Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Jul 1948

Vol. 112 No. 2

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

In view of the agreement reached, I will set a good example. One of the first things the Minister must do is to bring as much artificial manures as possible into the country at as reasonable a price as possible for the people who will use them to increase the fertility of the soil. I want to say also that if the Minister goes ahead, as he is going ahead, with the poultry production scheme, he is going to make a mark for himself in that branch of agricultural activity, because the profits which can be had to-day for flocks of poultry are far in excess of anything ever seen or dreamed of in this country.

With regard to the farm buildings scheme, we have had wails for the past day or two from the Opposition because the scheme is to be held up for the next 12 months, but I would remind the House that it is not within the past 12 months that we needed farm buildings. They have been needed for the past 30 years and the fact that they have now to lie over to enable materials to go to more essential purposes for another year is not going to upset the whole economy of the farming community, or bring about a position in which they will never see better farm buildings on their little homesteads and farms.

While I have every confidence in the Minister—and I like the way he is stepping off on the right foot—and while there are approximately 85,000 people who style themselves farmers and who live on holdings of five to 15 statute acres, the Minister can do very little to increase the output from these small holdings, and I hope he will whisper in the ear of his colleague, the Minister for Lands, and will be able to get something done towards increasing the size of these holdings, so that the increased production he is so anxious for will be forthcoming.

That is for another Minister.

During my time as a Deputy, I never intervened in a debate on the Estimate for Agriculture. Because I have no practical experience of farming, I thought it well that the time allotted by the House to the discussion should be utilised by men who, from their knowledge and experience, are able to make an effective contribution to the debate. That left me and others like me on my side of the House open to the charge that we were completely ineffective members of the Dáil but it had one valuable effect: it at least permitted the business of the Dáil to be carried out with reasonable expedition.

The reason for my intervention in the debate to-day is that I view with approval a certain feature of the Minister's policy and, because of the way it has been presented by those who favour it and criticised by those who dislike it, I am afraid the advantages of it might be lost except there was from this side of the House some expression of approval and particularly an expression of approval from a source that could not be suspect of having any Dillonesque leanings.

The Minister has given some thought to the preparation of the way in which he should present this Estimate. He has, as a result, departed from his usual contemptuous and didactic manner and has become somewhat more reasonable. While he has used many words that have no meaning, yet he has been, for him, somewhat conciliatory and constructive. My mind does not march with the adolescent optimism of the Minister. He painted a very darksome and gloomy background and then pictured himself as the Messiah of our economic salvation coming through that dark background. But I do believe that there is a great future for agriculture in this country and I do believe that by following a certain policy—part of the Minister's policy—there will be big dividends.

Most Deputies speaking in this House —very seldom I speak—seem to keep to the Party line rather than consider the merits or demerits of the proposal before the House. I want to take a different line. I am very much in agreement with the policy of the Minister in regard to grass production. Again I say that as a result of the method of presentation of this policy by its proponents and the criticism of the policy by those who oppose it, the value of the policy is apt to be misunderstood and much of the discussion may lead to a misunderstanding of its value. According to those who support the policy, and in some fashion according to the Minister, we are to have a grass policy wholly and solely, to the neglect of other farming activities. That will be the general understanding particularly because of those who speak in support of the Minister rather than what he himself says. If we are to adopt this grass policy, it ought to be associated with a general increase of farming production in every line.

Hear, hear!

I have made a very careful and detailed examination of grass pastures over the past few years and I am convinced, not merely of the value as a productive agent of a grass policy, but also of its value as a soil regenerator. I wish to stress that viewpoint because I feel that any Party bias should not be permitted to militate against the value of a policy, no matter by whom it is proposed, and I feel it is right to support the Minister in putting that policy into operation, as I see it, because he will be up against a good deal of difficulty in putting it into operation. He will have to overcome the dead weight of custom. He will have to fight against and combat the objection there is to putting into operation any new ideas and he will have to bring home conviction to the people who are most deeply concerned with the matter. Again, he will have to disabuse his own mind of certain ideas to which he is apparently wedded.

I have heard him and other grass lovers pointing out that we have vast acreages of very valuable old pasture that should not be disturbed under any circumstances. That is a fallacy. I have again made careful examination of pastures that were highly regarded and that were not affected by the depredations of the Fianna Fáil policy— they have never been ploughed—and I was amazed in going over these pastures with a man who actually knew what he was talking about and was a practical farmer, to find that 40 per cent. of these highly regarded pastures were useless. They contained bent, sedge, worthless non-nutritious fescues; they were covered with plantain, with sorrel and other noxious weeds and gradually, from year to year, the cumulative effect of these was destroying the valuable grasses in the fields. I think too much has been made of the value of old pastures. I think they have been deteriorating year to year, and not because of the fact that we grew wheat, because these pastures I know of have never been touched by the plough.

Again, if we do try to bring this valuable grass production policy into operation, I would like the Minister to say, when he is replying, what the cost of this production will be. All of us know that Irish farming is under-capitalised and that it will not be possible to put a policy of this sort into operation widely and swiftly enough. I am not asking the Minister to provide grants or even cheap loans for the purpose. I prefer always that people should help themselves and be helped to help themselves. Therefore, what I suggest to the Minister is that he should try to provide as cheaply as possible the requisite seeds, fertilisers and lime and that the direction should be intelligent, energetic, sympathetic and well-considered.

I have been accused here on occasion of having interfered with the work of inspectors of the Land Commission. I have been in public life since 1914 and until I went to the Land Commission in 1943 I had never seen a Land Commission inspector, and in all my life I have only once met an agricultural inspector—and that was in a pub, when he was off duty. I do not know what the work of agricultural inspectors is, but I suggest that the Minister might consider as their main work the creation of demonstration farms. The demonstration farm, if it is such, in Glasnevin is of very little use to a farmer in Cork. Precept is all very well, but it is not so useful in trying to get a farmer to follow a certain policy. It is better to create the example for him. In every district you will find an intelligent, progressive farmer who will co-operate with the inspector. If you concentrate on that farm, to influence the farmers, it would do a lot for the country.

That is precisely the scheme we have under way.

The Minister rightly says that it is foolishness to pursue in times of peace a policy adopted to war-time. He has given us very specific, if negative, instructions with regard to the disposal of his body after death, but even if he does not want to be seen dead in a wheat field I would like him to get over his prejudice against wheat. This argument about the destruction of fertility by wheat is an overrated one. We may have, at any time in this uncertain world, to depart from a peacetime policy to a war-time economy and we should certainly take precautions to be able to adapt our policy to changed conditions. In spite of the Minister's insistence that we should not grow wheat, I am convinced that we should have at least a certain minimum of wheat that would permit us to go on to a war economy immediately it is necessary. Wheat cannot be such a destructive agent to the soil as the propagandists against it have said. I am informed that wheat only secures from the soil 5 per cent. of its sustenance, but I am also informed that there is a great difference with regard to soil destruction as between winter wheat and spring wheat. Those practical farmers with whom I have discussed it believe we should concentrate entirely on the spring variety.

Maybe the Minister and I part company in regard to his live-stock policy. It seems to me that it is a policy of beef for Britain.

And Beigium and Holland and France.

I have no objection to that. I think it is a good thing, but I do not wish that the dairy industry should subserve that policy or should be made the maidservant of a policy of that nature. I confess I was deceived by the result of the policy of the late Deputy Hogan, Minister for Agriculture. I noticed that there was a tremendous improvement in the appearance of the cattle and I thought that meant a definite improvement also in production, but I was deceived. However, I think that Deputy Hogan's policy was never really put into operation. When he enunciated his policy of "one more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough" he was enunciating a policy on which we could all agree. But Deputy Hogan was the only effective Parliamentarian in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and he was entirely preoccupied with the defence of the Party here in this House. He kept them together for many years and when, unfortunately, he died the Party collapsed—which was not unfortunate, of course. Because of his preoccupation with the work of this House, the civil servants, who had been trained in the old Scotch bull tradition, continued the policy that had been in operation.

This bull inspection system is all wrong and has completely ruined the dairy industry. It has caused a drop of at least 100 gallons per cow in the last 20 years and that means 120,000,000 gallons per year. If the Minister is concerned with pig production, the production of 120,000,000 gallons of milk per year should be tremendously interesting to him.

I heard Deputy Lehane say to-day that there is no such thing as a dual-purpose cow and I am fully convinced that he is right. I have no objection to the dairy Shorthorn, even though my colleague from North Cork has made it the basis of his political career; but I think we ought to breed a dairy Shorthorn as a milch cow and now as the prospective mother of beef for Britain. Would the Minister consider the possibility of having a dual policy instead of a dual-purpose cow?

I was interested in the Minister's statement during the debate that he had raised the price of the calf from 10/- to £10. That is wrong. It was only £5 last week when he spoke.

I assure the Deputy that white-faced calves sold on the Clonmel market for £10 apiece and I think it is much too much to pay for them.

Much has been made of the slaughter of calves. All my life I have seen calves slaughtered, because of the number we get every year and because there are many badly coloured or bady shaped, while others are delicate and die themselves without any external aid. You can only have a certain number of calves. While you talk of a dropped calf and include in the price the value of the cow to the farmer, you must consider that, instead of making £5 per calf for the calves that survive, it probably works out at about £1, when you count them all, and Deputy Corry was probably right.

Let us not argue about it. The Minister is wrong, anyway. One thing that affects cattle in the South, and particularly in Kerry, is the result of erosion.

I think that, pending some speed on the part of our Forestry Department, an attempt ought to be made definitely to curb those who burn the heather and the furze off the mountains. In the spring, the herbage on the mountains is burned for the purpose of producing a little grass for sheep grazing. The result is that the sheep eat that down bare to the ground and their hooves cut the mountain so that instead of having the water that falls gradually eased off the mountain and held by the herbage it comes down in rivers. I have seen, as a result of that, the rich valley lands in Kerry completely covered with sandy grit which makes the grass inedible. When the hungry Kerry cattle do eat this gritty grass they develop some kind of murrain. I think it should be made an absolute crime to burn a mountain because the amount of profit that is made from it cannot compare one thousanth part with the eventual damage done to the country.

I was very much surprised to hear of the departure of Deputy Cowan from our midst. I read his speech on Marshall Aid, and I thought it was a very reasonable criticism.

Well now.

I will relate my speech to the debate. The Minister spoke about the Marshall Plan. I have read his speech. I sincerely trust that this country, and our policy for agriculture, will not have to depend either upon Marshall Aid or Marshall grant. I hope that we are sufficiently strong financially to refuse to permit the sovereignty that we have so hardly won to be wrenched from us by another country, no matter how powerful.

Finally, I was very glad to see that the Minister showed his concern for the agricultural labourer. It is an easy thing to say that we are in favour of the agricultural labourer, but it is a hard thing to mean it. It will be a difficult thing for the Minister, with the best policy in the world, to help the agricultural labourer out of the condition in which he lives, but I can assure him, no matter how Fianna Fáil may disagree with any point of his policy, or with all of it, that in anything he can do for the agricultural labourer we will be wholly with him.

In view of the "New Look" adopted by this House at 3 o'clock to-day I intend to be very brief. Agriculture in this country depends on the amount that each individual farmer can produce. Until such time as we can step up our production we will be at the same level as we have been for years past, and when I say that I do not mean the last 16 years but a much longer period. I am not going to throw any bouquets at the Minister, nor will I do so until there is some positive proof that the policy he has enunciated is going to be a success. He has to face the position from a point of view that nothing succeeds like success. He has gone into his work wholeheartedly, and I have no hesitation in saying that his optimism will be realised when we meet to discuss this Estimate in 1949.

There are a few points that I want to put to him. The first is to step up the production of pigs. I believe that we in this country are in a position to produce more pigs per acre than any other country in Europe. I do not think that my estimates are radically wrong, but if we produce three or four pigs to the acre we will be doing better than any other country in Europe. I should also like to say a word about the cow-testing associations. I think that the area represented by Deputy Halliden, Deputy Moylan and myself has done a great day's work in furtherance of the object of producing a better type of cattle for the dairying industry. I am afraid that the system that more or less is operated there will not lend itself to bringing these cow-testing associations to the peak which they would reach if they were nationalised. I think if that were done it would do more than anything else to step up production.

I ask the Minister not to indulge in a haphazard policy in regard to the segregation of certain types of cattle, such as the Hereford and the Shorthorn. I think it was Deputy Lahiffe of Galway who spoke about the Hereford. The farmers of Galway are in a far better position than those in most counties to feed the small calves which they get from the Cork and Kerry areas and to bring them to a condition in which they can put them on the market, mainly by reason of the county's geographical position. The Hereford is not going to be a success in the milk-producing areas. I think that in those areas the Shorthorn cattle would prove to be the most productive.

I do not know very much about beef. I am not very much concerned about producing it for Britain, Holland, Denmark or, as I said a while ago, for Russia. What I am concerned with is the stepping up of production, so that Irishmen, living here, will benefit as a whole from it. I am glad that Deputy Collins agrees, and I am also glad that this comes from Deputy Collins from West Limerick because that is a country that can very easily be improved at the moment by the production of a better type of cattle.

I would ask the Minister to exhaust every avenue possible to procure the necessary phosphatic potash and nitrogenous manures to revive the fertility of the soil in this country. I am not going to criticise the former Government for their policy in wheat-growing; I have the greatest appreciation of the effort they made to extricate this country from the unenviable condition it was in between 1939 and 1945. I would ask the present Minister to do everything possible to produce at an economic price the phosphatic potash and nitrogenous manures to revive the fertility of the soil that had been deprived of that fertility owing to the emergency.

I would also like to direct the Minister's attention to the development of veterinary services for the dairy areas. Deputy McAuliffe asked him quite recently a question and his answer was not as satisfactory as I would like it to be. However, I dare say he has his limitations. I would impress upon the Minister the necessity of a veterinary service for small dairy farmers, and I hope he will give consideration to it. By initiative and application it may not be impossible for the Minister, by applying himself to it, to state in the future—and I hope the very near future—that the mortality that has developed over a number of years, not due to any external reasons, will be obviated and reduced.

In conclusion I quite realise that the agricultural community have been on the Plimsoll line for a number of years now and I hope, with the assistance of the Minister, the co-operation of the House and the co-ordination of every Party, a new buoyancy will be injected into them—a buoyancy which will put them on an economic basis so that everybody will be in a position to enjoy life.

The prospect in front of agriculture now is definitely hopeful, and I suggest that the Minister should give very serious consideration at this juncture to provide finance for farmers who may be in need of it according to their own present conditions and the system of finance prevailing in the country. With better prospects in front and a definite need for the nation to increase output, the time is opportune. Many farmers find themselves completely out of production in some cases and able only to produce partially in others. They should be brought into the full volume of production for the nation, but they are prevented by the absence of the required capital. Many farmers need help, some through a cause of their own, neglect, and others through no cause of their own, through conditions beyond their control, through bad luck perhaps.

A serious period for small farmers when they very frequently find themselves hard-pressed is when they are trying to raise a large young family and their means are exhausted. A young farmer who finds himself in that financially reduced condition with his stock sold needs capital. The joint stock banks in this country make small provision for that type of borrower however. The Agricultural Credit Corporation has been instituted but it in turn is not serviceable in a general way to small middle-class farmers, so actually no provision is made available for them to come into production at this vital time. Anyone in business knows that there are certain times when capital has great value and when indebtedness for farmers or for businessmen is bad business. There is no doubt that in time of a rising market, to give reasonable financial assistance to a man who is serious about his business will result in more production and better business. I would ask the Minister to cause an examination to be made among that section of the community I refer to. He can get valuable assistance from the Department of Local Government who know the number of defaulting ratepayers in the county and through the Land Commission who know the number of defaulting annuitants in the county. The numbers may not be very great, but there are still a substantial number of people who are neither paying annuities nor rates. These people's lands are derelict and their families are living in very poor conditions. If an examination were made and if there were a close investigation into the character of the people who owned these farms, it would be found that many of them were in that position, through no neglect of their own, but because of family conditions or one cause or another. I would direct particularly the Minister's attention to that section of the community.

I would direct his attention further to the question of finance generally with regard to agriculture. There is no easy approach and I do not want an easy approach. There is no reasonable medium by which agriculture can find the requisite capital to carry on. If we are to get the output the Minister has in view, and as there is to be a full market in years to come, it is important that we should get back into production the greatest possible number of our people. To do that financial assistance is required, and if it is found, the better output will be there.

Many speakers have expressed different views as to the breed of cattle most suitable for this country. Some advocated the milking strain as a valuable asset. Unquestionably, the production of milk is of immense importance nationally. I would suggest, however, to the Minister that there should be no general standard set to meet the requirements of each part of the country. It is the duty of the Government to legislate not for a part of the country, not for the southern milkproducing area or any other area but for the needs of every section of the community, and the poorer they are the more attention they deserve. It was absurd to find the Department of Agriculture over a number of years arbitrarily deciding what type of cattle the farmer in districts in County Leitrim should produce.

The present Minister and the former Minister claim that they know better the needs of the farmers of these districts than the farmers who are the successors of generations who have farmed these areas. If these farmers feel that their land is adaptable for the production, development and feeding of a certain type of cattle, say the Polled-Angus breed, and if the Department of Agriculture forces on them the acceptance of a good quality milking strain or a good quality Shorthorn, the result is that their land is not capable of feeding these animals. The quality of land required to produce and to feed a fair average beast of the Polled-Angus type is incapable of producing and feeding a beast of the Shorthorn type. After the winter they are in such a low condition that it takes months of grass to bring them back to a condition where the milk will be of average quality or where they will be able to give an average quantity of milk. The farmers in these districts know their own requirements better than any outsider and it is wrong and absurd that a Government Department should compel them to have something which the Department thinks it better for them but which they know from long experience is not suitable to their needs.

Let us examine the result of this policy over the last 25 or 30 years, or during the last 15 or 20 years when it has been much more rigidly enforced. Ask the creameries what is the effect on the milk supply in these districts. Successively, year after year milk production has gone down, although the Department of Agriculture insists that by their policy milk production was bound to increase.

I suggest to the Minister that a general policy as to the type of animal suitable for the production of cows for milking and cattle raising cannot be applied and is ruinous to the smaller and poorer districts. It has reduced the quantity of milk produced and reduced the cattle population. These are the tests to be applied in order to see if you are going on the right lines. You should give the areas with the poorer land the type of animal which the people there think is most suitable to produce and to feed. Is it any wonder that farming has become so unpopular? The farmer is supposed to be an independent man, but he is not.

He will be, please God, from this out.

Mr. Maguire

He is not allowed to produce the type of animal which he knows is suitable for his land. He has to take the recommendation of somebody else. He is not allowed to sell a dozen of eggs until his premises are inspected and conform to the regulations. He is not allowed to produce the type of pig he wishes to feed. He is not allowed to send milk to the creamery except it is up to a certain standard and conforms to certain regulations. Where is his independence? Is it any wonder that farming has become very unpopular and that we hear all this talk about the flight from the rural districts? The farmer should have a say as to the type of cattle his land is capable of rearing successfully. Ask the committees of agriculture in certain counties, through which premiums for the purchase of bulls are given with the approval of the Department, how many applications there were over the last 15 years for Polled Angus bulls and how many did the Department allow. It is a question of the judgment of the Department of Agriculture as against the judgment of the farmers, who are supposed to run their own business and who are told they are independent.

As to the general agricultural policy, I have no doubt that the present Minister means well and that his predecessors meant well. They are supposed to legislate for the community generally. There has been a great deal of talk during the past few years about soil testing and the suitability of certain soil for various crops. Let us see what certain areas are capable of producing. There is the question of the new price fixed by the Minister for barley. That may be an excellent thing, but it is definitely going to be a lien on the congested areas and the farmers in the poorest parts of the country, just as the production of beet and wheat has been since its inception.

Not a penny.

Mr. Maguire

Every bit of it.

Mr. Maguire

Because their land is incapable of producing barley and they will have to buy barley for feeding stuffs.

The malting barley is the barley which will command the price which we will give.

Mr. Maguire

The price of any kind of barley will be determined by the price the brewers will pay and that will come back on these farmers because they will have to purchase feeding stuffs.

The Deputy is mistaken in that. It will not increase the price of the finished product by one farthing.

Mr. Maguire

I have difficulty in seeing that.

I do not blame the Deputy. The last Government made the brewers pay our farmers 15/- to 20/- per barrel less than the brewers wanted to pay them. I am now going to allow the brewers to pay the barley growers what they have always wanted to pay, but the last Government would not let them do it. The British Government collected the surplus profits and put them into their Treasury.

Mr. Maguire

The price of the residue will be as cheap to the farmers for feeding stuffs as if they originally received a much greater price.

A different class—nitrogenous barley, Keyna, which is not suitable for malting at all—will be grown.

Mr. Maguire

The duty of the Minister for Agriculture is to consider that portion of the community whose condition is the poorest in addition to the condition of those whose land is richer. If we fix the prices for beet, wheat, barley or anything else at an economic level we will encourage more people who have suitable land to go into production of these products and, in turn, those whose land is incapable of producing these products will be the buyers in the end.

I agree with the Deputy.

Mr. Maguire

If the Minister realises that, I hope he will do something to remedy the position immediately.

Mr. Maguire

By removing these strange anomalies that inflict hardship on the people in the poorer districts as compared with those in the better-off districts. If the State is going to guarantee satisfactory prices to those whose land is capable of growing beet, wheat, barley and so forth, why not look to the owners of the poorer lands that are affected by such guaranteed prices and give them some sort of compensation for the infliction that is forced on them?

And with the help of God the Minister will do it.

Mr. Maguire

I hope the Minister will.

I have been waiting 15 years for the chance.

Mr. Maguire

On the question of the availability of capital to farmers I think that the general practice of making money available through the Agricultural Credit Corporation or through the joint stock banks to the more well-to-do farmers but not to the poorer ones calls for some special attention. We should make provision for the congested areas which have always been so sorely pressed and give them special consideration under the poultry scheme.

Our turf production has gone—probably it will never be revived. That gave initial relief to the workers in the poorer districts. Why not make some special arrangement now under which the dwellers in these areas can get loans or grants to put into fullest production their inherited capacity for the rearing of poultry? As these people know all about poultry, why not give them facilities in the way of loans or grants that may be required? That will give them a reasonable start and it will in some way compensate them for the hardships suffered by them because of the general agricultural treatment meted out to them over all the years. There are many people in the West of Ireland who understand quite a lot about poultry and to whom it is, and always was, a pleasure to rear poultry. Of course, they may not have done so in the scientific way in which it is done nowadays but there is a great opening before them in that connection now. The trouble is that they are not able to take advantage of it because, even the present grants that are made available towards the provision of poultry houses and stations, they have not any spare cash. I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to devise a scheme to overcome that difficulty. It would encourage those people by proving to them that it is Government policy to ensure that they are not completely left out of all forms of legislation and that their special needs are known, are being considered and are, as far as possible, being dealt with.

One further matter to which I wish to refer is the treatment of our grass. It is possible that we may receive some cereals for feeding stuffs from outside the country without which increased production in beef, pigs or poultry will undoubtedly be seriously jeopardised. In the matter of feeding milch cows, however, the proper treatment of grass is one of the most important and vital necessities—apart, of course, from fertilisation which I trust will be made possible by artificial fertilisers becoming available. The scientific treatment of grass is of the utmost importance to this whole question of cattle raising and particularly of milk production. I am sure the Minister is not losing sight, in his desire for scientific advancement, of that highly important problem. In spite of all that has been said and written nothing practical has been done in that regard. In the very near future I hope to hear some pronouncement from the Minister in regard to a practical plan by which the grass of this country can be utilised in a far more effective way than has been the case for generations back. The Minister should not forget his duty in regard to the poorest parts of the country. I hope that he will not make the mistake so long practised by his Department, of thinking that general legislation for agriculture can never do anything other than what was done in the past—demoralise our creameries; reduce the milk supply; reduce the stock supply and banish the people. They are the most valuable section of the community. They are practical, industrious and trustworthy. It is our duty to ensure that we do not lose the national heritage of such people.

In these last few days while we were debating the Estimate on the Department of Agriculture I was interested in the solution of one mystery. The Minister for Agriculture alleged that the reason the farm buildings scheme was not proceeded with was because his predecessor in office had left him 22,000 unopened letters relating to that scheme in his Department. The actual column of the debate in which he said those words has already been quoted. When, however, a specific question was put down to him on that matter, he had to retreat and he had to admit that of the 25,000 applications that had come in before the 18th February, 17,000, 18,000 and 20,000 of them had been dealt with by the officers of the Department of Agriculture and that 17,000, 18,000 or 20,000 forms had been sent out and had actually been returned to his Department before the 18th February. Now, why was it that the Minister for Agriculture told an untruth about that particular matter? The sum of money involved in the postponement of the farm improvements scheme to next year, and the resultant saving to the Exchequer, is £250,000. I think I know the solution to this mystery.

The reason that the farm buildings scheme is not being proceeded with this year and the reason why it will not be proceeded with until the next financial year is not because the former Minister for Agriculture and the officials of that Department did not deal efficiently and promptly with the applications for grants under the farm improvements scheme, and it is not because building materials are not available; it is because the Minister for Agriculture is going to save £250,000 for the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget statement, outlined a number of alleged savings he was going to make, but he left undetailed a proposed saving of £1,122,000. In Volume 110, column 1040, he said:

"I am also taking account of further reductions in expenditure totalling £1,122,000, which I am closely pursuing and confidently expect to capture, but of which it would be premature to give particulars until they are safely in the net."

The Minister for Agriculture is going to capture £250,000 and put it into the Minister for Finance's net. That is the reason why the Minister for Agriculture told the untruth about the delay in dealing with applications under the farm buildings scheme and has not had either the courage or the courtesy to withdraw. The Minister for Agriculture has also put on as long a finger as public opinion would allow him the expenditure under the farm improvements scheme. Advertisements, which normally went out in the spring asking farmers to apply for grants under the scheme, were not published this year until May.

Were not published until July. Under the farm improvements scheme the former Minister for Agriculture had proposed to spend £350,000. In the last few years he was not limited to the amount of money appearing in the Vote for that particular scheme. Excess applications beyond the provision made in the Estimate were met out of the Transition Development Fund. By delaying the advertisement in this particular year, the time at which the farmers would normally carry out a lot of these works has passed, so that these works cannot be done in this year. They, therefore, cannot get the grants and the Minister for Agriculture is going to capture some of that £350,000 for the Minister for Finance's net. The Minister for Finance said it would be premature to announce these savings. The Minister for Agriculture is trying to cover up the savings he proposes to make for the Minister for Finance by telling untruths about his predecessor and about the efficiency of his Department. In fact, in order to save money for the Minister for Finance in this particular way, he has kept a lot of "gaitered inspectors", of whom he was so contemptuous, kicking their heels around the country with nothing to do. But they are on the public payroll. That is the type of economy this economising Government are putting into operation.

They were not always so much afraid of public expenditure. Last year when this Vote was being debated, the present Minister for Finance intervened to the extent of 36 columns and, in his castigation of the then Government, he denounced the tardiness of development of agricultural capital. He quoted reports from all parts of the world as to what could be done for the capital development of agriculture. He quoted one report in particular of Dr. Kennedy, in which he suggested that £217,000,000 was necessary in order to improve the capital value of our farms and farm buildings. Now, the Minister for Agriculture may get a fright at the mention of £217,000,000 in relation to agricultural capital seeing that he has hesitated, manoeuvred and twisted in order to save a paltry sum of something less than £750,000 for the Minister for Finance this year. If £217,000,000 were required to be spent on the capital development of agriculture last year, surely there should be something near that sum required in this year and surely, instead of saving £750,000 for the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture should have done all he could to go somewhere—even a few pounds — on the road to the £217,000,000 that the Minister for Finance advised should be spent last year.

The Minister for Finance, in criticising the former Minister for Agriculture, was not a bit frightened of an expenditure of £217,000,000. Indeed, he said £217,000,000 is not a frightening sum. You get that particular phrase in column 2147 of the Dáil Debates, 18th June, 1947.

In urging the immediate development of agricultural capital, in urging capital improvements on our farms, the present Minister for Finance would not be satisfied and would not take any excuse that material was not available. No such excuse was put forward, but he tried to put it into the mouth of the then Minister for Agriculture that he was not encouraging capital development on the land because materials were scarce. He had a few very sharp and bitter things to say about the excuse he put into the mouth of the then Minister for Agriculture. In Volume 106, column 2152, he said:

"It comes badly from a Minister who believes in a policy of selfsufficiency to tell us that we are so completely dependent on outside aid in the way of materials that nothing can be done to increase production in the country this year. I did not know we had come to that profession of self-insufficiency in regard to production."

According to the Minister for Finance, a year ago, after the most devastating war in history, he was not prepared to listen to any excuse that materials were not available in sufficient quantities to enable farm improvements to be carried out. He sneered at anybody who might attempt to raise the question of expense. The Minister for Agriculture to-day is attempting to sneak away with his saving of somewhat less than £750,000 in the grants for agricultural development, farm improvements and farm buildings, on the plea that we have not got the materials.

I ask him to get ahead with this work. Many Deputies have pointed out that if the farmers get the grants they can build houses out of local materials that are available to them. At least that should be tried, and the Minister for Agriculture can very well say to the Minister for Finance: "In view of what you said last year in regard to the speeding up of farm improvements and farm buildings, I cannot very well, at the end of the year, admit that you have netted anything out of the farm building scheme." The Minister for Finance last year demolished the argument that capital development in agriculture would cause inflation. In Vol. 106, col. 2149, he said:—

"If you put certain money into a scheme to aid production, that will not cause inflation. The only money which has an inflationary effect is money which is spent and produces no return in goods. The only form of expenditure in this country now, if we are looking for an immediate return in consumers' goods, that will not have an inflationary effect, is expenditure on agriculture. If we spend £4,000,000 this year and get £2,000,000 worth of extra production, we have not caused anything like the inflation effected by tourists who come into the country. The only safe investment, the only safe way to spend money and to avoid inflation, is to invest it in agriculture."

I see that the Tánaiste, who was very voluble in the same debate denouncing the development of the tourist industry and the application of materials to increase facilities for tourists, was down in County Meath yesterday. He has rather changed his mind from agricultural development just like the Minister for Finance, who suggested that everything possible should be done immediately to develop agriculture, but he is very keen on developing tourism and tourist camps. While the Minister for Agriculture has the excuse, when he is saving money to the extent of £250,000 for the Minister for Finance, that there are no materials, the Tánaiste, or Minister for Social Welfare, was down in County Meath praising the development of tourist camps and the material put into them. The Minister for Agriculture is asking the House to believe that the only reason he is saving on the farm building scheme is that there is no material. I better quote that so that we will know where we stand. The Minister for Agriculture, when introducing this Estimate on the 9th July, said, in column 2609:

"I cannot say that we are prepared to speak of the farm buildings scheme with the same urgency and immediacy, because the plain fact is that, when my colleagues cannot provide the cement for such a task as the plastering of the end of the House of God, you cannot very well start on work of this kind in the same parish—when cement has to be withheld from other tasks such as the urgent requirements of domestic housing. They are claiming all the available supplies and, therefore, we cannot make any claim for a supply until the back of the domestic housing problem has been broken. I do hope, however, early in the next financial year to set constructional work in progress with regard to the farm buildings scheme...."

I could also quote answers to questions he gave repeatedly on the same lines, that he could not go ahead with the farm building improvement schemes because they had not any materials, the materials that the Tánaiste proposes to provide for the further development of tourist camps.

On the tourist camps built by you——

He hoped yesterday that it would be possible——

——when you were "fluthering" around the country and did not know what you were doing.

Deputy Aiken may not discuss every aspect of Government policy on this Vote.

I do not propose to do so, but I make the point——

You built the tourist camps and you are probably misrepresenting the Tánaiste. You should tell us what you are quoting from.

Did he not say that he proposed to provide for 1,000,000 more tourists?

It was you built the camps.

You had better go and read the newspapers.

I was listening to him.

Deputy Aiken will please address the Chair. There is no office under the control of the Minister for Agriculture which has anything to do with tourists.

I shall pass from it.

Senator Quirke and Senator Brennan were there too.

If the Chair is going to allow interruptions, I must be allowed to deal with them.

The Chair will see that debate in this House is conducted in a proper fashion. Deputy Aiken has no right to refer to any matter on this Estimate which is not under the control of the Minister.

Neither should any other Deputy.

Neither should any other Deputy.

That is right. We shall pass away from the Minister for Agriculture's excuse for not proceeding with the farm building scheme and we shall consider for a moment some of the arguments that have been put forward here to-day for the immediate provision of farm credit. Last year the Minister for Finance, as I said, spoke for 36 columns of the Report, on the provision of finance, of capital, of credit for farm development. A sum of £270,000,000 did not frighten him. In column 2147 he said:—

"£217,000,000 is not a frightening sum.... It is less than one year's national income, supposing we spent the whole of it at one go, but, of course, we could not do that. There is a great need for investment in land, he says, and it is rated as highly as £217,000,000. Can we get it? Of course we can, and more. I am not now talking about the £300,000,000 that we have abroad, the £300,000,000 that we shall never see, because it is being depreciated at a much faster rate than normally it could ever be."

There was no talk last year of saving a mere £750,000. Deputy Davin was urging, as well as the Minister for Finance, that we should spend and create all the money we wanted for farm development and for other purposes.

Print it, you mean.

Print it, yes.

You did not say that.

The Minister for Finance last year had a very small opinion of the £300,000,000 we had invested across the way. I grant that his opinion has changed since, seeing that he has invested in Britain another £4,000,000 he collected from the people in the recent loan.

In the name of order, what on earth have I got to do with the foreign investment of Exchequer funds?

I am not accusing the Minister for Agriculture of having anything to do with foreign investments.

I wish I had a tithe of the ability of the man who did it.

He is only £150,000,000 wrong.

As Deputy Davin claimed to have appointed the present Minister for Finance——

I am responsible for the Minister for Finance or I am not. I respectfully submit that I am not, but I have had to sit here for hours and hours listening to the Deputy rambling——

Deputy Aiken has not spoken for hours and hours. I am waiting to see what connection his remarks have with the Estimate before the House and to ascertain if they are relevant.

I think it would be a good thing if Deputy Davin admitted his responsibility for making the Minister for Agriculture. We are discussing the Department of Agriculture.

I have only a one/ seventy-fifth share of the responsibility.

Is that all?

And I am accepting that.

You are not running away from it?

No, certainly not.

We are not going to have a series of dialogues between Deputy Aiken and Deputy Davin. It is quite disorderly. Deputy Aiken should address me in an orderly fashion.

I do not object. I think that Deputy Davin is running away from his responsibility, because he claimed seventy - five/seventy - fifths responsibility for the Minister for Finance but he is claiming only one/ seventy-fifth responsibility for the Minister for Agriculture. I think that is poor support to give to the Minister for Agriculture.

You have been improving your mathematics since you went around the world.

I have come back to have a chat with Deputy Davin.

The Deputy must have it somewhere else, not here.

A chat with him through the Chair.

Deputy Aiken will address me and confine himself to the matters before the House.

Deputy Davin last year spoke very volubly on the Department of Agriculture. We hope that we shall hear him before this debate is ended repeating the arguments he put forward last year.

If I get a chance.

Deputy Davin must keep quiet and allow Deputy Aiken to make his own statement.

He provoked me.

I have been looking forward to hearing him put forward the same arguments this year and to present the same plans that he did last year. Some of the various other one/seventy-fifths who were responsible for the Minister for Agriculture have spoken in this debate and they changed their tune, I notice, very much from this time last year. I notice that the Minister for External Affairs, the Leader of Clann na Poblachta has come in. I listened to one Clann na Poblachta Deputy speaking here but do you think he proposed the same plans proposed all round the country for the development of the country before the last election? Had any of them the temerity to get up here to-day or yesterday and say that we should give free manures to the farmers, about which they yapped from every platform all over the country? There was no talk about free manures for farmers on the Vote to-day.

The first thing they had to do was to put you where you are.

The Deputy is there now and he has to take responsibility. Deputies opposite will have to take responsibility for betraying the people who voted for them on the plea that they were going to give the farmers free manures, free credit to an unlimited extent, and were going to reduce the cost of living by 30 per cent. I should be glad to hear from the leader of Clann na Poblachta whether he proposes to carry out the promises he made to the electors in order to get the votes he got, or is he going to betray the voters who voted for him on the assumption that, if they elected to "Give MacBride the reins of Government", as it was put, they were going to get free manures to an unlimited extent, free credit and that the cost of living would be reduced by 30 per cent.

Is it in order for a Deputy to refer to the Minister for External Affairs as "MacBride" and is it correct for a Deputy to address his remarks to a Minister who has no responsibility for the Estimate before the House?

When I said "Give MacBride the reins of Government" I was quoting from a Clann na Poblachta election advertisement.

Is it in order? Can we get a ruling on the point?

There is no such election poster.

There is no such election advertisement?

I will bring it in to the Minister.

Is it not the practice for a Deputy to resume his seat when a ruling has been asked from the Chair, or is this Deputy to dictate to the House all day?

I think I made my point of order clear—that the Deputy referred to the Minister for External Affairs as "MacBride" and addressed his remarks to a Minister who is not responsible for the Estimate the House is considering.

May I correct the Deputy? He referred to him in the sense of being the leader of a Party, the MacBride Party, in which he was quite correct.

Lest there be any mistake about this, I referred to the Minister for External Affairs as the Minister for External Affairs. I referred to him also as the leader of the Clann na Poblachta Party. I think that is a known fact.

I raised this matter on a point of order. It has been suggested that the Deputy was quoting when he used the word "MacBride".

"Give MacBride the reins of Government."

I think it is usual for a Deputy, when quoting, to give the reference and details of what he is quoting from. So far as I can judge——

This is a speech.

It is not a speech.

I refer the Deputy to the advertisements which appeared in the evening papers two days before the general election, one of which ended with the words: "Give MacBride the reins of Government."

I am speaking on a point of order.

The election advertisement——

Sit down until the point of order has been dealt with.

I am speaking on a point of order and I want a ruling from the Chair as to whether it is in order for a Deputy to refer to the Minister for External Affairs as "MacBride"? I am asking the Chair to rule if it is correct for a Deputy, who claims to be quoting, not to give the reference or to state from what he is quoting.

The Deputy is putting up a hypothetical question, and is not dealing with the facts at all. He is wrong in both cases. The Deputy did not purport to be quoting and he referred to the Minister only as the leader of a Party.

Have we got a ruling, or is this another point of order?

It is another Chairman.

I am asking for a ruling on this point: is it in order for a Deputy to refer to the Minister for External Affairs as "MacBride"?

I did not do that.

Acting-Chairman

He did not do any such thing. He made no such reference.

The Minister for External Affairs has denied——

I have raised a point of order and I ask for a ruling on it.

Acting-Chairman

It is no point of order.

The Minister for External affairs has denied that such an advertisement was issued by Clann na Poblachta. I want to get that on the record.

I understood the Ceann Comhairle the other day to rule out of order references to election literature during the course of debates on the Estimates.

I understood him to do so and I should like to know whether or not that is the ruling of the Chair.

Acting-Chairman

The practice on many occasions has been to quote.

On Estimates?

Acting-Chairman

On Estimates.

Is a Deputy in order in referring to a Minister by his surname?

Acting-Chairman

No, not directly.

I did not do so, either directly or indirectly. All I did was to quote a Clann na Poblachta advertisement, and, if the Clann na Poblachta leader, the Minister for External Affairs, is running away from his advertisement, it is not unusual, because in every other respect, too, they have run away from them.

On a point of order. I have no objection to being discussed personally, but I ask you, Sir, to rule that the discussion be limited to the Estimate for Agriculture. I do not think I have any direct connection with the Department of Agriculture.

There are a number of Deputies in this House who are here because they persuaded a certain number of voters that they were going to give them free manures.

To put you out.

That was a laudable motive, but the point is that the people thought that what they were doing was putting somebody in who was going to give them free manures. I want to know from the Minister for External Affairs whether he is running away from that pledge which he gave to the people who voted for him and for his supporters.

Is the Deputy entitled to address questions to the Minister for External Affairs when the House is discussing the Estimate for Agriculture?

Acting-Chairman

No; he is entitled to address questions to the Chair and through the Chair.

Is not the extent of questions which can be addressed to the Chair within the scope of the Estimate? The Department of the Minister for External Affairs is not under discussion.

I am not discussing the Estimate of the Minister for External Affairs at all.

You are not discussing any Estimate.

He is only stone-walling.

The Minister for Agriculture told the British he was going to drown them with eggs and he told our farmers that he was going to drown them with phosphatic manures, nitrogenous manures, potash and everything else; but he told us, at the same time, that we would have to pay for them— £11, £17 and, in some cases, £20 a ton. That is very far away from free manures, as the Minister for Defence will admit. It is very far away when you have to pay £20 a ton for something you were to get free, and, if the person who controls the present Government, the person who is responsible for putting in the present Government, promised the people that he was going to give them free manures, if they voted for him, is it not quite in order to ask him if he is going to live up to his promise or run away from it? Is he going to betray the voters that voted for them on his plea that he was going to give them free manures?

Wait and see. It cannot all be done in a month.

There are lots of things that cannot be done in a month. There are certain things that cannot be done in four months. There are certain things that cannot be done in five years.

And there is a lot that has not been done in 16 years.

There are certain things that cannot be done in 500 years, but there are other things that could be done in one day.

The 18th February, for instance.

On the 19th February, the Minister for Finance could have written out a cheque and bought all the artificial manures that came in and he could have said to the Department of Agriculture: "Distribute these free."

Provided you had left enough money in the bank.

The Minister for External Affairs promised that he was going to do it. Deputy Davin claims that he is only one-seventy-fifth responsible for the Minister for Agriculture.

We put you out in five minutes on the 18th February.

You did, of course, but you put somebody else in and you put people in who made certain promises which they are running away from.

Acting-Chairman

Will the Deputy address the Chair?

Deputy Davin was interrupting and I was answering him.

He has not started yet, anyway.

One other aspect of this particular Estimate that I am interested in is this: The Minister for Agriculture seems to me to be in process of substituting a system of blackguarding the people and blackmailing them into doing what he wants them to do at any moment for a rule of law. It was within the competence of this Dáil to pass a law compelling the Dublin butchers or the butchers in any other part of the country to pay whatever price he liked to fix for beef. He could have said they must pay a minimum of 100/- a cwt. or 105/- or 95/-, or whatever he liked to propose to the House. Deputy Davin would have voted for it. He would have borne one-seventy-fifth of the responsibility for that Bill. But, instead of passing such a law, the Minister for Agriculture came into this House and started to blackguard the Dublin butchers for having done what the Minister for Industry and Commerce told them to do.

Is it in order for a Deputy to state that the Minister is blackguarding people outside the House?

We have been listening to that for years.

Acting-Chairman

I think the word "blackguard" could be withdrawn.

Should be withdrawn.

Have not we been listening to that kind of stuff for years from the very person who put the point of order?

We will not characterise what the Minister for Agriculture said.

On a point of order, did you rule that the word "blackguarding" should be withdrawn?

Acting-Chairman

It is not Parliamentary, I am sure.

I want to know is it withdrawn?

The Minister for Agriculture——

Is the word withdrawn?

Respect the Chair.

I respect the Chair.

The Chair has asked you to withdraw.

If the Chair rules definitely that I must not say that the Minister for Agriculture blackguarded the Dublin butchers, I withdraw it.

Acting-Chairman

It is withdrawn.

I proceed to quote and allow the Deputies to characterise the language he used. The Dublin butchers in paying 88/8 a cwt. for beef were paying the price fixed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and, for paying that price, the Minister for Agriculture condemned them. He accused them of disrupting the Dublin market by paying the price they were told to pay by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I do not think that is true.

He said, at column 2611 of the Official Report for the 9th July:

"Whether it be the pork butchers or the beef butchers who try to strike at the agricultural community of this country, they will find that there are resources at the disposal of this Government which, if necessary, will be used to smash any conspiracy whencesoever inspired which seeks to destroy the farmers of this country or their livelihood."

He said:

"We may not like the task of challenging the racketeers, but those who choose the road of racketeering do so at their own peril and when they learn the consequences and feel them, let them blame no one but themselves."

That is rather violent language for a Minister to use to people who are carrying out the policy of his colleague. It has been ruled as not being Parliamentary to call it blackguarding them, but I would like any Deputy to give me some other word that will fit the facts. I am only interested in this butchering aspect of it to point out the road that the Minister for Agriculture is travelling in leaving the rule of law and substituting blackmailing language in order to compel people to do what he thinks is right from day to day or that he thinks is politic from day to day.

On a point of order. Is it in order for the Deputy to suggest that the Minister is breaking the law, departing from the rule of law, and running this country by blackmailing language? Is that a perfectly fair and permissible statement—that the Minister is departing from the rule of law and practising blackmail?

I think it is a mild suggestion.

The question was put to the Chair. On a point of order. It is to the Chair the question was put.

Acting-Chairman

It is in order.

I see. Thank you very much. You may proceed to carry on all the time you like.

Is that a reflection on the Chair?

I think that Deputy Keyes ought to be compelled to withdraw that remark, which is a reflection upon you.

Acting-Chairman

The Chair did not catch the remark.

I suggest that any instruction necessary for the guidance of Deputy Aiken or any other speaker can be given by the Chair. After you had given your ruling, on the point of order raised by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Keyes got up and proceeded to give an instruction as to what Deputy Aiken should do. I suggest that Deputy Keyes is quite out of order and if such conduct were permitted this House would soon reach a point of disorder that it has not arrived at so far.

On a point of order. May I ask is it in order for a Deputy to suggest things to the Chair under the guise of a point of order?

Acting-Chairman

The Chair did not hear the remark made by Deputy Keyes.

My remark meant that I would make no further interjections once you had ruled, that I would make no further interjections, that I was finished interrupting.

The Minister for Agriculture not only sought to compel the butchers to break the rule as to price laid down by his colleague——

On a point of order, I do not like interrupting the Deputy. The Deputy has stated on many occasions that the Minister for Industry and Commerce fixed a price of 88/10. I would ask the Deputy to quote his authority for that because, in my belief, it is untrue. On a point of order, surely he cannot state that the Minister has fixed a price without giving the quotation.

I would like to point out to you, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, the behaviour of the people who are saying here that everybody is free to speak. I have been trying to speak for the last 20 minutes and have not been allowed to say two consecutive sentences by the gentlemen who are going to give everybody the right of speech and of expression of his mind.

Keep within the rules of order, then.

They want to get the business done quickly.

The Deputy was repeating Deputy Lemass's speech last night.

That is his own business.

The Minister for Agriculture not only used violent language against the butchers, to compel them to do something which his colleague did not want them to do in regard to price, but he used very violent language against the people who have the temerity not to have departed from a policy in relation to breeding that he outlined a couple of years ago as being ideal for dairy farmers. Deputy Corry quoted the Minister for Agriculture in his speech on this Estimate two years ago, in which he said that any dairy farmer who was not keeping Friesians was a cod and a fool. Supposing any one went into Friesian cattle in order to avoid being called a cod and a fool by the then Deputy Dillon, what happened him the other day? The Minister for Agriculture told the House the other day that the man who kept a Friesian herd, a Guernsey herd or a Jersey herd was an old maid and a crank. He went on to call those herds of cattle the "Pekinese brand".

I would ask that the Deputy would quote exactly what the Minister said, as I read it somewhat differently.

I will refer the Deputy to column 2604, of the 9th July, and we will go through it together. In 2603, half-way down, he said:

"I know there are a lot of old maids and cranks in this country who keep Jerseys and Guernseys and Friesians and the rest of them."

Is that not calling these people old maids and cranks?

He does not say that.

The Deputy will have an opportunity of explaining how he does not, as it is clear to me.

Some cranks may keep Friesians, but all who keep Friesians are not cranks.

All right, we will get a little bit further. In 2604, he talked about the treatment the "Friesians and the rest of the Pekinese get" and, half-way down, he talked about the Pekinese brand in relation to the same type of farmer who may have a Jersey, a Guernsey or a Friesian. At the end of the same column he said: "However, let those who yearn for the Pekinese breed..." My complaint about the Minister is that, if he wants to make it illegal—wants to compel people—not to keep these breeds, he should promote a law prohibiting it. It is not right for him to be blackmailing the people of the country one day into keeping Friesian herds and, two years afterwards, into keeping the dual-purpose Shorthorn.

If he proposes a Bill here, we can discuss it on its scientific merits and discuss it calmly, as to whether it is a proper policy to have only the dual-purpose Shorthorn breed or whether it would not be preferable to have one or two dairy breeds crossed by beef bulls that would give us good store cattle; or instead of depending upon the beef Shorthorn for good stores, which stores are indistinguishable from the progeny of the ordinary single dairy Shorthorn, it would not be better to have good pure strains, either Shorthorn or Friesian or what not, of dairy stock and cross them with a beef bull, the progeny of which could be recognised by the eye.

No one can say that they could tell, from the conformation of a Shorthorn bull or a Shorthorn cow or a Shorthorn calf, whether there is much milk behind it, but anyone who saw a cross of a Hereford with a Shorthorn or with a Friesian would know perfectly well that there was a Hereford cross in that particular calf. If the Minister wants to scare the country and browbeat all the farmers into slaughtering all the Friesians and Guernseys, he should do it under a rule of law and should not be blackmailing them, in order to compel farmers to carry out the policy that seems good to him on this particular day. Every time he gets up, he has a new brain wave, and no one knows whom he will call old maids and cranks to-morrow—it may be the people who are keeping a dual-purpose Shorthorn.

The Minister, on one other occasion, departed from the system of law to the system of blackmail. He said that he proposed this last spring to publish an advertisement that any farmer who had praiseach in his field was a lazy farmer. Everyone will agree with the Minister for Agriculture that praiseach, or any other weed, will injure a crop, and that it is most unwise and uneconomic for a farmer to have praiseach or any other class of weed growing in his field from which he expects to get a good crop. But there are all sorts of circumstances which might compel a farmer to have weeds in one of his fields, or even in a certain portion of his field. The tumbling in of other crops that had to be dealt with might compel him to leave some portion of his field, or a whole field, in such a way that the weeds would get out of hand. Surely if in such circumstances there was a law that a man must not have weeds in his field he would be able to go to court and point out the circumstances to the judge. The judge could take the circumstances into account, and if he did not find that there was a sufficient case made to warrant the weeds being in the field he could fine or imprison the man who allowed the weeds to grow on his field. But next year the Minister proposes, he says, to take the taxpayers' money and to publish an advertisement declaring that every person, fortunate or misfortunate, who happens to have praiseach in his field is a lazy farmer.

The Minister said in several speeches that he was going to keep the gaitered inspectors or the "pip squeak" inspectors, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce called them, outside the field. Well, I think any farmer in the country would rather be subject to inspection by 100 inspectors, no matter how little he thought of them, rather than be subject to a system of slander at public expense in the newspapers. The Minister for Agriculture, in his opening speech, not only slandered the butchers, and slandered the people who keep Jersey, Friesian or Guernsey cattle, but he also proposes next year, at public expense, to buy space in the papers to slander the farmer who happens to have weeds in his fields.

Now, I think there are other ways in which we could spend money. We were so short of money this year that the Minister for Finance thought that he would save £500 on a certain type of advertisement. How much does the Minister for Agriculture propose next year to spend in slandering the farmers of Ireland? That is a question we would like him to answer before he concludes.

I hope, in conclusion, that we are going to hear from Deputy Davin—that we are going to have the same type of speech from him now that he is the one-seventy-fifth part of the Government. I also hope that we are going to hear from Clann na Poblachta Deputies and from the Clann na Talmhan Deputies what they have to say now for the promotion of agriculture in substitution of what they used to say. That is an interesting point.

I would also like to hear from the Minister for Agriculture whether he proposes to embark upon the substitute policy that was put forward by the only Clann na Poblachta Deputy that I heard speak this afternoon— Deputy Kinane. The Deputy advocated that compulsory tillage should be allowed to go, but that for every two acres a man was compelled to till he should be compelled to keep a milch cow—no free manures for anybody but compulsory milch cows for everybody. His other solution was not free manures for everybody, but nobody was to be allowed to export a heifer in calf. How he was going to induce the farmers to produce in-calf heifers if he was going to cut away competition and restrict them to the prices on their flooded home market he did not say. However, that was his solution—compulsory milch cows for everybody and no in-calf heifers to be exported. I would say that it would take a number of inspectors to see that that was carried out.

The Minister for Agriculture said one day that he would have no inspectors, but yesterday I thought I heard him interjecting to say that anyone who was going to feed wheat to pigs was going to get it in the neck. I do not know how he is going to get the information —whether the pigs will tell him or whether, in fact, he is going to send out inspectors, and if the farmers are going to be subject to inspection. The Minister said he is going to give it in the neck to the farmer who feeds wheat to pigs as indeed the farmer should get it in the neck. Let there not be any mistake about my attitude on that, but how is he going to find that out without inspectors? If the inspector has to stand outside the gate or outside the ditch until he is invited in by the farmer, how on earth is he going to find out whether or not the farmer is feeding wheat to the pigs?

I think that the farmers, who have a great sense of freedom, according to certain Deputies here since the Minister for Agriculture made that worldshaking pronouncement that the inspectors would have to stay out until they were invited in, will find that the Minister for Agriculture will have changed his mind before very long about inspectors having to wait outside until they are invited in. I trust, as I said to the farmers immediately after Deputy Davin took a 1/75th responsibility for Deputy Dillon that they would, in spite of Deputy Davin putting in Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture, continue to grow wheat: that there was a serious situation in the world which might develop, a situation over which we have no control, and that we might find that our people, if they wanted bread, would have to depend on their own supplies of wheat to make that bread.

I am glad to notice that a fair bit of wheat has been grown this year and I trust that we will have a good harvest to give us a fair quantity of wheat from our own resources. I hope that the Minister for Finance was completely wrong when he said that this year we were only going to produce from our own resources one-fifth of our requirements, or less than one-fifth. The Minister for Finance said in the Seanad that we were only going to produce 100,000 tons of millable wheat this year; the Minister for Agriculture corrected that, saying that we would have 200,000 tons. Between them I do not know what amount of wheat we will have this year. A further question is, what amount of wheat will be collected for the mills?

I would urge Deputy Davin to use his one-seventy-fifth influence to make certain that the farmers are told now that in view of the situation, they must not feed to pigs or cattle wheat that is capable of being turned into flour for human beings. Whether it is necessary to send one inspector or ten inspectors to see to it, it must not be done. This Dáil is going to adjourn very shortly now, I understand, and it is advisable, no matter what our political differences may be or whatever cracks we give each other on occasion, that we should combine to ask the farmers not to use wheat that is fit for human consumption for feeding farm stock. Our farmers should do everything they can to save all the wheat they can in the best possible condition and to make the best possible deliveries to the mills.

In view of the fact that practically every aspect of the agricultural industry has been discussed already in this debate and in view of the agreement that was come to this morning that speeches should be as short as possible, I will not detain the House for very long. I wish to say, however, that owing to the foresight, the wisdom and perseverance of the Minister for Agriculture as well as the great confidence he has in himself, the farmers of this country have at long last got what they have been agitating for over a number of years, guaranteed prices and a remunerative foreign market. Up to this, the farming industry was the Cinderella; prices fluctuated and we had slumps; prices would go up, rocket sky-high and then we would have a slump, with the result that the farmer was the one man in the community who, year in year out, had no security in his income. He was dependent on the seasons; the weather might be good or bad but the professional man has his secure income at all times.

The fact that the farmer had no security in that respect made him more conservative, less amenable to organisation and generally held out very little prospects for him, for his family or for his workers. It is very gratifying, therefore, that our present Minister for Agriculture has raised the hope that that nightmare will disappear and that for the next four years at least, perhaps for considerably longer, the farmers will have a guaranteed price for their produce. That will enable farmers to go ahead with their work with enterprise and initiative and in the hope and with the guarantee that they will have a price for their produce quite different from the past.

I have said that I would not be very long on this matter but there is just one subject that has not been touched upon except very briefly by Deputy Keane —cow testing. We know that for a number of years the average milk yield of our cows has been declining. That is clearly exemplified by the rates of milk at the creameries. During the past 16 years I must say—and I am speaking from practical experience—that the cow-testing scheme for the development of dairy cattle generally was just barely tolerated. No advance has been made in that direction worth speaking about and the hub of the industry, the supervisors of the cow-testing associations, have had no encouragement to get on with the work, with the result that the scheme has just dragged on year in year out.

Despite the fact that the Report of the Commission on Post-War Agricultural Policy laid down a very definite and encouraging scheme for the development of cow testing and despite the fact that I got a promise in this House from Deputy Ryan, when he was Minister for Agriculture, and also from Deputy Smith when he was Minister for Agriculture, that the findings of this commission would be implemented, nothing has been done, with the result that the one way by which our dairy herds could be improved has been hopelessly neglected. I think that is a great mistake and I am sure, from the pronouncements made by the present Minister for Agriculture to the dairy farmers in Mallow and elsewhere, that when he has time he will take the matter in hand and make sure that we will have a proper cow testing scheme on the lines laid down by the commission's report and that those who are practically the slaves of this scheme, the supervisors, will get adequate and proper remuneration for their work. That is very important and its importance might be explained in a few words. We know that the average yield of 400 gallons per cow is entirely uneconomic, but in areas where the cow testing association has some 50,000 cows on test the average yield is 550 gallons. If all the cows in the country were brought up to that standard—and it would not be impossible—it would mean in increased income for our dairy farmers of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 per year. That is worth striving for and I hope the Minister for Agriculture will implement the findings of the Report of the Commission on Post-War Agricultural Policy and that that £3,000,000 will some fine day find its way into the pockets of the dairy farmers. We would then have an increase in butter and an increase in that most valuable of all human foods, milk, which is so necessary and desirable for our young people.

It is very deplorable that here in Dublin City and elsewhere an acute shortage of milk occurs at various times of the year. I hope the Minister will be able to devise a scheme whereby children attending national schools, whether in rural areas or cities, will get a certain amount of milk for their lunches. That is impossible at the present time owing to the scarcity of milk. I hope the Minister will take his courage in both hands, as he is inclined to do, and implement the findings of the Commission on Post-war Agricultural Policy.

As is well known, our grassland is suffering seriously from want of fertilisers. The produce of our tillage lands has been reduced owing to lack of fertilisers. Not only is it essential that these fertilisers should be produced and obtained here but the price must be very substantially reduced. Speaking on this Estimate last year, I gave figures showing the difference between the cost of fertilisers here and in Northern Ireland and England. I hope the Minister by some means, whether by subsidy or otherwise, will ensure that adequate supplies of fertilisers, as well as seeds, will be made available to the farmer during the coming and subsequent years. It will be one way, and a very definite way, of increasing production from the land.

I desire to congratulate the Minister on the elaborate scheme he has put forward for the development of the poultry industry. In my opinion, that can be made one of the most valuable side lines of the agricultural industry. I have tremendous sympathy with farmers in the poorer districts, farmers with five, six, seven, eight or nine cows, who are living on poor land on which they cannot grow beet or wheat. As we know, the pig industry has been practically killed in those areas and they have nothing to bring them in an income except the milch cow and the calf. It is a good thing for these people that in future at the slack time of the year they will be able to derive a very substantial and desirable income from the poultry industry during the months of September, October, November and up to April. That is a scheme that heartily commends itself to these people and it has been enthusiastically taken up through the country. As time goes on and there are guaranteed prices for eggs, poultry of all kinds, cockerels, pullets, day-old chicks, old fowl, etc., there should be a great future for that industry and it should be of particular value to cottiers and small farmers.

I think practically every aspect of the farming industry has been touched upon except the particular one of trying to increase the milk yield of our cattle in order to produce more human food in the way of butter, cheese, and other by-products of milk for the people in the towns and cities as well as the rural areas and the desirability of putting a supply of milk and butter within the reach of the poorer sections of the community.

I believe that a great era of prosperity is before the agricultural industry generally and, when it does come, that prosperity will percolate to the towns and cities, because if the farmers are well-off, the villages, towns and cities automatically will be well-off. If the farming industry is not prosperous for one reason or another, there is no flow of money into the towns and cities and industrial works are held up for want of buying capacity. Therefore, everything goes back to our primary industry and when that is in a state of prosperity the country generally is bound to benefit. I am glad the Minister is taking the matter up so wholeheartedly and enthusiastically and, particularly, that farmers will have an assurance that for a number of years to come they will have guaranteed prices for all their produce. That will mean that there will be more produce and the more there is the better it will be for all concerned. I strongly commend the attitude of the Minister in these respects and I hope he will succeed in the very ambitious and very onerous task which he has undertaken.

In introducting the Estimate for his Department, the Minister made a wide survey of the condition of the agricultural industry at the moment. Having covered in the survey the productive capacity of the soil and the cattle, pig and poultry population, he found that the condition was anything but encouraging. Naturally, he took a rather serious view of the position as a result of that. At the same time, he said he was not without hope that the agricultural industry was entering upon a period of expansion unknown hitherto. I agree with the Minister that the condition in which the industry is at the moment is not very good. As a matter of fact, in some respects I think it is worse even than the Minister pointed out, worse, at least, as far as those engaged in the industry are concerned.

Tillage has been increased by practically 1,000,000 acres since pre-war and I think it is generally agreed that, even with that extended acreage, we have a smaller net return than we had when the land was in better fertility. Earlier this year I pointed out, when quoting some figures with regard to my area, that the milk supply to the Killeshandra Co-operative Creamery which, in 1936, was 5,000,000 gallons per year, had gone down by practically one-third. Therefore we have every evidence of decay and, as a result of that decay, naturally the cutting down of the return which the agriculturist has for his labour.

Although I make the point that the return to the agriculturist is low, yet I have to admit that the prices of agricultural produce at the moment appear to be high. They are so high, according to official figures, that the agricultural price index figure for last year, taken on the 1938 basis, was 225, while the cost-of-living index figure was only 97. If these figures are to be taken as correct, we must assume that the agriculturist is getting an undue share of the national income at the moment.

I propose, however, to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the agriculturist suffers very much from the comparison of these figures as they are there. As most people are aware, the cost-of-living index and the agricultural produce index figures were compiled before the 1914-18 war. Therefore, we must relate the present figures to that period in order to get a true picture of the comparison at the moment. The agricultural index price figures were taken over the years 1911, 1912 and 1913, while the cost-of-living figures were, I understand, taken for July, 1914. It seems to me that it was right that a three-years' period should be taken as a basis for the agricultural index figure. One year would not be a correct basis. For instance, if last year was taken as the basis with a very low yield from crops it would not be an accurate index of the position. I agree that a three-year basis was the correct one for an agricultural index. On the other hand I cannot understand why one month—July, 1914 —was taken as the basis for the cost-of-living index. One month could scarcely be a correct basis on which to base the cost of living.

There is another factor involved. I have been making inquiries and so far as I can find out there was, some time during that three-year period on which the agricultural price index was based —1911, 1912 and 1913—a very protracted outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Any Deputy and any farmer will understand that a protracted period of foot-and-mouth disease has a very lowering effect on the price of live stock. Yet that occurred during a period on which these cost-of-living figures were based. Therefore, at the outset of that period, agriculture was placed at a disadvantage. Tracing it from that origin we come to 1938 when the index was changed. In 1938 the agricultural price index was only 111.9. That means that it had gone up from 100 to 111.9 whilst the cost of living at the same time had gone up from 100 to 173. That shows that agriculture was very low. Another point is that at the same time clothing had gone up to 225 in comparison with the starting point of 100 in 1914. It is clear, therefore, that agriculture has been placed at a gross disadvantage in taking the year 1938 as a base for present index. From that period, 1938, we now reach the figures I quoted at the outset. The agricultural price index at the moment is 225 whilst the cost-of-living index is only 97. What appears to be great prosperity in agriculture by the figure of 225 in comparison with the figure of 97 is not correct. Furthermore, the 1947 figure for clothing is 100. If we take the figure 111.9 as the 1938 base, to which this 225 at the present time is related, and for easy calculation multiply it by 2¼— that means 2¼ times its base of 112— that would bring the agricultural price index at the moment to 252 over the 1911 to 1914 basis, whilst at the same time the cost-of-living figure was 97 for 1947.

With the permission of the House. I will raise that figure to 100 for the purposes of easy calculation—in reality it was 99 in February of the present year, so I am not being unjust grossly. That means double its 1938 base of 173, which brings it up to 346. On the basis of calculation, from its original base in 1914—agriculture stands at 252 —the cost-of-living figure stands at 346. At the same time clothing from its 1914 basis stands somewhere around 500. I want to point out how unfair calculations can be, and how they can misrepresent the position by making it seem one of comparative prosperity. I hope I have succeeded in pointing out that agriculture has not got justice in these comparisons. I put a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce last week and I was assured by him that the period of the cost-of-living index was under consideration but that no definite decision had yet been arrived at. I hope—I am now addressing the Minister for Agriculture who, I regret, is not here at the moment—that he will see to it that the Minister for Industry and Commerce does not base the new period for the cost-of-living index in a way that will place agriculture at such a disadvantage. In view of that, I see no hope of keeping people on the land if there is not a more even distribution of the national income.

Deputy Cogan quoted some time ago —I think he quoted from a White Paper which was published in 1938—to the effect that of the national income the amount each individual engaged in the agricultural industry was earning was £60 per annum whereas the nonagriculturist was earning £177 per annum. If that were the case in 1938 I think we can hardly say that the ratio has changed since. If that state of affairs is to continue what inducement is there to anyone to engage in the agricultural industry? We blame the people who are flying from the land but how can we hope to keep them there unless there is a redistribution of the national income so that the agriculturists will not be at the disadvantage they now are. These people are the most important section of the community. This State depended on the farmer, with the aid of his paid labourers and the unpaid family labourers, to carry the people through during the years of the emergency. They produced the food for the people and by doing so they depleted the fertility of their land. The numbers of their live stock were also depleted. The Minister for Agriculture gave the relevant figures in his opening statement.

A word about the agricultural labourers. It is customary for all speakers to say that they are anxious to raise the standard of the agricultural labourer. I wish to join in that appeal. In doing so I make no pretence of being a hypocritical philanthropist. I do so for a selfish reason, namely, that I myself was brought up on a small farm such as is typical of the county from which I come. To give the Deputies some idea of the relative size of the farms in that county, of the 16,000 odd farms something in the region of 12,000 are under 30 acres. From a selfish reason, therefore, I want to see the family labourer get as good a wage as the hired labourer. The agricultural labourer, in comparison with the city worker, receives only 55/- a week. The family labourer has not been getting anything like that. I hold that the farmer does not get even as much as would pay the labourer the minimum wage. That is an understatement of the position. In proof of that, I hold that the farmer is not getting as much himself as he is paying his labourer; and I would point to the fact that the organisation of which I have been secretary for the past 12 years issued a challenge to the two preceding Ministers for Agriculture. We challenged them to take over an averaged-sized farm in each county and find out for themselves if it would pay the hired labourer even the minimum rate of wages and at the same time show a profit.

I have joined with another Deputy in this House in issuing the same challenge to the present Minister. The two preceding Ministers refused to take up the gauntlet. It remains to be seen if the present occupant of the post will accept it. If he, too, refuses to accept, then we shall take it that he is as well aware, as were his predecessors, that the farmer is not getting as much as his labourer. Only time will prove if that is correct.

A good deal has been said about milk production. There has been a considerable reduction in milk production over the past ten years. It is difficult to estimate exactly what that reduction means in our agricultural economy as a whole. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that over the past ten years the average milk yield of the cows has gone down by as much as 100 gallons per cow. In proof of that I shall quote figures of a cow testing association in my county. Within the past few weeks Kilnacrott Cow Testing Association held its annual meeting. It was attended by Mr. R. M. Bloomer, of the Department of Agriculture. The supervisor, in his report, stated that 69 cows had completed their lactation period last year with an average milk yield of 4,572 lbs., a decrease of 849 lbs. on the previous year, with an average test of 3.30; and butter fat yield of 138.6 lbs., a decrease of 59.13 lbs., with an annual return of £16 16s. 10d. per cow last year.

470 gallons?

457 gallons. I claim that that shows there has been a reduction of approximately 100 gallons per cow over the whole country in the past ten years. The question arises as to what that would mean in the income of the farming community as a whole engaged in milk production.

When was the average yield 557 gallons of all the cows?

I have not mentioned 557 gallons.

You said it had gone down 100 gallons.

I said that was the average over the whole country. I am quoting the figures of the cow-testing association which showed a drop of 86 gallons in the past year. Does the Minister get my point?

Did they give over 500 last year?

I have not got the figures for last year. The figure for the average yield in the year 1947 was 4,572 lbs., or 457 gallons. There was a drop of 849 lbs. per cow in the past year, or 84 gallons.

Per cow, or over the whole number of cows?

849 lbs. of milk per cow—that is, practically 85 gallons in the year.

They must be magnificent cows if they had 550 gallons last year.

Those are the figures of the cow-testing association, and the meeting was attended by Mr. R. M. Bloomer of the Department of Agriculture.

What made them drop that much?

What I want to point out is that, if my claim is correct, in the past ten years there has been a drop of 100 gallons per cow all over the country; with 1,250,000 cows that would mean a loss to the agricultural community, even at present prices, of something over £7,000,000 per year. Therefore, anything that is done to rehabilitate the dairy industry and to increase the milk yield of our cows will give a very good return.

What is the name of the cow-testing association?

Kilnacrott, Mount Nugent. Cow testing has been referred to more than once during the debate and I am very interested in cow testing. At the same time the figures are not a complete indication of the actual conditions that prevail in the dairy industry throughout the country. I have analysed the figures of another cow-testing association in my county, that is Milltown. That association started operations in 1940 with 185 cows with an average milk yield of 4,663 lbs., a butter fat of 186.86—not a bad average with which to start. The following year the figure had gone up to 4,745 lbs., but the butter fat had dropped to 177.11. In 1942 the average milk yield was 4,668 lbs. and the butter fat 174.65; in 1943 the average milk yield was 4,558 lbs. and the butter fat 172.93; in 1944 there were 115 cows and the average milk yield was 4,287 lbs. and the butter fat 158.18 lbs.; in 1945 the milk yield was 4,660 lbs. and the butter fat 180.42; in 1946 the yield was 4,918 lbs. and there were 190.93 lbs. of butter fat. That is the last year for which I have figures.

The milk yield has gone up steadily?

It has increased in those years by 225 lbs. per cow and the butter fat has also increased by 4 lbs I am sure the figures for all cow-testing associations should show something similar.

I thought a few minutes ago you were making the case that the average yield had gone down 100 gallons per cow?

I am making that claim for cows all over the State. That cow-testing association was as closely related as possible to a creamery area. In the Milltown co-operative creamery, from which area this cow-testing association has drawn its members, while the milk supply to the local creamery in the first year of operation was 286,457 gallons, in 1946 it had dropped to 226,169 gallons. Whilst in 1936 it was 366,191 gallons. I submit that is a very considerable drop. In spite of the fact that cow testing in the area showed a tendency to increase, the milk supply went down. We can take the figures for that cow-testing association as representing the condition of the dairying industry all over the State.

What is the number of suppliers to the creamery?

I do not know Taking all these figures into consideration, I think we can say that the dairy industry is not in a sound or healthy condition. To my mind, the Livestock Breeding Act of 1925 has had a bad effect on the dairy cows of the State. I am not without admitting that the starvation consequent on the depletion of soil fertility has had a very serious effect on the milk yields, but, at the same time, it is my experience that, starting with a herd of fairly good Shorthorn cows, I find in breeding from the bulls that were licensed by the Department's inspectors the milk yield of the heifers from those cows has been steadily going down, with the result that, although I have not had to go to the fair to buy many heifers to replace the older cows, the average had gone well down.

In the circumstances, an effort must be made to pay more attention to milking properties, even with the Shorthorn cows. I admit I am a Shorthorn fan. I claim the milking properties have gone down considerably, and until they are restored, either through breeding or considerably through feeding, the dairy industry cannot get on a proper footing so as to be profitable to the producers and it cannot supply milk and butter to the people of the State, much less have anything to export.

That takes me to the question of milk prices. In face of the figures which I have given I think a claim can be made for a higher price for milk as an encouragement to people to continue in the industry. I admit that I am, drawing into rather dangerous ground, ground into which I am sorry I have been drawn, because it is more or less getting into a family quarrel—that is, a quarrel between the ex-Minister for Agriculture and the present Minister for Agriculture. As everyone knows, anyone interfering in a family quarrel is likely to come in for hard knocks. In view of what the ex-Minister, Deputy Smith, said when he was speaking on Friday, and again yesterday, I can hardly let the occasion pass without at least a word of explanation.

That is what I was hoping for.

Deputy Smith referred to a new Deputy in the House who, while Deputy Smith was Minister for Agriculture, and previously, had been advocating higher prices for milk. He said that now that I was in a definite position, through having taken a hand in putting the present Minister for Agriculture into office, he was anxious to know—he referred to Deputy Cogan and to myself—if we had taken any steps to force the present Minister to give the prices which we said at one time that he should have given. I want to assure Deputy Smith that I am as anxious now for the same prices as I asked then. I did not have to wait for the urge of Deputy Smith to put the matter before the present Minister for Agriculture.

In passing, let me say to Deputy Smith that, in so far as the present Minister for Agriculture holds office, I have not been consulted and I have had no part in putting him into the position he holds. Being an Independent Deputy, I can only speak for myself. The implication of Deputy Smith was that the Independent group selected Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture. I was not consulted as to who should be appointed to any Ministry, and, therefore, I have not had, as Deputy Smith suggested, any hand in putting the present Minister in office. I hope I have made myself quite clear on that point.

Early in my period as a Deputy, I put a question to the present Minister asking for an increased price for milk. On the 4th May, in Volume 110, column 1027, of the Parliamentary Debates, the following appears:—

"Mr. P. O'Reilly asked the Minister for Agriculture whether, in view of the decline in butter production by practically one-third since 1936, and the statutory increase in agricultural labourers' wages of 11/- per week, coupled with a serious increase in local rates since the present price of milk supplied to creameries was arranged last year, he will consider arranging for an increased price for milk to the farmer to cover his extra cost of production.

Mr. Dillon: The cost to the Exchequer of maintaining the present prices of milk for the farmer and of butter for the consumer is over £2,250,000 annually. Any increase in the price of milk delivered to creameries would add very substantially to that charge on public funds, and could not, in present circumstances, be justified, but as improved methods of grassland management make the realisation of our aim to produce butter from growing grass more proximate, the consequent reduction in our costs of production should materially increase the dairy farmers' profit and that is what matters."

I then put the following supplementary question:—

"In view of the fact that the prospects outlined may take years to accomplish and that the costs of production have considerably increased at the present time, does the Minister think it is just to compel the farmer to sell his product at the same price as he had been selling it at when the weekly wage of the worker was 11/- less than it is at the moment, and when the farmers' rates were lower than they are at the present time?"

Mr. Dillon replied:—

"When the Deputy says that this development may take years to mature, he is apparently overlooking the fact that I am now Minister for Agriculture."

I want to refer for a moment to these replies. I think the House will have to admit that these were perfectly fair questions, urged by my desire, and by the instructions of those who put me here, to get what they considered was a price that would pay them at least a labourer's wage for their work in the production of milk for butter. I must say that I was dissatisfied with the Minister's reply. I did not show signs of it because once one goes into public life, one must be prepared to take it "tough." At the same time, I felt the agricultural industry was not being properly treated. The point made by the Minister that £2,250,000 annually was the sum that was being paid in subsidy for milk production does not appear to me in the same light as it appears to him and, as it appears, I am sure, to a great many other people.

I am going to make a claim which, so far as I know, no other Deputy has made so far. I know I shall be tripped up on it. Nevertheless, I make it and it is this: there is no subsidy for the agricultural producer on anything. There is a subsidy for the consumer of agricultural produce. The first charge on any industry is the cost of production and until that is given, in the form of the price which the produce brings to the producer, there can be no question that any aid is given from an outside source. It is only right that anyone engaged in the production of any commodity should get the cost of production, and in the case of milk, the cost of production is the upkeep of the cows, the cost of labour, if paid for, and if it is not paid for, if it is family labour, the producer is still entitled to be paid for it. I claim that cost is not being given, and if there is any suggestion that £2,250,000 of the taxpayers' money is being given to the agricultural producer for milk. I say that is not correct. So much for Deputy Smith's taunt to me that I was not fighting for a price for the agricultural producer.

I asked a further question as to the cost of producing pigs on the 13th May, as reported in Volume 110, No. 12, of the Official Debates. The question I put was:—

"To ask the Minister for Agriculture whether his Department has any figures of the cost of production of pigs on home-produced foods, such as potatoes, compound meals and separated milk at present, and whether he will take steps to ensure that those persons who are endeavouring to preserve the industry shall at least get their costs."

The Minister replied:—

"The cost of pig production on home-produced foods depends largely on the cost of production of the various foods used. These costs vary from farm to farm and it is not practicable, in present circumstances, to collect figures on which a reliable national average could be based. From such information as is available, however, I would say that the present prices for bacon pigs cover the cost of production where the pig rearers themselves grow most of the food required and show reasonable efficiency in their methods of production."

I then asked the following supplementary question:—

"Can the Minister say that the Pigs and Bacon Commission accept the statement that it takes 22 cwts. of potatoes to produce 1 cwt. of pork for bacon and, in view of the present market value of 14/- per cwt. for table potatoes and even taking a lower value of 10/- per cwt. for ware potatoes for pig feeding, does he think the present price for bacon pigs is adequate to cover the cost of production?"

The Minister replied:—

"I feel quite certain that the Deputy and the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Commission will agree with me that a pig can no more live on 22 cwts. of potatoes than he or I could live on blancmange."

Again, I claim that was not a satisfactory answer. Later on, as a matter of fact I think it was on the same occasion, I made an effort to get in a further supplementary, but the Chair, with all respect, owing to some confusion which arose, passed on to the next question and so I did not get an opportunity.

There was some uproar, according to the Deputy?

There was a bit of amusement, at least.

The Chair does not look on this House as a house of amusement, hence the next question.

Probably I did not describe it properly. Taking the Minister's reply, that he believed that the present price of £9 10s. 0d. per cwt. was adequate to pay the cost of producing pigs for the farmers who produced the bulk of the food required and who showed reasonable efficiency in doing so, and, furthermore, my supplementary in which I suggested that it took 22 cwts. of potatoes to produce 1 cwt. of pork and his reply, which implied that that was not a balanced ration, with which I agree, I would suggest a substitute ration which would be made up as follows:—17 cwts. of potatoes at 10/- per cwt., amounting to £8 10s. 0d.; 1 cwt. of maize meal or even of compound meal, 28/- per cwt.; skim milk, 10/-. That would give a total of £10 8s. 0d. There is nothing allowed in that calculation for the cost of fire, labour and the risk of loss. If, with food grown on the farm it costs £10 8s. 0d. to produce 1 cwt. of pork, without taking into account the cost of labour and the risk of loss, how can the Minister claim that pork can be produced and sold profitably at £9 10s. 0d. per cwt.?

At what price does the Deputy think it can be produced profitably?

It would want to be more than £10 8s. 0d. I am not giving any figure for the cost of fire, the cost of labour or the risk of loss, and I would say that it would want to be considerably higher than £10.

What would be the figure?

At the moment I have not accurate figures for these items and I will not put up a figure on which I cannot stand. If the Minister wants to encourage either milk production or pig production, prices must be increased. I see no hope of doing either, unless that is done, and, so far at least as milk production is concerned, it is a matter of concern not alone for the people engaged in milk production, but for the people of the cities and towns, because, with the present very remunerative prices for store cattle, there is a great temptation to those who have been engaged in milk production for a long number of years to reduce it still further. The actual figures of milk production for the present year will not bear out what I say at the moment, in comparison with last year. I understand that there have been increased supplies of milk to creameries in the present year, but that, I hold, is due to the mild spring and consequent improvement in grass. The temptation, however, is there to turn over to the production of stores, particularly on those farms where hired labour has to be employed.

Deputy Corry said that the price of stores had gone down by £10 a head.

The fact remains at the moment that, having a much lesser labour content, it offers a better prospect for the farmer who has to carry on with hired labour. Self-preservation is the first law of nature and he must turn to what yields him the greatest prospect of reward.

I think it was a mistake for the Minister to have made these clever replies which were made here, because they have a discouraging effect on the people down the country. I find, in moving amongst the people who put me here, that there is much greater resentment on their part than on mine by reason of the replies the Minister gave, and I appeal to him, for the sake of the future of the industry over which he now presides and the conditions of which we are all aware he is very anxious to improve—there is no question about his sincerity in that respect—to adopt a more reasonable attitude towards the people engaged in the industry. It is a mistake for the leader of any Department to antagonise the people whom he proposes to lead. I claim that he will not get the same results as he would get if he adopted a more reasonable rather than slight. I hope that my attitude, an attitude of encouragement intervening in the family quarrel between the Minister and the ex-Minister will not bring a ton of bricks down on my head, but, if it does, I hope I will survive.

I am possibly the last of the newcomers to this House and I waited very specifically for this debate to make this, my maiden speech. I naturally had a very specific reason for waiting for this debate, it being that I come from an area which is described as the premier dairying county in Ireland, Limerick. I felt very pleased on Friday last when I heard the Minister for Agriculture paying a tribute to the former Minister, Dr. Ryan, for introducing the farm improvements scheme. I appreciate that very much. As a working farmer in West Limerick, with a practical knowledge of this scheme, I should like to tell the Minister and Deputies that more drainage under this scheme has been done in County Limerick than in any area of its size in the State. The Department's figures, I am sure, will bear this out, which goes to prove that the part of Limerick I come from is not wholly or solely in the Golden Vale.

In selecting the farm improvements scheme as No. 1 on my programme, I do so for the purpose of appealing for a 60 per cent. grant towards the total cost as against 50 per cent. of the labour cost of five years ago, when wages were 25 per cent. lower. I think the Minister and every Deputy will admit that drainage is the most reproductive of all the works under this scheme. More manual labour and more skill is required than in the case of other works. In the congested area of West Limerick from which I come, it takes an average of 16 to 18 perches for main drains and 60 to 70 perches of minor drainage to the statute acre. In support of my appeal for 60 per cent. rather than 50 per cent., I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister this very important fact. Many farmers, to my knowledge, quarry stones and cart them six or eight miles for this work and pay 3/- to 5/- for each horse load at the quarry. It takes two good loads of stones to do three perches of drains which gives an idea of the cost, apart from the labour of excavating and closing.

I am sure that every Deputy will admit that we had practically no field drainage in this country for the past 30 or 40 years, until this scheme was started, and in fact I will say that the farmers had almost lost the art of drainage. Were it not for the six or seven years' constant instruction and supervision by the Department's officers, hundreds of our farmers would have lost the art, which in itself is an answer to the Minister in the matter of inspectors going inside the ditches and boundaries of our farms. I should like the Minister to take note of this fact, which I repeat: the art of drainage was lost, were it not for the fact that officers of the Department of Agriculture were there to instruct and supervise. The work now done is far superior to any work done for the past 50 or 60 years. I heard the Minister pay a tribute to the old Board of Works, but I say that the work done in the past five or six years is far superior to any work done by the old Board of Works, or even by the old landlords. If my words are doubted I invite any Deputy to come down to West Limerick and see for himself the work which has been executed west of the Mullach an Radhach range on the low-lying land around Newcastle West and Drumcollogher.

I come now to the point which Deputy O'Reilly made with regard to potatoes. This has been my own experience in West Limerick. I have seen from ten to 12 tons of potatoes per acre produced on land which was drained under the scheme and which formerly had been useless. If we are to balance our economy I see no better way than to reclaim the thousands of acres that could be reclaimed so as to feed our pigs and poultry instead of looking for uncertain supplies of maize from the Argentine and the United States. When the dollar pool has been drained we must then come back again and drain the cut-away bogs to feed our live stock. The policy of the pig in Ireland and the plough in the Argentine is a bad policy. It is an unwise policy. It is a most uncertain policy. Many of my neighbours have increased their cows by 20 or 30 per cent. by reclaiming land and have been able to have more winter feeding per head than formerly.

I would like, for purposes of comparison, to mention one point and to bring it home very forcibly to the Minister, especially in connection with the new scheme which he recently initiated for the Counties of Mayo and Galway. The grants paid for drainage under what we will call the "Dr. Ryan scheme" usually cost the State about £8 per acre and the work generally costs the farmer from £20 to £25. I wonder will the drainage in Galway and Mayo cost the State £30 per acre and will it be as well done? Farmers have told me that they would not let unskilled men in to drain their land, even if the Minister for Agriculture paid them. I will tell the Minister why. A badly made drain or a burst drain will definitely leave the land in a worse state than it was formerly. There is no way in which intensive drainage can be so efficiently and so economically carried out—I am sure the Minister will agree with me—as under the supervision of the owner with labour selected and employed by him.

I hope I am keeping within the terms of the debate. I am trying, this being my maiden speech, to do the best I can. Probably I waited too long but it never harms a man to sit, to listen and to learn. I got the point from Deputy O'Reilly about feeding pigs on a ration of maize and skim milk. I will deal with that later.

The Minister, with the aid of his experts and the officials of his Department, can challenge me now or later in this House, but I would like to tell him that 12 tons of potatoes from one reclaimed acre will fatten ten pigs and there will be enough seed for another acre. It will take three tons of Argentine maize, paid for by dollars, to feed the same number. Is that any guide to our future economy? If the Minister is prepared to abandon his wheat quota, he might replace it with a potato quota secured from the reclaimed land, not alone in West Limerick, but in many other counties in Eire.

I wish to deal with another matter under the heading of farm improvements. Fences, of course, are a most necessary part of the work of land reclamation. They provide shelter as well as drainage in addition to the ordinary uses associated with them. I have listened to the discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Lands and I have seen Deputies on my right, especially Deputies from Mayo and Galway, who struck me as being completely absorbed by one main subject, namely, land. I listened also to the debate on forestry. I heard very few Deputies giving any indication that they were greatly concerned about forestry. The Minister, as I have already indicated, paid a very well-deserved tribute to Deputy Dr. Ryan. I appreciate that. But we who live in rural Ireland would like that, in conjunction with the farm improvements scheme, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Lands would agree that for every £10, say, given in the form of a grant for farm improvement there would be a grant of £1 at least for the purpose of putting down shelter belts. The Minister has told us that he has at his office about 35,000 to 36,000 applications under the farm improvements scheme. If we could get 35,000 farmers in any financial year to plant 35,000 shelter belts, the Minister would be surprised at the transformation that would take place in many very barren areas. We should all be united in that common purpose. Whether we are Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or anything else, the important thing is to improve the general estate, which is Eire.

There is another important heading under the farm improvements scheme, that is, the provision of grass silos. I said in my opening remarks that more drainage has been done in County Limerick than in any other county of its size. I go further and say that more grass silos have been erected in County Limerick under the scheme than there have been in a dozen other counties put together. The grants for these, I think, should be increased by 50 per cent. There is no better way of helping the dairying industry and helping the rearing of calves. The Minister will readily understand that most of these silos have been filled during the past few weeks. When artificial manures become plentiful, I look forward to there being a silo on every farm of eight to ten cows. Some farmers in portions of West Limerick have two or three silos already.

All County Limerick is not blessed with a great rainfall. In my place we get a break from the Brandon Mountains and possibly have too much water, but there are some parts, immediately west of the Mullach an Radhach range, where for years dairy farmers have been seriously handicapped through lack of water. Under this scheme, there are water tanks for the storage of rainwater. Tanks to hold several thousand gallons have been put up in Drumcollogher and other areas bordering County Cork. They never went up until the scheme came in. In dry periods I have seen two or three men employed daily with horses and carts in carting water. The grant was not sufficient to buy the cement, but notwithstanding that, it was largely availed of.

Farm roads have been built under this scheme which would be a credit to any county council, often in remote places. The grants for this were only 10/- per perch. I know men who quarried and carted stones two or three miles and paid £3 10s. per day to the owners of stone crushers to make the roads. I waited specially for this particular Vote in order to subscribe to this farm improvements scheme, as I realise that it has been of tremendous importance to the people, especially in West Limerick. In view of the increase in agricultural wages and materials and the great reproductive value of this work, I appeal to the Minister to extend the good work of his predecessors and increase the grants under all the headings I have mentioned.

I would recommend to the Minister this grand and glorious statement, leaving it to his own judgment to guess the author. It has a very direct and important national application to our country:

"Remain faithful to the earth: it will always give something to eat to those who work it."

I come to the burning question that has been debated in this House for years before I came in. The farmers in County Limerick sent me because they believed, not alone in my sincerity but in my fighting ability, no matter who was in power, to try to do something to improve the condition of the dairy farmers in the County Limerick. On Friday last and yesterday, I listened to Deputy Smith making what, notwithstanding what Deputy Madden said about him last night, I thought was the finest speech ever made in this House. It lasted four and a quarter hours. I thought the record of the late Miss Mary MacSwiney of Cork would never be broken, but I am glad to say that if anyone broke that grand and glorious record of the scorching attack on the Treaty in Dublin in 1921 and 1922, it fell to the lot of Deputy Smith.

Deputy O'Reilly drove home a very hard and true fact when he interjected in the speech of Deputy Smith that it was costing the Government £2,250,000 to subsidise our dairy industry. The Minister should be prepared to ask his Government for a further increase to subsidise dairying. I make no apology as to where the money can be got, so long as I can, in my own way, make a decent effort to improve the lot of the dairy farmers in Limerick. I am a believer in the golden rule that the customer should pay for everything.

Deputy Madden said last night that he was tired of visiting the former Minister, Deputy Smith, and prior to that Deputy Ryan, on behalf of the dairy farmers of Limerick. I am surprised the Deputy did not tell this House, so that we could have it on record and publish it in the Limerick Leader or the Limerick Guardian, that quite recently—some time in the month of May—a very respectable deputation of the dairy farmers of Limerick was introduced by Deputy Madden to the Minister. The Minister is pretty well aware that at least four-fifths of that deputation, who came up from that dairying county of Limerick, were 100 per cent. Fine Gael adherents. They came up—I will give the men their due —to make a decent fight—they themselves being dairymen—for the dairy farmers.

I hope I am not misquoting the result of the findings of that interview. If I am, I have the man who led them sitting here on my right. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister is a very busy man he entertained the deputation for two and a half hours. My information is that he simply lectured them on what they should do in the County Limerick to improve dairying conditions. By way of preface, I should say that before Deputy Madden brought up the deputation from the County Limerick, the Limerick County Committee of Agriculture, I understand, on at least two occasions, had invited the Minister down to Limerick. He refused to go down to discuss dairying conditions with that committee which represents the premier dairying county in Ireland for the reason that he was a new Minister and had not time to go.

I could be critical and say things, but I do not intend to do that, because, in my opinion, you never get any dividends from doing so. Anyhow, the Minister did not go down. The deputation came up and the Minister started off by severely criticising the county committee of agriculture and Deputy Madden for being so unreasonable as to expect him to go to Limerick at all. At the same time, he emphasised that he was a very busy man since he had assumed office, and that he had no time for the grievances of the farmers in the County Limerick in regard to the price of milk. He then lectured the deputation and he tried to convince them that he was a real champion of the agricultural interest with an absolute knowledge of agriculture and of the dairying industry from A to Z. In other words, he assumed to himself that he was the dispenser of knowledge and the dispeller of gloom.

May I say that I do not accept the accuracy of this report?

Mr. Collins

If the Minister for Agriculture does not accept the accuracy of the report, and if I am any judge of form at all, I leave it to the fair judgment of one member of the deputation, Deputy Madden, who was responsible for making Deputy Dillon Minister for Agriculture.

The Deputy is silent.

Mr. Collins

Now there is a point I would like to make in connection with something that transpired between the Minister and the deputation. He assured the deputation that by the policy he was about to inaugurate, whereby he was going to give us two months' extra grass in the year, he would change the whole economy, so to speak, of our dairying industry. He hoped that by next spring he would be able to propagate, by new strains of grasses, the pastures of Limerick with a higher feeding value.

I referred to silos a little time ago. I am an absolute believer in silos, but I am not an absolute believer, although I am here to be convinced in this, that the Minister's policy of two months' extra grass in the County Limerick is going to be a success. I will tell the Minister why. With all due respect, the Minister is basing his political arguments on some report that he received from an expert in New Zealand or elsewhere. When the Minister makes comparisons with countries like New Zealand, I would like to tell him that in New Zealand they have ten months of growth and two months of dormancy. The climate is so mild in the dairying districts that they do not need even to house their cattle. I wonder had the Minister considered the climatic and geographical conditions of this country when speaking so much about his two months' extra grass. Let us, for instance, take this past spring. As we all know, we had a beautiful soft month of March. There was a grand soft growth in that month, but what happened? In the County Limerick, where we are in the habit of putting in early potatoes, we just had them, so to speak, shooting above the ground when we got bad April frosts that simply cut them down. That in itself should be a clear indication to the Minister that what is a sound logical economy for a country like New Zealand can be a very doubtful and very unwise policy for this country.

I do not want to be considered as an absolute critic altogether. I should like to be constructive and to contribute in my own little way some constructive ideas on this matter. I put it to the Minister that he should get down to the principle and the policy of encouraging people to put up silos. If we do that we will be doing something useful and can forget about foreign feeding for our dairy stock and dairy cows and for the rearing of our calves.

I come back now to the important factor, and that is the price of milk and where the money is going to be got. I do not mind whether the Minister has to go to the Minister for Finance or, indeed, where he has to go to get the money, but I am going to make a serious effort in this House to try to bring home to him that agriculture is the basic industry of this country and that, unless it is prosperous, no other industry in the country can be prosperous, because it is only on the spending ability of the farmer classes and on the wealth that they actually produce from the land that our other industries can draw the money that will enable them to carry on. I would like to see my Labour friends realise that fact. Possibly we will be putting them to the test in the very near future—that every businessman, every wage earner and every labourer in the country is entirely dependent on the farmer for his wages.

The farmers are not dependent on labour at all?

You know that the basic industry of this country is agriculture and that the backbone of the Irish nation is the dairying industry.

The Minister does not want any labour in this country.

I repeat again these facts and I challenge contradiction in this House or outside it when I say that every businessman, every wage earner and every labourer in this country is entirely dependent on the farmer for his wages. I repeat that, with all due respects.

Agreed, but the farmer cannot live without the labourer. I think you must agree to that, too.

I think Deputy McAuliffe comes from a rural area like myself.

Deputy McAuliffe is a farmer.

I come from a small farm and I know all about it, but what Deputy McAuliffe has said should be recorded here and afterwards, if we like, we can debate it elsewhere. Deputy McAuliffe cannot convince me that if the dairy farmers in North Cork are struck down the agricultural labourers in North Cork will not be struck down too. I am sorry the Minister has gone.

With regard to the price of milk, there is one point that I would like to bring home to the Minister for Agriculture. He says that he cannot go to the Government and ask for a figure greater than £2,500,000 in order to keep our basic industry agriculture, and the dairy industry, the backbone of the Irish nation, on their feet. If he does not like to go to the Government, possibly the reason he would put forth in support of it is this magic figure known as the cost-of-living index, which is a thing that all Governments and all Parties play up to. My conception of this magic figure is that we all try to keep the cost of living down for the wage-earning classes; that is the important thing we are all interested in. I would like to tell Deputy Dunne and the other Labour Deputies who are here for Dublin that 75 per cent. of the wage-earning classes of the country are housed in greater Dublin and in Dún Laoghaire. That means there is 25 per cent. in the balance of the area in the Twenty-Six Counties.

What is your source?

I will give you the source of these figures if you doubt my word.

It is customary when you quote.

I have not the source, but if demanded, I can produce it at any time to Deputy Dunne. I repeat the statement that 75 per cent. of the wage earners live in greater Dublin and Dún Laoghaire.

Including the professional classes.

The wage-earning classes, my dear friend Deputy Davin, whether they be white-shirted, greyshirted or not shirted at all. The point I want to make in connection with that argument is that in County Limerick it takes 2.29 gallons of milk to produce 1 lb. of butter and for the same quantity of milk the housewives of the wage-earning classes in greater Dublin and Dún Laoghaire are paying 6/8d. We have unfortunately only 6 ozs. per head of butter as our ration, which at the subsidised price costs roughly 1/- per head. If the Deputies on the Labour Benches and on the other benches associated with the Government are seriously concerned with preserving the dairy industry on a sound footing they must be prepared to do something to keep it there. In England, for instance, the basic industry is coal, but our basic industry is agriculture. If the cost of production of coal in England goes up any points, the costings can be passed on to the subsidiary industries, but when the costings go up in the dairy industry here who are we to pass it on to?

To the fellows who made an appeal for funds for Fianna Fáil.

That does not strike me as being constructive or logical.

It is, for the industrialists.

I am not interested in the industrialists or in anybody else except the dairy farmers of Limerick, and I speak on their behalf. Deputy Dunne and the other Labour Deputies would be on their heels in an uproar if the cost-of-living index went up. At the moment the butter ration costs 1/-per head per week. If we could induce an average family of five or six people —or people who are interested in the dairy industry would help and Deputy Madden would help to induce them—to increase the cost of milk to the farmers it would increase the price of the present ration by twopence. That is an increase of 1/- per week to an average family. We could then guarantee an all-round price of ¼ per gallon to the dairy farmers, not alone in Limerick, but in Cork, Kilkenny, Tipperary and elsewhere. I may be censured by the Labour Deputies for making such a suggestion, because by making it, I am encouraging a rise in the magic figure, the cost-of-living index.

Why do you say "magic" figure? Is it not a real figure?

When I suggest here to pass on the price that golden rule must be considered, but I have no doubt that when I go back to Limerick the agricultural workers will say "Hear, hear!"

Will people in receipt of home assistance or old age pensioners say it?

I am sure that Deputy McAuliffe has been for a long time associated with the public life of his own native Cork and he knows thoroughly that under the Fianna Fáil Government when Deputy Ryan had charge of that Department the old age pensioner or the person in receipt of home assistance was never left without a piece of butter.

I never heard of them getting anything for nothing.

Deputy Collins should be allowed to speak.

They are helping me a lot.

I am not interested in what helps the Deputy, but in keeping order and decorum in the House.

In making the demand that we should pass on the increased price of butter to the wage-earning classes and the others, I should like to say that the actual producers, the farming community, consume one-fifth of the total production of butter in this country, because they are entitled, owing to their supplies of milk to the creameries, to an extra ration over and above what an ordinary person is entitled to receive. We had a bread strike recently in Dublin and the cost of living factor was a very important matter in connection with that. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told the master bakers that they would get no relief from his Department. The result was that they passed on the increase which was given to the bakers to the consumers.

Did they?

Absolutely. They were allowed to increase the price of bread.

When was the Order made?

Deputy Davin need not have any doubts about that. They passed on the increased cost to the consumer. If the Minister for Agriculture is in any way reluctant about going to the Minister for Finance and asking him to provide the funds or the wherewithal to give the dairy farmers an increased price for milk—Deputy Madden last night asked for ? per gallon; I will be more moderate and say that the dairy farmers of Limerick will be satisfied if they get ¼ a gallon all the year round—I would suggest that he would put the points which I have made before the Minister. I think Labour Deputies representing Dublin would hardly disagree if we asked the ordinary householder in Dublin for a weekly subscription, so to speak, of 1/- in order to keep that basic industry on a sound, firm footing, especially as the dairying industry is the backbone of the nation. I do not think any family in Dublin would be reluctant to contribute that extra amount. We must realise that from the dairy industry we get a large number of subsidiary industries. We have the condensed milk industry, the cheese industry, the tinned cream industry, the skimmed milk industry and other industries which are dependent on the by-products of milk. I was listening to Deputy Hickey's speech and I was really surprised that a man with a city mentality should have such a fine, thorough grasp of the conditions.

Deputy MacEntee called him a humbug.

It does not matter what Deputy MacEntee called him. As a newcomer to this House making my maiden speech I think I am entitled to a fair hearing. I am doing my best. I would not be scared by anybody. What I think and how I feel is a matter for myself. Not even the Minister for Agriculture, who has all the art and guile of the old Parliamentary school, would upset me. I will stick to my guns. Deputy Hickey was making a comparison between the milk yields and the milk production in Southern and Northern Ireland. While his point was, I think, a very important one, I should like to answer him in this way. When he accuses us, so to speak, in County Limerick, County Cork and County Tipperary of dropping down on our milk production, I should like to inform him that that was not the fault of our farmers, because during the war they had plenty of fertilisers in Northern Ireland but we had none at all in Southern Ireland. The British Government were never considerate to us except it suited their own book.

I listened to the Minister talking about phosphates, basic slag, etc. I should like to get from the Minister a very clear assurance on the question of ground limestone. The former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, had a scheme for that which I have no doubt he would have put into operation. The present Minister, I think, stated that he is handing over this particular scheme to private individuals. If that is so, I should like to ask him what steps, if any, have been taken to initiate a scheme for the farmers of West Limerick.

If the Minister has abandoned the principle of the scheme prepared by his predecessor, Deputy Smith, I should like him to inform me what steps if any are being taken to put the lime scheme in operation in County Limerick. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to subsidise heavily lime or other manures so as to assist the farmers to regain the fertility of the soil. The Minister is perfectly well aware of the fact that manures were not available during the war. Now, of course, artificial manures are too dear for the small farmers. That is admitted by everybody. Without the aid of a heavy subsidy I believe that it would be years before the pasture would be fit to maintain dairy cattle in normal production. I would ask the Minister to go full steam ahead with that lime scheme. Drainage and manures are very closely related, but without drainage manures are useless. Taken together they are, however, conducive to good milk production. For that reason we in the County Limerick want more lime. We have more people in the congested areas of Limerick depending on lime than on basic slag. The Minister is quite well aware that 65 per cent. to 75 per cent. of it is lime —the rest is dross. In the congested areas crushed lime or burned lime is the manure that is particularly suitable. If our farmers could get it, it would be an incentive to them to produce extra milk and I need hardly say that the more milk we produce the more butter we can produce also. When I mention basic slag I should like to impress upon the Minister that in West County Limerick we have to pay £13 5s. a ton for it although that quantity is only sufficient to manure two acres of land. For the same amount of money we can purchase burned lime which will adequately manure six acres of land.

I make that point for the sole reason of driving home to the Minister the vital necessity of lime. In the congested areas of Limerick plenty of lime is needed. I am not suffering from an overdose of optimism in any way with regard to the points I have made. I shall not generate any false enthusiasm such as our present Minister for Agriculture did when he told the British that he would drown them with eggs. I should, however, like to tell the Minister that if we in County Limerick, which we can claim to be the premier dairying county, get a fair break we will, so to speak, choke him with butter.

As we have heard so much in this Debate about animals and inanimate things I think it is high time we had a few words about human beings. The human beings to whom I want to refer are, firstly, the agricultural workers of this country. While they may be in the minority so far as the industry is concerned, in that they are numerically less than the proprietors and their families, I hold the view that the agricultural labourer is, in fact, the backbone of the industry. It has been stated here over and over again until it becomes almost nauseating, but it is nevertheless true, that agriculture is our basic industry. Everybody agrees upon that. I consider that the principal operatives in agriculture are the agricultural labourers.

Listening to speeches made in the House by Deputies of all Parties, I have felt for a considerable time past that so far as the agricultural labourer is concerned, he is a forgotten man. Very little care exists as to his welfare whatever expressions—such as was made last night by Deputy Corry—of worry in that regard may be made. These things mean nothing when it comes to a question—as was the case last Saturday at Cork County Committee of Agriculture—of improving the lot of the agricultural labourer. These statements of concern are just so much eyewash. While they are being made for the purpose of capturing votes at election time, the fact is that the agricultural labourer throughout the length and breadth of the country suffers relatively more than any wage earner in any other industry. His standard working week is longer than that obtaining in most other industries. His wages on an average are approximately little more than half the wages of unskilled workers in far less important industries. On top of that, what is to me the greatest crime of all and something which the agricultural employers of this country should well be ashamed of is the fact that the agricultural labourer alone of all sections of the community has not yet got, in 1948, a weekly half day. He has not even got four hours off out of the 54, nor yet has he got six days' annual leave in which he can rest himself and take his family away somewhere with his meagre savings—if he has any such thing as savings—which I doubt. I feel gratified by the expression of concern which was made by the present Minister with regard to the status of the agricultural worker.

He stated that the status of the agricultural worker should be raised to that of the industrial worker in the cities and the towns. He is conceding something with which every member of the Labour Party and every progressive idealist in the country are in complete agreement. There are certain steps which must be taken fairly soon. It is a long way from the status of the agricultural worker at the present time to the status of the industrial worker. There are a variety of reasons for the difference in the wages and working conditions of the industrial worker and the wages and working conditions of the farm labourer. But the principal reason is one which has not been stated too often in this House. In my view the reason is the absolute lack of organisation on the part of the agricultural workers in years gone by and the high degree of organisation in the industrial sphere when it comes to matters relating to simple rights. In this important debate I would ask the Minister to indicate in his reply what his attitude is in regard to the introduction of a conditions of employment Act for agricultural labourers?

At the present time we have an Agricultural Wages Board. It is, I think, the most undemocratic board that was ever set up in this country. On both sides, its members are hand-picked. So far as I am aware they are not elected to sit on the board by any body of employers or of workers. They meet at odd intervals—once or twice per year— and they lay down what they consider to be a fair minimum rate for agricultural labourers. It is true to say that that minimum rate is based upon the productivity and upon the results gained from the most unproductive farms in the country. I have a certain sympathy with Deputies who come from very impoverished areas where the land is bad and the farms are small; I have sympathy with their point of view when they indicate their difficulties in those areas in paying labourers. But I say that in an area such as Limerick, about which the last Deputy spoke, or in Leinster and the best part of Munster, there is no difficulty whatsoever in paying a living wage to the agricultural workers; there is, however, great difficulty in getting the farmer employer to admit the right of the agricultural labourer to a fair share of the wealth that he produces. It is an unfortunate comment on our social structure that that particular parsimony seems to derive from ownership of land, not alone in this country but in other countries as well. The Minister has circularised the county committees of agriculture asking for their views upon the grant of a weekly half-holiday and six days' annual holidays to agricultural labourers. As far as one can gather from the Press reports, the replies so far have been somewhat mixed. It does not surprise me to see replies coming from certain county committees of agriculture absolutely rejecting the idea. Most of these county committees of agriculture are made up of farmers who feel that they would be voting against their own interests if they were to admit any such right on the part of their workers.

Arguments have been advanced in the Press and at meetings of county committees to prove that if this terrible step is taken of granting a half-day per week to farm labourers and six days' annual holidays, the agricultural industry will be destroyed. On one occasion during the last half century in Britain, when little children were working in the spinning mills, it was proposed in the British Parliament that a law should be introduced to prevent this ugly practice. The announcement of that proposal was heralded throughout the country as something which would bring about the downfall of the mighty British Empire. At the present time we are being asked to believe that if the agricultural labourer gets one half day per week and six days' annual holidays irremediable harm will be done to agriculture. I regard that as utter and complete nonsense. In refutation of that puerile argument one need only visit the North County Dublin. That area contains some of the most efficient tillage farmers in the country—farmers who get as much, if not more, from their land than do their colleagues in other parts of the country. That area, too, has its share of dairy farmers. In that district 99.9 per cent. of the farmers allow their workers at the present time a weekly half-holiday, six days' annual holiday, a 50-hour week in the summer time—not 54—and a 47-hour week in the winter time. They run their farms to their own satisfaction and with, perhaps, greater efficiency than those in any other part of the country.

I think the present Minister for Agriculture and the inter-Party Government would be taking an important step forward and admitting the equity of the workers' claim to decent treatment, by introducing an Act which would protect them. No matter what the farmer Deputies of this House may say as to the general goodwill towards agricultural labourers, it is true that the agricultural labourer is to-day an exploited individual. Only in the rare case does one find that happy relationship where the agricultural worker is more or less part of the family.

Take, then, the indoor worker—the spalpeen. I think it is time that some measure was introduced to abolish the present contract system in relation to indoor work. At the present time there is absolutely no restriction upon the number of hours that the indoor worker may be required to put in by his employer. It is time we got away from that state of affairs in this country. Whether it be popular or unpopular should not be the test. The test should be whether it is right or wrong. Beyond question, it is wrong that a man should be made to work a considerably greater number of hours than his colleagues for a considerably lesser wage per week.

We have heard a good deal of talk about emigration and a commission has been set up to investigate the causes of emigration. I believe that the low standard of living of those who ordinarily get their bread and butter by working on the land is the principal contributory cause to emigration.

The young people, the male youths especially, when they come to manhood, hear of the better conditions in the cities and towns or abroad, and they are attracted away from the land, attracted from the rural areas, by reason of the fact that they cannot get a decent living there. I do not deny that agriculture is something of a problem, a basic problem. Neither do I attempt to deny the obvious fact that much must be done for the working farmer. I do absolutely deny that the present wage of the farm labourer represents the maximum of the farmer's ability to pay. I also reject absolutely the idea that Irish agriculture cannot afford a weekly half-holiday and annual holidays to its workers. I hope sincerely, for the sake of agriculture, for the sake of its prosperity in the future and in order that the maximum number of workers may be held in rural areas, that this elementary step of providing these fundamental rights will be taken by the Government during the current year.

I want to refer to compulsory tillage. It seems to me that among the Opposition there is considerable disagreement over this question. From my point of view, I am not without fear concerning the abandonment of compulsory tillage. I am aware that the Minister believes that by virtue of the offer of guaranteed prices over a number of years he will be able to induce the farmer to continue to till. I wish I could find it within me to accept that idea, but unfortunately I cannot. I think there is a likelihood of a falling-off in tillage when compulsion is removed, and in the present circumstances it would be a major tragedy for the country if tillage were reduced to any extent. One only needs to read the daily papers to see that to all intents and purposes we are racing headlong for another international conflict. We all hope very earnestly that that does not materialise, but our hopes will have very little to do with it. If it does materialise, we must look to our own resources.

I urge upon the Minister and the Government the desirability of reconsidering the abandonment of compulsory tillage before the year is out. I think it is a most serious step, and it is not a request I would make were I convinced, as the Minister appears to be convinced, that the farmers will voluntarily sow. I do not believe they will. As has been stated here by some Deputies representing the farmers, I think that there will be a tendency to get out of tillage if there is money to be made more easily in other directions.

It is not wise, I would say, in view of Ministerial statements recently made, that emphasis should have been upon grass, a return to grass. In years gone by we had a sad history so far as our grass lands were concerned. We all have memories—and I am sure the Minister can recollect too—of vast estates peopled only by a man and his dog. I do not want to return to that state of affairs. If there is a reduction in tillage it seems to me there will be a likelihood of a falling-off in the volume of employment available for labourers in rural areas and that will be a distinct disadvantage from the point of view of the flight from the land.

Much has been said about the technical side of the dairying industry. I want to make some reference to the human side of it, if Deputies do not mind too much. It has been found in many areas that men cannot be induced to work at dairying, that workers will not undertake jobs milking cows. I have heard wonder expressed at that. I do not wonder because the reason is obvious to me. The dairy worker is in an especially bad position from the point of view of treatment and wages. In many cases his is a seven-day week. The conditions under which he has to work are often most unsatisfactory.

I think it is true to say that in the City of Dublin milk production is carried out in a most insanitary, scandalous and dangerous manner from the point of view of public health. During the last 12 months there was a report issued by the Commission of Inquiry into the Milk Supply in the Dublin Sales District. That report constituted a complete indictment of the whole business of milk production and supply in Dublin City and County. The milkers in the City of Dublin, working purely for the city dairymen, work under conditions that are simply appalling to think of. In many cases they come to work at 1 a.m. They milk their cows, return to the city with their milk and knock off in the region of 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. They return to work at 2 p.m., continue for four or five hours, and for the seven days of the week that goes on.

While the aggregate number of hours worked may not be more than 50 in some cases—more often it is in the neighbourhood of 60, 70 or 80 hours—at the same time, the terribly racking effect that that kind of existence must have on the health of the individuals concerned is obvious. It was mentioned in the report of the commission to which I referred— mentioned in the usual guarded way of such reports—that the labour conditions in this industry in Dublin leave much to be desired. It is quite obvious to everybody that if the conditions surrounding the sources of the milk supply are not the most ideal, the danger to public health can be very great. I do think that the tremendous incidence of tuberculosis in this city is traceable to no small extent to the very bad conditions that surround the supply of milk which is used by almost 500,000 people in the city. There are very few dairies in the City of Dublin that can be said to be really hygienic.

I would urge the Minister to examine that report and to undertake at the earliest opportunity the consideration of the question of what can be done to improve the conditions surrounding the production and supply of milk in Dublin City and County. It seems to me to be a job on which those primarily responsible have fallen down completely. It may well be said that in Dublin City we have a type of milk producer that does not exist elsewhere. It may well be that in Dublin we have a problem which is peculiar to the capital in that connection. I do believe that in time to come it may be necessary to consider the municipalisation of this industry in the interests of public health alone, apart altogether from the very essential interest of the workers in that industry.

There is a further matter to which I want to make reference, one concerning the capital and also concerning the small farmers of Fingal, to whom I referred previously. We have a market in the centre of the city for the sale of the produce of the small farms in North County Dublin principally. This market is a disgrace to any modern city both from the point of view of its size and from the point of view of the conveniences, or lack of conveniences, provided there for the working farmers and labourers who come long distances driving their horses from ten to 14 and up to 18 miles.

Has the Minister any control over it?

Actually it is the Corporation of Dublin which controls this market. I simply want to draw the attention of the Minister, as Minister for Agriculture, to this market, and I would ask him to take the opportunity on some occasion, to view it for himself.

I know it for the last 40 years.

Then the Minister must be aware of the inadequacy of this particular market. If it were in order, I think his Department should draw the attention of the corporation to the need for the establishment of a new, better, more spacious and more modern market for these men who from the point of view of producing vegetables for the citizens of Dublin, represent a very essential lifeline for the city.

Finally, I want to refer to a matter which I raised yesterday by way of question, and which concerns the payment and the working conditions of the workers employed at the Munster Institute in Cork. The Munster Institute, I understand, is run under the authority of the Department of Agriculture. The Albert College in Dublin is run under the authority of University College and it operates by virtue of a grant which, I understand, comes through the Department.

Yes, for which I am not administratively responsible.

These colleges are known or at any rate the Albert College is known as the Model Farm. Whilst it is true that model crops are produced there and that every attempt is being made to produce a model cow, it cannot be argued that the wages and working conditions of the employees are in any way model. Bad and all as the conditions are in the Albert College in Dublin, the workers at the Munster Institute in Cork enjoy considerably less in the way of wages and working conditions. I have never heard any farmer, except very rarely, object to the payment of higher wages for agricultural workers except on the one score, the score of inability to pay. They all say that the agricultural worker deserves more but that they cannot afford it. That is their stock argument but it is not an argument that can be used in connection with the Munster Institute in Cork. No hardship would be incurred by the authorities granting to the workers engaged at that institute, similar conditions to those prevailing at the Albert College in Dublin. Again I would urge on the Minister to give reconsideration to this question, in so far as he has power to deal with it. Finally, I want to say that so far as I am concerned I represent primarily in this House the agricultural labourers and, as a supporter of the present Government, this Government, by me at any rate, will be judged on the amount of progress made on behalf of the agricultural worker and on the extent to which the agricultural worker is lifted from his present depressed condition to a condition of pride and dignity in this nation.

I propose to be very brief in my contribution to the debate on this Estimate, as I understand that an agreement has been reached that speeches will be curtailed in so far as it is possible to curtail them, consistent with a fair treatment of the particular points in which Deputies are interested. Let me say at the outset, that I think we all realise that the farmer is the backbone of the nation. He was always the backbone of this nation, and until we put the farming community on a proper footing and give them the same social uplift as the rest of our community enjoy, we cannot expect the full return from the farmers that we would otherwise get. There is need for the greatest co-operation between the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture. The future of our agricultural economy is bound up with the policy which we pursue with regard to land. I do not propose to deal with matters which arose on the Estimate for Lands, but I believe the two are bound up, and that only in future years will we realise what the present trend in our agricultural policy means. We must have agreement or a common line of thought between those who guide the policy with regard to land and those who guide our agricultural policy. I do not propose to speak any further on that, as I think my meaning is quite clear.

I think it is the aim of everybody in this House, irrespective of his political affiliations, to try to stem this terrible flight from our land. The Minister has a great responsibility on his shoulders in that respect. A lot will depend on his approach to this problem while he is in office. We know that we cannot stop our young people from leaving the country, from deserting the countryside, unless we have some alternative to offer them, unless we are able to give them employment on the farms at home at a decent wage and with recreational facilities which will prevent them from being tempted to the towns and cities. In order to do that, we must give a proper return to the farming community, and, by the farming community, I do not mean merely the farmers, but the farm labourers.

I think it is a recognised fact that, although roughly half our population are engaged in agricultural pursuits, that half of our population reap only one-quarter, or a little more, of the national income. That is a wrong state of affairs. Something must happen in the meantime, and it is no use blaming Fianna Fáil or the previous Government for their term of office. It is a much more deeply rooted problem, but I can say that the solution of that problem was not greatly helped in recent years by the Fianna Fáil Administration.

I am sorry that the Minister is not here, because I should prefer to say what I have to say on particular aspects of this Estimate when he is here. We in Clann na Poblachta realise that at present we are going through a transition period in connection with our economy. We are at the change-over from the seven or eight years of war economy or of a policy suited to the emergency period, and we, therefore, do not propose at this stage to be too critical of the policy which the Minister is about to pursue with regard to agriculture. I think we all realise that it would be premature on these grounds to criticise the Minister who has been such a short time in office. I want to suggest to the Minister, however, on behalf of the Party I represent, that we are prepared to give him every co-operation in carrying out his work and carrying out his policy; but if we find at a later stage that there is a reversion to the policy pursued here in previous years—I refer to the policy of the ranchers—then we will not, as a Party, give our support to that policy. As I have said it is as yet premature to judge. The country at the moment is going through a transition period and we are prepared to give the Minister every opportunity and every help that lies in our power to carry out those aspects of the policy which we support.

Let me also say that we are not critical of the Fianna Fáil efforts in the early years of their administration. They pursued a policy to the best of their ability at that time to overcome British aggression or British domination in this country. Their former aim was self-sufficiency, in so far as it could possibly be achieved. We, in Clann na Poblachta, fully believe in that policy. We realise that if we have not got the greatest possible measure of self-sufficiency in our economy, we can never hope for the political freedom we all so earnestly desire, namely a thirty-two county republic. That is why I say that, in the early stages of Fianna Fáil administration, they had good ideas which they carried out, but which they did not carry far enough.

The ultimate aim of all Parties is to put agriculture and the agricultural community on a sound basis. To do that we must get down to brass tacks and help the farmer in every possible way. The present Minister has very good ideas in regard to placing machinery at the disposal of farmers for the cultivation and saving of crops. I would like to stress that we believe that machinery should be placed at the disposal of the farming community on a co-operative basis. I say that in spite of the criticism that was levelled at the idea last night. We were told that the sun only shone for so many hours and so many days, and that there would be jealousy and trouble in regard to the machinery. I do not agree, and I do not think that most Deputies would agree. The machinery that I envisage should be in every parish and it should be at the disposal of every farmer in the parish. That is one of the means by which we can help to restore the agricultural community to its proper position.

There is another question, namely, the zoning of agriculture. I do not propose to go very deeply into that question at the moment. During the war years we had a compulsory tillage programme, the idea of which was quite good but the execution of which was very bad. There is no use asking a man to grow crops for which his land is not suited. Land which is suited to a certain crop should be devoted to the production of that crop.

The most important aspect in our drive to help the farmer is education. At the present time with many farmers the idea is that what was good enough for their father is good enough for them. That attitude is changing, but the only way we will eradicate it is by providing proper educational facilities for the young men and women whom we hope to keep on the land. They should get every opportunity of learning the most up-to-date and most scientific methods of agriculture.

Until we reach the stage that the farming community has the same status as other sections in our political life, we cannot hope for the return from agriculture which it is capable of giving. If agriculture is down in the dumps, other sections of the community are bound to suffer. If agriculture is on the top of the wheel, every other section is bound to benefit.

There is another vital matter, that is the question of a guaranteed market. It is not right that the farmer, year in, year out, should be anxious as to what the price of his crops will be. The present Minister has remedied that situation, and the fact that he has given a guaranteed price is a great encouragement to farmers. We want that kept up.

A great deal of reference was made to the pig industry. One criticism that I have of Fianna Fáil is that in 1932, when they came into power, they did not make full use of our natural resources, one of which is fisheries. I would not deal with it on this Estimate but for the fact that fishmeal as a mixture is an ideal food for pigs. If we had our fishing fleets, the problem in our pig industry would not be nearly as acute as it is to-day.

I am not an expert on cattle—I do not pose as an expert on anything—but I am entirely in agreement that we should get the best possible price for our cattle abroad. It strikes me that we are selling 3d. worth of goods in a 1/- wrapping. We let our cattle go out on the hoof to Britain and elsewhere and we lose the best part of them. The Minister should explore every avenue and use every influence to see if we could get a good market for canned products. It is only common sense that if we kill at home we will have the best part of the produce and can sell the rest to foreign countries. In turn, that policy would create employment in canneries and factories and fresh industries could be started which would help to check the drift from the land. That would be fully in keeping with the policy which we in Clann na Poblachta always maintained.

I do not think anybody could offer criticism of that. It would be a great means of checking the rush from the land, not only to the cities and towns, but to Britain. I wish the new Minister every success in carrying out his policy and I hope that, with the help and encouragement given him by our Party in conjunction with the other Parties of this inter-Party Government, he will be on the right lines and that, at the end of his term of office, we will not have to criticise him.

I have had the privilege or the facility of reading the Minister's speech carefully, to see the points he made, especially in regard to policy; and I am rather surprised to hear members of the Labour Party and Clann na Poblachta talk about the Minister's policy, as if it were different from the Fianna Fáil policy. I do not see very much departure from the policy carried on in the last 15 or 16 years in agriculture. The Minister may have stressed certain tendencies, but he has not definitely made any statement in his speech which would show that he is departing from that policy— except, perhaps, that he is not going to go as far as we went and, therefore, should be less palatable to Deputy McQuillan and Clann na Poblachta than the Fianna Fáil policy on agriculture.

The Minister was guilty of certain inaccuracies and he contradicted himself a few times. He certainly was guilty of a great deal of exaggeration. He starts off by saying, as given at column 2588:—

"We find ourselves in the remarkable position that the live-stock population of this country has fallen to the lowest levels that have ever been known in our recorded history."

Then he goes on to give the number of cows, three-year-old cattle, two-year-old and yearly cattle and calves. In fact, the statement is not true. The total number of cattle, for instance, was lower at one period of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. He stresses in particular the number of cattle between one and two years old—that number was lower for a number of years under Cumann na nGaedheal. It is true that the number of cows and calves was lower in 1947 than they have been in this century— which may mean history as far as the Minister is concerned.

It is not so terribly important whether his statement is right or wrong. If the number of cows is low, what we are really concerned with is what we can do about it. If anyone would make a table of the trend in butter prices and beef prices and the number of cows, it would be apparent that, when milk prices are more remunerative than beef, the number of cows will go up, and when beef prices are more remunerative than milk, the number of cows will go down. That is a fact we must keep in mind, as it appears to be a fundamental fact which is not altered by any other condition whatever.

The next point is that practically half the cows are kept by farmers outside the creamery districts. I heard several speeches here which stressed the creamery farmer's difficulty more than anything else. We must remember that almost half the cows are outside creamery districts; in other words, in the farmers' butter area or the liquid milk area where liquid milk is supplied to cities and towns. Take those farmers who are not in a creamery area and who are not supplying milk to cities and towns. The only sales they have, so far as cows are concerned, are sales of farmers' butter. Last year, the price of farmers' butter to the farmer—that is, the price of fresh butter—was 2/11. Evidently the farmer did not think it a very good price, because, though we have not got enough statistics yet to test this, every Deputy here will say that, as far as his experience goes, there is not an increase in cows between April, 1947, and the present time. If that 2/11 a lb. that was paid last year had been an attractive price, one would expect to see more cows in the country. The only conclusion we can come to is that it was not an attractive price at all. Even so, the present Minister withdrew control this year and the result is that in many areas farmers' butter has been sold at ? a lb. this year, as compared with 2/11 last year.

But the people of the country paid a subsidy last year.

The Deputy is troubled. He came in to represent the farmers and he now wants to talk about the consumers. Let Deputy Lehane go down and tell the farmers that he is more concerned about the consumers and is standing for this price for farmers' butter.

What I am suggesting is that last year the butter manufacturers gave 2/1 a lb. for butter and this year they are giving 2/6.

No. It was 2/11 last year and ? this year. Deputy Lehane, since he came into the House, is concerned about the people of the country, but when going around at election time he was concerned only with the farmers' votes.

The butter merchants are paying 6d. a lb. more for butter this year than last year.

If we have turned Deputy Lehane from a politician into a statesman, this Dáil is a great place. We went back to ? a lb. this year. Does any Deputy, even Deputy Lehane, who is trying to bolster up this inter-Party Government, say that he knows of any farmer, in the County Cork or elsewhere, who is selling farmers' butter and is going to get into more cows in the coming year?

I know that butter merchants paid 6d. a lb. more for butter this year than last year.

Does any Deputy know of any farmer who is going to increase the number of cows as a result of the price of farmers' butter this year?

On a point of order, I can tell the Deputy that the farmers in Westmeath will increase the number of their cows because they are getting 3/- a lb. for their butter. Last Thursday in Mullingar they got as much as 3/3 per lb.

They are getting ? in my county.

I know from experience what they are getting.

It must be cart grease they are getting the ? for.

I do not mind if I go on record in the local newspapers in County Wexford as saying that the farmers in the County Wexford have been getting ? per lb. for their butter since the 1st May, and no more.

If they bring it up to the City of Dublin and if they are able to bring hundreds of lbs. of it, they will not have to go ten yards until they get 3/- a lb. for it.

Last year the farmers in the County Wexford could sell their butter for 2/11 per lb. They were able to get that for it in the County Wexford last year without coming up to Dublin with it.

We did not get it.

And this year they are getting 2/3 per lb. Who paid for it I do not know, but that is the position. Deputy Lehane and Deputy Fagan are now so concerned as to who is paying for it that we can hardly get on with the business here. So far as I know, we got no increase in the number of cows last year when butter was 2/11 per lb. Deputy Fagan says that we are going to get an increase this year. If we are, well and good. May I say that if we are we made a great mistake in paying so much for butter last year? However, we have not got agreement on that and we may pass on.

About April of 1947 the price of milk to the creameries was fixed at a certain level. Some people said it was a good price while others said it was not enough. I think that practically all the Deputies who were on this side of the House at that time thought the price was a bit too low, but since they went to the other side of the House they seem to be satisfied enough with it. Meantime, the price has not gone up, even though the creamery farmer has his extras to meet. In the meantime his rates and wages have gone up, certain other expenses of the farmer have gone up, so that we have reached the point that the price that was paid last year to the creamery farmers did not bring about, as far as I know, an increase in the number of cows. Does the Minister for Agriculture think that, by sticking to the same price this year and with the farmers having to bear heavier expenses, we are going to get an increase in the number of cows? I do not think so. If the Minister thinks that he is he must have a very optimistic mind.

There is a third class of men who supply liquid milk to the towns and cities. They say they are not getting enough. Of course, their price is a very involved matter. It changes practically from year to year. At any rate, they complain that they are not getting enough. Taking all these things into consideration, is it likely that we are going to get more cows in this country? I do not think so.

In 1935 we had the Broy Harriers taking the farmers' cows.

What about the Blueshirts?

They took the farmer's last cow.

If Deputy Fagan studies the figures he will find that the number of cows after 1935 went up. The Deputy is making statements here for which there is no foundation at all.

I was looking at the Broy Harriers taking the farmers' cows. We also had John Brown.

Unfortunately, it was necessary to have somebody like John Brown to deal with Deputy Fagan and people like him. All that I have said points towards a decrease in the number of cows. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. It does not matter much about the Broy Harriers or about the Blueshirts. They are finished with. What does matter is the future with regard to the number of cows in the country. That is what we want to get at, and see if we are moving in a direction where we will get more cows because that is very important. I do not think that we are. I want the Minister to give us the reasons that he has in mind for believing that we are going to have a vast increase in live stock in the time to come. The Minister, despite the blue spectacle which he painted, and which Deputy Fagan has been painting of 1935, said:—

"I still believe that we are standing on the threshold of the greatest period of expansion in the agricultural industry of this country that we have ever known."

I do not think you can have a great expansion in agricultural production unless you have an expansion in the number of cows, because that is very important. It is the foundation of the biggest item in the agricultural industry. It helps in many of the other component parts of agricultural output. Therefore, if we are not too sure that we are going to get an expansion in the number of cows, I do not think we can hope for a great expansion generally. Now, you must have cows to have milk, butter and cheese. That must be evident to everybody, even to Deputy Lehane, and unless you have cows you cannot have calves, and unless you have calves you cannot have cattle, so there you are.

What about the 500,000 that you slaughtered?

If I have to go back to 1935 I must tell the younger Deputies here that we had to take those measures because the Opposition was helping the British against us at that time. We could not help it, we had to do it. As well as having more calves it will eventually mean more cattle. The number of cows in the country will have an influence on some of our other live-stock industries—in the feeding of pigs, poultry and so on.

There has also been talk here about the fertilisation of our soil. I think there are no animals so important as cows because they are winter fed, and if they are well fed they will have a bigger influence than any other class of animal on the fertilisation of the soil. If the Minister is right, that we are on the threshold of a big expansion in agriculture, we want to be sure, first of all, that we are moving in the right direction to increase the number of cows in the country. In order to be sure of that, those on this side of the House at any rate—I cannot speak for the Deputies on the other side—will want something more tangible than a Ministerial prophecy, because we do not think that is a sufficient ground to go upon. I do not want to delay on any of these items too long, but I think that there is nothing more important than the number of cows from every point of view, and I hope when the Minister is winding up this debate he will give us some grounds for agreeing with him that there is a chance of the number of cows going up rather than going down, as would appear to be the trend at the moment.

What about the subsidy of 10/- on calves?

What about it? I have mentioned already when we were desperately fighting against the mighty British Government and trying to save what we could of our cattle industry, while the British Government had men like Deputy Fagan helping them——

And you fought the British by killing the calves.

I may say that the Minister for Industry and Commerce played a noble part to encourage the British to carry on, by pointing out week after week that we were beaten in the economic war. But we were not beaten; we won in spite of them.

You cannot increase the number of cattle by having a subsidy on calves.

I know why Deputy Lehane is pip-squeaking. He came in as a farmers' Deputy and now he has to defend the farmers' policy.

The butter merchants are paying 6d. a lb. more than last year.

The butter merchants are paying 2/3 a lb. and Deputy Lehane knows that very well.

The price of butter is 2/11 now.

You do not know what you are talking about.

If the Deputy thinks he is going to bamboozle the farmers of Cork he can try it. I want to go on to the farm buildings scheme. The Minister for Agriculture in his speech, which is here in column 2591, talking about Marshall aid, said that if Marshall aid be made available to our country by way of grant it would be possible to do certain things, among them the reconstruction of our farm buildings. Up to this point when the Minister made this speech, we were under the impression—the members of the Government may know better— that the farm buildings scheme could not be carried on because there were no materials for farm building, but now it is evident from what the Minister said that if we got money from the Marshall Aid Plan by way of grant, we could form a fund and do several things, among them the reconstruction of farm buildings. He confesses now that he could go on with the farm buildings scheme if the Minister for Finance would give him the money, but the Minister for Finance will not give it to him, and he therefore hopes to get it out of the Marshall aid fund. I thought the Minister was a little bit contradictory in some of his statements, for later on, when he was talking about the farm buildings scheme on column 2609, he said that it could not be carried on for lack of materials. He had even forgotten in the space of an hour or so what he had said about Marshall aid, that if he had the money he could go ahead and he goes back to the old excuse of the lack of building materials.

I suppose that we cannot compel the Minister to answer any question, but I would like him to tell us if it is money or materials. Which of them is keeping him from going on with the farm buildings scheme, because in one part of his speech he shows it is lack of money and in another part he shows that it is lack of material? If we knew which it was, at least we could understand, maybe, why the Minister is not going on with this scheme. When he gives two different excuses from two different angles in the same speech, it is very hard to know what the facts are and what is preventing the Minister from going ahead.

The Minister said then that he was going to drop this system of inspection. In columns 2593-4 he says that the Minister for Agriculture down to his most junior inspector will enter a farmer's land in future by invitation or not at all. Is that a considered statement of the Minister or is it one of his rhetorical exaggerations? We want to know what the fact is. Does he mean that inspectors will never again enter a farm except by invitation, and if he does, suppose there is an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, will he and his inspectors wait until the farmer sends word that he would like an inspector to call, and if the adjoining farm does not invite in an inspector, is he not to call?

That is childish talk.

Deputy Fagan will have to listen to this again:—

"The Minister for Agriculture down to his most junior inspector will enter a farmer's land by invitation or not at all."

When you read this to-morrow you will see it is childish; have a bit of common sense.

He says, from the Minister for Agriculture down to the most junior inspector——

Why are you talking about disease? Would they not have to go in if there were disease? That is all nonsense. If you were sick would you not have to send for a doctor?

I do not know if Deputy Fagan is authorised to speak for the Minister or not.

If I was sick, maybe the Deputy would come to me.

Let the ex-Minister make his speech, please.

I cannot help rousing Deputy Fagan. I want to know if this means that the Minister is dropping the Livestock Breeding Act, because I do not see how the Act can be enforced if inspectors can only call by invitation because I am quite sure that even in Deputy Fagan's constituency, if a farmer is keeping what is called a scrub bull, he will not invite in anybody.

The Guards will look after them.

The Civic Guards will not be allowed in either. A Civic Guard is not supposed to know whether a bull is a scrub bull or not. Does it mean that he is going to drop the Diseases of Animals Act and the Noxious Weeds Act? I want a clear explanation of this from the Minister. Deputy Fagan may think that the Minister has made a childish statement, but whether he did or not, the Minister should give us a clear indication of what he means exactly by this statement "only by invitation." Does it mean that we are going to drop all those Acts, the Weeds Act and the Livestock Act?

The Civic Guards will look after the Weeds Act.

Deputy Fagan will keep order, please.

If the Minister does not mean exactly what he said, what exactly does he mean? Does he want it to apply in fact or in any respect except compulsory tillage?

Talking of compulsory tillage, he goes on to wheat. I heard, as I said, that already Clann na Poblachta and Labour were talking about the Minister's policy. The Minister has adopted the Fianna Fáil peace policy on wheat, that is to offer a guaranteed price and a guaranteed market to the farmers for any wheat that they might market. I suppose we should be very proud that we had converted such a very pronounced anti-wheat man as the Minister was over to that side. At any rate, he has adopted the peace policy of Fianna Fáil with regard to wheat growing by guaranteeing this price for four years to come. Some Deputies asked what was the policy of the previous Government on this and other matters.

A White Paper was issued by the Government two years ago which gives the views of the Fianna Fáil Government and their intention as to the future policy in regard to wheat, tillage, live stock and all the other matters. They stated specifically in that White Paper that they thought that compulsory wheat growing should stop as soon as the emergency was over and that we should guarantee a price and a market for farmers who wished to grow wheat under such guarantees. The Minister, at any rate, endorsed our White Paper. So far, so good.

I wonder if the Minister is wise in departing from the emergency policy on wheat growing. Are we sure, for instance, that the supplies of wheat will be sufficient next year, the year after, and so on? If we are not very sure, it appears to be only common sense to take the necessary precautions to see that we grow a very good proportion of our requirements ourselves. I am only putting the question as to whether it is wise or not. I can only say that I hope the Minister is right in his optimism that we shall have plenty of wheat coming in. I can only say that I cannot agree that he is wise in taking that chance. I think we should have carried on and seen to it that we grew a great proportion of our wheat requirements at home for at least another year. I should like the Minister to give us his views on what the future policy should be on tillage in general. Other Deputies also asked for that.

About the 20th March this year the Minister issued an advertisement which is headed: "How farmers can help?" The answer was that the farmers could help the Government by completing the compulsory tillage quota and sowing five extra acres, if they have a big farm, and one extra acre if they have a small farm, of barley or oats, and the farmer's wife by marketing more eggs. That is all very good advice. The Minister goes on to say that he believes co-operation works better than compulsion—a very admirable sentiment. But look at what comes next: "Let's show them." Who are "us" and who are "they"? He talks about co-operation being better than compulsion, and then says: "Let's show them." I do not know who the contemptible "they" are and who are the "us" who are going to show them. It is a strange way of looking for co-operation. That advertisement is signed: "James M. Dillon, Minister for Agriculture," and I presume—I may be wrong—that it was paid for by the Department of Agriculture. I hope the Minister will tell us who "us" are and who "they" are.

"They" are those who believe in kicking the farmers of this country around the country roads.

Who are "they"? I am more of a farmer than he ever was. I was reared on the land and I know as much about land as he does.

You have a peculiar way of showing your sympathy to them.

The Minister announced that he was going to give 55/- a barrel next year for barley. I presume that is for the 1949 crop, not the 1948 crop.

I did not announce any such thing, but go on, I will answer later.

Perhaps I had better quote what the Minister said:—

"I want the farmers to produce next year 700,000 barrels of malting barley at least, for which I guarantee them a price higher than they received in any year for the last ten years, it will not be less than 55/-and it might be more."

That is taken from the Official Report of 9th July, column 2595. That does not refer to this year, I presume. The Minister went on to say that the Fianna Fáil Government had prevented the farmers from getting the price they could have got from Messrs. Guinness and Company and the other brewers; that they would have paid, say, 60/- a barrel or more, while the Government compelled the farmers to accept 35/- or 40/-; that the money which Messrs. Guinness made on that barley was extracted from them by the British Government by way of surtax, etc. He builds up a very damning story in an ex parte way. If he believes it is as bad as he says, why does he delay in regard to this price until next year? Surely it would be only fair to put the money into the farmers' pockets this year and take it from Messrs. Guinness and, in turn, from the British Government. Why delay until next year to right what he believes to be a wrong?

Perhaps I should say that there was a reason why the price of barley was fixed from 1940 to 1946 and 1947. Everybody in this House remembers the years 1942, 1943 and 1944. They will remember the high extraction of wheat which we were using in bread, how brown the bread was at one time, and also that we had to ration bread in the end. Surely that makes it plain to anybody that we were up against it here with regard to wheat and bread and that we had to endeavour in every way we could to get what wheat we could produce. We were not getting enough wheat by voluntary means and we had to have a quota of wheat on every farm. In the old tillage districts we were getting more wheat than the farmer was compelled to grow by quota, and we knew, and I am sure the Minister and everybody knows, that if we made barley more remunerative to the farmer than we did we would get less wheat and, therefore, we would have less bread. That was the reason why it was done and for no other reason.

Damned queer device.

The Minister says that it is a damned queer device, but the question is has he some better device up his sleeve for dealing with these things. I hope for many reasons that the Minister will not be up against an emergency of that kind while he is in office, but if ever it does happen we will see what his devices are. The biggest barley growing county by far in this country is County Wexford. I had to do that when I was Minister for Agriculture. For what reason? I had to do it for the sake of the country and it could not be for any other reason. These barley growing farmers had to put up with it and they did, because they understood it, but the Minister does not understand it. I am quite prepared to meet these barley growing farmers with the Minister and explain the position to them again and see whether they will tell the Minister that they understood the position or not.

The Minister referred to barley as a feeding stuff. He says that the scientists say that it is as good as maize. They do, but the Minister made experiments himself and he found that it was not as good as maize. He does not agree with the scientists. Experiments were carried out in the agricultural colleges and by the staffs of the county committees of agriculture in this country. All these experiments proved that barley is equally good as maize. I would point out that these experiments were carried out when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in power and before I took office as Minister for Agriculture. The Minister has the records in his Department. He can look them up and he can then ask himself why his experiments differed from those carried out in the agricultural colleges and by the staffs of the county committees of agriculture. I want to ask him about maize. He said that it is better than barley. I understood him to say that he was getting 70,000 tons a quarter. I should like more precise and up-to-date information on whether that is a firm decision or merely a hope.

It is the International Emergency Food Council allocation for animal feeding.

Good enough. It is an allocation. We are not absolutely certain——

Of course we shall have to buy it.

We got 200,000 tons last year and if we get this 240,000 tons——

It is only by the quarter. There is no guarantee. We shall have to wait for the next quarter to see what happens.

All we can do then is to hope for the best. I should like to point out that when I was Minister for Agriculture I was very keen on the lime scheme. I agree with the Minister that there is an unlimited need for lime in this country. I think it will be agreed by all that it would take years and years with all the lime we could possibly turn out to satisfy the land of this country. We may at least start off on that point. Whatever else we may do in our lifetime we are not going to put too much lime at the disposal of the farmer. My idea was that we should have fairly big units. The big unit turns out lime more rapidly and, I suppose, more cheaply—say 100,000 tons in the year. On the other hand freight is a very important factor in regard to lime. We must not have the units too far apart.

As a compromise between the big unit and the low freight by not having them too far apart, we might have ten good ones turning out, say, 100,000 tons each in the year. That might not prove to be enough, but that aspect of the matter could be looked into afterwards. If we can do that it is all to the good. Then it is necessary to get the farmer to use it, so it must be made available to him cheaply. That is why the big unit and the short freight are necessary. I am not sure that, even at the very cheapest rate at which we can do it with the big unit and the low freight, we may not have to give some subsidy on that line in order to get the farmer to use it as it should be used. Above all, however, the farmer must have time to deal with it. It is difficult for the farmer to find time to spread lime in the old way. Some of them used to mix in, say, compost, clay or old headland and so forth and spread it in that way. They have not the time to do that now. I was investigating—I do not know how far those investigations have proceeded—whether it was possible to have it mechanically spread. I think that it could be done in that way. If we could say to the farmer: "You will get so much lime applied to so many acres of your land at so much an acre; it is brought out and spread by contract", then I think the farmer will be prepared to put on more than he otherwise would. I believe that he would be prepared to pay more than he otherwise would, because the system would be convenient and reasonably cheap.

We are hoping to develop that.

Good. The Minister has told us that the Government has authorised him to buy all the phosphates he possibly can. That is very good. I should like to know how much he has any hope of getting. We got an increased amount last year but it was not enough. It will be the same for many years to come, I believe. We should, therefore, make every endeavour to get all the phosphates we can. I agree again that much of our phosphates could be used as ground phosphates and not as superphosphates, but that is something to which the great majority of the farmers are alive. They are using ground phosphates wherever they can use them, on a pasture in particular, and they are using the superphosphates on crops. The Minister, however, after a certain amount of self-glorification in how well he had done in getting those phosphates and potash, launches out with an attack on the International Emergency Food Council. I do not think that to abuse organisations such as the International Emergency Food Council will do any good. It would be better if the Minister were to do all he possibly can to get lime, phosphates, potash and sulphate of ammonia for the farmers than to abuse such organisations. He should keep whatever abuse he has for this side of the House—we do not mind —but leave them out.

With regard to soil testing, I was reading in column 2601 of the Official Report, 9th July, 1948, that the Minister said:—

"I would be glad if Deputies beyond, particularly, would be as busy moving about amongst their neighbours telling them of the availability of that service as they have been busy instructing their neigh-bours in certain other items...."

What have we been guilty of? It would be better that we should know exactly what the Minister has in mind. If we have transgressed in any way in spreading wrong reports about the Minister's Department I think we should be told in order that we may mend our hands. There is no use in these veiled threats or attacks because we do not know what the Minister has in mind. The Minister then goes on to say that he has secured for us an unlimited market at a remunerative price for the first time in history. I am afraid that is a big claim to make— the first time in history. As far as I know there was no restriction on produce going into Britain until the Act of 1932 was brought in. Evidently the Minister's history does not extend beyond 1932.

The price, Deputy. Read what I said.

You said an unlimited market at remunerative prices. The Minister now wants a combination of the two. Unlimited market, anyway, falls to the ground. He is not standing by that alone. He wants remunerative prices.

You would get an unlimited market if you threw the stuff into the sea to the fish for nothing.

That is true, and so would any other country at the present time. When talking about potatoes earlier in this speech he asks what the price of potatoes is and then he says: "None of us will grow rich on that."

The main crop of potatoes.

Now he is talking about remunerative prices for everything, but then he included potatoes. The Minister did not think the price remunerative at that time.

Read it out

"None of us will grow rich on that."

What do you think of the present price?

It is very much lower than the present price; it is £10 13s. 6d. It is much lower than the price of potatoes for some considerable time back. According to the Minister, it is not a remunerative price.

According to the Minister !

He says none of us will grow rich on that. I take it remunerative means that one gets enough to make ends meet.

I want a much larger profit for the producer.

He says the British will have to strain themselves a bit more as far as the potatoes are concerned. But, later on, he says he wants a remunerative price for everything. He of course contradicts himself. That does not surprise me. What are the prices about which we have heard up to this?

They were published in the Press.

What is the price for butter?

We have not got the butter to sell.

The Minister mentioned butter amongst the remunerative prices. The Minister said remunerative prices for cattle, sheep, pigs, butter, cream, cheese, but he does not know what they are going to be.

I do know.

He does not tell us what they are.

That is because you have nothing to sell.

This is not a dialogue; it is a speech by Deputy Dr. Ryan.

The Minister talks of remunerative prices. He has already said that the price for potatoes is not remunerative. He does not tell us what the price is going to be for butter. We do not know what to think about his statement. He goes on then to the butchers' strike. He uses very strong language. He talks about conspiracy, securing their own wrong ends—and he is going to deal with them. I would like to know how. We all want to see the farmers get a good price for their cattle. We all want to see the consumers get their meat at a fair price. Can that be done? If the Minister has a way of doing it, we would like to know what it is. We are not interested in the threats he makes to the butchers that he is going to clean the matter up. If he has a plan we would like to know what it is. If there is a plan, why not put it into operation? In the meantime the markets are continuing and the people are getting tough meat. We have to suffer while the Minister hatches his plan.

And the butchers bought their cattle outside the market to-day.

Was that the Minister's plan?

I think it was the Fianna Fáil plan and it has broken down. It has broken down.

The Deputy must be allowed to make his speech. The Minister was not interrupted once.

It is a very feeble effort on the Minister's part to say that Fianna Fáil are behind the butchers' strike. The few of them that I know would not be said by Fianna Fáil. I have never been able to get a clear statement of the facts. The butchers say in their statements in the Press that the Minister for Industry and Commerce fixed the price of beef on the assumption that they could buy beef at 88/3. I do not know whether that is the fact or not.

It is very definitely not.

Then, of course, the butchers are wrong.

Of course they are.

Was it not a good thing that he was here to tell you that?

It was. If the farmers find it hard to sell their cattle in the market and if the people of Dublin have to eat tough meat, why does not the Minister tell us what his plan is now and end the matter? He says he has a plan. He said that he would not deal with them this Wednesday, but he would deal with them after that. What is the plan? Perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce will settle the matter when he meets the butchers to-morrow or the day after. I do not know. We shall await events.

You are inclined to be helpful, I notice.

As far as I am concerned I want the farmer to get a good price and the consumer to get good value.

And you want your butcher to get a good price also. You want everybody to be happy.

I want to see the Deputy allowed to make his speech without interruption.

I think the Minister is to a great extent relying upon Couéism. If you repeat that everything is brighter and better often enough and with sufficient emphasis everybody will think that everything is brighter and better. That is the sum total of the Minister's philosophy. He gives no reason whatsoever for his prophecy that we are going to have an expanded market and remunerative prices for all our produce. He stated that was the fact, and that is all we have got from him so far. When he is replying we would like a little less prophecy and a little more fact. Then we shall see where we stand.

Apart from price, I think it is most important that social amenities should be made available in the rural areas. I hope that the Minister will do all in his power to further rural electrification, the laying on of water to the houses, main drainage and sanitation. I think the country people are entitled to the same amenities as the city people enjoy in these respects and I think the provision of such amenities will go far to stopping the flight from the land.

If the country as a whole and the farmers in particular want to take full advantage of the recent trade agreement with Great Britain they will have to play their part in making a contribution towards increasing the volume of agricultural production. I listened attentively to the long and interesting statement made by the Minister. I listened also to the majority of the speeches delivered during this debate. I have some doubt as to whether the policy outlined by the Minister in regard to his method of increasing the volume of agricultural production will bring about the desired effect. I am not too sure that the Minister's method of not going on to the farmer's land until he is sent for to see whether the farmer is tilling the necessary acreage of arable land is going to increase the volume of agricultural production.

My doubts are based on the experience I have gained as a representative of a tillage constituency. The constituency I have the honour to represent has always made a wonderful contribution to the acreage under tillage. It was one of the counties to erect the first beet factory established in this State. The land in that constituency and in adjoining counties has been tilled mainly by the working farmers who will in the future, as in the past, respond to the wish of the Minister in this matter. The Minister stated that he had a peace-time policy and an emergency period policy. Who to-day can say when the next war will be launched?

The Minister.

The people who have the power to declare war to-day will not give much notice of their intention. Therefore, in the dangerous days in which we are living, with trouble brewing all round us or threatened, we have to be in a position all the time to provide for the requirements of our people. Every owner of land, whether big or small, must be put under some obligation, an obligation of honour, if necessary, to make his contribution to the supply position. My experience of the big farmers in my constituency has been that they will till only whatever arable land they are compelled to till. It is necessary that the Minister would have someone on the look-out to ensure that they will carry out their obligations.

I believe in the policy of voluntary effort as against conscription. A soldier who volunteers to fight is a better man than a conscript, and to that extent I agree with the Minister's policy. If the Minister succeeds in achieving the acreage under tillage that he desires, if he succeeds in getting the farmers, big and small, to increase the volume of agricultural production, then he will be a miracle worker. I am issuing a friendly warning to him. It was only this evening, in company with my colleagues in the same constituency, when we were discussing the question of acquiring untenanted land in my area, that it was pointed out that a certain big farmer who does not reside on the holding put 19 barrels of wheat into about the same acreage last year and threshed 18. He scraped the surface of the land in order to comply with the regulations and the same individual will do the same thing again only when he is compelled to do it.

I want to make certain, in the dangerous days in front of us, that every landowner will be obliged to make his contribution to the agricultural production the Minister wants. The Minister can take no chances. I do not think we have arrived in this country at a stage where we are disciplined to the extent that everyone will carry out the orders of the people in control. The rising generation of farmers, like the sons and daughters of those who work in industry and other forms of activity, are not half as good as their fathers or grandfathers. We have to admit what we know to be a fact. We also have to admit that, although the acreage under tillage during the emergency increased to a considerable extent, still there was a decline in the volume and the value of agricultural production.

From the limited experience I have of the land in my constituency, I would say that we could increase the volume of agricultural production by draining and reclaiming the land. That is the policy of this Government, and a good start has been made. We can increase the volume of agricultural production if we take the big ranches that remain in the hands of the big landowners— the large estates—and hand them to the sons of small farmers and to labourers who have experience of land. Every time you do that you will increase agricultural production and prevent farmers' sons and daughters, and labourers, from getting passports to do that same work in a neighbouring country.

We can increase agricultural production, and I am sure the Minister will lend a helping hand by providing cheap money for the farmers. Listening to the Minister some time ago, I thought he had some doubt as to whether there was a shortage of working capital among the agricultural community. There is, and I am sure the Minister is anxious to help in that direction. He will have to make sure that cheaper money than is at present provided by the Agricultural Credit Corporation will be provided. Will the Minister or any Deputy say that in these days, with the surplus of money we have in our banks—too much for the goods that are available in the country—that 4½ per cent. is not an unreasonably high rate of interest to expect farmers to pay?

The last Government was, for a short period, providing money at 2½ per cent. to enable local authorities to build houses, and that policy will continue, so far as I understand, under the present Government. If the local authorities who, in the long run, are the rate-payers, consisting largely of farmers, can get money to build houses at 2½ per cent., why cannot the farmer get the capital he badly needs at the same rate of interest? The Agricultural Credit Corporation was never established as a profit-making institution. It was established for the purpose of providing cheap money for the agricultural community in order to lower the cost of production and give the farmer a profitable return for the use of his land and his labour.

I hope the Minister will look into this question and, if he believes there is need for cheap money for the agricultural community, that he will endeavour to provide money at a cheaper rate than is at present being provided by the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

I admit quite frankly that the Minister is entitled to the grateful thanks of the people of my constituency for the increased prices he is offering the farmers for their barley, presumably during the coming season, as well as in future years. There is no doubt the price inducement will increase the acreage under barley. Someone said— I do not know whether he is right or wrong—that you could not grow wheat at a profit in the same land where you could grow barley. I have seen good wheat grown in the two counties in my constituency, which have had a long record for growing barley and selling it to Messrs. Guinness and their agents at an uneconomic price. I salute the Minister, and take off my hat to him for his offer to the farmers to provide them with a profitable price in future.

As the eldest son of a small farmer, when going to school I thought it was a disgraceful sight to see the small farmers, after a hard year's work, take their barley to the local brewery and have to part with it at a pawnbroker's price. The majority of them were not able to get even a pawnbroker's price. Some of them were turned away after a hard year's work. Thanks to the present Minister, they will not have to face that situation either this year or during the period that he will continue, as I hope, to be Minister for Agriculture. It certainly is an inducement to produce barley, at any rate. Whether the same thing will be done in regard to other crops I am not too confident or certain. I hope I am wrong and that the Minister is right, because I agree in a policy of voluntary effort as against a policy of compulsion.

There is another matter, already touched upon by Deputy Dunne to which I wish to refer, and that is the question of the rates of wages and conditions of service of agricultural labourers. If the Minister will be able to say at the end of his five years' period in office that he has fulfilled the promise which he made in his opening statement on this Estimate, I will say he is a miracle worker and that he will be entitled to the gratitude of agricultural labourers generally. He will get the support of this small group for that, if for no other purpose, in his endeavours to carry out that policy. That policy, however, cannot be operated as long as the Agricultural Wages Board as at present constituted remains in existence. I hope he will take steps at an early date to dissolve the Agricultural Wages Board, which has been constituted on a purely political basis.

We have many organisations in this country such as the Beet Growers' Association, and the people associated with the dairying industry, who can claim to represent the working farmers. We have workers in such organisations who can claim, within reason, to represent agricultural labourers, but no business-like board that I ever heard of, constituted of the popularly elected representatives of the agricultural labourers and working farmers, works in the way in which this board works. The real power in the Agricultural Wages Board is vested in the chairman, who has a salary under this Estimate of £900 a year. The regional representatives are called to meetings two or three times a year. They are consulted by the chairman, undoubtedly, and he listens to what they say but he does not say much himself. When he has arrived at his decision the National Agricultural Wages Board is summoned and the representatives are allowed to express their views, but in the long run, as the Minister knows, it is the chairman, and not the members of the board by a majority, who decides whether an application for an improvement in wages or working conditions should be approved or not. It is time that this out-of-date system was done away with, that the board as at present constituted was dissolved, and that a proper wages board, based on a democratic foundation, took its place. I am sure the Minister will lose no time in seeing that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that end.

In regard to the costs of production, I am not going to detain the House very long, but I should like to point out to the Minister that the closing down of branch railway lines in my area has already increased the cost of production for small farmers who sell cattle at the local fairs. Wherever a branch line was closed, the live stock had to be carried over the alternative road service, inside a 50-mile radius, and the cost of the carriage of such live stock has increased by 100 per cent. as compared with the railway rates on the branch lines. That 100 per cent. was not borne by the cattle dealer. It came out of the pockets of the small farmers who sold cattle at the local fairs. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to that and I hope he will bear it in mind when he, as a member of the Cabinet, comes to discuss the reorganisation of the transport services.

I have heard some complaints about the price of milk. I was very glad to be a member of this House who shared with my colleague of some years ago the responsibility—it was a pleasure— of helping to establish new creameries in my constituency. I regret to say— I am only acting on information given to me by milk suppliers in the area— that a very large number of the people who went into the dairying industry at that time have gone out of it since because they allege they were not getting an economic or a proper price in the local creameries.

The Minister surprised me when he stated that the increased price now being received by farmers for calves means the equivalent of 3d. per gallon in the price of milk supplied to the local creameries. That is a surprising figure the accuracy of which I cannot challenge but I want an assurance, if we are going to have the dairying industry as we now know it—and it has been in a decaying state in my area for some time—that the farmer suppliers will get a proper price. If a subsidy for the establishment or maintenance of any industry is justified, it is justified when the person to whom it is given can provide an adequate return in labour and in the proper use of his land. I hope the Minister in a short period will be able to persuade his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to provide a sufficient subsidy to maintain this valuable industry as a section of a very valuable basic industry such as agriculture.

I shall be very brief but there are a few matters to which I should like to refer in regard to this Estimate. I am going to support the motion to refer it back because I believe the Minister is trying to revert to the policy of Fine Gael or Cumann na nGaedheal. It was amazing and amusing to hear two farmer Deputies speak in this House this evening and tell the House that agriculture was in an improverished condition and that the farmers were no longer prosperous. I would answer these Deputies by asking them the question, what is the state of the collection of the annuities this year?

What arrears are there in the country? What is the state of the rate collection in every country in Ireland? What percentage of rates was collected on the 31st March last? What about the bank debts? Are these debts still in existence? Shop debts, the debts which made gombeen men of the shopkeepers and placed the farmers of this country in a dependent position on the people who were giving them money that was often necessary in order to keep the bailiffs away, do not exist to-day. Agriculture is not in that improverished condition that Deputy P. O'Reilly and Deputy Halliden would try to make us believe. I assume that both these Deputies are farmers.

On a point of order, I did not use the word "impoverished".

I thought so.

Well, the Deputy said that agriculture was not in a prosperous condition.

I did not say that.

Deputy Corry said it this morning.

We shall see what the records will show.

I said the dairying industry was on the decline. I did not use the word "impoverished".

Milk and dairying must be regarded as the fundamentals of agriculture, because, without the cow you will have no calf, and without the cow you will have no milk, no stores, no beef, no tillage and no manure, and consequently, the cow must be regarded as the fundamental of agriculture. What was the condition of the dairying industry when Fianna Fáil took over the Government of this country in 1932? Butter was cheaper than car grease.

And plenty of it.

Yes, at that price. Milk was realising 3d. per gallon.

And calves 2/6.

Who were the people who put it in the flourishing condition into which it came in 1938? What was the price of our exportable butter? 56/- to 60/- per cwt. At the same time, the Government of that day permitted Australian and Danish butter to be sold on the market here. Fianna Fáil, however, protected the Irish market for the dairy farmer, thereby giving him the first chance to rehabilitate himself. The reduction in cows has been gradual and it was inevitable because of the increased acreage under tillage.

You cannot have it both ways. If you have more tillage, you must have a lesser number of live stock—that is pretty evident to everybody—but, notwithstanding the fact that we had more tillage last year, we have a greater number of two and three-year-old cattle than we had in 1946. We have a lesser number of yearlings and calves and that lesser number of yearlings can be accounted for to a certain extent by the severe spring we had in 1947. The best evidence of that is probably to be found in the Minister's Department in the thousands of applications made for loans for the restocking of the land of this country as a result of the damage done to live stock during that severe period.

Another factor which accounts for that lesser number is disease. Disease is a heavy financial loss to the farmer and it is also a disheartening occurrence. Disease is caused by germs or spores which are easily passed on by either infection or contagion. Conditions on most farms are favourable for the spread of disease, because dirty and dark conditions help to harbour germs. The late Government introduced a scheme in connection with the building of outoffices which would have gone a long way to counter the disease we find in younger stock. That was a scheme of building proper houses and providing proper accommodation with plenty of ventilation, cleanliness, and sunlight, the greatest enemies of disease germs. But what has the Minister done? He has, by a wave of his hand, placed that scheme in abeyance—the new word coined in this House for "abandonment," as we have had evidence in other directions and from other Parties. By putting that scheme in abeyance, he is perpetuating the diseases that have been so evident —hoose, mammitis and all the other diseases which go to reduce our live-stock population.

The first and most essential thing the Minister should have thought of when he talked of the great expansion in agriculture which we were to have, and, I presume, in our live-stock population, was to see that this scheme would have been carried into effect. As showing how desirable that scheme was, and the farmers knew it was desirable, the Minister admitted here that he had 25,000 applications, and surely the numbers of people who wanted the scheme put into operation must be an indication of how popular that scheme was with the farmers; but the Minister comes along and tells the farmers: "I am going to expand agriculture and to make every farmer in the country richer", and yet the one scheme which the farmers showed they wanted to see put into operation, as a scheme that would help them, the Minister by a wave of his hand abandons.

If we are to have a predominantly live-stock/agricultural policy, it would appear that we must have a systematic breeding policy, having due regard for the necessity for maintaining an economic level of milk and the production of high-class stores. The policy pursued over many years has resulted in an improvement in the conformation of our store cattle, while providing for a reasonable milk yield where cattle are bred and maintained under intelligent management. A point had been reached, however, at which a further improvement in store cattle was going to be at the expense of milk yields. To counteract that tendency, the previous Government changed the policy which had been in operation regarding Shorthorn bulls, but that policy was not changed until the farmers, the dairying farmers and the cattle producers, decided for themselves, after consultation with the Minister, that they desired that change.

I happened to be a member of that consultative council on that occasion and I heard the views put forward by the people from the dairying districts who were unanimous in their desire to get rid of the Shorthorn. Personally, I would not be in complete agreement with them, because I believe that the only foundation stock we have is the Shorthorn, but these people desired it, and, as I have said already, dairying must be regarded as the foundation and fundamental of agriculture. The Minister has stated that he has increased the price of calves from 10/- to £10. He would need to do that in order to compensate the dairy farmer. A dairy cow giving 600 gallons of milk at present-day prices is worth £35 per annum. Assuming that the Shorthorn yields 400 gallons—I do not think the Minister will contradict me if I place her yield at that figure—she will realise in or around £23, representing a difference of £12. In other words, the dairy cow starts off with an advantage of £12 on her calf. The Minister has made great statements about what he has done, but he has to bring that £10 up to £12 in order to equalise the position with the dairy Shorthorn.

Who is stopping you keeping any type of cow you like?

I am merely pointing out to you the harm that has been done by trying to force your wishes on some people.

I am not forcing anything on any of them.

You have, Sir.

They can keep a goat if they want to.

That is all very well, but the Order is there. You have given certain premiums for Shorthorns.

The Minister has.

The Minister has?

Yes. I have not.

The Deputy must speak in the third person.

Sorry, Sir. In any case, the Minister has annulled the Order made by the previous Minister. I would suggest, if he is so concerned about the live-stock industry as he pretends to be, that he would set up a system of free veterinary assistance for farmers. I know that it happens very often, particularly with small farmers, that one or two or three cows fall sick, but the farmer will not call in a vet. at the proper time. He goes to the nearest druggist and he loses probably as much money as would pay the fees of a vet. The mortality in live stock, particularly young live stock, must be enormous because of that. A system of free veterinary assistance would be a very valuable asset to the live-stock industry. What I would like to know and what a great number of people are very anxious to know is why the Minister decided to take away the subsidy on farmers' butter. Has he been misled by his advisers?

Then, what about his statements in regard to the lady with more power in her elbow who should be getting 3/6 a pound for her butter? Is she getting it to-day?

She is not complaining.

She is complaining.

What did you do to help her?

I have done considerably more than you have. Not alone is she not getting the price the Minister told us she would get, but the Minister has created a black market or has given an incentive to the people of this country——

There is no black market where there is no ration.

How can there be, when there is no restriction?

Is there a ration?

Not on farmers' butter

I say there is a ration of butter.

The Deputy is speaking about farmers' butter.

The Deputy need not worry. I am dealing with this.

The Deputy is trying to make a case and will not be allowed.

Every person in this country is entitled to a ration of butter, irrespective of whether it is creamery butter, factory butter or farmers' butter, but the Minister has asked the farmer's wife to go into the market, a black market, and sell her butter at 3/6 to the person who can give her most money for it. Has not that happened? Are you not giving an incentive to people to create a black market by doing that? Butter is 2/8 a lb. at the creamery, and you have told this woman to sell it for 3/6.

God knows, it is hard to be patient with that kind of tripe after ten hours.

Tá an tAire seo ag cur isteach ar na cainnteoirí ó' n taobh seo an lá go leir. Aon Teachta a d'eirigh chun cainnt a dhéanamh, níor scaoilfeadh an tAire leis. Teastuighean deire a chur leis an obair leis an maoil atá leis agus ní ceart scaoileadh leis an Aire.

Bhí mé 'mo shuidhe annseo ar feadh an lae.

Why was it that the Minister circularised the committees of agriculture on the 24th March, telling them that they were to advertise a scheme under which a grant would be allowed for the erection of poultry houses? I quote from the poultry development scheme issued on the 24th March, 1943. There was to be a grant of £20 towards the erection of a poultry house with accommodation for 100 adult birds or more; £15 when accommodation is provided for 75 adult birds or more; £10 when accommodation is provided for not less than 50 adult birds. These grants were to be made available under the farm buildings scheme, and, because of the advertisements in the local papers as a result of this circular, many farmers bought day-old chicks in the hope of obtaining the grant. The Minister by abandoning that good scheme that was introduced by Deputy Smith when Minister for Agriculture, placed these people in the position that they have not proper accommodation for their poultry and they have been put to the expense of paying 18/- a dozen for day-old chicks for which they have no accommodation.

In what month did they buy the day-old chicks?

They bought them from February onwards.

I only came into office in the middle of February.

I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce a question with regard to building permits for these houses and he told me in effect that they were not required. The Minister has abandoned the scheme with the result that these people have no accommodation——

For the chicks they bought in March.

I would like to get back to the question of tillage.

It is nearly time you did.

The Minister has told us that he wants 700,000 tons of barley grown in this country next year. Has he any recollection of what happened in this country in 1929 and 1930?

Barrels, I hope, Deputy. Come now, shake yourself, even at half-past ten.

Has the Minister any recollection of what happened in this country in 1929 and 1930?

The argument, I presume, is still valid? Tons or barrels, it is all the same.

We will deal with that in a moment. In 1929, 1930 and 1931, the farmers could not sell a lb. of barley in the harvest-time, because of the policy of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government when they permitted Messrs. Guinness to import Russian barley at 9/- a barrel. That was one of the reasons why the wheat scheme became a success in the early years— there was no market for barley.

I remember being on a deputation, the first Messrs. Guinness ever met, in 1935, when they told that organisation that their requirements were 500,000 barrels and no more. If it were not for the Minister for Agriculture that day, Deputy Dr. Ryan, the farmers who were then growing barley would not have a market for it. There was a surplus of barley all over the country during those years, until the people changed over to the wheat scheme. If it had not been for the agitation and sabotage practised on the people during the economic war when this scheme was put into effect, we would have markets for the crops.

Would you get more than the market price for them? You know the world market price was 9/-a barrel for barley?

It happened to be 13/-here.

The world market price at present exceeds 45/-

Messrs. Guinness never subsidised the farmer this year.

No, but you subsidised them to the tune of £2,000,000.

That is rubbish.

It is true.

If it were true that during the past ten years we produced barley instead of wheat, would Arthur Guinness be subsidised to the tune of £2,000,000?

He was subsidised to the tune of £2,000,000.

Would he be subsidised for the last ten years if we grew barley instead of wheat?

You did grow barley and sold it.

We grew wheat instead of barley. Otherwise, there would be no flour or bread.

But you did grow barley and sold it.

Would the Deputy be allowed to speak without these continuous interruptions?

Does the Minister want the farmer to go back to the position that obtained in 1929 and 1930, when he had to go hat in hand to the maltster Monday after Monday and the price dropped each week by 3d. a barrel, until Arthur Guinness was satisfied he had enough barley in his malt stores? Are we going to be inflicted with that again?

There is a guaranteed price.

There is not any law that that side of the House is not to be allowed to speak.

They want to get finished quickly and do not want the debate to be too long.

Several Deputies have stated that the Minister must be complimented on giving the guaranteed prices. Do Deputies on this side realise that we have had guaranteed prices for the past 15 years? I know there are not many representative farmers on the far side of the House and consequently they know very little about farming. I am a farmer and I know I was getting a guaranteed price 15 years ago for my produce and we did not have to wait until the present Minister came in to get a guaranteed price. Deputies are making great play with the fact that the Minister has fixed the price at 62/6 per barrel for the coming year. That price was fixed last October, and not by the present Minister. The sooner they give up that campaign throughout the country, that this Minister was responsible for 62/6 per barrel for wheat, the better. Let them be honest with the people down the country. That price was fixed by Deputy Smith when he was Minister.

The Minister has given a guarantee of 62/6 for five years, but has he taken into account the cost of production over those five years? Will he place that price on a sliding scale, when it will be far better for the farmer? Farmers in this case are possibly being misled. The tendency at the moment is towards increases in the cost of living, which is going up, as we are all aware. Rates are going up substantially, helped by the present Government and their policy. Because these things are going up, the cost of producing wheat is going up—whether it be through increased cost in outlay or expenditure in production. If you have a lower income at the end of the year, your cost has gone up, and the cost of this wheat has gone up even since last October. The advantage conferred on the farmers and wheat growers may amount to nothing in the finish and we may be in a worse-off position than we were before the Minister gave the guarantee for five years.

The same thing applies to beet. The Minister was asked a question, when the wages of agricultural labourers were increased immediately after the price of beet being fixed, if, having regard to the increase in wages, the Minister would instruct the sugar company to increase the price of beet, and his answer was "No". Now, what concern had that Minister for the farmers? I know he has always regarded wheat and beet as being a cod, but it was not a cod in 1941. It was not a cod to have flour and bread and sugar in 1941. To-day, the Minister is only concerned with feeding that old and valued customer that starved us in 1848, and chastised us afterwards. Is it the Minister's intention, in 1948, to provide them with cheap food and chastise them afterwards? Would it not be better for us to chastise them before we give it to them and ask Britain to take her fingers out of the pies in this country and permit us to have a united country here? He thought he could serve best by giving cheap food to England.

Am I entitled to get up and sing Wrap the Green Flag Round Me Boys, now?

A Deputy

The Minister is singing God Save the King.

It is much on the same lines as your statement about the National Anthem here some years ago. Do you remember it?

Go home to bed.

The Minister is concerned with free food for England. He does not want to give free food to the fly-by-nights on the Continent, but he does want to give it to England at the expense of the Irish farmer. The best evidence of what he has done has been proved over the last three weeks at our fairs, and it is not the Dublin butchers who are responsible for that. When the people of this country realise that the trade agreement that was made when the world was starving for food is of no material benefit to them, I wonder what the Minister will have to say? I heard critics of the 1938 Agreement, when this country and every other country in the world was overloaded with food and when it could be given away, say that it was a good agreement. It was good not merely from the farmers' point of view but from the national point of view as well. In 1948, when the Minister got the chance of making an agreement that would be of material benefit to the Irish farmer and when the world was starving for food, he went and dealt with the old and valued customer that he would like to feed at a cheap price and at the expense of the Irish farmer.

What about from 1932 to 1936?

What does the Deputy want to know about that?

He is asking about the economic war.

The Deputy should address the Chair.

The Minister mentioned Marshall Aid in his opening speech. I wonder does he realise that a great many people all over the country are beginning to think that, if he had not been so foolish in some of the statements that he made regarding compulsory tillage and compulsory wheat-growing, the great American nation, in its generosity, might consider giving us a grant instead of a loan? Does he realise that Europe is starving, and that America is doing everything that is humanly possible to help the people of Europe? But here we are with a Minister for Agriculture who tells the world that we will have no more compulsory tillage and no more compulsory wheat growing. In effect, it means that we were going to grow our own potatoes, but that we were not going to grow our own wheat unless in so far as our farmers do it voluntarily, and that there is going to be no compulsion. Does the Minister realise that the farmers of this country are not going to continue tillage over great parts of the country unless they are compelled to do it?

When did it dawn on the Minister that there has not been compulsion in this country? So far as the farmers are concerned we had it under the British régíme and under the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. It has always been necessary, and we must have it to-day. Even at times the Minister himself has to be compelled to do things. We cannot get on without compulsion. What seems to be forgotten is that the people of this country are going to utilise their land in the future as a result of the Minister's statement in the easiest way they can, whether they are going to make much of a profit or not. That is going to be the position. We know how laborious tillage work can be, but we also know the amount of employment that it gives and will continue to give. Think of all the employment that beet-growing gives. There is employment on the land, there is employment in the factories, there is employment with sack manufacturers, for road transport anl on the railways.

And your Party described it as a white elephant.

Does the Deputy want to know why I did so? I described the Carlow factory as a white elephant before the other factories were built when the Government of that day gave Messieur Lippens beet at 46/- per ton, plus 2/6 a ton for manufacturing it. That was a white elephant, was it not? At the same time the Government were paying 33/- to the Irish farmer for producing wheat.

What did you give to the new factories?

There was a flat rate based on bulk. Think of the amount of employment that it has given, and yet the Minister states that it is all cod, that it should not be continued or subsidised. The same applies to wheat.

Fianna Fáil said that it was a white elephant.

I said it 15 years ago. Wheat is the most valuable crop that we can have in the country. It gives employment on the land and it keeps our mills working. The policy of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was to import flour into the country. That policy left the mills idle. To-day, because of the wheat scheme introduced by Fianna Fáil, the mills are all working and the workers are being paid overtime. The same thing applies to the men who are employed where the wheat is stored. They get overtime during the harvest period. I would remind the Minister of this—perhaps he does not know it, with all his theoretical advisers—that you can save 20 acres of wheat while you would be saving three acres of barley. Does he realise that, even in the morning if he were to give 55/- as against 50/-, wheat would be grown in preference to barley in many parts of the country? I told the Minister that I would not grow barley. I will grow wheat in preference to it.

In conclusion, I want to refer to the abatement of rates, the question of having the abatement applied to casual workers on the land. We have seasonal work on beet, mangolds and turnips and on sowing the crops in spring where casual labour is taken in, but unless you have continuity all the year round you are not entitled to that abatement. It has often happened, however, that the number of casuals is far greater than the number of permanents a farmer might have and, consequently, these men should get the benefit of the abatement.

This has been an important Estimate, and the fact that so many Deputies have spoken to it proved that it is one of the most important Estimates that will be brought before the House. Listening to the debate, it struck me that a great many Deputies who spoke seemed to have one common object in view, to defeat at all costs the policy which the Minister has so ably propounded when introducing this Estimate. I should like, as an ordinary Deputy in this House, to remind the Deputies opposite that when a Minister for Agriculture gets up in this House it does not matter to me a "tráinín" whether I belong to the Party of which he is a Minister or not. I have sufficient intelligence and sufficient patriotism left in me to know that he is speaking in the interests of all the farmers of this country, whether those farmers are Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Poblachta. It should be the duty of all Deputies of this House, irrespective of what Party they belong to, to support as far as is humanly possible the policy that has been abumbrated here on last Friday by the Minister for Agriculture, because that policy is the policy that has been adopted by the Executive Council that guides the destiny of this country at the present time. I might also remind the Deputies opposite that he is here by the votes of the people and that he has been elected, rightly or wrongly, by the Taoiseach, who is a man who commands the respect and admiration, not alone of the people of this country, but of the people of other countries as well. Consequently, I deplore many of the speeches that have been delivered here on this very important Estimate since last Friday.

References have been made to the wheat scheme, the barley scheme, the oats scheme and the poultry scheme. The Minister has stated here in no uncertain way that he is prepared to guarantee a price for the growing of wheat for the next five years. That is giving the option to any section of our farmers to grow wheat, notwithstanding what he may have said in years gone by. We know that you Deputies on the far side are fond of referring to the past. Although I do not want to do it, I could refer to the past as well, and to some of the statements made by the ex-Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, but I look to the future. We want to put the agriculture of this country on a solid basis. Are you going to help or are you not? That is a question I want to put to you as Deputies representing a very large section of our people. Are you going to help the Minister for Agriculture to grow the wheat this year which you say is so important as far as feeding the people is concerned?

We have done that before he became Minister. We have done it in spite of his efforts.

Are you going to help the Minister for Agriculture to get the farmers, the men who helped you, to produce 700,000 barrels at the fixed price of 55/- as against the 35/- or 40/- which obtained for the past 15 years? Are you going to forget politics, forget your prejudices, your envies and your jealousies that you have shown here since Friday, and act the part of Irishmen, not of traitors? Are you going to help him to produce all the oats that the farmers of the country can produce in order to ensure the survival of the country which you profess to have such an interest in? Are you going to help the Minister for Agriculture to produce for export, in addition to the quantity that will be produced for home consumption, 50,000 tons ware potatoes at prices ranging from £10 to £11 a ton as against the prices reigning hitherto.

In part of my constituency in North Cooley, where we have the best farms that are to be found in this country or in any other country, the farmers were selling their potatoes at an average price of £4 10s. for the last 15 years. Are you going to enable the Minister for Agriculture to produce that 50,000 for export? I wish my colleague, Deputy Aiken, were here now so that I could put that strong question to him regarding the £3 10s. that was paid to the farmers of Cooley. We came on a deputation to get that extra £1, £4 10s. or £5 10s. as against the £10 or £11 which has been guaranteed to the Minister as far as 50,000 tons are concerned. Will you help the Minister for Agriculture, not for his personal interests but in the interests of the Irish people and tell your farmer friends down the country to rear and produce all the poultry they can and all the eggs, and that they have a guranteed market for all they can produce during the few years that lie ahead? Those are the questions I would like to put to the Deputies opposite who have been elected, as I have been elected, to come to this House and work in the best interests of the people as a whole, not for any section of the people, to forget their own small little ways, the small little jealousies that have been shown here during the last few days. They are inwardly wishing that the Minister may fail in his policy during the coming year. I am one of the men who call a spade a spade. I am here elected by the people of Louth, independent of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, or any of the other Parties that constitute this Dáil at the present time.

I am here to serve the interests of the people who have sent me here. During my term of 21 years, and especially during the last 15 years, I have treated with sympathy whatever Minister was in the Fianna Fáil Government. I did my best in my native country to help him in whatever policy the Government of the day propounded and which they thought would serve the best interests of the people as a whole. I tell Deputies that if they are going to act up to the principles which they have professed and propounded here during the last three or four days, each and every one of them will go back to their respective constituencies and do their humble best to induce farmers and all concerned to make the policy propounded by the Minister on last Friday the success which it deserves to be. In doing that, they will be working in the interests of the people as a whole.

References have been made to what the Minister was supposed to do, to promises that he made and did not fulfil, and to schemes he turned down. I ask Deputies to try to endeavour to read intelligently the statement of the Minister. If they did that, they would not have made the speeches they made during the last three days, especially in regard to the farm improvement scheme, because it seems to me that a great many Deputies do not know the difference between the farm improvement scheme and the farm buildings scheme. They do not seem to have read the Minister's statement, otherwise they could not have made the speeches which have been made during the last three days.

Despite what has been said by Deputies opposite with reference to the feelings of farmers as regards the supposed dropping of this scheme, let me say that the Minister was quite right in view of the position with regard to building materials that exists at present, especially with reference to cement. Does any Opposition Deputy, with the experience that he has had during the last three or four months, think it right that cement or any other materials incidental or ancillary to the building of houses for the working people of the country should be used in farm buildings or in carrying out farm improvements? If not, why, then, twit the Minister about what he is supposed to have done and what he really has not done at all? This scheme will go on. The Minister has said so. He has praised the farm buildings scheme. He has given his reasons for the delay so far as proceeding with the scheme is concerned. Opposition Deputies, of course in order to score some little political points, had to misrepresent what the Minister stated in his opening speech last Friday.

Let me again say in regard to this farm improvement scheme and this farm buildings scheme, that I am one of those who happen to mix as much with farmers as any Deputy, and I can say that I have never heard one farmer in County Louth criticising the action of the Minister in regard to the farm buildings scheme. I think they are as good and efficient and industrious farmers as are to be found in any part of the Twenty-Six Counties. Of course Deputies opposite were so anxious to score off the Minister that they did not think it worth while to read his statement intelligently so as to enable them to discuss this Estimate with credit to themselves and advantage to the people whom they represent.

In conclusion, I think I can say on behalf of the majority of the farmers of this country that they are all delighted with the statement made by the Minister on Friday last. It is now up to Deputies to do their level best to make his work as easy as possible. In doing that they can be fortified in the thought and belief that they are not doing it in the interests of the present Minister, but in the interests of the Irish people.

A lot has been said on this Estimate concerning the methods for increased milk production. Unfortunately, I am refreshingly ignorant in matters of this kind and I would not dare to venture to make any suggestions in the matter. What I am really interested in is that, in the great drive for increased agricultural output, the great objective of farmers and milk producers should be more and more milk. Along with that I should like to think that the motto of our people should be "drink more milk". Unfortunately, we in this country are very much behind other people in our milk consumption per head of the population. I feel, and I think rightly so, that that has had and will continue to have a detrimental effect on the health of the community generally. But, if people are to be encouraged to drink more milk, the very least we can do is to ensure that these people will have no doubts in their minds as to the manner in which this commodity was produced. I feel it my duty to suggest to the Minister that the time has arrived when steps should be taken to see that the milk supply of this country is produced universally under such sanitary conditions as will ensure its being the valuable article of food which it ought to be rather than——

On a point of order, was not this the very matter that we discussed on the Estimate for the Department of Health a few days ago?

A good part of it may come under the Department of Health, but so far the Deputy is relevant. He is talking about the condition under which milk is produced by farmers.

It is a repetition of what we discussed last week.

I consider that we should ensure that the production of milk should result in its being a valuable article of food for the people rather than in some instances, I regret to state, a menace to the health of the population, particularly to the children. We are all aware that milk is a potential source of infection, not alone as regards tuberculosis——

On a point of order. I submit that this is entirely out of order on this Estimate.

The Deputy is travelling beyond the limit now. He is going into the realm of health matters. If he confines himself to the production of milk by farmers and how they should produce the milk, I shall hear him.

I would still think it my duty to ask the Minister, in co-operation with the Department of Health, to ensure that by every means in his power—by propaganda, by cinema, by radio—that——

That was all discussed on the Health Estimate.

——milk producers would be brought to a full realisation of their responsibilities and their duty to the community in regard to the manner in which they produce milk. Particularly would I urge on the Minister that in the case of urban areas he would try to arrange for pasteurisation.

I again submit that the Deputy is absolutely and completely out of order.

I am glad that Deputy Cowan is so fond of order. Deputy Dr. Maguire is travelling beyond the limit. Surely he is travelling into the realms of Health now rather than Agriculture? I gave him a good opportunity of developing his point.

Surely the Deputy's remarks in regard to the pasteurisation of milk would be more appropriate on the Health Estimate?

He is defying the Chair.

Let me turn then to the question of the tuberculin testing of cows, if that is relevant. I maintain that in so far as the State assumes responsibility concerning human tuberculosis, it should take upon itself the responsibility of providing the necessary cost for the tuberculin testing of cows and in any such cases where, as a result of the testing, those animals have to be destroyed, the State should make good the loss to the owner. It is rather a wide subject, I have been informed, but I think that it is one worth considering. With regard to our agricultural output generally, I would say that, unfortunately, in the past efficiency has not been an outstanding trait in our people. Rather have we been inclined to adopt an "It will do rightly" attitude to a lot of things. That tendency has, I am afraid, percolated down through the centuries. Admittedly, in the past, no great inducement was ever held out to us to do things really well. Now, however, that agriculture has become our own responsibility, I think the Minister will not resent my suggestion that quality in our agricultural output should not be lost sight of in his quest for quantity. To achieve quantity in our agricultural output I would say to the Minister that, in my opinion, our agricultural output will be strictly proportional to the degree of contentment that exists amongst the workers on the farms. For that reason, if for no other—and there are other reasons—I would appeal to the Minister to consider favourably at the earliest possible opportunity the conditions of service and the wages of the agricultural labourers and to ensure, if possible, that their status will be at least brought up to that of industrial employees. Until agriculture and industry in this country become handmaidens to one another we can never hope to stem the tide of the emigration of the youth of this country to work in other countries. I am sure that the stemming of emigration is the objective of every Deputy in this House.

Although the recent milk strike in Counties Monaghan, Cavan and Meath has fizzled out, I would ask the Minister not to assume because of that that those milk producers suddenly realised that they were getting an economic price for their milk. In my town alone two of the principal milk suppliers have ceased to supply milk altogether. The Minister must realise that there is no comparison between the costs of production of milk in Counties Monaghan, Cavan and Meath and the cost of production in the other great milk producing districts of the South such as the Golden Vale of Limerick, Tipperary and Cork. In the North, and in our county particularly—the Minister's own constituency—I am sure he must realise that farmers there have to hand feed their cattle for two months of the year more than the milk producers down South. For that reason, I would ask him—I am sure he will come up against them in the future—to see to it that those milk suppliers in Monaghan, Cavan and Meath get at least an economic price for their product.

I have been somewhat disturbed to-night by the trend of the advocacy towards compulsion. If there was one part of the Minister's statement more than another which appealed very strongly to me it was that in which he said:—

"From the Minister of Agriculture down to the most junior inspector in my Department, he will enter on his neighbour's land in future by invitation or not at all."

I am quoting from columns 2593-4, Official Report of the 9th July, 1948. To me that statement is something very fundamental. It is an outlook which has been lost sight of for many years past in this country. I welcome the return of that point of view. On all sides of the House Deputies expressed alarm and dissatisfaction at the Minister's policy in this respect. With regard to those people who are very ready to apply compulsory methods I would say that of all the nations in the world I want to belong to Ireland most; I want to be an Irishman more than a citizen of any other country, but I want to be a free Irishman. I do not want to be bossed. For that reason I commend the Minister's attitude and I welcome his statement. I am quite confident that the Irish farmer will fully justify the confidence the Minister is now reposing in him. I am a firm believer in government by inducement rather than by compulsion. If any Government wants any section of the community to put into effect any particular part of Government policy, then it is the Government's business to make it attractive for that particular section of the community to do what the Government thinks ought to be done. Deputies on the Opposition Benches may not yet recognise or realise that that learning towards bossing of Irish people contributed to a very great extent to the fact that they now find themselves in opposition.

I would like to issue a word of warning to the Minister, having commended him as I have done. I want him so to direct his policy as to avoid any return in this country to the ranching system. The world to-day is faced with a conflict between two philosophies— between the philosophy, I think it right to say, of Moscow and of Rome. The surest material bulwark in the material sense against the odious menace of Communism in this country is to have a satisfied community of land-holders on moderately sized economic holdings. If you have a satisfied farming community—which, in my definition, includes the agricultural workers as well as the farmers— you will have, next to religion, the strongest material bulwark you can have against Communism. The Minister should, therefore, direct his policy to that end. You will not have a satisfied people and, above all, you will not have satisfied Irishmen, if they are being told—as the Minister himself said—what to do and how to do it, what time to get up in the morning and what time to go to bed at night, what they are to eat and how often.

I would also say to the Minister that I do not want this country to be England's larder. If we can read from the Minister's pronouncement that that is one of his ambitions, then I would like him to know that I am not at one with him in that. In the history of the relations between this country and England there is no reason that I know of why we should have any feelings of very great friendship towards our neighbour across the Channel.

Christianity.

I believe that our first allegiance should be to Ireland—first, last and all the time. I certainly do not consider that in justice, at any rate, we owe anything to our neighbour across the Channel whatever we might owe in charity. Accordingly, I do not approve of the Minister's leanings towards the making of this country a larder or a kitchen garden for England. It may be said that it is a sure market. I think it would be wiser to take the best there is from day to day in the present state of events in the world and, if we can get better terms anywhere else, then I think we ought to take them.

I was somewhat disturbed at the trend of the debate and I was disappointed,. too, because of the extraordinary and unnecessary bitterness which was introduced. I deplore that sort of conduct in debate. In fairness to the House, I may say that unfortunately the bitterness was not confined to one side of the House. We could all of us conduct ourselves more like Christian Irishmen rather than conduct ourselves in the manner we have witnessed here on this Estimate in the past few days. Sin a bhfuil le rá agam.

With regard to the Minister's introductory statement on this Estimate, I do not think there was anything really revolutionary in it. When you strip it of a little rhetoric and a slight amount of exaggeration, you find that the Minister has not, in fact, departed in the least from the policy of his predecessor. I could see no real difference at all.

Can the Deputy explain the four and a quarter hours' speech then?

I hope Deputy Cowan is not forgetting his desire for order.

With a great deal of what the Minister stated I quite readily agree. I disagree with some points and other points, I think, would create a certain amount of distrust and suspicion in my mind. That, however, may not be justified, because the Minister is at times undoubtedly inclined to a little exaggeration. With regard to his rather alarming statement as to the reduction in our cattle population, I think that he is hardly justified in the picture he drew. He took last January as the date on which to base his figures. My memory goes back over a long period, and I know that in this country at one time there was very little sale for cattle from October until February. Last year there was a continuous sale of cattle all the year round and cattle were being exported without interruption during the winter months. I would say that the decrease could be largely accounted for in that way. In fact, for several years the sale of cattle has been very brisk. If we sell them and send them out of the country, we cannot have them here. There is, of course, a possible shortage of cows, but that is largely accounted for by the big prices prevailing. So long as people get a better price for dry stock they will not concentrate on cows, and unless the Minister can bring about some departure from that, that state of affairs will continue.

One thing I am really concerned with is what appears to be the Minister's policy of departure from tillage and a reversal to the grazing system. I hope I am not right in that, but, judging by a number of the Minister's statements, it would appear as if he is bent on concentrating on a policy of grazing and the production of cattle mainly for export to England. I will not deny that a large amount of export is required, but it should not be the policy of the Minister for Agriculture, above all men, to concentrate on a grazing policy. I agree with several Deputies opposite who said that we should aim at the splitting up of the larger ranches. This moral suasion or persuasion is all right, talking of ordinary people, but the experience of all of us is that you cannot persuade the rancher to till; it is the last thing in the world that he wants to do. I have seen that for myself. In this matter I have no personal feeling against any man.

Fianna Fáil spent 15 years aiming at splitting up the ranches, but how often did they pull the trigger?

There is no one in a better position to contradict the Minister for Lands than I am, from my experience in County Roscommon. The Minister for Lands need not try to tell me about it.

Come over to my Department and I will show you figures to prove what I say.

I can show the Minister where in our time we dealt with many thousands of acres.

Do not be talking through your hat.

I do not want to waste the time of the House on these interruptions, and I will proceed to deal with the policy in relation to tillage. I agree with the Minister when he says that, if possible, you should use persuasion, enticement or inducement by way of guaranteed prices. That is perfectly sound, and there is no departure from Fianna Fáil policy in that connection. That policy has been pursued for a long time and I hope it will succeed. There may be cases in which it may not succeed, and there should be provision made for that, especially in times of crisis. Now as regards wheat-growing, the pet aversion of the Minister for Agriculture to wheat-growing is one of the things I cannot understand. Again and again the Minister said that he regards wheat-growing as all cod and nonsense. I do not quite understand that.

He is not stopping anybody.

Do not his statements show how much he is against it? We all agree wheat growing is necessary, and if it is good policy for the people in the Argentine and Canada and the United States to grow wheat, why should it be bad policy here? Surely we should try to produce the food we require in so far as it is possible to do so? I agree with the Minister that in certain impoverished lands and other types of land, you cannot successfully grow wheat, but in most of the counties of Ireland you can grow it successfully, provided that the land is properly tilled and manured. I do not say you will get a good crop of wheat after an oats crop, but in most districts you would get a good wheat crop after potatoes or other root crops. Why cannot we grow wheat in the lands that are suitable?

I have been in touch with our chief agricultural officer in County Roscommon and he satisfied himself by experiments that in those lands where wheat has failed the reason was lack of lime and phosphates. These are the things the Minister should concentrate on—making lime and phosphates available for those lands. If he does so, he will find that the people can get splendid crops of wheat. Years ago I was harvesting a crop of wheat and a man who had been in the United States happened to come along. I asked him his experience in that country and he told me he had been engaged in harvesting wheat and he said the crop I was harvesting was at least twice as heavy as the United States crop would be. If that is so, there is no reason why we should not grow it here in suitable land. I hope the Minister will change his ideas and cease calling this nonsense and all cod and encourage the growing of wheat and beet and other things we can grow so well.

I am glad the Minister has in mind schemes for the production of burnt lime and crushed limestone. It is time such schemes should be proceeded with and in this connection I feel sure he will have the hearty co-operation of everybody. The main point is to make these things available in backward and boggy districts, where they are so much required. Of course, transport may make it impossible for some farmers to get it, unless there is some organisation which will place this burnt lime and crushed limestone at the disposal of the smaller farmers particularly. Boggy lands are always in need of lime, but never so much as at the present time. The Minister should concentrate on cheap crushed limestone and have it transported to those backward areas.

The Minister referred to the testing of soil by the officers of the county committees of agriculture. That is a very commendable thing and I congratulate the Minister on putting that idea forward. I hope he will continue with it. At the present time there are various crops that turn out a failure. On testing the soil, it may be found that there are certain elements missing which can be supplied by farmyard or artificial manure.

I do not pretend to be an expert in the dairying industry, although I was reared in a district where dairy cows constituted a very important factor as the means of living of the small farmers. I would like to tell the Minister that there is a very real grievance in the cutting away of the subsidy on farmers' butter. If the Minister believes, as he seems to, that there can be a very good price got, despite the fact that the subsidy has been cut away, he should provide some organisation by which the small country farmers who have no creamery within reach will get a market for their butter. I can assure him that within the last few days I have known of people who took in their country butter to the town where last year they had no bother in selling it and they could not sell it. Even where they did sell it during some weeks past, they did not get anything like the price that is paid for creamery butter. That is not as it ought to be.

Why is that so?

I will tell you why. In the towns the country people are entitled to a ration of butter. In the summer time they do not take it and in the towns they now have an extra supply. The ration that would normally go in winter time to the country people is used by the townspeople and they do not want the country butter. That is the position and I think it is a sufficient explanation. If there is a market outside, I suggest to the Minister that he should get some organisation going. I am not going to criticise him for that. I do not blame the Minister for Agriculture altogether because I think the Minister for Finance introduced the matter in his Budget, but, in any case, he should have some organisation through which country people would be able to sell their butter. That is all I ask. There is no use in saying that the country woman can sell her butter at a good price at the moment. Possibly if some organisation were in existence she could, and I would ask the Minister to get such an organisation going.

Does the Deputy know where there is a surplus of butter at present?

All I know is that people tell me they cannot sell it in local towns. If some organisation was set up and if the Minister has a market for it, they could get it. A good deal of time has already elapsed, as May, June and July are the months in which butter is mostly produced.

I am going over these matters rather hastily, but I want to say a word or two in regard to the matter of pigfeeding. We all know that there is a great shortage of pigs and bacon and the Minister, I think, has got the idea that that is due to the fact that there is a black market in bacon. There may be a certain amount of that, but I do not think that that is the main cause of the shortage. The main cause why pigs are not being produced at the moment is that you cannot produce pigs at the present price, even if there was no shortage of feeding stuffs. I state that deliberately, speaking from my own experience. Unless there is an increase in the price of pigs or a reduction in the cost of feeding stuffs, you cannot have an increase in production.

Did you tell your own Minister that?

Strange to say, the prices of feeding stuffs have gone up rather than come down. Potatoes are much dearer than they were last year. I am not making any political point out of this nor do I wish to make any political point out of any matter that I have raised this evening. The price of feeding stuffs is such that pigs cannot be produced at a profit at the moment. If you buy a pair of slips at £12 or £13 and feed them for three months, I defy you to make a profit or pay for any labour involved in feeding these pigs out of the price you will get for them. We all want to see increased production, but unless there is some change in the cost of feeding stuffs or an increase in the price of bacon, you are not going to get the pigs. You simply cannot at present prices.

I should like to make a brief reference to the farm improvements scheme, the building of out-offices and reconstruction. Deputy Coburn stated that he did not hear any complaints in County Louth. That is probably correct, because Louth is a very up-to-date county, but if he would come with me to West Roscommon, North Roscommon, Mayo and County Galway, where the farms are not so up-to-date—and the Minister for Agriculture knows these areas very well—he would see that there is a very big need for improved farm buildings. There is no need to convert the Minister on that point. I agree with the statement of Deputy Dr. Ryan that some of this work at least could be put under way. For instance, cement may not be required in all cases. I would ask the Minister, if it is at all possible, to make provision for these works where materials are available and where the works would not call for a supply of cement that he should allow such works to proceed. In that way, he would be getting rid of some portion of the problem, because it is a problem that is cumulative. I think something could be done in cases where materials are available, the use of which will not detract from the building of houses.

One question that has been very lightly touched upon is the question of agricultural education. The Minister, of course, says that no inspector will be authorised to enter upon a farm without an invitation from the owner but, no matter how you may look at it, the ordinary farmer in this country is not properly instructed in agriculture. The instructors under the county committees do very good work, no doubt, but their scope is limited. It is an absolute impossibility to visit every farm. I am present at nearly every meeting of the committee of agriculture in my county and I find that there is an aggregate of some hundreds of visits by these instructors. I do not say they are invited in every case, but they go in there on friendly visits. That is work of a very useful nature, but I say it is not enough.

Some years ago there was what I might call an agitation in favour of an agricultural bias in education. In those years a number of reading lessons on agricultural subjects were provided in books in the national schools, but within recent years these have been abandoned. As a matter of fact boys and girls leaving the national schools know practically nothing about agriculture. I think that is a great mistake. We should undoubtedly give an agricultural bias to the education imparted at least in country schools. I would say at the very least we could have lessons in agricultural subjects included in the reading books. Simple as that may appear, it would certainly arouse the people's interest in the subject of agriculture. On many occasions I have put up in my own constituency and elsewhere a plea that there should be a class room attached to country schools in which vocational or agricultural subjects could be taught. When boys and girls reach the age of 12, or between the age of 12 and 15, I do not see any reason why they should not get some instruction in agricultural subjects. The teacher may not be qualified in all cases to give this instruction but in some cases it could be done by itinerant teachers under the vocational system.

In addition, I think more could be done under the auspices of the county committee of agriculture. To do this, of course, would require more money. The present Minister knows some of the potentialities of these committees. He knows they are very much in touch with the people and that they could do a lot of useful work. I have seen myself classes conducted by poultry instructresses in the keeping of poultry and the making of butter, and that is a matter which I regard as very important in country districts. If these classes were multiplied I think a great deal more could be done. I was present recently at a conference on food production, but I think if, in addition to his proposal to have scientific research carried out in agriculture, the Minister would make provision for additional instruction in country places he would be doing a very useful work. As I said at the outset, I do not want to make any political capital out of this matter one way or the other. I happen to be chairman of the county committee of agriculture, and I am fairly interested in the subject. I am sure the Minister could, by assisting such committees in the directions which I have indicated, do a considerable amount for the furtherance of agricultural production.

I should be grateful for the Deputy's opinion. Does he consider that cinema units would be useful for that purpose?

Yes. I have seen some of these and they are very good.

I am convinced that a new chapter in the history of our agricultural economy is opening up, and I am further convinced that the farmers have been released from bondage and that, for once in their lives, so far as the past number of years are concerned, they can breathe freely and enjoy the freedom they desire. The agricultural industry is the predominant industry, but it is an industry which has been neglected and forgotten. One of the first steps of Fianna Fáil was to industrialise the country, but they forgot about our agriculture and about the foundations on which that industry should be based. In doing that I feel that they put the cart before the horse, because their first duty was to establish our agricultural industry on a firm and solid basis. So many years have passed and this neglect has been so continuous from year to year that the Minister is faced with a stupendous task in bringing it back to anything like what it should be. He has tackled the problem in a businesslike way and I have no doubt that, as a business man, a practical man who has studied the industry from A to Z, he will, at the end of his term of office, show very satisfactory results.

Like a number of other Deputies, I detest the word "compulsion". I think that to most Irishmen the word "compulsion" is obnoxious, because for years we laboured under various forms of compulsion. At the outset of my remarks I said the farmers had been released from bondage, and by that I meant released from that obnoxious obligation of compulsory tillage. While tillage was essential during the emergency and while a certain amount of compulsion was necessary, I think it was carried to extremes. A quota of three-eights of the arable land was excessive. First, there was not sufficient labour to harvest that amount of crop; and, secondly, it was a rough and ready form of tillage that was carried out, for the simple reason that people were not able to comply to the full with the quota requirements. If a much smaller quota had been fixed, far better results would have accrued. With less tillage, there would have been more food, if the quota had been reduced.

I am glad that that has ceased once and for all, and I have no hesitation in saying that the farmers will respond to the call of the Minister and of the House to produce much more food and much more grain than they produced under compulsion, in circumstances very different from those which prevailed for the past few years. In my county compulsion was resented by almost all farmers, particularly in connection with wheat, and I agree with the Minister up to a point that, so far as my county was concerned, the growing of wheat was a pure and absolute "cod". There is no doubt about that. Unlike Deputy O'Rourke, I have seen no satisfactory results from wheat growing in my county, and, in 99 per cent. of cases there, more wheat was put into the ground than was ever taken out of it.

Let me give my own experience. My quota was three and a half statute acres, and last year I spent something like £19 on seed wheat. I did a decent job on the sowing of that wheat. I produced a decent seed bed, manuring it perfectly with both farmyard and artificial manure. The net result was that I sold my wheat last harvest and got £14 12s. 6d. for it. The seed alone cost me £19, without taking into consideration my expenses in labour, ploughing, sowing, reaping, threshing and so on. That was my experience, and the experience of at least 70 per cent. of the farmers of County Roscommon. When it is impossible to grow wheat in a particular area, people should not be compelled to grow it, a policy which continued unceasingly for six or seven years.

I want to compliment the Minister on the trade agreement. The farmers, from North to South, show signs of happiness, contentment and of anticipation of better times as a result of it. Heretofore, the farmer did not know exactly to-day what his condition to-morrow might be, but he has now got a long-term guarantee for four years in respect of prices for his cattle and eggs. He has a fixed guaranteed price for his wheat and barley for the next five years and he is no longer going around in the dark as he has been for some years past. He was like a man playing blind-man's buff and did not know where he was going.

In dealing with agriculture it is necessary in many respects to couple it with other industries, and for that reason the activities of other Departments, such as the Departments of Finance, Industry and Commerce and Education, are closely interwoven with the activities of the Department of Agriculture. In that connection, I refer to drainage. Drainage and agriculture are closely associated, and I suggest to the Minister that there should be a certain amount of co-operation between his Department and the Department of Finance in relation to drainage. We want to increase agricultural production, no matter what it costs, and, if we want to put more land into production, we have to carry out an extensive scheme of drainage. Such work has already started, but there are some minor drainage schemes which have been neglected and there are thousands of acres of land which could become productive, if these minor schemes of drainage were undertaken. I suggest that the Minister should make representations to the Department of Finance with a view to getting these schemes carried out under the Board of Works, with minor relief grants, if possible.

Agriculture is also closely associated with education. Deputy O'Rourke has already referred to this, and I am in entire agreement with him in that respect. The child's mind is formed in the national school, and I suggest that, in receiving his primary education, the child should be given something in the nature of an elementary knowledge of agriculture. There was a time, some 30 or 40 years ago, when agriculture was a recognised subject in these schools. It is amusing to see the readers that I see with my young children. Whether Irish or English, they invariably deal with wild animals, perhaps the Polar bear in Russia or wild animals in some other part of the world, whereas if they contained nice little instructive lessons on the cultivation of plots we would be laying the foundation of an interest in agriculture. The mentality of the younger people is a drift away from the land and that has been brought about by the attractions and inducements of the city, where there are more amenities and more comforts, cinemas and all the rest of it. If we could inculcate in the young people a taste for agriculture it would gradually develop and it would encourage them to engage in the most desirable occupation we can offer to our people, namely agriculture.

The teacher should have some qualifications in agriculture and before entrance to the training college there should be some test to show that he has an elementary knowledge of that important subject. Although we have a number of agricultural schools, the number is far too few. The existing schools are utilised to the utmost and I have heard that it is very difficult for farmers' sons to gain admission to the schools. There should be more of these schools. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that in each of the Twenty-Six Counties there should be an agricultural school and a demonstration farm attached to that school, because at present there is not sufficient accommodation for all the people who wish to pursue a course in such a school.

As to the cost of feeding-stuffs and its effect on pig production, a great deal can be said. At the present time pig production is not a profitable business because of the high cost of feeding-stuffs, and I would ask the Minister to consider the price of one very important feeding-stuff. namely, maize, and to make representations to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to that matter. Maize is unsurpassed as far as pig production is concerned. In reply to a Parliamentary Question here yesterday, I heard a price of £22 or £22 10s. 0d. being quoted for maize at the port. The present retail price in my part of the country is £1 8s. 8d. per cwt. I understand that maize is being sold to the mills at about £23 10s. 0d. or £24 a ton. If the margin of £4 10s. 0d. is allowed to the millers, I consider that excessive and I would advise the Minister to consider that and to reduce the profit to £2 a ton, which would be sufficient for any miller. I would ask the Minister, in co-operation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to see that the price of maize would be reduced by at least 2/- a cwt.

I would further suggest that the Minister should use his good offices to have rural electrification spread all over the country. The farming community at the moment are a discontented community. The great difficulty with the farmer is to get his son to settle down on the farm. Many factors contribute to the unrest, uneasiness and discontent. If there were rural electrification the young farmer could fodder his cattle, pulp his turnips and crush his oats at night. It would be an inducement to him to stay on the land.

In conclusion I would suggest that the matter of water supply should not be neglected. That is another amenity to which people in rural areas are entitled but which they are deprived of in many cases. The Minister should consult with whatever Minister is responsible for that matter.

The debate has been very protracted and there is nothing very much left for me to say except that I, on behalf of the people I represent, wish the Minister many happy years of office and I know, and I am glad to say, that the people in my constituency expect the great things from him that he has promised us.

I am surprised at the length of this debate, particularly after the decision we took to-day limiting the period during which these Estimates were to be under discussion. I should have imagined that, in view of the particular political line-up of the House, Estimates such as those of the Taoiseach, the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Industry and Commerce should be the Estimates that time might be spent on but I am afraid my friends on the opposite side have lost the art.

They are slipping.

Definitely. I am greatly disappointed.

A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.

To what part of the Agriculture Estimate is this addressed?

I was disappointed particularly when I heard Deputy O'Rourke saying that there was no difference at all in the policy explained by the Minister and the policy that would have been in operation if his predecessor, Deputy Smith, was still in office.

Glory be to God. Was that said?

That was said.

That is why I am particularly worried, as a Deputy who has been cast into the wilderness in the last few days, at the lack of political strategy and tactics in the main Opposition Party.

The Deputy is a lone bird.

A lone bird, fighting a lone cause.

There are only three Fianna Fáil Deputies over there. We are a crowd here.

He has no friends.

There were a lot of people in this country who had no friends for a time. Is not that right?

You will come up again.

We shall rise again.

The Deputy has a minute to come to the Estimate. I suggest he should do it in a minute.

I shall make the best effort I can in the minute at my disposal. However, I could not avoid making that particular reference in the hope that we might be able to get on to those serious political problems in the next couple of weeks. I am not going to attempt to follow the general run of this debate this evening on what might be termed the ordinary technical end of agriculture. I feel that that is a matter entirely for the farmers themselves and I feel that our general organisation should be based in such a way that decisions on those technical matters should be taken, not by politicians in this House, but by the farmers themselves and it is for the purpose of expressing that viewpoint that I rise at all in this debate this evening. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 12 midnight until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15th July.
Top
Share