open spaces to do the job that movement was designed to do.

Now they can have a go at the Minister for Agriculture, but the Minister is anxious to get an organisation capable of taking off his hands what I have described. If that organisation were there, if that movement which should be there, run by the farmers themselves, were there and if it had established for itself the reputation it ought to have established, my difficulties in finding a solution for the future organisation of the bacon trade would be enormously simplified. These difficulties are there, and I shall have to face up to them, and I will face up to them, even if I do not get the co-operation I should get from all those interested in agriculture and even if the organisations on which I should rely desert me and move away, with their arms linked, like a young bride, in those of their advisers who are interested only in the sectional side of this whole business.

I want them to tell this House that it was much better that the co-operative society should buy the farm of land and demonstrate what Deputy Hughes has been talking about and about which there is no difference of opinion than that I should go down and buy that farm and have the farmer saying: "The State is behind that venture. Why should he not have good grass? It is easy for him—all he has to do is to go into the Dáil, listen to a lot of speeches and he will get whatever few thousand pounds he wants. We want to see the balance sheet." The farmer could not spend that money. The buy ing of that farm by the co-operative society which started the insemination station down in Mallow, the society in Mitchelstown on whose farm pigs are being fed from the whey streaming from the creamery in which butter, cheese and all the other products are manufactured, or that co-operative concern down in Waterford where the farm was purchased for the purpose of demonstrating what could be done by the proper treatment of land was better than that I should have bought the farm. I have been reminded of the few demonstration farms I have throughout the country. Some Deputies said I have two and others said I have three. It happens that I have eight, and, even if I had 28, they would not be half as effective, because of the reason I have given, as a farm run by a co-operative society.

I want the co-operation of these co-operative societies. I should like to get the co-operation of Deputies, and, above all, I should like to get the co-operation of the farmers in settling down, when it becomes possible for us, through the availability of the necessary supplies, to a policy of the improvement of our land. I am not speaking now as a theorist. I am not speaking to the farmers as a person who claims to have an enormous amount of knowledge of this subject. I am simply talking to Deputies, to the country and to farmers, in particular, as a farmer who has tried in a small simple sort of way for a period of years, with a limited amount of money, to treat bad land which I own, to recondition it and improve it. I had not much to spend on it, and therefore I had to be careful, but I got results which, I think, should justify any and every farmer in endeavouring to proceed along the same lines. I know that other farmers have done the same thing and have got these results. I want the co-operation of the co-operative movement and of the farmers in getting out on a policy of this kind when materials become available.

Deputy Hughes and several other Deputies mentioned lime. I am a believer in lime because anybody owning land in the county in which I live and was reared could not but like it.

Mr. Harris

We do not want it.

Mr. Smith

You have too good land as it is. I have no sympathy with you.

Mr. Harris

You can have too much lime in land, too.

Mr. Smith

I am not talking about your land at all. I have a map, produced by those who know more about this subject than I, showing the areas of this country in which there is a lime deficiency, and, looking at that map, it is obvious that we can never hope even to touch the fringe of the problem of introducing into that land the lime required, unless it is approached in a very big way. I agree with Deputy Harris that there are soils in which lime is not required. It was suggested to me—I think, by another farmer Deputy—that we should have some kind of organisation which would say to a farmer: "Your land needs so-and-so and so-and-so." That is nonsense. We should have an organisation which would enable the farmer to determine why and when and where his land was deficient in lime, but surely the farmer has some responsibility for trying to find that out if we provide him with the organisation necessary.

There is no use in approaching this matter as the political farmers would approach it—propping the farmer up and coaxing him, feeding his pig, feeding this, that and the other and giving him everything. We must encourage him to have some initiative, but as a community we must see that the organisation is there for him when he has the initiative. I have a scheme in mind about lime which I am considering in consultation with my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We are thinking along certain lines. It has not, perhaps, reached the stage at which I should freely talk about it, but it is no harm to let the House and the country know that we appreciate the importance of this matter and have gone a long way in discussing the best ways and means by which a solution of the problem can be devised. We have gone a long way in determining the type of organisation we require, the cost at which this ground limestone might be provided, the areas in which it would be required and so on. That will take money. If it is to be done in the way it must be done, it will take a lot of money.

The burnt lime subsidy scheme we have is no good. It is like the match, which, when blown out and thrown into water, sends up smoke. It does not mean anything. You might as well throw your hat at it as to think that the present lime subsidy scheme will solve the problem. I do not believe, either, that the farmers, because of the difficulty of handling burnt lime, would handle it sufficiently extensively, even though we provided it very cheaply and in great quantity, because I always found burnt lime difficult to handle, and, because of the wage position and the difficulty of getting labour, farmers will hesitate to use it. If lime is to be used by the farmers, it must be provided for them in such a way that it can be handled easily, in such a way that it can be got at easily and it must be provided cheaply.

Do you know what I am thinking? There are several people in this House who will not like it and there may be several outside who may not like it. Of course, it is only a thought and it may never come to fruition. I am thinking now, as I have always thought, that it was a foolish thing to give money to farmers without stipulating some conditions. We do not like conditions but sometimes they are not bad things. The idea of giving flat-rate remissions of one kind or another to farmers without stipulating some conditions, having regard to the importance of the production of lime for the land, is, to my mind, foolish. If I am here and if I am able to get the Government to set up this organisation with the co-operation of the other Minister who has been, perhaps, more intimately interested and connected with it up to now than myself, I will consider the advisability of diverting money given for the relief of rates and for one thing or another without conditions of any kind to the subsidisation of the use of lime. If farmers will not come in and co-operate, if some of them will not make advances, if some of them will not buy the bull that has the milk record although it is milk they want, although it is milk the country wants, and although it must be produced economically, if there are farmers who will not put the lime on the land, then I will say: "Let the lime go to the man who will put it on his land."

I am talking now about people who are living on bad land. I am going to improve that bad land for them if they will co-operate with me. If we can adopt this scheme we will find the solution. I have no doubt that I will have criticism from all sides but I will face it all so long as I think the policy is right. I want to contribute, with reference to increased production, as fully as possible to induce our farmers, when these things become available, to travel along that road. I am often disappointed with farmers, and I will tell you the reason why. I am not talking to them or to you as an expert. I would not like to, and anyhow even if I tried I would not get away with it. There is land in the county in which I live that is crying for lime and phosphates——

Mr. Fagan

And potash.

Mr. Smith

Yes. I was down in Cork and I was surprised at the amount of land which, if my eye did not deceive me, could also do with that kind of dressing. Since the shortage of fertilisers I, like everybody else, tried to struggle along and tried to grow on bad land as best I could. Finally, I decided that I would get that byproduct of cement, formerly known as potash lime dust and now called cement lime. The Department, with which I had nothing to do at the time, had made their tests, but a Department is, naturally, conservative about new things. They analysed the commodity and told the world what was in it. They got some of it and tried to experiment with it. It was very cheap and I decided that I would use some. I used an increasing amount of it.

Farmers said tome: "You can do that because you can afford it. You are a Deputy," or "You are a Parliamentary Secretary," or "You have a good salary." The strange thing is that the man who might make that remark to me would very often have a lot more money than I. However, I used that cement lime and I got good results from it. My land and the land in the county in which I live—most of it at any rate—was starved. I tried to encourage other farmers to use the cement lime. It could be got almost for nothing. The bags cost three times more than the stuff itself. There was a special rate on the rail and on the road for it. When the bags were returned the money was refunded. The cement lime was delivered on my land at 30/- a ton. I got good results from it. I was in Limerick on Monday last. On my way down I saw the cement factory. Because of an action taken some years ago the factory is compelled by law to catch this cement limedust on account of the damage it was doing to the farms immediately around it. They caught it and got rid of it to farmers who took it at the cost of putting it into the bags. When they could not get a farmer to take it they dumped it into the nearest quarry. When I was in Limerick I saw a big old dyke filled with cement lime. I am not saying cement lime is a wonderful thing, but I do say that it is good. Having been thinking of the ground limestone scheme for weeks before, having had experience of the use of cement lime— the analysis of which shows that it contains 40 per cent. limestone and 2½ to 3 per cent. potash—which could be bought at 30/- a ton delivered on my land, having seen it give results, having seen a quarry hole in Limerick filled with the stuff, and having been thinking for weeks before of spending, maybe, £1,000,000 on building a plant for the purpose of making ground limestone for the farmers would it not all have a very depressing effect upon me to think that they would not even take a chance, organise themselves, get a consignment and experiment? I do not intend to allow myself to be depressed.

Mr. Hughes

What has our advisory service been doing?

Mr. Smith

I do not know. I am telling the story accurately. I am telling of the genuine disappointment I felt and I am saying that if this scheme of mine matures in the course of time— and it will take time——

Mr. Fagan

What sort of grass was on the top of the quarry?

Mr. Smith

The quarry? The dust was thrown into a hole in the quarry in order to fill it.

Mr. Fagan

I thought there was some grass on the top of it.

Mr. Smith

Cement lime is a good deal better than nothing. It costs very little. There are lands where it may not be required but there are other lands for which it is necessary. People talk about how little we are doing here to improve our grass lands. I agree that we have not done very much and that there is an enormous amount to be done. I agree that we can increase the carrying capacity of our land enormously if we can only encourage our farmers to do it. You need not tell me that the cost is the main consideration. A farmer can have money in the bank or can be in a comfortable situation financially. When ground African phosphates were being delivered at farms for 49/- per ton small farmers could cover their 30 acres for a few pounds, but they would not spend a shilling on it. They would prefer to take a field of hay of an inferior sort at an auction, while if they spent the money on artificial manures they would get about three times the return for it and the quality of the hay would be far superior. If you talk to them I know what they will accuse you of. I know what they will accuse me of.

Unfortunately, we have contributed our own share to creating a prejudice against officials. I never want to protect officials in the sense that, if they make a mistake, somebody should not be told about it. But I hate to hear this talk about sending down a barrage of officials and, what do they know about farming, about a pig or a sow or turkeys or geese or hens? Most of them are sons of farmers who served their apprenticeship on the land. When they go home on holidays they clean up byres and stables. We are told that we let officials loose on this and that. Officials can be helpful. Technical advice can be of enormous advantage to farmers if we can only get the farmers to take advantage of it. Farmers need not accept it blindly. Sometimes they cannot afford to put into operation the advice they get. But farmers can ask these officials for advice, tell them their problems and ask for a solution of them. We should do away with the idea that it is a popular thing to have a "whack" at officials. Officials, as I say, can be of immense help. Their knowledge, if properly utilised, can be of immense value to farmers. We will have to get down to some extreme methods if we are to induce farmers even to take up something that is offered to them on the most attractive terms. When that scheme of mine matures, I propose to examine the feasibility of introducing that little bit of compulsion that we all know is necessary but which, for other reasons, we denounce at times.

I will, of course, get many opportunities of dealing with this subject of agriculture. The question of improving our grass lands is a very important one. The question of housing accommodation on farms is also an important one. I have a report dealing with that which will be submitted to the Government at a later stage, after which I hope to be in a position to make some announcement on it. Surely these are indications of the lines along which policy is developing and will develop. I am never anxious to talk about these things until I am forced into talking about them, because I believe in getting things done rather than talking about them. I have a policy for the farmers. I have given you glimpses of it. I have shown the difficulties that are there. I am not afraid to tackle the problems in spite of the difficulties. I want farmers to improve their grass lands. I hope to announce a scheme by which they will be encouraged to build or repair outoffices. If there is anything in the suggestion that in order to encourage them to do that there should be some relief in rates given, I am open to consider that. I will consider every legitimate proposition that is made to me for the encouragement of farmers in order to put them on the road on which they can make progress. I do not expect them to be wallowing in luxury. Anyone who looks at the figures I have given with reference to the size of holdings knows that we can never reach a position in which a farmer can get out of these bits and scraps of land the kind of living that a successful businessman can have. It is absolute nonsense and stupidity on the part of those who pretend to be interested in this industry to talk as if that were possible. I know it is not, and they know it also.

I left the disappointing note for the last, but just before I deal with it I should like to give the House some information as to the outcome of a visit made by representatives of the British Government some weeks ago. They came over here as the representatives of their Government and were received as they ought to be, and always will be received, by people who want to do business with them. But surely we are not such a lot of babies as to think that, because those two gentlemen were welcomed here as we would welcome the representatives of any country who wanted to do trade with us, the Minister for Agriculture would come in here to babble to the House or to anybody else unless and until whatever discussions were taking place or were necessary had reached the stage when it would be desirable for him to do so? One would think that in those matters the Minister for Agriculture was a child.

Mr. Hughes

I do not think anyone had any intention of embarrassing the Minister.

Mr. Smith

It is not a question of embarrassing me; I do not feel embarrassed. But there was no necessity for creating a degree of wonder. It is a perfectly natural and normal thing, yet there was the query: "Why do you not go over and talk to Mr. Tom Williams or Mr. J. Strachey?" I do not mind with whom I talk. I will talk to any Minister or any representative of a Government when the situation has reached a state of maturity that will warrant it, and there is no use attempting to make somebody in the country believe that a Minister of the Fianna Fáil Government does not want to talk to Mr. Tom Williams or Mr. John Strachey or anyone else on the British Government side. I am the grandest fellow in the world to talk to people; I will talk to them when they come to me, and I am prepared to go to them. They will not all have to come to me. I am the easiest man on earth to see-and I hope I will prove to be a reasonable and a hard man to deal with, if these two things are consistent with one another—maybe they are not.

A disappointing note was struck here yesterday evening. I have been doing my best, for how long I cannot tell you, to show you the great fellow I am. I am the kind of fellow who believes I have made a fairly good effort at it. I had succeeded in inducing myself to believe that even the farmers were beginning to think it. Not only that, but I have certain evidence to show that they thought that, in spite of the send-off I got, I was not such a bad fellow. Do you know, I did know a little about the office and the work for which I have been selected? I was fooling myself all along, taking myself by the arm and beginning to get swelled head and terribly big and brave at the hit I was making. What would you think of my disappointment when, after all that, I came in on the third day of the discussion on my first Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Deputy Dillon blew the whole gaff on me—absolutely spilled the whole bucket! I was not going to refer to this thing at all, because I hear the things said about myself— some of them were favourable—and I was beginning to walk on air. I said to myself that I would be getting a rap here all right, that I would get an odd crack here and there, but that the odds were against the fellow who wanted to hit me hard.

Then Deputy Dillon came along and he refused to stand in with those Deputies who were inclined to be congratulatory towards me. Deputy Dillon is very well known through the country but he is not taken too seriously. He is a very eloquent, a wonderfully eloquent man. He is a business man, and I am sure a good one, but there is one fault I have to find with him. It is a fault that stands out. There is no person in this House, and it is composed of all sorts of people— farmers, labourers, artisans, business men, professional men, solicitors and doctors—who makes use of the House to a greater extent than Deputy Dillon in order to attack business men engaged in a different line of business from his.

I reprimanded a Deputy here for referring to a former colleague of mine because of certain happenings. It was just because I did not like this puritanism, this attempt on the part of anybody to throw the stone. It is sometimes better not to throw the stone and, if you throw it, see that you do not throw it with too much force, and that you do not make it too heavy. But that is not the case with some of those business Deputies who use this House unfairly, terribly unfairly, to attack other business men who, undoubtedly, make profits and maybe they do not make them entirely according to all the regulations and all the laws. But some of those who talk loudest in denunciation of brother business men who make money, they, too, make money by not too clean methods and they very often shelter themselves behind a name—not the name of the person who actually owns the business, but behind the business name of the concern. I do not mind what Deputy Dillon or any other Deputy thinks; it does not matter two hoots to me, but I have been listening and I resent, apart altogether from anything else, this attempt to use this House in the manner in which it has been used by people whose hands, perhaps, are not 100 per cent. clean—the people who denounce the yellow meal millers, but who never denounced the yellow meal retailers.

We should not then, I think, be too sensitive, as some people seem to be, when a word of criticism is addressed countering the allegations made against those who are not here to defend themselves. That is all I have to say on the Estimate for my Department. I hope that when I come to take the next one you will not detain me too long.

Mr. Hughes

Might I ask one question with regard to the Dairy Disposal Company. Will facilities be given to those who are anxious to acquire property from the Dairy Disposal Company?

Mr. Smith

It all depends. Facilities will be given to those who want to buy provided they do not want to pick the basket. One has a basket and there are apples in it. The apples are not all the same size. They are not all the same quality. It would not, I think, be fair, even though it is the State who holds the basket, to allow some people to come along and pick it—taking out the good fruit and leaving the dud stuff in the hands of the State. I am prepared to do business with the farmers provided they will do business with me in the same manner and with the same degree of support as we have done it in their name.

Mr. Corry

Is it the Minister's intention to introduce the tribunal for the purpose of agricultural costings and prices before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Smith

That is a matter to which I intended to refer. My predecessor gave this House an assurance that he would introduce such a costings organisation. I also give that assurance. I am considering the matter. I find that it bristles with difficulties and I do not think I shall reach the stage of introducing definite proposals in this session.

Mr. Halliden

I would ask the Minister is it his intention to implement the findings of the Agricultural Commission in regard to dairying.

Mr. Smith

I do not think it will be possible to implement them now.

Motion—"That the question be referred back for reconsideration"— by leave, withdrawn.

Vote put and agreed to.