Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Apr 1951

Vol. 125 No. 7

Committee on Finance - Vote 27—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the motion:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Smith.)

When discussing this matter last night, I had not the advantage of having my notes with me. I have got them now and would like Deputy Davin to remain to hear me quote him. Speaking in this House on the 18th November, 1948, Deputy Davin dealt with the then position of milk supplies and the price of milk and he said, as given in column 276 of Volume 113:—

"Every member of the Government must ask himself what is the cause of that and must take the earliest possible steps to see that the dairying industry does not get into a state of collapse. It might be described as the foundation of our agricultural economy and, as the acting Minister for Agriculture said, it is an industry which cannot be allowed to disappear."

He goes further, and in column 277 on the same day he says:—

"I believe that the real reason that farmers are getting out of the dairying industry is that they are not getting a profitable price for their milk. Is there any Deputy, on whatever side he sits, who will defend the policy of providing a subsidy, if he were certain that, by providing a subsidy, he is not going to provide an economic or profitable price for a particular commodity? I would prefer to defend the raising of whatever sum might be necessary— thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions—from the taxpayers to provide a profitable price for the dairy farmers, than to provide only half the amount necessary for the purpose."

That was Deputy Davin on the 18th November, 1948. I wonder does he now think that after the winter we have gone through and with all the increases in the cost of production that have been piled on the farmers' shoulders from 1948, when Deputy Davin made that speech, to 1951, the half of a farthing per pint increase in the price of milk given by the Minister last week gives his farmers in Leix-Offaly an economic and profitable price for their milk. That is a fair question, arising from Deputy Davin's own statement.

Where did the Deputy get the half farthing?

A penny a gallon. Make it up yourself. Surely you went to school.

He forgets the calves and a good many other things.

They were 2/6 apiece in Cork last week.

Send me up the ones you cannot sell. I would be glad to have them.

It is no wonder that, three years after the emergency, we still have to go abroad for sufficient butter to provide the rations for our people here. This is the foundation of agriculture—our dairy stock—and if that goes, all goes. You cannot even have the bullocks to fatten them in the winter if you have not the old cow to produce the bullock. Under those conditions, the Minister comes along and considers that an increase of 1d. per gallon for the seven months is sufficient over and above the price fixed by the previous Minister, Mr. Paddy Smith, in March, 1947. I wonder what justifies the Deputies over there—they are all missing now—the so-called representatives of the farmers who came in November, 1947, and put down a motion for consideration here claiming that the increase given by the then Minister in March, 1947, was not sufficient and that an increased price should be given. That was when we were in office, in November, 1947. I wonder what enormous increase came since to justify those Deputies in trotting into the Lobby there, accompanied by Deputy Davin, last year to vote against that increased price being given to the farmers, despite the statement made by Deputy Davin.

Deputy Davin drew other glowing pictures of the results of the activities of the Minister for Agriculture. He told us that potatoes were being sold in his constituency at £5 a ton and that oats was unsaleable. The result of the Minister's activities then was shown last year when we had the Minister rushing to the Argentine for oats, rushing to Iraq for barley, and I believe he tried the Channel Islands for potatoes. That is one line of the conditions. I am drawing a definite line in this discussion, on the activities of this Minister for Agriculture, in regard to what is Government-controlled in this country, the prices fixed by Government control and the prices as got by negotiations between the only farmers' organisation left and the body to whom they were delivering the raw produce. I allude to the Beet Growers' Association and their negotiations with Messrs. Arthur Guinness and the Irish Sugar Company. I must draw a definite line there. I have shown that the policy of the Minister for Agriculture has put the country into the position of having to go to the Argentine for oats, to Iraq for barley, to other foreign countries for wheat, to Mesopotamia and Cuba for sugar and to Denmark for butter and then this country was supposed to be at one time an agricultural country. In each case the price paid for those commodities was at least 50 per cent. higher than the price that the Minister for Agriculture was prepared to pay the Irish farmers for the same commodities.

I now want to turn my attention to sugar. In 1948, I appealed to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce to increase the price for beet so that the farmers would get some opportunity of providing sugar for ourselves in our own country. The reply given to a request by the Irish Sugar Company to the Government for an increase was that the previous Government had been far too generous to the farming community. How do you like that?

I would ask Deputy Corry to give the quotation to the House in proof of the statement that has been made?

I do not think that Deputy Corry is purporting to quote. He is paraphrasing or giving what his impression is of what was said. I did not think he was purporting to quote.

I am giving that statement here and I invite the then Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance to contradict it.

Why this matter is raised here on my Vote is a mystery to me.

I am waiting to see what relevancy it has and how the Deputy will relate it to the Vote.

It has no relevancy. It is not true.

I am relating that activity to the price of beet and to the reduction in the quantity and acreage of beet grown in this country. I quote from the Official Debates of 1st March, 1950, columns 959, 960, Volume 119. I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce:—

"If he will state (1) the present economic price (c.i.f.) of imported sugar, and (2) the economic price of sugar manufactured from home-produced beet."

The Minister replied:—

"The present c.i.f. cost of imported sugar which is mainly in the unrefined state, varies from £40 to £45 per ton. The cost of sugar manufactured from home produced beet is approximately £37 per ton."

I then asked:—

"Is the Minister aware of a statement which was made by the general manager of the sugar company, General Costello, in an article which was published in the Cork Examiner of the 23rd February last? In that article he stated that the average sterling value of Irish sugar was £50 a ton and that the cheapest world delivered price was £62 a ton. That represents £12 a ton more for foreign sugar than for sugar produced at home."

What Estimate are we discussing?

I then appealed to the Minister and suggested that there should be a conference. That was when he admitted that they were bringing in 36,000 tons of foreign sugar. I said:—

"My suggestion is that there should be a conference between the sugar company, the Beet Growers' Association, the Minister and the Department of Finance."

That suggestion was made so that an effort would be made to find ways and means of having this sugar produced here. The Minister replied:—

"What further inducement does the Deputy suggest is required?"

To that, I replied:—

"That is the matter to be considered."

At any rate, the conference was not held and this year we went to Cuba. I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce on 1st March, 1951, whether he was aware that some 8,000 tons of foreign sugar were being imported and that, according to Press reports, a further cargo had been purchased, and, if so, whether he would state (1) the total number of tons purchased; (2) the price per ton f.o.b. at Dublin and (3) the present cost of Irish sugar produced by our own farmers and workers.

The Parliamentary Secretary replied:—

"Comhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta, has purchased 74,000 tons of Cuban raw sugar to be landed before the end of June at an average cost of £47 19s. per ton landed at Dublin. The cost price of beet sugar produced during the manufacturing season which closed last month is not available."

I then had to put down a further question asking how much of this sugar was lost in the process of refinement, and, of the 74,000 tons, 7,000 odd tons were lost, according to the reply of the Minister. That means that we paid last year £1,347,000 more to the foreigner on that quantity of sugar than we paid our own farmers and our own factories and our own workers for producing it here. That is a direct result of the policy of a Minister who stated publicly in this House that beet was gone up the spout. That is the Minister whom the Government put in charge of agriculture and that is the result of his activities.

When I heard that this sugar was being imported, I got into immediate communication with the General Manager of the Irish Sugar Company, General Costello. As a result, a conference was called between the chairman of the four branches of the Beet Growers' Association and General Costello. The direct result of this conference was an immediate increase in the price of beet this year of 12/- per ton. Although it was rather late in the year when that took place, I hope it will have the effect of increasing the acreage and the yield of beet this year. It will relieve the State and the people of this country from having to pay £1,300,000 odd in extra taxation so that the foreigners might be paid for the sugar that they consume.

If the steps I had urged in my request to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in March, 1950, had been taken, we would probably have avoided this condition of affairs under which 74,000 odd tons of a foreign sugar had to be imported. That is why I am separating this matter of beet and malting barley from the other matters over which the Minister has control. I am very happy to say that the first the Minister saw of this increase of 12/- per ton in the price of beet was when he opened the Irish Times, his Irish Independent or his Irish Press the following morning and I am glad to say that he was not prepared to bar that activity of ours.

Malting barley is another commodity which was under Government control for a long period and then ceased to be so controlled. Speaking in this House at column 2595 of the Official Debates of 9th July, 1948, the Minister declared:—

"The world price of barley was 60/- and over and when the brewers of this country were ready and willing to pay 60/- and over, they were prevented from doing so by our own Government, with the consequence that, in the last five years, the barley farmers of this country were fined by our own Government £2,000,000 sterling which passed into the coffers of Arthur Guinness, Son and Co., and were then extracted by the British Treasury in excess profits tax collected in Britain.... That will never happen again."

I put down a question asking the Minister if he proposed to decontrol the price of barley for the 1948 season and the Minister evaded answering by being absent when the question was asked. I was asked to postpone the question for a week and I smelled a rat. I immediately got on the phone to the directors of Messrs. Arthur Guinness and asked them when they were going to see us about fixing the price of barley.

This all has to do with 1948 and it is all pure moonshine, but I understood we were discussing the administration of 1950.

The motion to refer back widens the basis of discussion.

In order to give the background of this situation, I have to go back a couple of years.

There is not a scintilla of truth in the whole thing.

I guarantee to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that I will not go back to the days of Brian Boru, as the Minister is fond of doing.

Go back to 1943 and the prices then.

I have given the Minister's statement with regard to 1943. If Deputy Keane is anyway interested, I can tell him that control then had to be enforced so that this country would provide an acreage of wheat adequate to supply our people with bread during the emergency. The Fianna Fáil Government have no apology to make to anybody for that and will make no such apology. I am dealing now with the free period which came afterwards. Messrs. Guinness told me that they had a letter from the Minister in regard to the price of barley and that the Minister said in that letter that the price would remain as fixed last year at 45/- per barrel. I asked if the Minister had told him that he had said that they had robbed the farmers of £2,000,000 and they replied: "No, he did not say that at all. You had better come up and see us." I went to see them the following morning and they had the Minister's letter stating that the price would remain at 45/-. I said I did not know which of the two the Minister proposed to do, but I told them that I had a question down for answer on the following Wednesday and we arranged to meet the following Thursday morning, after the Minister had replied.

The Minister did not reply here. He went down the country and announced that he had increased the price from 45/- to 50/-, adding:—

"I have no intention of removing the control. The price remains at 50/-."

The following morning, we, as representatives of the barley growers of the country, had to go to Messrs. Guinness with the Minister's 50/- rope around our necks and make a bargain with them. The result was that we fixed the price for the following year at 57/6. There was an opportunity there, when something like 145,000 tons of barley were lying in the country for which Messrs. Guinness were prepared to pay 60/- and over, but the Minister stepped in and insisted on keeping control on the price and so deprived the farmer, who, he said, had been robbed by Messrs. Guinness, of close on £1,000,000. That was the Minister's first venture into the field of malting barley.

Up to the time of the following harvest, the Minister bought abroad and he paid £1,000,000 for malting barley, brought it in here and filled every store in the country with it, with the result that, when the farmers went to sell their barley in the harvest period, they found themselves in the very unenviable position that, owing to these activities, the maltsters remained open, at the longest, for nine or ten days and then closed. They wanted no more barley. One enterprising firm closed down for two days and then started again at 50/-, and they had to be taken into the High Court in order that the difference between the 50/- and the 57/6 could be extracted from them. We succeeded in that, but no thanks to the gentleman who is paid as the protector of the farmers' interests and who did his part in endeavouring to prevent us having that market.

In that contract, there is a clause from which I suggest the Minister, who sells our eggs at 2/- per dozen less than the English farmer gets and our other produce at prices less than the English farmer gets, should take guidance. It is a little clause which I put into the contract with Messrs. Guinness, setting out that the price shall be not less than 2/6 per barrel over the average price paid by Messrs. Guinness for malting barley in Britain. Barley is the one product which the farmers of this country are selling for which they are entitled to a price which is 2/6 a barrel more than the English farmer gets. We made an arrangement last harvest for selling barley to Messrs. Guinness at 53/6 and each one of us later received very kindly from Messrs. Guinness a nice little cheque for the extra 2/- per barrel because the English farmer had got 53/-. This year, we have fixed a price of 57/6, or £28 15s. 0d. per ton. That price has been fixed, not by the Minister, but by the committee of the Beet Growers' Association.

Or by Deputy Corry.

I had a good hand in it. The price for malting barley is £28 15s. 0d. per ton and the price for wheat to produce the bread we eat, as fixed by the Minister, is £25 per ton. These are the two differences in policy. What can we expect? What can anybody hope for from the Minister who carried out these activities?

I come now to a matter to which, I hope, the Minister will devote his serious attention. He must be aware that, undoubtedly, the Irish Sugar Company were the pioneers of ground limestone in this country. They started their quarries in Ballybeg. They bought their plant and machinery and they set about producing ground limestone for the Irish farmer. I do not know the present position, but when I wrote to Mallow last week stating that I wanted lime spread on my farm I got a reply informing me that if I wanted it spread on the farm I should have to take it without any subsidy at 30/- a ton or that I could send my order to Córas Iompair Eireann and have the lime delivered on the roadside at 16/- a ton. Labour is not for nothing on Irish farms to-day. Would it not be far easier, where you have a fleet of some 80 lime spreaders owned by the sugar company in Mallow, to have the lime filled into these spreaders by machinery, then sent directly to the farmer's land and spread at 5/- per ton of an increase in price? Would it not be far easier to do that than to have the complete dislocation of work that is occurring at present? The farmer who takes advantage of the fact that the lime will be spread on his land by the sugar company is being deprived of what his fellow farmers can get, namely, a subsidy of 9/- a ton. Surely it is possible to surmount this difficulty. If the Minister is not prepared to deal with a State company, which the sugar company is, and to give to that State company the subsidy which he is giving to others——

Everything is working perfectly smoothly.

What about this letter which I received last week from the sugar company? What has the Minister to say about that?

The Deputy is out of date.

Has the Minister changed it since?

I cannot say, since the Deputy has got the letter, but it is working perfectly smoothly now—if the Deputy does not upset the apple cart.

Can I get——

——all the lime you want.

——and spread on my land at the subsidised price?

Everything is now working perfectly smoothly.

I am glad to hear that. Probably by now the Minister has received the sugar company's letter which they sent to me, which stated that if I wanted the lime spread on my farm I should have to pay 30/- a ton for it. If my activities during the past fortnight have resulted in the rectification of that matter, I am very well pleased.

If it has, it is because of Deputy Corry's work and, if it has not, it is my fault.

I was going to suggest to the Minister that if he has any difficulty in settling that matter with the sugar company he might, on the certificate given by the sugar company stating that such and such a farmer has got so many tons of lime, give direct to the farmer the 9/- a ton subsidy. That would be another way out. I am very glad to hear that the matter has now been settled. If I find, on going back, that the matter has not been settled, well, I shall have a pleasant half hour with the Minister next week—if he is still here.

Hope burns eternal in the human breast.

I am very much afraid that a lot of the hope that burned in the breast of the agricultural community in 1947 was quenched in 1948 —and the balance of it was quenched from 1948 to 1951 by the activities of the Minister for Agriculture. I can guarantee that.

In conclusion, I should like to pass a very sincere vote of thanks to the Minister for the large number of recruits which his recent statement on the price of milk and on the activities of an organisation known as the Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association has driven into my ranks in Cork. The Minister describes them as a Fianna Fáil ramp—and they say that they might as well have the gain as well as the blame. They have, therefore, come over to me. If the Minister will continue his activities, he will prove a most effective recruiting sergeant for the Fianna Fáil Party. I hope that he will continue his activities in that respect and that later on, please God, his activities will result in his becoming a displaced person in this House.

On two former occasions when I made a contribution to the debate on the Estimate for Agriculture I prefaced my statement each time by saying that I thought that the keynote of the farmers' prosperity is production. I still maintain that that is so. I believe, unlike Deputy Corry who at one time suffered from hero worship—I have never suffered from hero worship and I hope I never shall —that the present Minister for Agriculture has gone farther than any other man before him towards making available to the farmers of this country certain services which undoubtedly will improve production on their land.

I do not know whether I should, first of all, deal with the land rehabilitation project. That project came into being some 12 or 18 months ago. It met with one of the greatest concentrated attacks from the Opposition Benches and from up and down the country. In County Tipperary, the county which adjoins my county, they intimidated people who regarded their utterances as sincere and they frightened them from availing of the land rehabilitation scheme. However, among the number was one man who had sufficient confidence in his own opinion and sufficient confidence in the Minister for Agriculture in this Government to try it. I think the Minister for Agriculture could state, in his summing up, how many people in South Tipperary, in the Ballyporeen, Clogheen and Burncourt areas, have availed themselves of the rehabilitation scheme within the past 12 months. There is no doubt that the people who pretend to be the saviours of this country, the people who emancipated the country, the people who beat the Tans—of course, nobody on this side had anything to do with that row —have sunk to amazing depths of degradation in trying to sabotage that scheme. The Irish farmer is not as gullible as Deputies opposite take him to be at times. He is always of a cautious mentality; he is anxious to wound but afraid to strike, but when the example is set for the majority of the Irish farmers, they will see that if they avail themselves of the rehabilitation scheme their position in this life would be vastly improved. I am not speaking of farmers of Deputy Corry's category; I would put him in the category of a rancher; he is one of the biggest ratepayers in Cork County. I am talking of farmers with 40 or 50 acres of land and scaling down from that, people the biggest percentage of whose land is bog land, people who could not grow Deputy Aiken's tomatoes.

Of course for the Opposition we must get immediate results from this scheme. It must be like the wand; touch the land and immediately it turns into pasture and from the pasture comes the milk and honey. We had years of that propaganda: "We were the best off country in the world and avoided the war," but I say that the first point in the development of our industry is the rehabilitation of the land that is of no use to anyone. There are critics of the Minister within the inter-Party Government, and thank God that we in the inter-Party Government have a democratic right to say what we think ourselves and not what some figurehead thinks for us, but I believe that this scheme will be appreciated in the future and more appreciated still by the generation coming after us.

One of the services attached to this scheme is the fertilising scheme. The farmer who heretofore was groping in the dark as to the suitability of his soil may now for a 1/- per acre get a soil survey and he will be told whether each particular acre requires lime, phosphates or potash. Then for any amount in cash of phosphates, potash or lime which he requires up to £200, by paying down £20 he gets the full amount which goes on his annuities for a term at 3½ per cent. and a 1/2 per cent. on the capital. Anybody who could fall out with that scheme or who would not avail of it I may tell you does not fully realise his responsibilities to himself, to his family or to the country.

A scheme is in operation at the moment which was never envisaged by the ordinary farmers and the only fault the Opposition have to find with it is that in places it is not working quickly enough and in more places it is working too quickly. The Opposition had a very happy knack at one time of proscribing areas. I do not know whether they would like us to do the same or not, but I am sure that their method of proscribing areas would be something similar to another organisation to which my friendly enemy, Deputy Corry, refers, that is to monopolise the good land for people from certain parts of the country and to Hell or to Connacht with the rest. I apologise to Connacht Deputies but that is an old expression used long ago and I dare say they will not take umbrage.

I would like, as a member of a county council, to refer to another service in this scheme, the installation of drinking water in the farmer's kitchen. Any farmer who is within a certain distance of water will be able to get it in, the Department giving a 50 per cent. grant on installation charges up to a maximum of £100. The farmer who heretofore had to get a diviner and pay him, who had to sink a well— and it was problematical whether he would get water or not—and pay 30/- per foot for the sinking of that well will now be able to have water installed. This will be an incentive to county councils to provide water schemes as conveniently and as centrally as possible and to put water within reach of farmers so as to allow them to avail of this scheme. One of the greatest hardships with which the farmer had to contend was the scarcity of water. He had to have the car, the barrel and the horse on the road every day of the week; no matter if he had to go a mile that had to be done in order to have clean drinking water for the household.

I should also like the Minister to send out—I am not sure whether it is done at present—a little memorandum to the county councils as an inducement in regard to this scheme. You could never repeat a good thing often enough. A memorandum to the county councils would be both an inducement and an incentive to them to get over the complaint that is cropping up day after day, month after month, year after year, with regard to the scarcity of water in some of the households of the farming and labouring communities. I should like the Minister to indicate whether he is prepared to accept the suggestion that I make with regard to circularising the county councils and emphasising the great benefit it will be to the farming community. I can say without fear of contradiction that most of the county councils are manned by farmers and I am sure nobody would realise the benefit it would mean to their colleagues more than the farmers who represent various political Parties on the councils and the farmers who represent the Farmers' Party there.

A lot has been said with reference to the price of milk. I am a milk supplier to a creamery which undoubtedly is one of the most progressive, not alone in Ireland but, I could almost say, in the world. As a result, we might get a small extra amount for our milk, probably. I have here returns relating to a supplier who has eight cows. I will not take up the time of the House by going into detail in regard to this matter, going over certain matters seriatim. If Deputies are prepared to accept my figures, here they are. The milk of the eight cows for the year realised £301 5s. 8d. That supplier's average cow was under 500 gallons. I would not say it was an uneconomic cow, but neither would I say it was an economic one.

This farmer rears calves, and a conservative estimate would be £15 a head as yearlings. That represents £120 more. Besides that, he cultivates vegetables and he has milk and meat free for himself and his family. From his creamery supply, he keeps enough milk for his own household. He gets back skimmed milk, which enables him to rear and fatten the number of pigs he requires for home use during the year. With the help of Ymer barley, Victory oats and Arran Banner potatoes, all grown on his own land— and it is only middling land—he is able to carry on. This farmer has a sound mentality and a good outlook and he accepted the advice that was given, not this year, but last year and the year before as to the relative values of Ymer barley and imported maize.

As I said on the Supplementary Estimate, I cannot see why farmers should look for maize. Most farmers in the Republic can grow barley; with a certain amount of dressing of lime and fertilisers they can get a very good return per acre. They also can grow oats and potatoes. Any farmer in a dairying area can get skimmed milk and if he is not in a dairying area he can get meat and bone flour or fish meal and something else that will make up the protein required. He need not go to Argentina or any other place for maize. Of course, the Opposition are always talking about tillage. Why did the Opposition not embark on this intensive tillage campaign they are now advocating, in the years between 1932 and 1942?

We always did.

I beg the Deputy's pardon, they never did. Whilst maize was 8/- a cwt. the Government allowed the money to flow to Argentina or any of the other maize-producing countries. A self-sufficiency policy has been advocated. Why not produce our own feeding stuffs on our own farms and any surplus we have will be taken? At that time the Government were fantastic in some of their outlooks. Deputy Corry at a certain election meeting during a very critical period in the life of this country was asked by someone: "What about the two year olds?" He said: "The best thing to do with them is to go down to the Killagh point-to-point on Monday." That is the man who is so solicitous for the Irish farmer. "Take the two year olds to Killagh point-to-point," he said, "and get them over the fences there."

How do the Opposition regard a man with eight cows that had not an average of 500 gallons making that much money in a year? How does he compare with a gentleman who is the secretary of a protection association, and he has a 700-gallon cow? It is very easy to make up the difference between the 700-gallon cow and the 500-gallon cow. I dare say the same price is given in his creamery as in ours. The only thing is he may not get a bonus at the end of the season. A certain category of live stock came into prominence as a money earner quite recently, namely, rabbits. Early last year the members of the Cork County Committee of Agriculture were bemoaning and bewailing the damage rabbits were doing to the land. They requested the Minister to advise them as to the method of dealing with this menace and suggested to him that he would get his chemical experts to experiment with a view to producing a chemical that would destroy rabbits. Deputy Corry had a better way. He wanted to electrocute the rabbits and he got the gullible Cork County Committee of Agriculture to set up an experimental electrical device. Somebody asked a simple question-who would be responsible for the insurance? Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of electricity knows that it is a very dangerous thing to experiment with. Ten thousand volts might not kill one person, whereas ten volts might kill another person.

He did not try the atomic bomb.

Not yet. That is for future consideration. With Deputy Corry's inventive mind, there is no knowing where he will stop. The county committee asked for suggestions. I do not claim, like my friend, Deputy Corry, that I made the world, but I put up two suggestions. First, I said:—

"Ask the Minister again to get the chemical experts working in the Department."

And, secondly, I suggested that the preservation notices by farmers in the various daily and weekly newspapers when rabbits can be sold for 2/- or 3/- apiece should cease. They accepted my advice, with the result that very few rabbits are to be seen or heard of at the moment. There must be a big decline in the number of rabbits. I do not believe that they are completely exterminated, but certainly the number has been very substantially reduced. That was as a result of an agreement made by the present Minister and his Department with the Ministry of Food in England.

I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for never at any time funking going across and meeting any Minister in London or any other English town. We had Ministers before and it was only through back doors, on railway stations and through so-called accidental contacts that they met the British Ministers. As a matter of fact, Deputy Aiken had to go to America to contact a British Minister from whom he bought Springfield rifles at £1 apiece.

Deputy Smith, last night, asked questions about how the negotiations fell through in regard to eggs. I interrupted him to say that it was by way of reprisal on the part of the British Government against this Government because they had declared the Republic, which half the Fianna Fáil people do not like and the other half like but they are sorry it was not done by them.

We will not plead for mercy for the casualties amongst the Irish farmers as a result of reduced prices. This is a reprisal on the part of England, just as there were reprisals in the time of the last Government. Take the economic war. Everything was attributed to the economic war. The fact was that you had an incompetent body of Ministers exploiting the public and availing of the economic war as an excuse. We could put forward that excuse, if we liked, but there is a war on and we will not put up our hands and look for clemency. Neither will we use it as an excuse to our fellow Irish men and women for a certain reduction that took place in the price of agricultural commodities, live stock. etc.

I ask the Minister through the Chair to fight that case as it should be fought, on the beaches, with the British Ministry with whichever Minister is concerned in the particular negotiations at present proceeding. There is only one way to meet an Englishman, that is, to meet him face to face, having neither an inferiority nor superiority complex. Deputy Smith last night mentioned that Deputy de Valera asked him some time ago what he thought about the British Ministers and British representatives who were negotiating an agreement. Deputy Smith said that he thought they were fine honest men. I think the same about them but, if it is a business war between our Ministers and the British Ministers, I am behind our Ministers 100 per cent. and I have 100 per cent. confidence in them that eventually they will come out on top.

Last night, Deputy Smith, irrelevantly, as I thought, referred to the strike by the agricultural workers in County Dublin and the Minister said, "hear, hear," to one of his remarks. I do not know whether the Minister meant that in jest or in seriousness. I am not extreme in my outlook as regards differences that, possibly, could be resolved by means other than strike action but I maintain that the County Dublin farm labourer is as much entitled to strike as the bank clerks, school teachers, Córas Iompair Éireann employees. They have a recognised trade union. When all fruit fails, welcome haws. The agricultural labourers are the hewers of wood and drawers of water and they would be relegated to that inferior status by some of the people who at one time publicly shouted from the housetops: "We are the poor man's Government." What an amazing change of face. Deputy Corry made a statement during an election that anyone with 100 acres or over was a rancher. I will be kind in saying that he is now a rancher. I will be very kind in saying that he is a rancher and a half. I will go no further. I do not intend, although it is very hard to resist the temptation, to be as scurrilous as Deputy Sugar Ray Corry or Deputy Barley Corn Corry. Without making a protest, he allowed malting barley to be sold to Guinness for 30/- per barrel at a time when feeding barley was being purchased by some of us down the country on the black market for £2 per barrel and we are told that this was to allow a sufficient amount of wheat to be grown in the country. Could we not do the very same? I do not see what is to prevent us. I hope the Minister will never revert to the tactics that were employed by an incompetent Ministry in handling the affairs of the agricultural community.

Deputy Corry had a motion on the Order Paper with regard to the price of milk, but I noticed recently that it has been taken off. He was going a step further than Deputy O'Reilly. Deputy Corry wanted to increase the price of milk to consumers, particularly in the Cork Milk Board area. Of course that was not specifically mentioned, but we all know the individualism attached to Deputy Corry and his Party knows it. In a debate in this House before the inter-Party Government came into power in regard to holidays for the agricultural workers, Deputy Dr. Ryan who was then Minister said:—

" Of course Deputy Corry knows all the questions and the answers about the agricultural community."

We had a recital this evening of all the benefits that Deputy Corry, according to himself, brought about for the Irish farmer. Two years ago barley was being sold in Cork for a certain price. There were various agents around the county anxious to pay an enhanced price for barley, but it turned out that every one of these people was in a racket. There still existed in their minds the era that had existed before this Government came into power, the era of black markets and rackets. These were appointed agents—I think self-appointed agents. I never heard a word from the Beet Growers' Association about their activities until I brought it before the Cork County Council as a matter of urgent importance, and somebody left the chamber immediately. The next thing was that legal proceedings were instituted. Deputy Corry to-day calmly claims credit for that. It will always be remembered, however, in various places that malting barley was sold at £1 less than the figure at which it should be sold, and that that got the benediction and perhaps the imprimatur at that time of Deputy Corry. I am purposely using the word "imprimatur", because as far as I can see he has taken over the functions of the Opposition in regard to agricultural policy. Besides being an expert in scurrility, he has now taken on himself the formulation of schemes from which he says the agricultural community will benefit and this country will become a land flowing with milk and honey.

Probably the Opposition or Deputy Corry may be preparing for a general election. I must say for him that he is as good a man on a platform as ever I heard to say things that he does not intend to do. Perhaps telling the lie all the time may gain him a certain amount of support, but there is always the danger of his being found out. I think you will find in this country, as in every other country in the world, that a continuation of deliberate lying will ultimately militate against the election of a Deputy in any particular constituency. That is so in regard to the particular community for whom Deputy Corry professes to have so much solicitude.

After nailing them to the cross, he proceeded to wipe the blood from their faces, and now he proposes to bring about the resurrection of the farming community. He poses as the saviour of that community, but I think that the Cork farmers are not as gullible as Deputy Corry thinks. It would be very hard for him to go into Cobh and explain why he put down a motion to benefit the farming community but which would have the effect of raising the price of milk for consumers in Cobh, Fermoy, Midleton, Youghal and Mitchelstown. These I think are the five principal towns in the constituency.

I agree that in certain parts of this country the farmers who are supplying milk to creameries are entitled to an increase, but I can say with all sincerity that to give an increase all round would involve the victimisation of those suppliers to the creameries which are engaged in butter production alone. Butter production does not pay as well as cheese, chocolate crumb and dried milk. It is amazing that some of the people who were big noises in the creamery, where these sidelines that I have mentioned are being produced, were the spearhead of the attack on the Minister. I think it only fair to the Minister to put on record that when this Government got into power there were 500 tons of cheese in the stores of the Mitchelstown Co-operative Creamery. An application for an export licence was made some time in October, 1947, but Deputy Smith, the then Minister for Agriculture, refused it. It was repeated in November and refused, repeated again in January and refused. These 500 tons of cheese were then going to be put underground, as within a month it would be good for nothing. It was depreciating day after day. I remember once asking the question: "How long will cheese remain good"? and I was told that it depreciates from the day it is manufactured. The present Minister was not a week in office when he gave these people a licence, and, as a matter of fact, did not specify the number of tons that was to be exported. As a result, Mitchelstown Creamery exported more cheese in 1948 than in any year before. With the able assistance of Deputy Corry and Deputy Aiken, some members of the committee who are saturated with political affiliations never had the decency to appreciate the kindly gesture of the Minister for Agriculture in giving them that licence, which was a benefit to themselves and a benefit to the suppliers of the Mitchelstown Co-operative Creamery.

When we asked, through the Minister for Agriculture, to go easy in cheese production, the request was made the subject of a full dress rehearsal in this House. It was even introduced on the Taoiseach's Estimate. The suppliers to the Mitchelstown creameries will remember Deputy Smith's incursions to their premises from time to time. They will remember one particular week. I think is was in 1946, when he told them, "You will only have to pay so much for skimmed milk because if you pay what you are able to pay, that will militate against the rearing of calves in this country." He came back to Dublin and, within a fortnight, he put his name to a licence for a cheese factory in Charleville. I suppose there is no necessity for me to explain that cheese is manufactured out of whole milk. The only thing you get out of the manufacture of cheese is whey which is beneficial for the rearing of pigs, but not of calves. I do not know if experiments were ever carried out with regard to it beyond that.

Deputy Smith, in his official capacity as Minister for Agriculture in a Fianna Fáil Government, came down to the Mitchelstown creameries and told them that they could not give what they were going to give for skimmed milk, but Deputy Smith in opposition is a changed man entirely. The poor farmers, according to Deputy Smith with tears running down his face, are being mulcted, squashad and over-ridden by a Minister who, according to him, has no such solicitude for their betterment or their present position. I suppose there is no use in being retrospective and that we should let the dead past bury itself. I do not quite agree with that.

Take the case of our Minister for Agriculture and his forebears. His father, John Dillon, when he faced the carbines of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the square of Mitchelstown in 1887 showed his solicitude for the Irish farmer. He showed that he was prepared to sacrifice his life in demonstrating that solicitude. I need not go back to the Minister's grandfather, John Blake Dillon, but we know that at times scurrilous remarks have been made about the Minister across the floor of this House.

He does not mind them.

No decent Irishman does, but it was remarked last night by Deputy Smith——

There is nothing in this Estimate about it.

I am speaking of remarks that were made last night by Deputy Smith. If he is allowed to pass remarks like that, well we know what happens. I maintain that I am quite entitled to refer on this Estimate to distinguished Irish patriots who did more for the farmers of this country than the people who fire insulting remarks against the Minister. It is amazing to find, in the case of an industry which is supposed to be going down into the mire day by day, that the amount of butter produced last year was greater than the production in any previous year up to 1938.

And the amount of milk.

About one and a half years ago, a certain co-operative concern sent a snowball resolution to the other co-operative societies in the Republic of Ireland asking those societies to cut themselves adrift from the I.A.O.S. The mover of that resolution had, perhaps, something in view. It may have been the formation of a new association which was going to usurp, or take over, the functions of the I.A.O.S. However, I believe that the response which he got from the other co-operative creameries was not too helpful. That individual to-day is vice-chairman or vice-president of the Irish Creamery Suppliers' Association, an association which, according to themselves, is the only one that has any solicitude for the dairy farmers of this country. I do not believe that association will get any further than it has got. What is one to think of any responsible body which, at this time of the year, would advocate a strike and the throwing of milk down the drains? I think there should be a strong view expressed in this House with regard to an attitude of that kind. Last night, the farm labourers in the County Dublin were pilloried for going on strike. But, in regard to that association, that was the threat that was made. It was even suggested at their meetings. A priest intervened and said that there should be no such thing as a strike. He had a good knowledge of psychology when he said that, at the moment, the farmers were not organised or in a position to carry out a concentrated attack. I hope that some of the Opposition who have given their benediction, passively, to this association will, in any case, go out and advise caution. I hope they will advocate the resolving of grievances by negotiation. I am not going to aggravate the position.

I can tell the House that I am speaking for a number of farmers in my own area. I am speaking for the 3,966 people who voted for me at the county council elections, many of them farmers. So far as they are concerned there will be no strike. The farmer with eight cows, and with the return that he is getting from his milk and his calves, is well pleased with himself. He is a progressive type of farmer, and with his further production of pigs and poultry is well satisfied with himself at the moment. But reverses occur. They happen in every war. They have happened to a great nation like the United States which, in the Korean war, had to withdraw. But a reverse at times is tantamount to a victory, as you may have to go back a foot to advance a yard. I have no doubt that if the Minister fails in this fight it will not be through lack of "guts" or an inferiority complex with regard to the people representing our friends across the water.

I should also like to refer to a certain campaign which has started in my county with regard to the ground limestone scheme. Farmers paid 5/- a barrel for burned lime and there was a subsidy of 2/2. I am subject to correction in regard to that. In any case, the farmers had to draw that time and spread it themselves. Assuming that they were spreading one ton to the acre, the actual application cost them £2. They had to draw that lime from a lime kiln which was in some cases four miles away. They had to pay £2 per ton for the lime. If I am right in interpreting Deputy Corry, they will have a ton of ground limestone spread on the land for 30/-. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong in that.

The price is 16/- per ton delivered at the farm, the farmer to make an agreement for spreading it with an independent firm of spreaders or a local person equipped with suitable machinery.

The cost of the spreading is what I am concerned with. Is it to be 30/- a ton?

Nothing like that. I will give the Deputy the figure for that.

That is being disseminated through Cork County. It is just another attempt to try to put the Minister on the wrong foot. Last year a similar attempt was made with regard to barley. They were looking for a controlled price for barley. Some of us asked whether it was malting barley or Ymer barley. The gullible farmer—he is very gullible at times— thought he was going to get 50/- a barrel for barley if the motion brought forward in this House was passed. You may have farmers making an attempt to grow malting barley. From the knowledge I have of barley, the growing of malting barley is confined to a few counties, as malting barley cannot be grown in most counties. The Minister for Agriculture was blamed because there was a bad year for barley. He was also blamed because 1948 was a good year for oats and for potatoes. The year before last, Deputy Blaney brought up the question of potatoes. When I came out of hospital I discovered that a stone of potatoes could not be bought in Mitchelstown market. I made inquiries, and the information was confirmed, that there were agents out on the roads, the same as for a pig market, marking the potatoes coming in at 2/- a stone, without knowing whether they were Arran Banners or Kerr Pinks or Champions. I thought it my duty to write to the Minister about that, but apparently the Minister had the information before I gave it to him. I was wondering what all the questions asked in this House were leading up to. It was obvious to anyone with any sense of comprehension why the questions were being asked and why the agents were out on the roads. But the Minister burned the fingers of these people; I think he amputated the fingers of some of them.

I should like the Minister to define clearly the ground limestone scheme so that people will not be under a misapprehension and be influenced by propaganda which is not for the betterment of the agricultural community but for persons who for the past three years have been moaning and groaning and who have been amazed and bewildered that we are still on this side of the House. It is for the betterment of these people that this propaganda is being carried on. I reiterate what I have said about the Minister's solicitude for the farmers. As a Labour Deputy who knows a little about agriculture, I can tell the Minister that outwardly we may be a race of grumblers but that when it comes to the secrecy of the ballot box it will be proved that the Minister's policy has borne fruit and that some people on the Opposition Benches will get a very rude awakening.

I feel bound on behalf of my constituents to raise a few matters about which they have grave misgivings. One is the atmosphere of uncertainty which surrounded the price to be given for wheat and the very late announcement. We have heard Deputy Smith saying that in certain areas there is a shortage of seed wheat. On the other hand, I can name a particular co-operative society where a loss has been sustained owing to the fact that they have on hands a surplus of seed wheat. Obviously, therefore, there must be a lack of organisation there which could have been avoided if——

If Deputy Smith and Deputy Little had got together.

No. It is rather late now and though I do not know much about the different kinds of seed wheat that can be sown at different times, I suggest that these announcements should have been made much earlier so that the farmers would have known exactly where they stood in good time. I do not want to dwell on these matters. I merely mention them. It has been stated that groups of farmers are turning from milk production to cattle production and the possibility will be that there will not be sufficient milk. As the Minister knows, milk is a very important item in County Waterford. It gives rise to a variety of manufactures, such as condensed milk, evaporated milk and chocolate crumb in which the Minister himself is so interested. There is then the ordinary domestic consumer of milk. It may be said that we should not advocate an increase in the price of milk, but, if it comes to a question of shortage, obviously the commonsense approach is to raise the price of milk to such a level as will ensure a supply for the consuming public. Even at this late stage, I would recommend to the Minister now that he should raise the price of milk by some small amount over and above the increase already sanctioned.

How much?

I wish I knew but, as I am not in a Government position now and have not got the information which the Minister must have, I am not in a position to say. On the question of bacon——

You will not say anything about milk cocoa coming from Waterford.

I do not know anything about that.

You must be the only man in County Waterford who does not know anything about it.

Possibly, but I do not intend to raise it on this Vote, anyway. The Castlelyons Co-operative Creamery Society has made representations protesting against the price recently fixed for bacon. I do not know whether those representations have come before the Minister. That co-operative society points out that a reduction in the price of bacon, coupled with an increase in the feeding price, would make fattening so uneconomical that feeders would be compelled to go out of business and bacon would again go off the market. There, again, there is a certain conflict of interests between the two Departments and I hope that the Minister for Agriculture will see to it that at least there will be no shortage owing to the price being too low.

I come now to a matter about which it is much pleasanter and much easier for me to talk. I refer to the back strand at Tramore.

And the appeals at Dungarvan.

They will grow. With regard to the back strand, I would advise the Minister to approach that problem from the direction of the outlet of the water rather than from the direction of the former racecourse. I believe that if he could control the outlet of water there he could check the amount of land that it would be reasonable and practicable to reclaim and, at the same time, he would be able to test the reactions of the pressure of the water on the coastline. That could be done by placing some object, such as an old hull filled with rubble or concrete, with the proper type of sluice to enable the water coming down to be controlled.

Not giving the Deputy a short answer, if I am to bring in Dutch engineers to offer an expert opinion, it does not seem to be common-sense to tell the Dutch engineers what they ought to do before they come.

I have had people with considerable experience of marine engineering looking into that problem for some years past. For that reason, I feel it is no harm to make a contribution on the subject. I even had a distinguished firm of French engineers look at it.

It would help me if the Deputy would tell me was there some difficulty then that the Department found insurmountable? Nothing was done about it. Did some difficulty transpire?

The problem that I concentrated on at the time was the reclamation of the land which had been formerly reclaimed by the Malcolmsons.

The racecourse?

Yes. We found that it would cost a certain sum, not a very considerable sum. I forget now exactly how much it was. I wrote at the time to the interested bodies—the racecourse people, the golf club, and the county council. I could not prevail upon them to rise to the occasion in order to meet what would amount to an annuity which would have paid off the interest and sinking fund on the scheme and, therefore, I was not able to go any further with it. There are a number of other types of schemes where land is involved where, unfortunately, not much has been done because so many different authorities are involved, Local Government, the Board of Works, the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture itself. It is a case of everybody's business being nobody's business.

Definitely that situation no longer obtains.

Then I would encourage the Minister to go ahead. If he will take charge of this scheme I will be delighted. There is another very much smaller scheme which I would like the Minister to examine. I refer to the Brittle, which is a short distance on the other side of Dungarvan. It flows from the marshes. I believe that if a flap or control sluice of some sort was erected there the flooding of the lands around that area could be prevented. With relation to the land around Ardmore, as the Minister knows that area is extremely rich. The farmers in that area get three crops off the land every year. The tragedy lies in the fact that erosion is taking place at a very rapid rate and much of the land there will be swept away if steps are not taken in time. I speak now from the point of view of a person who knows a considerable amount about marine engineering.

The Deputy will appreciate that coast erosion is not the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture.

I was hoping, now that the Minister is spreading his wings so wide, that he could make it a charge on the Department of Agriculture since the land involved is very valuable.

I regret to inform the Deputy that coast erosion is a problem which does not come within the scope of the Vote for the Department of Agriculture.

There is another problem which may have come to the notice of the Minister recently since there has been a fair amount of correspondence in the newspapers about it. I am speaking now of the value of the mud for agricultural purposes in the river running from Waterford City down and which is a great impediment to shipping. That mud has a considerable agricultural value. Even experts of the Department of Agriculture have stated that. If the problem were approached from the agricultural point of view and at the same time from the point of view of the fishing facilities of Waterford and the facilities for fishermen in Passage East, at present under the control of the Minister for Agriculture——

But not on the Vote for Agriculture.

My difficulty is that what is anybody's problem is nobody's problem.

No one can say that the dredging of Waterford harbour is part of my problem as Minister for Agriculture.

If the Minister were to put a lot of that mud on the land, the results to agriculture would be extremely good, according to the experts. I would ask the Minister to look into it from that point of view. I am glad to note the Minister intends to deal with Tramore.

Will the Deputy say nothing about the Dungarvan apple orchard?

Why should I? I am sure that the trees will grow in good time and the excellent work done there formerly by our old friend, Power, who had his cider produced in Dungarvan from the apples grown in the neighbourhood, resulted in good development, which should be increased. Generally speaking, the Minister is on sound ground in trying to develop from what is good there already, to make it better rather than try an experiment on land which, even if he succeeds in improving it for the time being, may relapse into its original state.

The Deputy is determined to spare my blushes.

I look upon this Estimate as the most important one that comes before us. Perusing the memorandum which the Minister has supplied to every Deputy, it must be apparent that no man has done more since the initiation of the State to help the Irish farmer than Deputy James Dillon, the present Minister for Agriculture. This Government has now been in office for three years and three months. No one can deny—no one but a rabid political supporter of some political Party—that the Irish farmer has been lifted to a plane never before reached in this country's history. Perhaps I am not a farmer in the strict sense of the word, but everyone belonging to me on both paternal and maternal sides came from the land, so I feel I can speak with a certain amount of authority.

This little country of ours is a great little land. Agriculture is the whole source of our wealth, from which the various tributaries of finance percolate into the towns and villages, to give a happy, contented and prosperous farming community and I feel there is no fear for the people while that is so.

I would like to compliment my colleague who represents the same constituency on his very lucid and exhaustive survey of the whole Department this afternoon. There were very few avenues he left unexplored and I do not propose to travel them. Speaking calmly, and desirous of ascertaining the views of the agricultural community throughout the constituency of East Cork which I have the honour to represent, and coming into almost daily contact with the people, calling them by their Christian names and knowing I would get a truthful answer, I have often asked the question: " Tell me, Seán, how are things?" and I get the invariable reply: "Never better; I am a very happy man since this Government came into power." Such a man is speaking the dictates of his mind when he says that. It must be clear to anyone travelling throughout the country that the agricultural community was never better off. If any section of our people deserved a break, they did, as they suffered their period of crucifixion for many a long year. Thank God, their day has arrived, through the efforts of the present Minister and the present Government— every one of whom is imbued with a spirit to raise the prestige of the Irish farmer to a plane never reached before. I feel certain that when the term of this Government comes to an end, those in this House and outside will see put into operation the desires and views expressed by the present Minister when he came into office, that he would do his part to make the Irish farmer more happy and contented than in days gone by.

I sometimes wonder, in listening to the moans and groans of speakers here, if we are not invoking God's displeasure by grumbling because the butter ration has been cut to four ounces or something like that. We are living in a country where at present you can get a whole side of beef from any butcher, if you can pay for it, in Dublin, Mitchelstown, Youghal, Fermoy or anywhere else, and take it away with you. You can get as much butter as you want and I think the ration is adequate-and I am as fond of butter as anyone else. Deputy James Dillon, the present Minister, has done a great job of work. Yet a chapel gates throughout my constituency every Sunday his reputation is besmirched by speakers from the other side of the House. I do not like commenting on what other men say, but politics have sunk at times to a depth which can be despicable, when a man has worked honestly and courageously for the Irish farmer and yet has to stand up to a barrage here, as he has done for the last three years. It is horrible to hear such a man's name besmirched and spoken of in the most derogatory terms. Is it because some members of the Opposition think he is doing his job too well? That is the only inference I can draw from it. He is the one Minister that has been made the target of vilification and abuse by Opposition speakers in my constituency but that is the best tribute that can be paid to him. What I admire about him is that the more you give him the more he can take. He seems impervious to every thrust but he comes back with compound interest.

We have heard a lot about eggs. I admire the Minister for exporting to Seán Buí eggs at 2/- a dozen. I realise that the cottiers of East Cork cannot produce eggs at 2/- a dozen, but, at the same time, I admire the Minister for doing his best to try and secure a remunerative price for them. If he can get 2/6 a dozen for eggs, all the better. He has been manly enough to tell us that he cannot do that. What is the alternative? The Minister has said: "Fatten your chickens, grow your own barley, grow your own wheat, grow all the cereals necessary on the farm and that will give you a very handsome profit."

Do we not realise that in this land of ours every one of us should be very happy, particularly when we look to the Continent of Europe and see the turbulent conditions that exist there. Look at the conditions that exist in Asia, look at South America. Anywhere you look, you will see chaotic conditions and here we are living in a land in which we can eat and drink all we can pay for and, yet, we grumble. I think we are flying in the face of God's Providence sometimes. I mean that sincerely.

Nobody will question the sincerity of the Minister for Agriculture. I think it is well known. Some of us who are old enough remember those who went before him and the way they fought to free the farmers of Ireland from the rack-renting landlords of the 70's, 80's and 90's. No one will deny that the same name of "Honest John Dillon" is indelibly impressed on the minds of the Irish people who were born 70, 80 and 90 years ago: and that same spirit to succeed has been passed on to his son, the present Minister for Agriculture who, to my mind at any rate, and to the minds of many Deputies in this House, is imbued with the same fervent spirit to do his very best for the farmers of Ireland.

I do not propose to go seriatim into the various items in this very comprehensive memorandum with which the Minister for Agriculture presented Deputies when introducing his Estimate, but anybody perusing same cannot but be satisfied that every word there is true.

With regard to the land rehabilitation scheme, I am very pleased to inform the Minister that very many farmers down in my constituency are availing of it. In my many journeys from Youghal to Cork, I pass every day at least five or six lorries of ground lime being carried to various portions of my constituency. Every day, when I pass these lorries, I say: "God bless James Dillon, the Minister for Agriculture." I think that has been a marvellous achievement. The land of Ireland cannot be productive without an adequate supply of fertilisers, and in the world in which we live to-day with the chaotic conditions existing all round us, it behoves every one of us and the Government, in particular, as the responsible authority, to make provision to ensure that the Irish farmer will secure a sufficient amount of fertilisers. It is a wonderful scheme and I have no doubt it will pay adequate dividends in the next few years that lie before us. The land of Ireland for many reasons under alien rule 30 or 35 years ago never got a chance. It is getting that chance now through the efforts of the Minister for Agriculture, and I am happy to inform the Minister that the farmers are availing of the scheme.

We can also see from the very same memorandum that we never had more cattle in this country than we have at the present time. The farmers of Ireland were never getting a better price for their cattle or sheep than they are getting now. All these things force one to realise that the Minister is doing a good job of work.

My constituency is a great agricultural and great dairy-producing area. References have been made here to the price of milk and the Opposition have stated that more should have been done. Personally, I would like to see the farmers getting a bigger price for their milk. I feel that the Irish farmer, on account of the amount of work that he has put into his day, deserves a better price; but if any man leans towards the Irish farmers that man is the present Minister for Agriculture. Instead of the farmer getting 1d. per gallon for his milk, I would like to see him getting 2d. or 3d. per gallon if the Government or the country could afford it. I feel that will come in the Minister's own good time, too, concerned as he is with the interests of the Irish farmers.

This matter has been, I may say, so far very calmly considered by every one of us. I think that I would be untruthful if, as a result of my wanderings throughout the constituency which I have the honour to represent here in this House, I did not confess to the Minister the satisfaction of the farmers of these parts and how pleased they are with him.

Three East Cork Deputies have spoken to-day, led by the senior Deputy, Deputy Corry. I need hardly tell the Minister what Deputy Corry thinks of him. Back in his mind, I feel that Deputy Corry has an old grá for the Minister if he were not so politically biased and forced to state what he means and does not mean in his heart at times. Deputy Corry, as well as everybody else, must realise that the present Minister for Agriculture is doing a good job. I never like to say hard things of anyone. I speak my mind without hurting anybody, I hope.

If every honest Deputy peers into the innermost recesses of his own heart, he will be satisfied with the present state of agriculture here. But if there are things which one cannot buy, because of the turbulent condition of the outside world, the policy is to blame the Minister for Agriculture. If you cannot get enough of this or enough of that, blame the Minister for Agriculture. He is a big man, however, and he can take it. The only charge I have not heard levelled against the Minister is the charge of being responsible for the copious downpours of rain which have fallen on this country for the past six or eight months. I could go on dealing with oats, barley, butter and so on, but these matters have already been dealt with, and I conclude by advising the Minister to continue doing as he is doing, and his name, like the names of those who have gone before him, will be indelibly impressed on the minds of the Irish farmer when many of us have crossed the great divide.

I am very sorry that I cannot join in the chorus of admiration of the Minister and I regret that I am reluctantly compelled to introduce a note of protest or discord into the charming comments we have heard from members of the Government Party. My words of protest relate to the administration of the Minister in the matter of the poultry industry. From this report which he has given to Deputies, I note that, with the aid of Government grants, 2,900 poultry houses have been built in the country. Because of the very rosy prospects held out to the people of rural Ireland, many availed of the grants because they were assured that cheap feeding stuffs would be available and they felt it would be an ideal proposition to go into the poultry rearing business. Unfortunately, things have not turned out as the Minister promised they would.

These people were assured that maize meal, which is used extensively in the rearing of poultry and for fattening purposes, would be available at £20 a ton, and, on these very promising conditions, they availed of the grants and went in for poultry rearing to a great extent, many of them being people who knew very little about poultry rearing. They now find that it has turned out to be a very unprofitable business. If maize meal were available at £20 per ton, many women have told me that it would pay them to sell eggs at 2/6 a dozen, but at present, I understand maize meal is £30 per ton, and eggs sell at 2/- a dozen, so that a great many poultry houses are empty in County Monaghan to-day. The Minister cannot solve the problem by saying that there is now available a price of 3/6 for table poultry of 4 lbs. weight.

For top quality birds, the price is 3/6 a lb., but they must be perfect in form, with proper curves— in fact, streamlined.

Oh, secundum quid.

It is very difficult, on small farms in County Monaghan, as the Minister knows—on the hills of Bragan or up in Magheracloone, where poultry are allowed to run through the fields, with consequent risk of meeting with accidents—to preserve poultry in such a way as to enable them to secure the top price. In any case, they have to be fed just as well as the laying hens and feeding stuff is just as dear for the fashionable poultry as for the laying hens, so that the problem is not solved at all on that basis.

I wish the Minister would have a conference with the women of his own constituency, small farmers' wives. Let him have a heart-to-heart talk with them and he will find that I am speaking the truth. They are sadly disillusioned about the whole business. I should like to know if the Minister can hold out any hope that, in the coming season, matters will improve. Does he hope to get any better price for eggs or to get maize meal at a cheaper rate? I understand that, in present world conditions, that may be very difficult, but how, otherwise, are the people to make good? I was asking a man what he thought of the poultry industry and suggested that the Minister had let the people down badly and he said: "But look at the lovely hen-houses we have." There are no hens in these lovely houses, however, and there is no good in having an artistic house of this kind if there are no fowl in it, and that is the position in many parts of County Monaghan.

I am very sorry that this should be so. I am not saying these things in any desire to put anything over on the Minister, because I am really interested in the welfare of the wives of small farmers in the county who went in for this business. I am not interested in the people who went into this industry on a speculative basis. They could afford to lose, but not the poor women I am interested in. They put work and energy and money into the business, and it was a big undertaking for them. That is the only note of discord I have to introduce into this debate. If there is any way out, or if there is any hope he can hold out to the people of a remedying of the situation, I should be very glad to hear it.

I accept the Deputy's assurance to that effect because the Deputy gives it.

As one who comes from a county in which many phases of agriculture are carried on, I should like to take part in this debate. I agree with my colleague, Deputy O'Gorman, that God's patience must be severely taxed, in view of all the grumbling and groaning which goes on in the midst of peace and plenty. I often ask myself what, in the name of goodness, will satisfy the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not know what will satisfy them. I agree that this is one of the most important debates we can have, a debate which should be carried on on a very high level and I agree that in the past three years much good work has been done and much good work remains to be done. One of the principal things done by the Minister during his term of office was the smashing of the rings and the racketeers, and, if he did nothing more, that in itself is sufficient to bring the blessing of the people on him.

Agriculture is now in the position in which it can make ordered progress, in which we can have a planned economy and co-operative marketing. All we need is patience, leaving the people alone and letting them do their work. Let the Minister give the lead and then keep out of the people's way, because the people know their job and will carry it out efficiently. I tell the Minister, however, that he has many dangerous enemies and many obstacles to face. He will need to be on his guard from morning until night, in view of all the traps which are being laid for him in the House and outside it. I know that he is a sticker, a fighter and a worker, however, and that he will do his job and get there. Let him stand his ground and the day is his. I assure him that the farmers appreciate his efforts and all that he has done to put agriculture in its proper position.

When we look back over the past three years at all the plans which have been unfolded for agriculture, we realise that the farmers, if they avail of the opportunities offered, have the ball at their feet. We have the lime scheme, which is of vast importance to every farmer; we have the fertiliser scheme and the soil survey schemes; we have farm reclamation schemes, artificial insemination schemes and the parish plan. All these things dovetailing into each other will put us in a position in which we should be able to double the production on every holding.

If we achieve that, then we shall have solved many of the problems which we have tried to solve over the past 20 or 30 years. Up to this, we have only scratched the surface. I believe that many of the strikes and troubles will then pass away. Farmers will be able to pay an honest wage to their workers, and the workers in their turn will work well for that honest wage. I believe that that is the Minister's aim and I subscribe to it.

The tone of this debate is much different from that of other debates which have taken place on this Estimate. The members of the Fianna Fáil Party now realise that their blustering attacks on the Deputies on the Government Benches have failed. Now, they are like cooing doves. We know the reason for that. They have now discovered that the people of the country are of the opinion that the present Minister for Agriculture is doing a good job. They realise that the farmers are satisfied. They realise that there is no point in going to their clubs and talking about the Minister for Agriculture and making attacks upon him because they will be asked by their members what is wrong with him and if he is not doing a good job of work. An inferiority complex is very hard to get over, but they are getting over it slowly. Deputy Smith will realise his shortcomings. The people of Cavan and of Meath are sick of his antics.

They want a saner approach to agriculture, which is the most important industry in this country, than that which Deputy Smith had. They want to get away from all these attacks on the present Minister which are being made morning, noon and night. They are not unaware of, or ungrateful for, the job which he is doing so well. They realise that it would be difficult to find a better Minister for Agriculture than our present Minister for Agriculture and they realise that Deputy Smith cannot take his beating. By his antics in this House, Deputy Smith has been responsible for despicable scenes in the past two years and the people are sick of that type of thing. I hope that we have seen the last of it. Certainly, Deputy Smith was much more subdued in his speech yesterday than he was on other occasions. I hope he will remain subdued and realise that each one of us has a job of work to do and that if we do it well we shall help to put the country in a much better position than it was when we took over. Our present Minister for Agriculture has worked hard and has done a good job — and I must say that that is what I expected from him, because he has brains, ability and courage. His task has been difficult, but he has overcome one obstacle after another.

One of the most acid tests in respect of agricultural policy in this country is whether the farmers work better as free farmers or as people who must do the work under compulsion. Fianna Fáil tried compulsion. The present Minister says that he will have no compulsion, that he will have free farmers. I say to the farmers of this country that it is up to them to prove that they work better as free men than as slaves with a whip behind them. I believe that the farmers will respond as they should respond. They know that they are free men and I believe that they want to be free men; if they want to be slaves, they can be slaves and no one can stop them from being so. The present season has proved very trying to farmers. However, with the help of God, the weather will soon take up and the crops will be taken in, even though they are late. God knows best, and though we may grumble and growl, He knows what He is doing. I believe that we shall successfully reap our crops, that we shall have full and plenty from them and that we shall have very little to grumble at.

I should like the Minister to further, in particular, the matter of local marketing. As far as I can see, local marketing is very backward. If the parish plan which the Minister envisaged could have been controlled in every county, as should have been the case, then that problem would have been solved in a very short time. There are many branches of agriculture in different parts of the country which, if we had co-operation and local marketing, could be dovetailed. If there is a scarcity in one part of the country and more than plenty in another part of the country it should be possible to dovetail in such a way that the man who feels the scarcity will be able to get into touch with the man who has more than enough. We have not reached the stage where our farmers know how to work on a co-operative basis. The parish plan should be pressed forward as speedily as possible because it is badly needed. We want more agricultural education of a proper kind. We want our people to attain a higher level. We want them to stop grumbling and crying. We want each farmer and worker to think for himself rather than to listen to the whining of, for instance, a local bully at the crossroads who may have the gift of the gab. We want an independent approach to problems. If we could get going on these lines there should be very little to worry anybody in this country. If we could double our production which, in the past, was very poor and half-hearted, we should solve many of our problems. Then, instead of a flight from the land, we should have the position that people would be coming back to the land.

If electricity and other amenities are brought to the country homes Ireland will be a happy land. We shall have peace and plenty and our young country boys and girls will remain at home rather than fly to the towns and cities. At present the people are reasonably contented. They are sowing their crops and doing their best. I am satisfied that the coming harvest will be satisfactory. I am glad that Fianna Fáil have changed their tune and that they recognise that it is better to face facts in a realistic manner than to filibuster. I think that the Minister is working on the right lines and the farmers appreciate his efforts. With God's help we shall get some good weather so that our farmers will tackle their job and do it well. It is up to the farmers to ensure that the Minister's hope that they will work better as free men than as slaves will prove a huge success.

Mr. Browne

I come from an agricultural area which, in the past, has given great assistance to the large centres of population which depend on the rural areas for food. First of all, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the work which he, and his Department, have been doing and on the manner in which he is giving the farmers, and the small farmers in particular, an opportunity of making a living on their small holdings. The farmers in my district have never been better off than they are at present. They are getting a decent price for everything that they produce on their land. The farm workers, too, are getting a reasonable wage — as much as the farmers can afford to pay them.

They say that this year is a year that has its own drawbacks as far as weather is concerned and that we are late, but I believe that we are not late generally, that the crop will be put down in reasonably good time and that we will get a sufficient return to meet the needs of our people.

A better price was never paid for cattle. The big farmer with big heavy cattle and fat beasts is getting a decent price for his animal and the small farmer is getting a decent price for small animals and calves. The farmer has taken advantage of the increase in the cattle population. It is gratifying that it has gone up to the highest in history. That shows that farmers have gone into something that is a paying proposition.

Complaints have been made that the Minister has not given the farmers what they expected but let us be true in our comments and give credit to the Minister for what he has given the farmers such as the land project, drainage schemes, farm improvement schemes and farm building schemes. There is not a farmer in the country to-day who cannot avail of those schemes and my only complaint is that in many cases they are not aware that they could avail of free grants to improve their land and their buildings. I would like the Minister to issue a circular to every farmer clearly pointing out the facilities and assistance he could get from the schemes that are at the disposal of the farming community. In this way farmers would get information which they have not got to-day. I have been speaking to farmers in my constituency. I cannot see them all in person but until I actually told those to whom I did speak of the ways and means they could avail of the free money they did not know anything about it. These schemes should be given publicity and by means of a circular each farmer should have the opportunity to choose how he could best avail himself of free grants of every description.

We hear a lot of complaints but some of them may be adjusted. In my area there is a big population of small farmers with valuations ranging from £5 to £20. Their main source of income is poultry and egg production and pig raising. Pigs are one of their main assets. The profits derived are not so great when you take all the costs into consideration and it was my opinion all along that fortunes were never made by small farmers from pigs but it was always a savings bank and the accumulation in that savings bank reached a deposit in the post office. The cost of raising pigs has certainly gone up. The cost of feeding has gone up from the point of view of the export value of surplus potatoes and from the point of view of maize meal. There was no alternative to the increase in the price of maize meal as it is an imported article and we have to buy at its import value. Farmers therefore must utilise their land to grow whatever feeding stuffs they need for the production of eggs and poultry and for the rearing, feeding and fattening of pigs.

The present mixture which is on the market as a substitute for Indian meal is a better feeding stuff than Indian meal in its purity was. The price is high, I admit, but if the cost has gone up so has the fattening value of that feeding stuff; the price of pollard has gone up, but if it has the public can get whatever quantity they want. A short time ago, until the change was made, I remember there was no getting pollard. The little quota of pollard which came out of the flour extraction was so small that you could not divide it among the farmers, but the new compound is a perfect feeding food. It is made up, I understand, from pollard taken out of the wheat we grow here, with a certain percentage imported and a percentage of pure wheat. You could not have a better compound for the raising of pigs or the feeding of poultry than those three ingredients, irrespective of where they come from.

On each Estimate for agriculture for as far back as ten years I have strongly advised the Minister to encourage farmers to go into pig production and keep in production. There should be a two price period and when I say that I speak with experience of an area where the people are in pig production in a big way. No farmer can feed pigs at the same cost from April to September as from September to April. Let me explain why: from September until April the small, the medium or the big farmer has his own crop, a surplus on the land that he can dispose of in raising pigs. He has small potatoes and waste grain of every description, let it be barley, oats or wheat, and he can make use of that from September to April. Now, when 1st April comes, this surplus, that would be more or less a waste during the winter months, is all disposed of, and from 1st April until 1st September he has to go back to buy dear grain and substitute eating potatoes for the cheap food that he had. Eating potatoes are more or less scarce and on many occasions the supply was barely sufficient.

It is for that reason that I believe the Minister would be well advised to establish a two price period. By that means the farmers will be encouraged to keep in pig production. You cannot be in pig production for six months of the year and give it up for the remaining six months. You must have a rotational method if you are to keep in pig production. If at one period of the year you have feeding stuffs in abundance, you just cannot get into pig production for two or four months as the case may be; you must be in pig production for the whole year. In my opinion, the two price period is the only method by which you will keep the farmers in pig production.

It is true that the price of feeding stuffs has increased, but if it has, that increase has gone back to the farmer. If the price of oats or barley or wheat has increased, those crops have been raised off the land and the increase goes back. The farmer cannot have it both ways. He has not the complaint that the price of pig production has increased. Let us take it for granted that the price has gone up. If the value goes up, that money goes back to the farmer's pocket so far as the produce of the land is concerned. So as to give the people in the cities and the towns an opportunity of having bacon made available every month and every week of the year, I would recommend the two price period.

If you take the price of pigs this year and compare it with the price last year, and if you make a comparison over the last three years and even with the price of pigs during the war years, you will find that the price to-day is as high as in those days, and pigs are possible dearer. The farmer is getting a better price for his oats, barley and potatoes and wheat, and in that way money is going into his pocket. He is getting better paid for what he is raising off the land, and it is a question of how he will utilise it to the best advantage.

I believe the farmer would be well advised to keep in poultry, egg and pig production. If he goes out of pig production, poultry production and egg production, then the price of commodities such as barley, oats and wheat, that he raises on his land, will decline. The market will fall and he will have to take a lower price. I remember when the 1948 Estimate was before us we had many complaints from the Opposition about the price the farmers were getting for oats. That was after the change of Government and that was the time the present Minister took over responsibility for the Department. The price of oats was bad and there were complaints from various quarters. The reason why the price of oats was so low was that the population of pigs had gone down to such a level that they were not able to consume the available food. Since then the population of pigs and of poultry has gone up very considerably, with the result that the price of feeding stuffs to the farmer is worthwhile; he is getting a reasonably good price for his oats, barley and wheat.

So far as the two price period which I have suggested is concerned, the Minister would be well advised to fix the first period from September until the 1st April at a minimum of £8 per cwt., live weight. That works out at 215/-, dead weight. The second period should be from 1st April to the 1st October and he should fix the price at a minimum of £9 10s. Od. per cwt., live weight. That works out roughly at 250/-, dead weight. If we had a system and a price along those lines, the public would know they would be able to get bacon for a certain period of the year at a certain price. Complaints come every year when this commodity gets scarce, particularly in April, May and June. Every shopkeeper endeavours to get what supplies he can in order to retain his customers. The price of pigs jumps and then there is the complaint about the price of rashers and bacon jumping.

If the public were aware that the price of pigs was definitely fixed for the two periods, they would, in my opinion, be satisfied. In the summer months the producer would get a higher price for his pigs and the public would have to be prepared to pay more for their rashers and their bacon. At any rate, I do not think we would have complaints such as we have had this year. In that way, you will get over that part of the difficulty.

As regards the price of eggs, it is true that the price paid to the producer in one period of the year is actually less than the cost of production. You are up against the same problem. The poultry and the eggs are there, but we have only one market in which to dispose of our surplus. Nobody can dispute that we have only the British market. We cannot blame the Minister for the price he has been able to get from the British. We are all aware that the mistake was made prior to this Minister taking charge of the Department. The mistake was made of allowing any country to come here and subsidise the production of poultry. If we got a satisfactory price in those years, the Minister would now be in a position to claim a better price for our eggs. The British came here and subsidised the hatcheries and poultry production generally, and we reached the stage when we were producing more than we needed to meet what was expected at the time the agreement was made. Nobody can blame the Minister for that agreement because it was not his doing. He has to-day a surplus of eggs and he has only one market. In these circumstances, he has to do the best he can. So far as I can learn, he will find it difficult to get more for the eggs. There is only one alternative. We shall have to adjust ourselves to existing conditions.

With regard to potatoes, there are this year big quantities of ware potatoes and the seed potatoes are all disposed of. The ware potato season will be over in a fortnight or three weeks. We have a surplus. We know the irregularities and we hear what has happened so far as the quality of some potatoes is concerned. In normal circumstances the Minister would do everything possible to relieve the people of the surplus. I believe he will be in a position to meet the abnormal difficulty, but if the surplus is not disposed of I suggest that he might come to the assistance of the people concerned by means of a subsidy or otherwise so that their potatoes may be disposed of in the home market, possibly in the alcohol factories.

I want to congratulate the Minister. He has left the farmers happy from the point of view of the methods which they can avail of to make a living on the land. They are quite happy. Sometimes they complain — but then, everybody complains. We cannot say that people are always satisfied. The Minister has done everything possible to satisfy them. Speaking generally, so far as the farming community are concerned, I am perfectly satisfied that they are getting a reasonable chance. There is no compulsion on a farmer to do anything. Last year and this year he has been allowed to work his land in any way he wishes. He has nobody to dictate to him. There is no reason why anybody should dictate to the farmer. He is the best judge of his own land. It is wrong that inspectors should tell the farmer what to do with his land. It is well that the farmer is now free to make any use he likes of his land. No matter what experience of agriculture a person may have, it would not be easy for him to dictate to the farmer because, as I have said, the farmer is the best judge. The quality of land differs according to locality. The land in one area may be boggy and in another area it may be rich and fertile. I am glad that freedom to use his land according as he wishes has been given to the farmer. In that way he will have an opportunity of getting full value out of his produce.

I, like all Deputies, I am sure, on this side of the House, agree with the Minister that it is extremely important that we should have a change of weather. An improvement in the weather would do more good now than all the Departments of Agriculture that we could develop. I am afraid that something more than weather conditions is affecting us at the moment. From what I am told and from what I know generally, I do not believe that everything in the garden is as beautiful as has been pretended. That method of propaganda had quite a lot to do with the disappointment felt by people who are engaged in agriculture. Take, for example, the egg industry. It was not only the small farmers, cottage holders, who were induced to take part in the egg industry by the statements of the present Minister for Agriculture and the propaganda and capital that was employed. Many large farmers also went into the business. It is true that an occasional farmer went into the business for the purpose of exploiting it. He, of course, like everybody else, met with a very serious disappointment. The result is that the egg industry is now in a most depressed condition.

There is another proof of the methods that the Minister adopted and of the eccentric habits that he has cultivated. For years past the people knew all about egg production. Statements were made abroad that the world was suffering from a serious shortage of food. It is my belief that, if the people of the world were to be properly fed and to get anything like enough, it would take great exertion on the part of the farmers to supply food for them all.

The Minister told us how he would drown the British with eggs. The people believed that there was something in that statement. Very soon they discovered that that was not the case, but they had invested their capital in the egg industry. The Minister tells us that, instead of selling eggs, we will fatten the hens and sell them. That is happening. The figures which the Minister gives us here are certainly very illuminating and the general statements he makes here on agriculture are undoubtedly extremely helpful. It is clearly indicated that there is a fall in fowl population which it would be extremely difficult to remedy. That is largely due to the fact that tillage was very much discouraged by the present Minister for Agriculture when he took office. Anybody who reads the statement issued by the Department will see quite clearly that there is a very considerable decrease in the acreage under wheat, oats and barley. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the small farmers especially, who, whether there is compulsory tillage or not, must till because they have not the capital to purchase feeding stuffs, will be affected. They believed that tillage would cease entirely and that we would import everything. It is quite true that we were told here that Indian corn would come in at £1 a cwt. That was generally believed but, by the time the people had their fowl reared to a certain stage, they suddenly discovered that that price had increased rapidly and was continuing to increase. The position now is that they have not food wherewith to fatten the fowl or to get the fowl to produce eggs.

That situation will do a lot of harm because the effect will be a decrease in the fowl population. Fowl producers got such a shock that they are not inclined to develop fowl production and we will be pushed back to the days of the barn-door fowl, who laid when the crows laid. If we examine the question carefully, we see that in that way only can fowl be a paying proposition. The old hen that comes with a clutch of chickens from the garden ditch and feeds them around the house entails no expense. That is the only type of fowl, I believe, that pays to-day.

We have, of course, the cattle trade, which is very important but which, of course, is entirely dependent on the dairying industry. The dairying industry is fundamental. In recent years, in County Meath, people went in for milk production to a very large extent, with the result that there are now roughly 1,100 farmers in that industry. They are not all large farmers. Quite a number of them are small farmers. I want to know from the Minister, does he really mean to destroy that industry? He has offered an increase of 1d. per gallon.

Does everybody not know that since the advent of this Government the cost of production went up by at least 50 to 60 per cent.? A penny per gallon is not going to meet that. We are, therefore, driven to the conclusion that the Minister intends to put that particular industry out of action. If we throw our minds back to 1922 or 1923, when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in power, we can remember that Swiss tinned milk and other forms of tinned milk were freely sold in every small shop in the country and that numerous children were reared on that. Dairying was then unknown in counties such as Meath. I think it essential, now that that industry has been established there, that it should be encouraged. The cattle trade about which the Minister talks so much and on which we must all, to a large extent depend, is based on that industry, especially in a county like Meath where good cows are kept and where the farmers, if they have sufficient money to buy bulls without having to seek premiums, are able to produce good calves. I do not mean calves produced from the modern dairying strain, calves of the type which I see by the newspapers were sold for as low as 2/6 each last week in County Cork. I think it a waste of time in these circumstances to talk of high production cows. If the dairying industry is to be treated as it is being treated at present, what is the use of talking about high production cows? Would it not be much better to let the farmer have a chance of getting a price for proper calves? There, again, the Minister seems to have become confused and to have introduced confusion into the whole trade.

I have no particular objection to the Minister personally any more than anybody on this side of the House, but, listening to new Deputies on the other side of the House, one would imagine that when this Party formed the Government, we had not to undergo any criticism. As a matter of fact, we were criticised very severely. It is the business of Deputies, particularly of Opposition Deputies, to criticise and if the Minister and Deputies on the other side were to resent that, I am afraid it would be a very unfortunate day for the country. I think that the Minister will get a lot of information from the Opposition, just as we got a lot of information in our time from the then Opposition. That is what parliamentary discussion is for. I believe it is the essence of parliamentary discussion that there should be criticism and that the Minister or his supporters should not resent that criticism.

It is correct to say, as the last speaker has stated, that criticism is essential and necessary in parliamentary debate, always provided that it is constructive criticism. The last speaker implied that the present Minister was neglecting his job and in support of that, he said that there was a reduction in the quantity of the various crops produced in recent years. He sought justification for that statement by comparing last year's figures with, apparently, the figures for 1948. But I believe it essential, if we are to make a fair comparison, that we should take the figures for comparable years so as to give us some clear indication as to how the policy of the present Minister can be compared with that of Ministers of the past. I suggest, therefore, that we should take the figures for 1939 as against those of 1950.

While we were facing a war in 1939, a war which developed later that year, for the greater part of the period it was a year of peace. What is the difference in figures as between 1950 and that last year of peace? Take corn crops. In 1950, under the policy of the present Minister — the Minister who, according to Deputies on the opposite side, is reserving the land for the bullock, the Minister who is abusing his position, according to these people, by forcing everyone to adopt his methods — there was an increase in corn crops alone, as compared with 1939, of 241,147 acres. That in itself cannot justify a type of criticism which, to say the least of it, was not based on truth. Again, if we consider the acreage under root and green crops, as a result of the policy of this Minister there was an increase of 25,683 acres in 1950 as compared with 1939. In the case of flax and fruit, the increase as between these two years amounted to 10,044 acres. I suggest to the Opposition that it is necessary to take these figures into consideration when we are comparing the policy of one Minister or one administration as against that of another. In making these comparisons we must be honest and we must see that our comparisons are just, rather than trying to pick figures to suit ourselves.

It is correct, also, that if we compare 1950 as against 1939 there was an increase in the hay yield. Of course, we know that owing to weather conditions in 1950, the yield of hay was not satisfactory but when we realise that the increase in acreage in total crops in 1950 as against 1939 amounted to 205,026 acres we get some idea of the success which has attended the policy of the present Minister. This is the Minister who is such an eye-sore to some Deputies and to some people outside. This is the Minister whose policy is supposed to be one of "back to the bullock". Again, on that point, a comparison as between the position in 1939 and in 1950, reveals some interesting figures. The Minister and the Government of which he is a member, instead of adopting a system which perhaps some people, including members of the Opposition, might wish them to adopt, have operated a policy which has resulted in a decrease in the area under pasture as between 1939 and 1950 of 226,220 acres. That is one result of the policy of the present Minister and any Deputy who wishes can check these figures. Let him find out for himself, and if he then has to come to the House and be critical, then let his criticism at least be constructive. If the Deputies opposite wish to offer that type of criticism, which in its own way may be helpful both to the Minister and the Government, then I believe it might be well worth listening to. But, should it be other than that, then I believe, as they believe or should believe, they are wasting the time of this House and causing an unnecessary expenditure of money by holding up the consideration of this Estimate.

There has been a great decrease in pastures and a great increase in the acreage under other crops. There was a very lonesome tone in the speeches of some of the Deputies opposite. They have been saying that the farmers are being robbed. If we examine the figures supplied to us we find that, if no new land is being broken, there has been a turn over from pasture to tillage. If there has been that switch over, we must, of necessity, ask ourselves if farmers are so foolish or so blind as to switch over to green and root crops, as against pasture, unless it paid them to do so. There is this comment I would like to make that, while pastures show a decrease, supplies of milk and butter have increased. The position, therefore, is that despite a decrease under pasture, milk and butter yields are higher. I believe that the yield could be far higher than it is if different circumstances, to which I propose to refer later, prevailed.

I thought that Deputy Smith's statement would have been more elaborate than it was, in view of the fact that he spoke for four or five hours on this Estimate last year. He made a few points which, I think, are worth considering. He took pride in drawing attention to the agreement which the Fianna Fáil Government made with Great Britain during their last year in office. He said it was such that they would have been able to go over to Britain again and say: "Costs have gone up on us and we are entitled now to more than we are getting under the agreement."

Deputy Smith gave us to assume that when he and some of his colleagues went across on that mission, the people in Britain would say: "Certainly, you are welcome and here is an increase for you." When that agreement was signed, I remember it got a huge splash on the front page of the Irish Press, but I do not remember reading at the time that, if in the near future costs should go up, the people in England would again receive the representatives of the Fianna Fáil Government with open arms. I am not saying that we are getting every penny that, perhaps, we are entitled to under the bargains we make with the people at the other side. We know, as I said on this Estimate last year, that the people in England are going to consider themselves first. What is wrong with the members of the Opposition? If we have to pay increased prices for imported feeding stuffs, they object. Apparently we should not be asked to pay any increased price in the world markets, but the English people, according to the Opposition, are supposed to hand out to us, without question, any increase we ask. I think that, if the members of the Opposition were more logical in their approach to this subject, they would get a little further.

Deputy Smith said — perhaps he was right though I do not know — that the majority of the farmers are supporters of his Party. He went further and said that the majority of the dairy farmers are supporters of his Party. Is it because they are, that he gave them an increase in 1947, and is it because he considers that the farm workers, a minority in his eyes, are not supporters of his Party, that he did not give them an increase? Is it because he thought so little of the farm workers in Cork County and in the south that they had to threaten to strike before Deputy Smith would raise his finger to try and induce the Agricultural Wages Board to consider their claims? I am glad that at long last a member of the Opposition and an ex-Minister has admitted — whether he meant it or not is perhaps another thing — that it was because the farmers were his supporters that he considered it was not suitable for him to see that the farm workers would get a fair wage. He spoke about slavery on the land. It ill-became him to speak of slavery on the land unless he considered that his words were fully justified. I suggest that it ill-becomes a Party, which recognises him as one of the members of its hierarchy, to speak of slavery on the land for one section only.

What about the slavery there would be on the land for farm workers if Fianna Fáil had their way? Deputy Ó Briain may laugh. When we were asking for a holiday for farm workers, it was not a laugh that we got from Deputy Ó Briain but a sorrowful frown. On that occasion, the Deputy and his Party, including Deputy Corry, could not find their way up the steps here to support that proposal. Even on the occasion of giving them a half-day, Deputy Ó Briain found it awkward to decide what he would do. I do not wish to waste time on personalities. I believe that, if there was a little more sincerity in Deputy Ó Briain and the boys, we might be able to get a little more here. But, in spite of Deputy Ó Briain and of his Party, we were able to get the holidays for the farm workers.

And of your Minister.

Deputy Ó Briain showed the white feather as he always will. Deputy Corry had some remarks to make to-day. The majority of them were of such a nature that I do not think they are worth dealing with. He mentioned one fact, and I believe was justified in doing so. I am glad the Minister is here now because, I think, the Minister was negligent in one respect. About two and a half years ago there was a great stampede about the harvest and, as Deputy Corry has said, the rats got a great feed down his way. The reason I consider the Minister negligent is that since that period two and a half or three years ago the policy of the Minister has not suited Deputy Corry. The grain was not left to the rats to consume and, unfortunately, since then Deputy Corry's flock of rats have had to exist on the wind.

Last year the Deputy had the old story about the great feeding they had. It suited him to come out with stuff of that nature. It would suit him if he could continue on that line. It would suit him if the policy advocated by the Minister was one by which the farmers could not sell their grain. The war-cry he had this year was just a repetition of last year's, which means that the policy followed during the last 12 months could not be questioned by him any more than by the ex-Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith. Therefore it would be a waste of time to deal with the contribution made by Deputy Corry in this debate except in regard to one or two points.

The Deputy mentioned the price of milk. Every member of the Opposition who spoke referred to that question. The Deputy said that an increase of 1d. per gallon was not sufficient. I wonder is it? In the early years of the emergency there was an organisation of Cork farmers in the milk board area of which Deputy Corry was a member. I remember seeing a leaflet issued by that organisation pointing out to milk suppliers that the price of milk was totally inadequate. The present Minister for Agriculture was then only a Deputy. This organisation went so far as to ask the suppliers would they be "game enough" to go on strike in order to get an increase in price. Apparently at that time they were not satisfied with the price and they are not satisfied with the present price. I believe that the best way to get a greater profit for farmers on their milk is not by dishing out 1d. or 2d. a gallon increase in price, but for farmers to consider the type of milch cows they are keeping.

Recently there were figures published in the Cork Examiner in regard to the results of a cow-testing scheme in the Blarney area, near Cork City, and the figures were most illuminating, as far as one farmer was concerned. He had a number of cows tested and the yield was as high as 900 gallons per cow as against 350 or 400 gallons for other cows. One of these cows gave a return of over £90 in the year as a result of that high yield. That farmer was taunted a couple of years ago by other farmers in the area as a businessman farmer who knew nothing about farming except what he read in books, and they prophesied that he would be only able to continue for a few years. In spite of that prejudice, they now realise that they have to look up to that farmer as the model farmer in the area.

I know that the small farmer may not be in a position to get a decent herd together in a short period. I know that it might take him a long time to build up such a herd. But I know that if a start were made years ago in that direction it would have been very advantageous for the farmers. What does 1d. or 2d. per gallon mean to a man, the average yield of whose cows is only 350 gallons a year? Would it not be more advantageous for that farmer to have a type of milch cows which would give him 700, 800 or 900 gallons? The Opposition are now shouting for an increase in the price. Why is it they never consider trying to get the type of milch cow which would give a decent yield?

Deputy Corry is merely adopting the attitude of other Deputies who declared that the poor farmers are downtrodden, that they are on their last legs. What surprises me is that the Minister for Lands is not dividing up more farms in the south because I cannot visualise why these farmers continue to hold on to their farms if they are losing day after day and year after year, as we are led to believe by some Deputies. When we are told that these farmers are losing so much, it is interesting to note that when the members of the Cork County Council Sites Committee were trying to get sites for the building of cottages, although some of the farmers cooperated with us, large numbers of them, and very large landholders at that, were almost willing to set the dogs on us before they, would give us an acre of land. Can we not be consistent in our approach to this matter? Why is it that farmers who refuse to give an acre of land for the building of a cottage are said to be losing money year after year?

The figures that I gave quite clearly show that the policy of the present Minister is one of continued progress on behalf of the farmers. The prevailing prices for many agricultural products are such that the farmers are able to show a clear profit. Deputies of course may be able to pick out certain items such as eggs. It might happen at one period of the year or pending the holding of negotiations with Great Britain or any other country that the price of eggs might not be suitable. But no member of the Opposition mentioned one very interesting item, namely, the sale of rabbits. What does it cost farmers to breed rabbits?

A year or so ago the members of the Cork County Committee of Agriculture were demanding a Government grant to enable them to exterminate rabbits. During the last eight or nine months if a person was seen on a farm trying to catch rabbits he would be in danger of extermination rather than the rabbits. I know of one farmer who has two sons of 13 or 14 years of age who were bringing in an average of £13 or £14 a week by the sale of rabbits. It is quite clear that the Opposition are not willing to discuss anything which is going to be to their detriment when items are questioned here. They are willing to close their eyes to any advantage given to the farmers by the present Minister or the present Government. Do they forget the amount of money that is being put into the land through the land rehabilitation scheme? Do they forget the advantages coming to the farmers at the present time in the way of grants for the purpose of supplying water to their farms? Do they forget that, while the farmers will obtain all the advantages of the rehabilitation scheme, it is the people as a whole who will pay for it? Why do they close their eyes to these facts? Why does it suit them not to mention these facts? The Opposition Deputies adopt a Jeykll and Hyde personality. Those who represent the urban areas speak only for the urban areas. Those who represent the rural areas roar for the farmers. Thus do they divide their forces and speak with two voices.

I believe that the present approach to the problem of agriculture is a progressive one. The Minister realises that the time has come when the farmers must stand on their own feet. All sections of the community have been loud in their condemnation of the system operating some years ago of dishing out free commodities. It was degrading that young boys having left school should qualify for the free beef scheme.

Those boys got into a rut and they have never succeeded in getting out of it. I believe continuous spoon-feeding will only have the effect of keeping the farmers in a rut. Continuous bewailing of the farmers condition will only have the effect of keeping them in a groove. I represent a rural constituency. I want to see the farmers progress, but I do not approve of perpetually holding them up as being on the verge of bankruptcy. I want to see the farmers independent. I do not want to hear them begrudging the lot of others. When they do that, they do it because members of the Opposition here and some people outside encourage them. They blindfold them to the facts. When I was going to school, we had a teacher who taught us to be honest.

You have forgotten it since.

Unfortunately, all teachers are not alike. We should give credit where it is due. The Minister deserves credit. No one will deny that the farmers to-day are getting grants which are available to no other section of the community. They are immune from income-tax. They have foodstuffs available to them which are not available to people living in the urban areas and not available to the industrial workers. It is not true to say that the present policy is a return to the ranching system; I have given figures to prove that the reverse is the case. More corn crops are grown to-day than were grown in 1939.

There is one section of the farming community which deserves special consideration. I refer to the skilled agricultural worker. The wage laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board is, as we all know, a minimum wage. I know that the Minister may say that it is a wage which is not paid in parts of the country because men are not available at that wage, and the farmer must pay more. There is a fallacy in that argument. I am familiar with County Cork. Because the pool of labour is greater than the demand, the farmers for the most part are paying the wage stipulated by the Agricultural Wages Board and that wage is regarded by the farmers as a maximum. At a recent meeting of the board the representative of the farmers suggested that not alone should there be a deduction for the board and lodging of an indoor labourer but the farmer should also deduct 2/- per week for having the man's shirt washed. Unfortunately, we have too many cases of that type down in the South. Unfortunately, too, we have not got the co-operation we would wish between both sides. The Minister may say that it is up to the workers to organise. That is so, but the farmers in their own interests will not organise themselves in order to qualify as a negotiating body. They do not wish to have a negotiating licence which would enable the workers to negotiate with them or go before the Labour Court. The Agricultural Wages Board is a complete flop. Deputy Smith, as Minister for Agriculture, found it convenient to rest at the helm of the wages board. My words, be they words of praise or criticism, are not offered as justification of the Minister or the Government but as justification of a policy of agriculture which, in the broadest sense, is a satisfactory one.

We must realise that there are two sides to the picture. Deputy Corry said that when he did not vote for the farm workers' holidays it was no use doing so, as the farm workers were all gone. It may surprise him and others to know the figures for the number of farm workers in County Cork, or even in his own locality. Some of those Deputies who speak so glibly here about farm workers and say they should get £3 10s. or £4 are not anxious in their hearts that those in the South of Ireland should get that wage. Were they anxious, they would have shown a little more consideration for the farm workers in the past. They can never try to whitewash their tracks showing the way they went on occasion, though there may still be Party bitterness there. They then showed, through their own conscience or lack of conscience, that as Deputy Smith said, the majority of farmers were their supporters. When they were voting against these advantageous conditions for the workers, they showed that the workers, being in the minority, would not get the consideration which was their due.

I ask the Minister to consider earnestly the wages of farm workers. In the rural areas, up to the advent of the present Government, the agricultural workers and the road workers were on the same wage. Thanks be to God, the Minister who took over Local Government—a Cork man, too, the late T.J. Murphy, God be good to him— broke that system and abolished the system that operated. They are getting £3 12s. 0d. now, as against £3 for the agricultural worker. That difference is still there. I am not saying the road worker should not have £3 12s. 0d. and though it is not adequate it is a step to the policy advocated by the people in the past. I would ask the Minister to realise that agriculture has prospered under his reign in the Department, but unfortunately while the advantages given to the agricultural worker were at least a step forward, there is still a gap to be filled, that difference of 12/-. I trust that the Minister, realising the true position, will not act like Deputy Smith when he was Minister for Agriculture, who sat tight and trusted that everything would go well.

We have listened for a considerable time to Deputy Desmond giving his views——

Nach bhfuil Fáinne ort?

Ba mhaith liom roinnt Gaeilge a chlos.

Cloisfidh tú, mar sin. Ní thuigfidh an Cathaoirleach mé, ach is cuma, is dócha. Bhí an Teachta O Deasúin ag cur síos anseo ar vóta éigin a thug Fianna Fáil i gcoinne na n-oibritheoirí talmhaíochta. Ní cuimhin liom gur thugamar aon vóta dá leithéid anseo. Nuair a bhí an Bille sin os comhair na Dála, séard a bhí ag teastáil uainne ná go dtógfadh an Rialtas an fhreagarthacht mar gheall ar an Bille orthu féin agus gan é fhágaint, mar d'fhágadar, ina vóta saor. Nuair a bhí an vóta ar siúl faoi, chuaigh an tAire Talmhaíochta ag vótáil ina choinne agus an Taoiseach ag vótáil ar a thaobh. An bhfaca éinne riamh a leithéid de Rialtas, a leithéad d'Aire, nó a leithéid de chóras, agus atá againn anseo sa Dáil fé láthair, nuair d'fhéadfadh rud mar sin titim amach?

Sé an rud a tharraing mise chun aon chaint a dhéanamh sa díospóireacht seo ná praghas an bhainne atá le fáil ag feirmeoirí Luimnigh, cuid de na daoine a chuir anseo mé. Bhí an tAire ag plé leis an scéal seo ar feadh tamaill le déanaí. Bhí sé ag plé leis anuraidh chomh maith. Dhein sé a a dhícheall anuraidh chun a chur ina luí ar fheirmeoirí déiríochta go mba ceart dóibh glacadh le praghas níos lú ná mar bhí dá fháil acu go dtí sin. Sa bhliain 1947—i dtosach na bliana, i mí Aibreán—socraíodh an praghas ar an mbainne, an praghas a bhí le fáil go dtí le déanaí, 1/2d. an galún sa tSamhra agus 1/4d. don leath eile, isé sin sa Geimhreah air. B'in méadú 3½d. an galún thar mar bhí le fáil go dtí mí Aibreáin, 1947. Theastaigh ón Aire Talmhaíochta go nglacfadh na feirmeoirí le laghdú anuraidh, agus nuair a bhí uaid iad a mhealladh chun an laghdú a ghlacadh, chuaigh sé ag plé direach le coistí na dtithe uachtarlainne. Níor éirigh leis. D'imigh siúd agus thá inig seo, agus tar éis na cainte go léir agus an gleo go léir a bhí ar síúl i mbliana, tá sé tar éis pingin an galún a thabhairt dóibh mar bhreis i gcóir an tSamraidh. Ní bheidh aon bhreis le fáil don Gheimhreadh. B'shin masla do na feirmeoirí sin.

Tá siad tar éis cur le céile i gcumann nua agus d'iarradar ar an Aire éisteacht leo. Ní éisteodh sé leis na toscairí ón gcumann sin. Dúirt sé—rud nar bhfíor dó agus nach raib sé ceart aige a rá— nach raibh sa gcumann sin ach earball d'Fhianna Fáil.

"Racket" is ea é. Ní dúirt mé earball ach "racket."

Is mó rud adúirt agus adeir an tAire, agus is mó rud adéarfaidh sé, gan bun ná barr leis. Is cuma liomsa mar gheall ar an gcumann sin: níl fúmsa iad a chosaint, ach ba mhaith liom go gcloisfí an fhírinne agus go nglacfaí leis an fhírinne. Níl an chaint sin adúirt an tAire fíor.

Tá craobh den chumann sin ins gach paróiste i gContae Luimnigh. Tháinig toscairí uathu ag caint liom, toisc mé bheith mar Theachta Dála. Séard atá ag teastáil uathu ná go gcuirfeadh an Rialtas bínse ar bun chun praghas an bhainne a shocrú.

Cuireadh a leithéid ar bun cheana— coistí moladh beirte mar adéarfá—do dreamanna eile, do Stát-Sheirbhísígh, d'oidí scoile, agus tá sé ar bun d'oibritheoirí eile nuair a chuir an Dáil seo dlí i bhfeidhm ag bunú na Cúirte Saothair. Níl ós na feirmeoirí sin ach deis den tsórt céanna a bheith acu, dul os cóir cúirte nó bínse den tsórt céanna agus a gcúis a phlé. B'fhéidir nach n-éireodh leo níl fhios agam—b'fheidir nach ciallmhair an rud é dhoib a leithéid a lorg. Nuair atá rud mar sin dá lorg ag dream feirmeoirí is tábhachtaí sa tír, ba cheart éisteacht leo agus an scéal a phlé. Sin dualgas an Aire Talmhaíochta, dar liomsa. Níor éist sé leo ná níor chuir sé aon tsuim iontu. Is amhlaidh a thug sé masia dhóibh nuair a thug sé pingin an galún sa bhreis doibh, agus sin tar eis an méid cainte a bhí ar siúl mar gheall ar chursaí ime. Ní fheadar an bhfuil na Teachtaí go léir ó Chontae Luimnigh, atá ar bhinsí an Rialtais, nó na Teachtaí os na contaethe eile go bhfuil leas na bhfeirmeoirí de chúram orthu, sásta leis an socrú a dhein an tAire?

Bhí scéal eile agam le tagairt dó. Nuair a bhíomar ag caint ar an Meastachán seo anuraidh is é rud a bhí ag déanamh buartha don Aire ná go mbeadh an iomarca ime sa tír seo agus na beadh fhios aige cad a dhéanfadh sé leis an mbreis. Ach nuair a fuair sé amach ná beadh an iomarca ime aige b'éigin dó é a thabhairt isteach sa tír seo chun é a thúirt do mhuintir na tíre. Níos luaithe sa bhliain, chuir an tAire 50,000 chéadmeáchan ime go dtí an Ghearmáin. Chuir sé roinnt go dtí an Fhramc agus chuir sé roinnt eile, is dóigh liom, go dtí an Bheilg. Fuair sé thrí céad go leith scilling an céad ar an im sin a chuir sé amach. Ansin, nuair a tháinig deire na bliana fuair sé amach ná beadh go leor ime aige do mhuintír na tíre seo agus do béigin dó dul ag lorg ime go dtí an Danmharg agus go dtí an tSéalann Nua, agus do réir na bhfigúirí a fuaireamar thug sé 61,000 céadmeáchan ime isteach ó na tíortha sin agus dhíol sé 376/- an céad air. Chaill an tír seo £80,000 mar gheall ar an mbeart ghnótha sin a láimhseáil an tAire.

Bhí mé ag déanamh taighde ar an rud seo le déanaí agus fuair mé giota an-mhaith sna Díospóireachtaí Parlaiminte. Díospóireacht a bhí ann idir an Teachta Ó Díolúin agus an tAire Talmhaíochta an Dochtúir O Riain, i dtaobh ceist an ime. Dúradh:

"Mr. Dillon asked the Minister for Agriculture whether butter earmarked for export to Belgium under trade agreements is at present being consumed in the domestic market; and, if so, if he will state how will the butter requirements of the Belgian Trade Agreement be supplied.

Dr. Ryan: During last summer and autumn, when production was high, a certain quantity of butter was stored for the Belgian market. The quantity reserved was found to be greater than the requirements to the 31st March next, and the surplus was recently sold on the home market.

Mr. Dillon: Arising out of the Minister's reply, is it proposed to import butter now, and, if so, will it be necessary to use any of that imported butter for filling export quotas?

Dr. Ryan: No.

Mr. Dillon: No? Well, if it is not necessary to use any of that imported butter for the purpose of filling export quotas, will the fresh butter be sent to our foreign markets while the people of this country are required to consume imported cold-stored butter?

Dr. Ryan: The butter that was stored and earmarked for the Continent will be sent to the continental market. A certain small quantity of butter must be imported—roughly about a week's supply—and that will be consumed by the people here.

Mr. Dillon: Why does not the Minister, then, send that other butter to the Continent and let us consume our own butter here?

Dr. Ryan: But we undertook to give Irish butter to the continental market.

Mr. Dillon: Am I to understand, from what the Minister has said, that a situation has now arisen in which we are going to ship butter 1,000 miles from the Port of Dublin in one direction, and, at the same time, import butter 1,000 miles in the other direction, and that as, say, 100 tons of butter come into the port from some foreign country, 100 tons of our own butter go out? If that is so, I can only say that Bedlam is upon us."

Sin í caint an té atá ina Aire Talmhaíochta anois. Agus is leor é sin i dtaobh an droch-ghnótha a dhein an tAire Talmhaíochta i gcúrsaí an ime anuraidh.

Rinneadh a lán cainte sa diospóireacht seo mar gheall ar na huibheacha, agus is dócha gur fearr gan leanúint siar uirthi. Is cuimhin liom go ndúirt an tAire Talmhaíochta le cruinniu éigin ban anuraidh go seasfadh sé nó go dtitfeadh sé do réir mar d'eireochadh leis na h-uibheacha. Fé mar a dúirt mé i dtosach, ní raibh sé ar intinn agam caint a dhéanamh sa díospóireacht seo marach gur theastaigh uaim tagairt a dhéanamh do cheist an bhainne. Nuair adúirt an tAire go ndéanfadh sé rud éigin, cheapas go ndéanfadh sé rud éigin fónta. An tseachtain seo caite, dúirt sé nár shásaigh sé éinne. Tá fhios agam go maith nár shásaigh sé feirmeoirí Luimnighe. Ní bheidh acu ach leath-phingin an galún don mbliain ar fad. Má theastaíonn ón Aire leas an tionscail a dhéanamh caithfidh sé éisteacht níos cúramaí a thabhairt do na daoine a bhíonn ag caint ar son na bhfeirmeoirí déiríochta. Ba cheart dó a leas féin a dhéanamh. Ba cheart dó leas na bhfeirmeóirí agus leas na tíre a dhéanamh in ionad bheith ag tabhairt masla do dhaoine macánta.

An cumann nua a bunaiodh, ní cumann polaitiochta é.

Is féidir leis na Teachtaí atá in a suí taobh thiar de é sin a mhíniú dhó. Maidir leis na daoine sa chumann sin go bhfuil aithne agamsa orthu, tá níos mó de lucht leanúna an Aire sa gcumann sin ná mar tá de lucht leanúna Fhianna Fáil ann. Ní haon maitheas a rinne sé nuair a mhaslaigh sé iad fé mar a dhein sé cúpla seachtain ó shin. Dúirt sé maidir leis an runaí nach raibh ann ach stát-sheirbhíseach, ach is eol dom féin go bhfuil feirm aige agus go bhfuil 30 ba bainne aige ar an bhfeirm sin agus an bainne á chur aige go dtí an tigh uachtair. Maidir leis an bhfear atá in a uachtarán ar an gcumann sin, nil aon eolas agam air, ach amháin an méid adúirt sé sna páipéir a léas. Más fíor an méid adúirt sé mar gheall air fhéin agus an gléas beatha atá aige, chuir an tAire éitheach ar an bhfear sin leis.

Ba mhaith liom a fháil amach ón Aire conas a shocraigh sé ar an bpraghas nua don mbainne. Cad é an bunús a bhí aige leis an bpingin bhreise a thug sé do na feirmeoirí atá ag soláthar bainne do na huachtarlanna? Shocraigh sé ar phingin. An amhlaidh a chreideann sé nach raibh aon bhunús in aon chor leis an gcás a bhí á dheanamh ag na feirmeoirí, nach raibh aon éileamh acu ar níos mó airgid. Ba mhaith liom a thuiscint, agus ba mhaith liom go míneoidh an tAire go soléir don tír, cad é an bunús a bhí aige, cad a chuir ina cheann, go mba leor an phingin seo? Ba chóir go míneofaí sin do na feirmeoirí agus don tír.

Bhí uaim tagairt a dhéanamh do rud amháin eile a mbiónn lán cainte ag an Aire mar gheall air, an scéim feabhsúcháin talún seo.

An maith leis an Teachta an scéeim sin?

Ní fheicim go bhfuil aon dul chun cinn á dhéanamh leis an scéim sin, i gContae Luimnigh go háirithe. Nuair a bhí an scéim eile i bhfeidhm, an scéim feabhsúcháin feirme, mar a tugtaí air, dob fhéidir an obair a bhí ar súil a fheiscint, ach, maidir leis an scéim nua, ní fhaca mé ach an taon rud amháin i gContae Luimnigh. Bfhéidir ná fuil mo shúile ró-ghéar, nó bhféidir nach dtugaim rudaí fé ndeara, ach chonnaic mé bailiúchán mór de phíopaí nua ar fheirm amháin i gceanntar áirithe. Tá siad ann le breis is naoi mí agus níl faic déanta fós maidir leis an obair a bhí beartaithe ag an Roinn nó ag an bhfeirmeoir. Tá siad ar thaobh an bhoithirín agus gan aon ní á dhéanamh. Bhíos ag caint le beirt fheirmeoir le cupla seachtain anuas agus ghearándar liom gur chuireadar iarratas isteach blian ó shoin ag lorg deontais fén scéim agus nach raibh fhios acu fós cad a bhí le titim amach.

Cén tainm atá orthu?

Scríobhas litir mar gheall ar an scéal sin.

Cén uair? An bhfuair tú freagra?

Ní bhfuaireas i gcás amháin, ach fág mar sin é. Tiocfaidh an freagra eile i gceann míosa eile, b'fhéidir. Ná bíodh an tAire ag cur aon cheist orm. Tá mise anois ag gearán mar gheall ar an ngleo go léir agus an fothrom go léir a chualamar i dtaobh na scéime seo agus an dul chun cinn bheag atá déanta. Níl aon dul chun cinn déanta agus níl fhíos agam cén fáth atá leis, i gContae Luimnigh, ach go h-airithe. Níl ann ach glór agus bladhmann agus baothchaint agus fothrom, gan aon obair.

Tá sé fuar bheith ag caint le hAirí cosúil leis an Aire atá againn anois mar tá sé saor ó smacht. Ní bhaineann sé le haon chumann ná le haon Pháirtí sa Tigh seo. Tá sé ina mháistir ar an Roinn agus chomh fada agus is féidir liomsa a dhéanamh amach, tá sé ar nós Airí eile sa Rialtas. Níl smacht ag éinne air. Déanann sé a rogha rud; tá sé ar a chomhairle féin; agus is do réir a thuairim sin a cuirfear rudaí i bhfeidhm nó ná cuirfear. Níl aon chaighdeán ag an Rialtas maidir le cúrsáí talmhaíochta ach amháin, gan aon amhras, an sean-phort a bhí ann fadó, margadh Shasana. Ba chóir go mbeadh tuiscint éigin ag muintir na tíre seo cad é an dúnghaois talmhaíochta atá againn. Tá na rudaí adúirt an tAire san am atá caithte maidir le cúrsaí cuireadóireachta—go mór mór maidir le barraí airithe go mba chóir go mbeidíis ag fás ar thalamh na tíre seo in ionad bheith ag dul go dtí deire an domhain á lorgh—ag teacht ina choinne anois agus chomh fada agus a bhaineann le dúnghaois náisiúnta le haghaidh na bhfeirmeoirí, ní hé an tAire an duine is fearr chun iad a stiúrú nó comhairle a thabhairt dóibh, ach, mar deirim, tá sé ar a chomhairle féin agus deineann sé a rogha rud, an rud is toil leis féin agus an rud is dóigh leis féin atá oiriúnach, bíodh sé go maith don tír nó go holc. Sin é an sórt dunghaoise a bheas i bhfeidhm le haghaidh cúrsaí talmhaíochta an fhaid a bheas an Rialtas seo i reim.

Deputy Ó Briain was particularly critical of the Minister in relation to the recent difficulty that arose in connection with butter and he tried to point out that, in 1937, a similar position arose and to show what his attitude towards the Fianna Fáil Minister at that time was compared with the attitude now being adopted with regard to this problem. Let us remember that the real difficulty this year arose from the fact that there was so much milk sent to the creameries and so much butter produced that we had vast quantities of butter going into the stores, with the probability that further quantities would be produced and there would be no storage for it. In his wisdom, the Minister decided to export, for the first time in many years, a quantity of butter, which, if it had been a normal year, could be replaced in the normal way by butter produced towards the end of the year.

Are you forgetting our imports?

Deputy Rooney is in possession and he ought to be allowed to speak.

I propose to deal with Deputy Walsh's interruption at a later stage. I was making the point that the Minister could not have been expected to anticipate the very difficult harvest and the severe winter which caused a very sharp reduction in the quantity of milk produced—milk which, in the normal way, would have been going to the creamery for creamery butter.

No alibis.

Space was left available, as in the past couple of years, for the butter which would have been produced towards the fall of last season but for the very severe winter weather and the Minister found that there was no butter to go into that storage which he had reserved for that particular production. He found that, in order to maintain the eight-ounce ration of butter, it would be necessary for him to import butter so as to meet the deficiency which had arisen as a result of the lack of production during the very severe previous winter months. He did not decide to bring back the butter ration to two ounces, which was the position in which he found the consumers when he took office.

Yes, in 1948. The records will show that. Instead of asking the consumers to tighten their belts and to accept two ounces for six or eight weeks until the position could be rectified, he decided to leave our people on the full ration of eight ounces to which it had been increased from two ounces. He did not restrict them to eight ounces during the previous part of the year. They could buy all the butter they wished to buy. They got eight ounces at a subsidised price which was facilitated by subscriptions from those who consumed the butter, in the form of taxation. Therefore, they were really getting their own money back in the form of a subsidised price. It was decided that, over and above the eight-ounce ration, those who wished to purchase extra butter could do so on payment of the ordinary cost price for it. It was considered that if we related the eight-ounce ration of butter per head to the average consumption in the years before the war, there would be an adequate ration for our people. In the years before the war, the average consumption of butter was something between six and seven ounces per head of the population. Since the war our people have developed a taste for butter with the result, which we have seen during the past year, that they are in the remarkable position of being able to consume 13 ounces per head per week, that is, an average of five ounces over and above the subsidised ration of eight ounces a week.

I have often heard Fianna Fáil Deputies praise the Danes and ask why our farmers are not as good as the Danish farmers. Danish butter was always held up as one of the finest products available. However, when the Danish butter came into this country, to make up the deficiency which had arisen, apparently it acquired some kind of a political taste. I do not think it was otherwise discernible but certainly as far as having a political taste is concerned it was very obvious and got much publicity. Remember that these Danish farmers to whom we had to go for butter are on a ration of butter. They do not eat 13 ounces of butter per week as our Irish people do. They are not allowed to do so. They are restricted to a ration so that they can export all the butter over and above that ration. We did not say to our people: "You may not eat more than eight ounces of butter per week so that we can export the quantity of butter produced over and above that amount and thereby obtain cash which will enable us to purchase other commodities which are not produced in this country. "This is a free country, particularly as far as the policy of the Minister for Agriculture is concerned. He believes in the policy of freedom of action and in permitting the people and the farmers to choose their own mode of living.

Deputy Ó Briain also referred to the milk prices. He criticised the attitude of the Minister towards an organisation, of which he appears to be a champion, when the question of having the milk price adjusted was being pressed. Let us look back just one or two years. We find that two years ago fewer farmers were producing milk and sending it to the creameries than is the case to-day. If you examine the matter you will find that many more farmers have gone into the milk business. One of the results of that was that we had such a quantity of butter earlier last year that the Minister for Agriculture thought he would not have storage space when the winter supply would come along. Farmers are shrewd men. They do not go into milk production because it does not pay.

They went to the creameries because the subsidy was taken off the farmers' butter. Tell the truth.

That is a very good excuse but I doubt if you will convince the producers. The trend is, and continues to be—I am glad that Deputy O'Reilly is here now—for our farmers to go into milk production. More and more are going into it every day. During last winter they were faced with a difficulty. There was a hard season and the hay crop was poor. Fodder was scarce and dear. We remember that, last autumn, resolutions were put down in this House, as if we were facing a period of panic, to the effect that we should take steps now to mobilise all the food we could to protect our animals. It was recognised at that time that food for animals was going to be scarce and, consequently, to be dear. The scarce and dear food which it was necessary for our farmers to obtain for our dairy herds during the winter period naturally resulted in a loss to our farmers who tried to keep in the business of producing milk and sending it to the creameries. Unless our farmers change over to the policy of ensilage, rather than that of depending either on imported foodstuffs or on hay, which can be produced only when the sun shines, they will find themselves at certain times in the position in which they found themselves this winter. They will find that it will not pay to buy dear food for the cows and to sell the milk to the creameries. That is the position in which they found themselves during the past winter. Nobody will say that it was possible for them to pay the high prices for these foodstuffs for their dairy cows and to buy hay at, perhaps, £14 a ton.

The cheapest method of milk production is grass in any of its forms, whether it be ensilage during the winter or grass during the summer. The characteristic taste of our Irish butter when we compare it with Danish butter is due to its being grass-produced butter and not produced from imported commodities. In Denmark, remember, the cows rarely see daylight. They are under cover from morning till night, except for their ordinary exercise during the day. The taste of Danish butter is due to its being produced from concentrated foods fed to the cattle indoors, while the Irish creamery butter is produced from grass during the summer months.

Our farmers are progressive. They are beginning to mechanise, and if they had certain production expenses in years past they are beginning to eliminate them. You have, for instance, the farm which is not geared with electricity; the farmer, however, can have an oil engine, which will do the milking formerly done by hand and cut out much of the drudgery. It improves the workers' conditions and enables them to do more in relation to man-power. The result is that overheads are cut down and the margin of profit enlarged.

Deputy O'Reilly referred to the disappointment among egg producers because Britain did not agree to pay any more than 2/- a dozen for eggs. He is inclined to blame the Minister for Agriculture because he encouraged our farmers' wives to go into poultry production for the dead poultry trade and the export of eggs. I adopt the attitude of Deputy O'Reilly's suggestion that, in fact, our farmers were not first encouraged by the Minister for Agriculture but by the British Government in 1947. At that time we could scarcely get sufficient eggs for ourselves, and the British Government required eggs for their people, who were getting one egg per week or per month. I am not sure which. They realised that if they subsidised our farmers it would enable them to produce eggs which could be exported to Britain. They then got in contact with Deputy Smith, the Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture, and offered him £1,250,000 if he would subsidise the production in this country of eggs for export to Great Britain. That was the first encouragement to our farmers to produce eggs.

We found that in order to protect themselves the British Government had made an agreement with Deputy Smith giving him 2/6 per dozen until about January, 1950, because they realised that by that time other countries recovering from war conditions might be in a position to give them eggs more cheaply. It is certain that only for the intervention of the Minister for Agriculture, who went to Great Britain and made a revised agreement, our farmers would not be getting 2/- per dozen to-day or in February, 1950, but 1/8, 1/5 or at most the lowest figure that Britain could give them. The British people are business people and if they can get eggs elsewhere at 2/- they are not going to give this country 2/1. That is the position now and that is the position in which Deputy Smith would have found himself after the British Government had subsidised the reestablishment of the poultry industry in this country. Instead of that the present Minister for Agriculture seized his opportunity, went to Britain, got a revised agreement and got a considerable quantity of money out of the British Government when it was going.

The position, of course, has changed very much during the last eight or nine months and Britain, by means of her bulk buying, is in a position to buy eggs at about 2/- per dozen and certainly at a figure lower than would be economic for our producers. Facing that problem it seemed that our Minister should give a line to the farmers and say what would be the best thing to do; he decided that in the interests of economy it would be better to go into the dead poultry trade and he has encouraged our farmers in that direction. We now find the British Government prepared to give 3/6 a lb. for prime dead poultry. That is a fair figure, something like 14/- a bird compared to 1/6 each not so many years ago. During the war they went up to 4/6 or 5/- per bird but before that they were 1/6 per bird not 1/6 per lb. The present figure certainly means a proposition for poultry keepers who find that egg production is not economic.

Probably it would be possible for producers to sell eggs at 2/- a dozen if they were in a position to obtain cheaper feeding stuffs. At one time they could obtain them at £19 or £20 per ton, but naturally we have no control over the price of imported goods. The result is that the price which must be paid is far beyond the figure which would be economic for our poultry producers to pay if they were to show a profit from egg production. The only remedy would be to produce on their own land or secure from our farmers home-grown feeding stuffs.

Deputy O'Reilly referred to the position of the Meath dairymen. He knows as well as I do, and probably very much better, that more people are now engaged in milk production in County Meath than ever before, and that more loose milk comes to the City of Dublin from those Meath farmers and from the farmers of County Dublin and Kildare than ever before. I think I am right in saying that at one stage in Dublin City we had a surplus of 6,000 gallons a day and we were just wondering how that could be disposed of until the Minister struck on the idea of developing the chocolate crumb trade between this country and Great Britain.

It was developed before that.

I was surprised at Deputy O'Reilly taking as his guide a Fianna Fáil councillor down in Cork, probably seeking to win a political point, who mentioned that he saw calves sold for 2/6 each. Deputy O'Reilly should tell the farmers in Meath about these calves, because I am sure they would be prepared to pay double that price.

Go down to Carrick or Waterford and you will find out for yourself.

You will know the price when you go down there. Will the Deputy send me a wagon load of them?

Yes, at £1 each.

I thought it was 2/6 each?

They are up to £1 already.

But there is carriage to be paid. I will make Deputy Rooney a present of two calves.

I am sure calves at 2/6 each or even 20/- each would be very welcome in Dublin County and probably in Meath county.

But they would not rear them.

They do not rear them there; they would not rear them in Dublin.

I do not mind. Fianna Fáil Deputies criticising the policy of the Minister.

They have every reason to.

At the same time, I object to misrepresentation, and the Minister has to put up with a lot of that. Unfortunately, a lot of Deputy Walsh's friends are misguided in that form of misrepresentation which is published in their own tied newspaper. There is more tillage at the present day than there was in 1939. Therefore, much of the argument put forward that the Minister had adopted a policy quite opposite to the policy of mixed farming, has no basis. If we were to be guided by the Fianna Fáil wheat policy, we would, in 1950, have had 240,000 acres of wheat instead of the 365,000 acres that we had. That was Fianna Fáil wheat policy.

When did Fianna Fáil stop the farmers from growing wheat?

That was in your own O.E.E.C. programme.

The Deputy's Minister for Agriculture indicated to O.E.E.C. a couple of years ago, when he was asking for finance for this country, that in 1950 it was estimated——

It was estimated.

Well, we will accept the estimate, but he indicated that 247,000 acres would be grown in 1950. Instead of that, under the present Government, there were 365,000 acres of wheat grown, and that was almost 50 per cent. higher in the matter of acreage than the figure that was anticipated by the Fianna Fáil Party. We may take it that that was their policy in relation to wheat.

It was not estimated that eggs would be 2/- a dozen, either.

The figure is 1/5.

I am in favour of the policy the Minister has adopted in relation to farmers. It is not a policy of compulsion; it is a policy of encouragement. Some people have said that his encouragement has been too successful and that people have learned to be disappointed but, taking them on the average, it is better to encourage them and work for them as willingly as the Minister has worked during the last few years than to be a prophet.

We had very bad weather since last October. It was impossible for our farmers to plough the land and get it ready for seeding. We had not two successive days without rain since last October. Probably compulsory tillage will be referred to by Fianna Fáil next harvest if it is found that our farmers have not cultivated a large acreage, but they will be able to remember, as I do, that it was impossible since 1st November for our farmers to plough land. It is only now they are getting into their stride. They are doing their best to seed all the land they can. The good weather of the last few days has given our farmers an opportunity to show how willing and anxious they are to serve the nation by cultivating all the land they can with the limited time and resources at their disposal and with their limitations in the matter of gear and help.

I was surprised to hear that Deputy Smith claimed he was the representative of the farmers and that his views represented the views of the farmers. No doubt he was speaking for his Party, but we all know that Fianna Fáil are the traditional enemies of the farmers. They were scarcely five years in existence here as a Party when they became the Government, and they immediately started the economic war and left the farmers to pay for it. Everybody knows that the amount of annuities could be redeemed many times over by the losses of the farmers and also by the taxes collected by the British Government from that time on the goods exported from this country. We have not seen any seizures, we have not seen any sheriffs or bailiffs and there was no confiscation of land during the last few years.

Or Blueshirts, either.

They had no connection with the seizures.

We saw you wearing one.

It was well for the liberty of this country that they were worn.

They tried to sabotage this country.

There were Brownshirts in Germany, Blackshirts in Italy and we had Blueshirts here, but the Minister for Agriculture did not wear one.

At the present time our policy is to get the best price we can in foreign markets. The only handicap is that we have not got the goods. We have only one-third the number of cattle that we could sell. A similar position applies in respect of sheep, poultry and pigs. The shortage of cattle is due to the fact that the cattle population was brought to such a low level shortly before the war commenced. At that time the price of live stock doubled, but the live stock were not there and the farmers were not in a position to avail of the substantially increased prices. There is no knowing the measure of prosperity which could have been enjoyed in this country by all classes of our people if, when the war commenced, our land had been stocked to the hilt with sheep, pigs, cattle and poultry.

And no bread for our people. That is what you wanted, was it not? Starve the people.

Surely it is not suggested that we should feed bread to pigs and poultry?

Or feed the people. You cannot have it both ways.

Deputy Rooney should be allowed to speak without interruption. Every Deputy has that right.

It would not be wrong to feed it to greyhounds?

Farm horses appear to be becoming scarce, due to the fact that farmers are not inclined to keep horses when they can manage their farms by means of tractors and when they find that it is more economical to mechanise the farms than to keep horses. At the same time, there is a certain need for horses, even amongst farmers who keep tractors, and I feel that they are not making provision for the future. Therefore, I would like the Minister to consider devising a scheme whereby pedigree horses would be located in various parts of each county to ensure that farmers who so desired can keep foals which will eventually meet the need.

We do that.

The Deputy does not remember the Minister's statement regarding the yokel that was following the horses in the field.

Was that about the stick tied to the ass's tail?

Yes. That was one of them.

Apparently, the farmer would prefer to keep a tractor.

On the Minister's suggestion.

Deputy Walsh is constantly interrupting.

I do not think the Minister should insist on the use of asses with sticks tied to their tails, if the farmers wish to use tractors.

I was glad the Minister indicated the value of silage and the uses of silage in comparison with hay. Our farmers have not yet realised the value of silage in comparison with hay and the better economy it would be to use silage instead of hay. Some farmers produce hay for sale, but those who require food for live stock during winter would be better advised to use silage.

In regard to the question of bacon production, I hope the Minister will succeed in adopting a plan which will enable him to guarantee the farmers a certain price for a pig of a certain weight. The guaranteed price has a very valuable psychological effect. Those who engage in production like to be able to anticipate the price which they will get for the finished product. Certainly, 220/- per cwt. for pig producers for pigs that are fed on homegrown cereals or any kind of feeding stuff at £20 a ton or less, in my opinion, would be a paying proposition. I hope the Minister will succeed in getting into a position where he can give that guarantee, because it will result in the expansion of pig production. World meat prices are inclined to move upward. The same applies in respect of bacon. In years gone by, the British market was regarded as a valuable one for our surplus agricultural production. I suppose that still applies but, in recent times, Britain has shown that she is not in the financial position in which she was in previous years and the British Government has adopted a system of bulk buying which certainly has not had a favourable result for our farmers in the matter of egg production and I think also in the case of bacon production.

It appeared to me also that the British Government were prepared to give a better price for bacon to the Danes than they are prepared to give the Irish farmers. I believe that is only a temporary attitude and that a remedy can be found whereby at least our pig producers will get terms similar to those given by the British Government to the Danish producers.

Apple production, to which the Minister referred, should be encouraged. Last year the North Dublin and East Meath fruit growers came on a deputation to the Minister asking if he could do anything to steady the prices for their fruit. At that time the Minister indicated that if they were prepared to form a co-operative society his Department and the Agricultural Credit Corporation would then be in a position to finance the establishment of such a society which would enable the farmers to store apples instead of putting them all on the market at the one time and selling at sacrifice prices. Strangely enough, although the producers can get only very poor prices at the fall, fruit, particularly apples, sells at a very high price to the consumers at Christmas and after Christmas and there would be a great advantage in having a co-operative society which would enable farmers to store apples and to release them for sale according as there was a demand for them, instead of having to implore retailers and handlers to take the fruit from them. If possible, the Minister should encourage the production of apples and the establishment of these co-operative societies.

I believe Irish fruit growers can grow apples as good as and even better than the apples which are imported because the consumers cannot get Irish apples. Certainly, the price of apples to the consumer is very high. The Irish producers would be very glad if they could get even half the price which the consumer must pay for imported apples when there are no Irish apples available.

The Dungarvan project has been a great success and many fruit growers will be watching the progress made by the co-operative society. It is a new venture, which was established in a very suitable locality, where there is a tradition of fruit growing.

I would like the Minister to consider the possibility of any kind of cottage scheme, to be operated through the committees of agriculture in connection with poultry. There is a poultry scheme operated in a general way through the committees of agriculture, but I am hopeful that the Minister may be able to extend that scheme.

The same applies in respect of sows. I understood that the Minister would distribute about 1,000 sows throughout the country—through various committees. I believe that if the Department took that matter in hand and sent these breeding sows out—through the various channels—probably through the committees of agriculture—the system of pig production would be extended and that we would have a more uniform supply, depending, of course, on the amount of foodstuffs produced in this country.

One result of the agricultural policy carried on by the present Minister is that conditions for people on the land have improved. The income received by those who work and live on the land has been doubled, perhaps trebled in many cases. Farm workers who were receiving, I think, £2 1s. 6d. per week at the highest in 1946, have had substantial increases in their wages. Nobody can say that the farm workers do not deserve the highest increase that the farmers can give them in relation to the prosperity now being enjoyed on the land.

I had hoped to see the parish plan in operation and it was regrettable that it did not proceed as first announced by the Minister. I hope that the alternative scheme which he has in mind will soon come into operation because, in these difficult days, when the farmers are striving to get seeds into the land and to organise the whole position in relation to their economy for the coming year, and particularly in relation to the harvest, it is regrettable that they could not have the assistance which would be afforded by an organised parish plan in every locality. I believe that, if there was an organised parish plan, the efforts of the farmers could be further helped in these difficult few weeks. The position in springtime is different from that in harvest time when we can call on the people in the cities and towns, if necessary, to come to the rescue and save the harvest. The position is almost as serious now when farmers are putting forth their best efforts to get seeds into the ground but, unfortunately, they cannot call on the people of the cities and towns to come to the rescue of the nation and to assist in that work because it is a very different process from that of harvesting. I feel that if the parish plan had been in operation, the difficult task now facing the farmers could be considerably eased.

Why not try the co-operative movement?

I leave the Minister to reply to that question, but I think that the parish plan would be the first step in that direction. The output on farms in this country as compared with that on farms in other countries is low. Our farmers have a particular way of life and work on our farms is not conducted on the highly commercialised basis which is followed in other countries. The turnover, for instance, on a British farm of 100 acres is many times greater than the turnover on an Irish farm of a similar area. Again, that may be due to the difference between the attitude of our farmers towards their occupation as compared with the attitude of farmers in England and other countries. At the same time, there is a constantly increasing world population, and there is no doubt that even if production were expanded in this country, there would be an ample demand for our surplus. The question of price, of course, arises but, if farming methods were improved, I have no doubt that extra production would result and in the long run it would be better for our farmers to have higher production than higher prices. Generally, higher prices are only a temporary expedient, but higher production, if maintained, in the long run will add to the wealth of the nation.

I was glad to see from the figures that the Minister, to a certain extent, has developed the dressed meat trade. I would be very much in favour of a further development in this trade if it is possible to bring it about. I believe that there is a prospect of carrying on such a trade with the United States and Canada, and on that matter I should like to hear something more from the Minister, particularly in view of the fact that the price of meat in these two countries is much higher than the price on this side of the Atlantic.

At the same time, the price of meat for consumers in this country is very high while butchers find it very difficult to make ends meet for about two months each year. I think these months are May and June. I am hopeful that the Minister will, in some way, take some action regarding the question of hides. The butchers, I think, get only 10d. per lb. for hides. Then they are not allowed to sell hides to the tanners. They must sell the hides to the fellmongers who take another 4d. per lb. profit before they send it to the tanners. Then the tanners get their whack out of it before the leather eventually goes to the boot factories.

I mention this matter because I believe butchers across the water receive something like 4/- per lb. for hides and Britain is prepared to send to this country boots made from these hides, for which the butchers get 4/- per lb., at a lower price than that at which boots manufactured in this country can be sold. As I say, the price paid to the butcher here for the hide is only 10d. per lb. while the butcher in England receives 4/- per lb. If you start to count that up, you will see that for years there has been something wrong somewhere. If the difference between 10d. per lb. and 4/- per lb. did not go to the farmers, it would go to the butchers and it would have the effect of relieving the position for consumers in the matter of meat prices. That is a matter, I think, that should be examined, especially when we realise that Britain was prepared to send boots to this country at a lower figure than they can be produced here although, as I say, the butchers here receive only 10d. per lb. for the hide.

I mentioned previously in the debate that the farmers would like to know something about a uniform price for pigs, some kind of a guaranteed price, so that they could base their economy on that figure. They could produce barley, oats or other foodstuffs suitable for pigs and try to make a profit, taking the figure of 220/- per cwt. as the basis of their calculations. At the same time, it will be difficult to satisfy farmers when they see the black market price which is available for pigs across the Border. There is an inclination to try and take advantage of that extra price, which is only temporary. It would be better for the farmers and the Minister to take the long-term view and base their calculations accordingly rather than on the black market prices or temporary prices which may be available during a time of shortage.

I see also that the Minister has decided to encourage the production of wheat, although he got 365,000 acres of wheat grown last year as compared with the Fianna Fáil estimate for that year of 247,000 acres. He has asked the farmers to give him more than 365,000 acres of wheat this year, and, as an inducement, has offered them a higher price on a better scale. He has asked them to produce good-quality wheat by giving a preference in the matter of price for best-quality wheat as compared with wheat of an inferior quality. Similarly, malting barley will command a good price during the coming year. He is also encouraging them to grow Ymer barley as a feeding barley. If that is done, it will enable him to go ahead with an expansion of pig production.

The Minister's attitude in relation to barley is very different from what the attitude of Fianna Fáil was towards that cereal in the year before they left office. We know that, at that time, the Fianna Fáil Government made it illegal for maltsters to pay more than 35/- per barrel for barley, and made it illegal also for farmers to ask or expect more than 35/- a barrel at that time. Certainly, the present figure is very encouraging when compared to the 35/-. I have no doubt that, if they get the time and the opportunity now, our farmers will grow a very much greater acreage of barley, particularly when they realise that we cannot depend on imported feeding stuffs, and that if we do we will definitely go out of the production of pigs and of poultry and other animals.

Last year, many farmers were encouraged to go into the production of turkeys, and it resulted in a very good profit for the wives of cottagers. There was much criticism some time before Christmas about the price of turkeys. It was said that farmers were getting a good thing out of this form of production. It is only right to say that it is not the large farmers who produce turkeys but the small farmers and cottagers. I, certainly, think it was a grand thing to see a farm labourer's wife get as much as £100 for 30 or 40 turkeys last year. That, certainly, was a handsome Christmas gift. It is one that a farm worker's wife is not accustomed to. I think that the market for turkeys in the coming year will be just as good as it was last year.

Every bit as good this year, thanks be to God.

And the Minister for Agriculture.

I can tell Deputies that the feeding of these turkeys, mainly by country women, is not carried out on a commercial basis. They are fed out of hand by these housewives who take great pains in bringing the birds up to a proper quality.

Let them start boiling the nettles now.

I will tell them that. The price of 4/- per lb. for turkeys represents a great improvement. I remember the time when turkeys were available at 9d. per lb.

I saw them sold at 4d. per lb.

That was when you had the blue shirt.

Yes, and when I took the 4d. a lb. off the turkeys.

And when we took the blue shirt off you.

I am glad to hear that from the Minister. The farm workers' and cottagers' wives will be glad to hear it, too, because they are the people who are mainly engaged in the production of turkeys. The money they receive for them helps them to buy little things around the Christmas season.

With regard to the land project, I am glad to see that, with the aid of this money, it is proposed to reclaim something like 4,500,000 acres of land. That, certainly, will represent an addition to the national wealth. One problem which I see confronting some farmers is that they find it difficult to avail of the land project when the question of drainage arises. Sometimes, there is a stream which annually causes a certain amount of flooding on the land. From experience, I have found that the officers of the land project are inclined to ask the farmers concerned to put the onus on the Board of Works, or perhaps on the county council of releasing the flow of water in that stream before they will recommend the spending of money on the project.

I agree, of course, that it is necessary to release the waters in the stream before going ahead with the land project. I would like to see the work carried out under the land project scheme instead of telling the farmers that they had better apply to the arterial drainage people or to the Board of Works, or that the matter was going to be dealt with as a local authorities' works scheme. That is a problem which has arisen in North County Dublin. It may also have arisen in other constituencies.

If we are to judge the progress made in the Department of Agriculture, and in relation to farmers generally, we have only to examine the table of figures relating to the value of the exports of various commodities during the past few years. Taking the 1947 figures, and comparing them with the figures for the last available year— that is for 1950—we find that the value of cattle exported increased from £15,600,000 in 1947 to £22,200,000 in 1950. The value of horses exported in 1947 was about the same as in 1950. The value of dead poultry exported in 1947 was almost £2,000,000, while the figure for 1950 was £3,900,000. The value of eggs in shell exported in 1947 was £1,500,000, compared with £5,100,000 in 1950, in spite of the bad price. Of course that has only arisen in the last few months. The value of the exports of condensed milk was £490,047, compared with £753,000 in 1950. The value of the wool exported in 1947 was £890,000, compared with £3,500,000 in 1950, that is four times as great. Probably during the present year there will be a drop in the price of wool, according to the international trade figures. There was not a pound of bacon exported in 1947 and people were very lucky to get a pound of bacon even in a shop in this country. But we find that £994,000 worth of bacon was exported in 1950

When you opened the Border.

That does not arise. These exports went through official channels. The value of tinned beef exported in 1947 was £752,000, compared with £1,540,000 in 1950. The value of chocolate crumb exported in 1947 was £472,000, compared with £2,784,000 in 1950. If those figures mean anything, they mean that the position of the farmer and prosperity in agriculture have continued to improve and are improving under the guidance of the present Minister in spite of much criticism. Naturally enough, everything does not go right. Of course, you cannot judge the Minister on a single item. You must judge him on the all-over picture and from that all-over picture you can see that agriculture was never so prosperous and continues to prosper.

No one would be so foolish as to judge the Minister for Agriculture on any single item of the various commodities which come within the scope of his Department. As Deputy Rooney said, he has to be judged by the all-over picture presented by the state of agriculture in the country. Undoubtedly, in the last few years there has been an increase in the gross agricultural output. We have not got the net figure in recent years and we have to deduct from the gross output on farms those things which the farmer buys for the purposes of his farm and from the gross national output of agriculture those things which are imported and used on the farm. Judging the effect of the Minister's policy from that point of view, we find that between 1949 and 1950, to take only this last couple of years, we have been increasing the gross output on our farms, which is reflected in increased exports of cattle and live-stock products, without adding anything to the national prosperity, the prosperity of this nation vis-a-vis other countries, its ability to purchase things from abroad through its exports.

The Minister boasts from time to time about the increase in the export of one or other of the commodities. He boasted about the increase in the export of cattle last year as against 1949, the export of eggs and the export of other agricultural products. But what did that amount to in the long run? Live-stock products increased last year over 1949 by about £6,000,000 and our import of cereals increased by £5.9 million or nearly £6,000,000. Therefore, if you take the £8,000,000 for maize and the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 for wheat, they were largely the result of our borrowing dollars, and this increase of £6,000,000 in live-stock products is balanced on the other side by a dollar debt. We borrowed dollars and sold the increased live-stock products for pounds. I think that is bad business.

Dollars are a soft currency now?

The Minister must be soft in the head if he thinks dollars are a soft currency.

Because they are not a soft currency.

Is not gold flowing out of America?

Gold is flowing out of America to a very slight extent. A couple of Deputies behind the Minister spoke with great enthusiasm about agriculture. Deputy O'Gorman stated that everybody must be satisfied with it; Deputy Rooney had much the same thing to say. They both had the wrong idea that the Minister was providing them with 14/- a lb. for chickens. The Minister could not stick it any longer and he corrected Deputy Rooney, but 14/- a lb. for chickens was the idea that Deputy O'Gorman and Deputy Rooney had about agriculture, not 3/6 a lb. Through their rosy glasses they saw 3/6 a lb. for top quality chickens being translated into 14/- a lb.

14/- a bird.

14/- a lb. was what Deputy Rooney and Deputy O'Gorman said. I took a note of it. They may change it in the Official Report, but that is what they said. Deputy Giles stated that Fianna Fáil had changed their tune about agricultural production. I think Deputy Giles accuses the Fianna Fáil Party of having said that wheat and beet had gone up the spout and peat was going and, please God, it would go soon.

Deputy Giles, in his new-found fervour for the policy of Sinn Féin, accuses us and not the Minister for Agriculture of using those words. Deputy Giles is labouring under the misapprehension that it was the Fianna Fáil Party that said it would not be found dead in a field of wheat; that wheat and beet were all cod. He thinks those sayings were our tune and not the tune of the Minister for Agriculture. Indeed, we were delighted to hear the change of tune from the Minister for Agriculture. It took a long time to make a Sinn Féiner out of him. He has gone Sinn Féin at last, Republican flag and everything else. Now he will go galloping around the country shouting: "Up beet; up wheat; up Sinn Féin."

That flag was brought here 100 years ago, long before the Deputy was ever heard of.

The Minister, as Deputy Dillon, thought the flag was a dirty rag, a dirty rag that he would not salute a couple of years ago. Thank God, we have at last made him salute it. Why on earth, when the Minister decided to change his tune, did he not change it before 1st April? For several months past various people who were alarmed at the situation in relation to the supply of bread appealed to the Minister to ask the farmers kindly to grow wheat. Those of us who were a little bit more enthusiastic appealed to ask them nicely by giving them a little bit more for it. But the Minister refused to do that. Up until the 1st April he spent thousands of pounds in advertisements appealing to the farmers to grow food for cattle; the farmers were warned that the cattle would starve if they did not grow more barley and more potatoes. There was never a word about human beings who might go short of sugar or short of flour. There was no request from the Minister for Agriculture to the farmers to grow beet and wheat. Indeed an advertisement little short of blackmail appeared in one of our morning papers on 10th March: "Farmers are earnestly requested to consider the prospects for animal feeding-stuffs." Farmers were to consider the poor cattle; that was the tune. There was no consideration at all for the poor human beings who might go short.

Then somebody kicked the Minister for Agriculture into asking the farmers to grow wheat. He did it very reluctantly. The extra that he offered them was very small in comparison with what this Government has spent on other sections of the community over the last three years. The Minister for Agriculture always makes the poor mouth when farmers of one kind or another come to him. Instead of giving dairying farmers something additional for milk, he offered them 2d. per gallon less. When it came to the point that he was compelled to import butter he offered them an increase of ¾d. per gallon on the average for the year.

With a five-years' guarantee.

This same Government, according to the Minister for Finance, has given the civil servants £1,800,000 extra. As many members of this and other Parties have pointed out, one official has been given as much as £1,000 extra. This was in one fell swoop.

I thought it was all going to arbitration.

There was no arbitration about the £1,800,000.

Are we not a wonderful Government to be able to do that and take off all the taxes as well?

I will tell the Minister what arbitration there was. Let us examine the matter for a few brief moments. The Minister for Finance came in here with his first Budget and he said the salaries and wages of civil servants were as high as social justice demanded and as much as the country could afford.

The immediate relevancy of this to the Agricultural Vote is not at once apparent.

Before May was out the Minister for Finance gave the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs an extra £30,000 for a small group of post office workers. The minute others saw that, they said: "This is a political squeeze and we can squeeze too," and they squeezed and squeezed and squeezed until they squeezed £1,800,000 out of the Minister for Finance. But the Minister for Agriculture, instead of being able to squeeze a single penny for the dairy farmers who are supplying the butter, could only offer them a reduction of 2d. per gallon.

And £40,000,000 on land reclamation and free lime.

The £40,000,000 for land reclamation is benefiting farmers who are producing practically nothing on the land. Some of that £40,000,000 is benefiting the worst farmers in the country. The farmers who are prepared to work hard, milk the cows and farm their land to the best advantage are getting nothing from the Minister. All they have been offered is 2d. per gallon less for their milk.

I hope Deputy Allen will tell that to the Macamore farmers.

They know all about it.

They do know all about it.

The Minister wants to boast now about his land reclamation scheme. I would advise him to think over what the present Taoiseach, Deputy Costello, said a couple of days ago about another scheme—that it was a lot of hot air and propaganda that had been put over on the people for two years. The Minister for Agriculture boasted and bragged up and down the country about the £40,000,000 he intended to spend on land reclamation. It was said that 4,500,000 acres would be reclaimed within ten years. What have we in this year's Estimate? After all this boasting about 4,500,000 acres in ten years, costing £40,000,000, we find that, even though this money is coming out of Marshall Aid, and even though this Government is borrowing and is spending what it has never earned, grants to farmers amount to no more than they did in the year 1947-48, the last year Fianna Fáil was in office. There is roughly £500,000 for grants to farmers.

What about the work that is being done by the Department for farmers?

There is no doubt that the Minister is spending money on bulldozers, but his Estimates show only £500,000 for grants to farmers. What happened that £500,000 the first year the Minister was in office? He stood there in the Front Bench and said that he could not give this money because the country could not afford it, but he would give it if he could get it free from Marshall Aid. The land reclamation scheme was put out of commission the very first year this Government took office.

That is absolutely untrue.

That is absolutely true and the Minister knows that.

The Deputy is stating what is not true.

We will ram that down the Minister's throat. I want to put it down in my own speech now lest the Minister might correct what he says himself. The Minister has denied now to the knowledge of the Deputies present that he did not postpone that scheme.

You have only two dejected witnesses.

There are two others behind the Minister. I know Deputy Flanagan would not be a very reliable witness. His word would not be taken in court. However, there are several Deputies here who heard the Minister denying that he postponed the land reclamation scheme, the spending of the £500,000 which Fianna Fáil had in the Estimates for the year that we went out of office.

For the land reclamation scheme?

For the land reclamation scheme—the Land Improvements Vote.

The Deputy is rambling.

We have it on the record.

The farm buildings scheme also.

And the farm buildings scheme.

Now Deputy Allen is trying to salvage Deputy Aiken. Deputy Aiken is referring to the land reclamation scheme and says I cancelled it the year I came into office and he is going to wrap that round my neck now, and Deputy Allen is trying to undo the bow.

I was not as severe on the Minister as I could have been, as he also postponed the farm buildings scheme. It was only a matter of a mere £250,000 extra.

Deputy Walsh is coming limping back now.

The Minister does not mind being caught out in a falsehood. He is accustomed to that and has too thick a skin. As a matter of fact, when the Deputy beside him was found out in a falsehood of that kind in court, he sent him a telegram of congratulation before the whole people. However, we will get the quotation for the Minister and we will show what he was prepared to do for the farmers here. The Minister for Finance would have to raise it in taxation. He was going to spend all the dollars he could. He was quite prepared to borrow.

Take the whole matter of agricultural production since 1947. According to the figures the Minister has given us in the various official journals, we had a drop of something like 546,000 acres of tillage crops, root and corn and other green crops. Take a very low estimate of the yield of an acre. There was a couple of hundred thousand acres' reduction in wheat between 1947 and 1950.

Would the Deputy go on to give the yield now?

We will come to the yield.

It would be better if Deputy Aiken were allowed to make his speech.

If the Minister thought that I had not got the figures——

I prepared them and gave them to him, in the White Paper.

The Minister did not give these particular figures.

I did. I gave the acreage and yield for each year, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950.

I have them made out, thank you. There was a drop of 217,000 acres in wheat.

And the yield?

Let me make the argument; we will come to the yield afterwards. There was a drop of 212,000 acres in oats and 33,000 in potatoes.

What about barley?

I have not got the barley figure, but the decrease——

There was a drop of 22,000 acres in barley and the yield was up 30,000 tons.

The decrease in acreage total for corn, root, flax and fruit— flax was 7,000 acres and fruit a couple of thousand — was 546,428 acres. Taking it on a very conservative estimate that you get £20 worth of foodstuffs per acre——

We have the yields. Read them out.

Taking it that we get, on a very low estimate, from an acre of tillage, in these various crops, £20 worth—it was in fact, worth very much more——

Why estimate, when you have the figure?

——that would amount to about £11,000,000.

The Deputy is rambling. He has the yield there.

£11,000,000 decrease in tillage crops. All the fuss the Minister has been making about a few millions extra——

The yield was up.

The Minister wants to put me off my speech, but I will make it, even if I have to talk till to-morrow night, and he may interrupt as much as he likes. The Minister has boasted about the few millions extra, from £15,000,000 to £22,000,000, the increase in cattle exports between these years; but the decrease in tillage crops was at least £11,000,000.

That is untrue

£11,000,000 worth.

That is untrue.

There was a drop in the acreage.

But not in the yield.

If the acreage had been kept up it could have produced another £11,000,000 worth. We could have produced more, as the Minister has pointed out that the yield per acre would have been very much more. As the O.E.E.C. pointed out, 1947 was the worst year that Western Europe had in living memory, for 100 years. The Minister may smile and talk to the Deputy who condemned him yesterday and try to put me off my speech——

That is not true.

I do not know whether there is a new mood to-night or not. I want to point out that 1947 was the lowest yield on record, not only in this country but in any country of Western Europe, from the time that statistics were taken for agriculture. The yield is up since 1947. It is not quite as good as other years during the war with regard to wheat or other crops, but it is up very much. We have great additional facilities for the importation of manures and in spite of the fact that the Minister did not help the farmers very much up to now, the additional manures the farmers purchased and put on the land——

I bought 100,000 tons.

The farmers bought it and it was the Sugar Company, the thing the Minister was going to put up the spout, that brought it in and distributed it. The Minister had to call on the Sugar Company to do that.

He did call on them.

I do not know whether they were called on or whether they themselves suggested it to the Minister. However, it was brought in and the yields went up. If the tillage area had been kept up we could have been producing £11,000,000 worth more of barley, oats, wheat and potatoes and this greatly increased price for maize abroad would not have affected us as gravely as it did. However, the Minister has changed his tune. He has come at last to the policy of Sinn Féin and we welcome him to our bosom.

O horribile dictu! Where is Deputy Walsh?

If he does not like that, we can give him a kick in the place where he and his Party will get a kick if the people get a chance.

Where is Deputy Walsh with the records?

He is on his way here, in his own good time, not the Minister's time.

I hope Sister Anne is keeping a look-out for him.

I want to come back to a little affair that affects County Louth and other constituencies. It is the question of potatoes. The Minister will remember in his earlier enthusiasm as one of the young oldsters in the Government, or as one of the old members in the young Government that the Taoiseach was talking about recently——

Spare my grey hairs.

——that in 1948 when he came back with the trade agreement he said that "it provided for the farmers of this country a sure and certain market at remunerative prices for any conceivable product that the land of Ireland could produce." That is from the debate on the trade agreement — I have not got the exact column —in 1948.

On the records of the House?

It is on this record here. Does the Minister now deny that he crowed in this House and all through the country that the agreement of 1948 was going to provide a guaranteed remunerative market for everything that the farmers of Ireland would like to produce?

I glory in that astounding achievement.

Astounding pronouncement. Indeed, there was another pronouncement the Minister made in that regard that he will remember. He waved his arms here one day in the House and he said: "I have created a situation when every farmer's wife in the country can look at the egg and say, when she sees the bill of the chicken coming through, ‘If you are a pullet, I know every penny you will fetch me during your remunerative life as a layer."

That she was.

For two years ahead he was going to tell the farmers exactly what they were going to get for eggs. Six months had not elapsed when the Fianna Fáil price of 3/- fell to 2/6 and then to 2/-. What turned out was that the farmer's wife had been telling lies to the pullets. They are not morally to blame because it was the Minister for Agriculture who persuaded the poor farmer's wife into telling lies to the pullets. Not only did the Minister for Agriculture make that pronouncement in that debate, but the Taoiseach said that "the agreement provides for the first time in our history a sure and certain market at remunerative prices for any species of agricultural products which will be produced in the land of Ireland."

Eggs were never mentioned in that agreement. They were covered by Deputy Smith's agreement of 1947.

The Minister said that it provided for the farmers of this country a sure and certain market, not for conceivable products excluding eggs or bacon or anything else but a sure and certain market at remunerative prices for every conceivable product. Surely the Minister, because he was going to drown the British in eggs, must have known what he was talking about.

The Minister got up here about the beginning of April, 1948, when he was just six weeks a member of the Government, and he boasted that in March, 1948, he exported twice as many eggs as his predecessor had in March of 1947. The Minister bellowed that it was no ill thing that he, as a young Minister for Agriculture, was able to double the quantity of eggs exported in the month of March, in the first month of his office, beyond what his predecessor had exported in the corresponding month of 1947. The Minister was not only able to conceive of eggs being a farm product, but he boasted about that and he tried to make the country believe that he produced a chick that would lay in two weeks.

It is as clear as mud.

For the last three years the Coalition Government have boasted——

What about the potatoes?

I will come back to potatoes.

Like Deputy Walsh, you will come back some time.

The Minister and his colleagues were boasting for the last three years about the great feats of production for which they were responsible and the amount of eggs that were being exported each year. Deputy Rooney here to-day, not knowing that the Minister was running away from this question of eggs, boasted that we had exported four times as many eggs in 1950 as we had in 1947.

He was getting his pin feathers then.

That is right. Of course, we do not expect the Minister for Agriculture to admit that he deceived the farmers and the farmers' wives. All we can do is to let the farmers' wives judge the Minister for themselves. I think they can do that pretty well.

Do not say that Deputy Walsh has brought the wrong volume with him.

It is all right so long as it is a big volume.

Any volume that you may open will do. The Minister for Agriculture is mentioned everywhere.

Deputy Walsh has brought the wrong volume!

The Minister need not console himself that he has brought the wrong one.

The Minister is full of sympathy.

I wish to continue until Deputy Walsh gets the quotation I want.

Probably Deputy Allen is looking for it at the moment.

The Minister made the statement that I quoted about the sure and guaranteed market for everything that the farmers could produce back in 1948. A lot of farmers in my constituency like to engage in the potato production as against a lot of other crops and for the last few years they have been growing potatoes. This year they find themselves in the position that they cannot sell them.

Sell what?

Potatoes.

Ah, go fish.

The Minister need not try to ride off that horse with me. I asked the Minister a very simple question yesterday at the end of his speech. I asked him: "Have you anything to say about the problem of potatoes?" The Minister got up and said: "I did not want to mention the subject, but the Deputy has forced me into saying that the potatoes which we sent over to Britain were boast in the heart." The Minister and Deputy Flanagan make a nice pair. They are peas in a pod. The Minister yesterday tried to make out that by asking the simple question dealing with a matter which is causing great perturbation in potato exporting regions I was in some way embarrassing him with the British Government. The Minister, when he gets into a difficulty, always has to have a baby in his arms.

Look at the mother and child over there!

They got too many babies in their arms on that occasion. The Minister on this occasion had a problem presented to him in relation to what the farmers in County Louth who wanted to export potatoes were to do with the potatoes they could not sell.

What potatoes that they cannot sell?

They were all bad ones.

If the Minister will meet a deputation from the Cooley farmers— they have asked him to meet them— he will find out all about it.

I know all about it and I know that you are trying to make mischief now.

The Chair knows that these interruptions are disorderly.

The Minister is trying to get a baby into his arms. I am not going to make mischief——

That is what you are trying to do.

——but I am going to try to undo some of the mischief the Minister made yesterday. The Minister tried to make the case that the reason these potatoes were not being bought by the British was that they were boast in the centre.

That the British said they were boast. I was contending that they were not. You are trying to make the British case for them and you are a mischievous person.

The Minister is now going off on another plea. He need not try to put me off like that, because I remember exactly what he said, and I love to make the Minister show himself to be the liar that he is before the people.

The Deputy will withdraw that expression.

Very well — the teller of untruths that he is. Yesterday the Minister said that the case he was making was that the potatoes were good and then, because I asked that question, he had to drop that and admit that they were boast in the centre and go on to plead that they were up to contract standard. The Minister said yesterday that they were not, but I want to tell the Minister that the farmers in Cooley, County Louth, deny what the Minister asserted yesterday, that they were boast in the centre. I was talking to one farmer who said that the potatoes had been inspected by the Department of Agriculture and by the representative of the Potato Marketing Board, and that they had taken out of a sack 12 potatoes as being all that could possible be rejected and that, when they split them, all they could find were two which were boast in the centre. The farmers in Cooley assert to me that the potatoes which were sent out from that area at least, inspected by the Department of Agriculture, and by the Potato Marketing Board, were in every way up to standard.

Are two out of 12 not 16 per cent?

Two out of a cwt.

You told me it was two out of 12.

There were 12 taken out of the bag for test, selected as being of the worst appearance, and two out of those——

Two out of 12 you said.

Two out of a bag.

You are making as much mischief as you can.

The Minister yesterday tried——

He said two out of 12.

They are sending telegrams to each other now as to their credibility.

Stop making the British Ministry of Food case.

May I remind Deputies——

Is the Deputy lonely for Maximo and Eindiger still? He should have forgotten them by now.

Perhaps Deputy Flanagan will allow me to say something some time? Discussion here is by way of speech and not by way of interruption or debate across the floor. Deputy Aiken is in possession and is entitled to speak. He ought to be allowed to do so.

Deputy Aiken knows well that I am engaged in negotiations and arbitration with the British Ministry of Food as to whether potatoes consigned by us to them conformed to the terms of contract or not. He gets up in this House now and purports to describe a transaction which declares 16 per cent. of the potatoes in a certain district of this country to be boast. Surely, if there is any sense of responsibility left in public life at all, a Deputy representing County Louth is not going to say that his information is that 16? per cent. of the potatoes in the Cooley area are admitted by the growers to be boast?

The Minister has got in that statement now. Obviously, the Chair does not know whether what Deputy Aiken is saying is correct or not——

Or the Minister.

——but the Minister will have an opportunity of challenging it when he rises to speak.

When the damage is done.

Yesterday I said that 12 potatoes were taken out of a bag as being all that was liable to be rejected and that only two out of the 12 were boast.

16? per cent.

Two potatoes out of 1,000 or a couple of thousand potatoes. The Minister said yesterday that all the potatoes were boast, not two out of a bag. We all heard him. He has tried to accuse me now of saying that, because two potatoes out of a bag were not up to standard. 16 per cent. of the potatoes were boast. He said yesterday that they were all boast. He is trying to establish an alibi for himself.

Mischievous malice.

The Minister is one of the best judges of mischievous malice in this country. He has been maliciously mischievous ever since he appeared in public life in this country and he has sitting beside him a person whom he has tutored into being almost as bad.

The Deputy must confine himself to the Estimate.

Why should my presence here annoy Deputy Aiken?

Because of the speech the Deputy tried to fool the people with from this side of the House.

This is not relevant at all.

The Deputy is where he belongs at present—sitting beside the Minister.

The Deputy will deal with the Estimate.

And the Minister is sitting where he belongs when sitting beside Deputy Flanagan. I want to say this, in conclusion on that subject, that my information is that the potatoes which were exported from Cooley were in every way up to standard, and the Minister has no right to drop or to depart from the stand which the Cooley farmers wanted him to take in asserting and proving before the world that these potatoes were up to standard. The belief in Cooley, and it is my belief, too, is that the reason the British are rejecting these potatoes is that they have more potatoes than they want. I warned the Minister last year, when two cargoes were exported from Carlingford which were cut by a £1 per ton, that he should be up and doing, that he should be fighting with the British authorities to maintain that, when the potatoes were passed by his inspectors, they should be accepted by them as standard potatoes. The Cooley farmers and the farmers in Donegal are going to suffer because the British are using their central purchasing powers to reject potatoes which are up to standard. I want to say that I regard that as a low-down trick on the part of the British and the Minister can tell them I said so.

I want the Minister also to tell them, when he is negotiating with them, that he made a bargain under which the British would accept these 50,000 tons of potatoes at a certain price, that they are not keeping that bargain and also that they are falling down on the other side of the bargain under which they promised to sell us a certain quantity of coal.

What has coal got to do with this particular Estimate?

It was in the same agreement.

The Minister has no responsibility for it.

He boasted of the agreement under which we were sending potatoes. They are sending us bad coal but we are not allowed to say that it is bad. We must take it and pay the full price for it. But even though the potatoes which we sent them are good potatoes, if they can do without them, they can say that there is boast in the centre of them.

It is criminal for the Deputy to say that. He is pre-judging the case which is at arbitration.

I am pre-judging the matter in our favour — not as the Minister pre-judged it yesterday in favour of the British. I am judging it in favour of the Irish people — not as the Minister judged it yesterday to the disfavour of the Irish people and to the favour of the British.

What the Deputy is saying is mischievous.

Another agreement which was made by the Minister has led us into great difficulty. It was part of the same agreement. Under it, we could not send to any country other than Great Britain more than 10 per cent. of our cattle exports. If the Minister read the London Times of the 17th April he must have read that the British Minister of Food is boasting of that agreement and of how he has the Minister for Agriculture of this country tied up so that no matter what price we might get in Belgium, Holland, Western Germany or the United States we cannot send any more than 10 per cent. to these countries—an amount that would not be sufficient to embarrass the British. I raised that question when the Minister came back with this agreement. I pointed out that on many occasions the British had wanted to tie this country to such an agreement — that we could not send more than 10 per cent. of our exportable surplus to countries other than Great Britain — but that we had never agreed to it. Even though the British are falling down on part of their coal pact, and have sent us to America to import coal for dollars, we can send only a tiny fraction of our beef to America for dollars.

Of course, the Minister for Agriculture has a certain outlook in regard to the British market. He goes over and tells the British how much he loves them and how he loves selling to them. But all the Minister's palaver does not soften their steely blue eyes when they give 2/- for the eggs and keep him right on the spot of the 10 per cent. of our exportable surplus of cattle. This Minister persuaded the Minister for External Affairs that it was a good proposition. The Minister for External Affairs, way back in 1949, interviewed the Manchester Guardian and pointed out to that newspaper that we could have got a very much better price on the Continent for our cattle were it not that we had agreed to give the British 90 per cent.

I think that the Minister should point out to the British that they have fallen down on their part of the bargain—and he can tell them from me that I think they have behaved disgracefully in this whole matter of the coal that they were sending to this country, of the price that they are giving the Minister for eggs and of the rejection of good sound potatoes just because they have enough potatoes at home.

Did you go over with the Minister?

Oh, God forbid.

Why is Deputy Davin not talking in this debate? Deputy Davin used to speak here for hours——

Now you have drawn him on you.

——on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. There is no doubt about it, there must be something in what the Minister for Agriculture said about the Labour Party being as meek as mice.

I will come again, Sir.

That is a foul and dishonest misinterpretation—and it is well that Deputy Aiken knows it.

They have got Deputy Davin and Deputy Hickey to agree, inside three years, to a reduction of the tillage area of this country by 500,000 acres. Deputy Hickey will keep on the bench too. He has a nice soft seat there, and he will keep it as long as he can because he knows that if he leaves it he may not return.

We will keep you where you are.

I should much rather be here. Anyone could have paid the same dishonourable price that the groups over there have paid in order to stick together for a few years.

It is time that Deputy Aiken rose above the level of abuse.

It is all out in the open now. The Taoiseach told one member of the Coalition what he thought of him and that member of the Coalition told the Taoiseach what he thought of him.

Deputy Aiken, without interruption.

He is very provocative.

The twin Deputies — the Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Flanagan—have been sitting side by side on the Front Bench for the past hour. In view of Deputy Flanagan's speech yesterday he had better keep quiet until I finish making my point. The Minister for Agriculture has been informed by me of the situation with regard to potatoes in Cooley. I should like to remind him that from the 1st June the potatoes will be practically useless for conversion into alcohol because of the large amount of carbohydrates that will have disappeared.

You have done as much mischief as you can.

I want the Minister for Agriculture to sow something with these potatoes so that they will not rot if the British fool him on this question. When Fianna Fáil were in power a price of £4 10s. 0d. per ton was given for potatoes going to the alcohol factory. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government could find £1,800,000 extra for civil servants, they cut the price of potatoes going to the alcohol factories to £4 per ton. The Minister has behaved towards the farmers down there as he tried to behave towards the creamery farmers. Fortunately, the creamery farmers are a little bit stronger than the farmers whose potatoes are sent to the alcohol factories at a reduction of 10/- per ton. It is unfair — if the people in that part of the country and, indeed, in Donegal and Sligo cannot sell their potatoes in view of the fact that the Minister asked them to grow these potatoes for export —if the Minister proposes to give less for the potatoes, because they are going to the alcohol factory, than Fianna Fáil gave for them. I will let Deputy Cogan join in my appeal for somewhat better treatment than the Minister has given the farmers in that matter.

Deputy Cogan has given me as much help in the past two days as Deputy Aiken has done damage in the last half-hour. That is the difference between you.

Do not say it is the wrong book again.

This is Volume 111, column 2591. About Marshall Aid he said:—

"The House has learnt, as proposed by the Government of the United States of America and by the administrator of the Marshall Plan, that the assistance available to this country should be by way of loan only. I must confess that this seems odd to me. We are one of the only countries in Europe who are in a position to say, if Marshall Aid be made available to our country by way of grant and a consequent fund created for expenditure in this country, that with the expenditure of that fund on the development of our agricultural industry, the rehabilitation of our land, the reconstruction of our farm buildings and the reequipment of our farmers with modern implements and modern methods, almost 100 per cent. of the consequent increased production of necessary foodstuffs would flow directly into the vacuum which exists in Great Britain and on the Continent of Europe at the present time — a vacuum for food which, if it is not in part filled by us, will ultimately have to be filled by the United States of America. And yet we, being the only nation in Europe in a position to say, ‘if given Marshall Aid in the form of grants, all our extra production will tend to lighten the burden of the princely generosity of the American people', are one of very few nations in Europe to whom the administrator thinks it right to say: ‘In your case no grants will be made'."

What has this got to do with my suspending the farm improvements scheme?

The Minister suspended the farm improvements Vote and said if he got a grant he could spend it on land rehabilitation.

Is that the best the poor Deputy can do?

That is not the best; I can do better. I am on my feet now and have not time to examine the speech. I must give him the best I can.

You are doing splendidly but I believe that Deputy Walsh is betraying his colleague.

This debate will go on to-morrow and we will get more accurate quotations——

You will certainly want them.

——than I can give from memory. I have to give the Minister the reference and the column of what he said and it will be done. I only marked what the Minister's denial was for the purpose of the record.

What has this got to do with Deputy Aiken's allegation that I suspended the farm improvements scheme when I came into office? That is the allegation.

Yes. That is what the Minister denies?

The plea was that the Minister did it—and I will prove it out of these books.

You have not proved it yet.

I have partially proved it.

"Partially."

Only by inference in that sentence, but we will get it, not only from the Minister's words but from the Minister's deeds; we will get it from Finance accounts.

The Deputy will apologise if he is wrong?

There will be no necessity to apologise.

But he will if he is wrong?

Sure, but the Minister will not apologise if he is wrong. If he were wrong he would expect Deputy Flanagan to send him a telegram to congratulate him.

Deputy Aiken on the Estimate.

It looks as if Deputy Walsh will be busy to-morrow.

He will want to do better than he is doing to-night.

He may speak himself.

He would be better speaking because he is a bad messenger.

I hope that the Minister will have better news for the people of Cooley than he had to-day.

Than you had.

I do not intend to stay very long on the subject.

You have not got time.

I have been listening to some of the Deputies speaking to-night, and even if they were only remotely concerned with agriculture they got up to praise the Minister. It did not matter where it came from, if they could establish even a remote connection with the land, they had to speak on agriculture.

My main concern is with the Minister's last efforts to have wheat grown in the country. As Deputy Aiken pointed out, there has been a remarkable change of front in the last few years. At one time he told the people of the country that he would not like to be found dead in a field of wheat.

I am sure he would not.

No, nor anywhere else, thanks be to God.

When he discovered the wheat acreage going down, like a drowning man grasping at a straw, he found a way to increase the price. He met a deputation on, I think, the 13th February, and when he got even a slight suggestion of a way out he jumped at it with the result that we will now have the graded system of payment for wheat. I do not think that the Minister will deny that we gave him the suggestion. It would not even occur to him if we had not suggested it.

The Deputy was a very gracious guest.

I heard Deputy Rooney talking about mechanisation on the land. One thing that the Minister has done by the grading of wheat prices is to throw back the development of mechanisation to its position of a few years ago when only a very few people went in for tractors and up-to-date machinery. I think that Deputy Hughes, my colleague from Carlow-Kilkenny, will bear me out on this: people who use combines for instance cannot have their wheat in the same condition as the man who cuts it in the ordinary way with a reaper and binder, stooks it for a week or less—or even if he does not stook it makes stacks of it immediately afterwards and leaves it to dry. It will be in better condition going into the rick and in threshing than wheat cut with a combine early in the morning when the dew is on the corn. There is nothing wrong with wheat cut early in the morning; neither does it contain more moisture, but as a result of the graded system the man who cuts his wheat with a combine and takes it to the mill will not have the same bushel return at 11 in the morning as he would have at 3 o'clock in the evening out of the same field of wheat. I am not saying it is a good system or a bad system. My experience is that it would bushel less than 61 and the wheat in my district always bushels 61 anyway.

The increase in price of 5/- per barrel is not sufficient to meet the increases in the cost of production since 1948. Of course this price was fixed in October, 1947, for the cereal year 1948. There is not anybody on the opposite benches — and very few of them who speak on agriculture know what they are talking about—will contradict me when I say that the cost of production has gone up by far more than 5/- a barrel which is the increase now offered. However, a great change has come over the Minister for Agriculture. I do not know what has happened to him unless it is the result of the questions put to him recently in the House.

The position in this country is, as Deputies now ought to know from the answers supplied by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, that if an emergency occurred in the morning, our position regarding flour is a most unsatisfactory one. The consumption of wheat here per year is 480,000 tons and, with 366,000 acres of wheat grown this year and producing a ton per acre, we would run out of flour in June, 1952 — that is, if an emergency occurred. If an emergency occurred we would not be able to continue even until then, because I understood from the Minister in reply to a question that 97,000 tons of wheat have still to be delivered in this country.

One of the reasons given by the Minister for not producing more wheat is that we have not storage. But wheat can be stored without having buildings in which to store it. If the system were adopted which was in practice before, that is, that an additional price be given for wheat during the months of December, January and February, and if there were an inducement held out to the farmers who may not want cash after the harvest time and who may be able to hold wheat in ricks and thresh it in the spring, there would then be no necessity to build extra storage. Far better wheat would result by keeping it in the ricks until the spring. Any practical farmer will know that what I am saying is true.

I have said that the position is dangerous if more wheat is not grown for the people who are depending on our farmers to produce food. These people are in a dangerous position and the Government, individually and collectively, are charged with the responsibility of providing food for the people. The Minister for Agriculture, in his abhorrence of wheat-growing, in his vanity and pride and prejudice against wheat-growing, is running the risk of denying our people bread if an emergency occurs. That is the net effect it will have on our country. No inducement is being held out to grow human food, but every inducement is being offered and thousands are being spent on advertising for cattle foods. We have advertisements relating to Ymer barley. We have seen advertisements asking the people to grow Ymer barley, oats and potatoes in order to provide cattle and other animal food so that we can produce more beef and more bacon to send to John Bull.

There is no regard for the people of whom the Minister often speaks, the people living in Dominick Street or in many of the other streets in Dublin, or for that matter in Limerick, Cork, Waterford, Galway or any of our towns. There is no regard for the people who cannot produce sufficient food for themselves. I challenge Deputy Davin and the members of the Labour Party to ask the Minister why he has left it to this hour, until it is now too late to encourage the people to grow wheat, to offer a price that might induce the farmers to grow it. It is their responsibility as much as the Minister's. They are keeping him in office. If the people are denied bread, the Labour Party must take the same responsibility as the Minister for Agriculture.

There is another danger. We have been through one war and there is the possibility that we may have another. With the unanimous consent of this House and of the people we declared our neutrality in 1939. The same thing might occur to-morrow, but our efforts then might be futile if it were the case that we had not bread or other food for our people. It is no use having an Army, no use arranging the forces of this country and getting young men into the Army or the other Defence Forces, if we are unable to feed them. What would be the result of such a position? Our position would be weakened considerably.

I do not want to be uncharitable, but it strikes me very forcibly that the Minister's love and his spiritual interests are in England and he has weakened the position so far as this country is concerned; if he does not produce food for our people he will have weakened the country from the defence point of view. There is no use in having an Army if you have not food to feed that Army. Food is every bit as essential, and it may be even more essential than ammunition to go into the guns. There is a danger, and the great statesmen of the world say to-day that there is a danger that we may be confronted with another war. Our Minister for Agriculture has made no provision to feed our people, to have them supplied with a sufficiency of food.

That is good news for the enemy, is it not?

It is helpful.

The enemy know it.

And the enemy are producing food.

Our enemies are the first people who will take advantage of the situation here. The Labour Party must know that we were in a different position in 1939. It took us eight years to develop wheat growing. We were then in a position to go ahead, but to-day, even if the people were willing to grow 600,000 or 400,000 acres of wheat, we have not the seed to put into the land. That is admitted in the Minister's statement. The Minister is not in the House, and I am sorry that he is not here to listen to what I am saying.

How does Kilkenny stand in this?

Kilkenny stands well, and always stood well so far as producing food is concerned.

You ploughed up the Nowlan Park.

We produced as much wheat as did ourselves and also the people of Laois.

You ploughed up the Nowlan Park.

They did not need it. They produced all their requirements without any help from Deputy Davin. It will be very illuminating, I am sure, for some Deputies when I tell them that in 1945 we grew 662,000 acres of wheat and in 1950 we grew 366,000 acres. This year it is very doubtful if we will have 280,000 acres.

It has been my experience, and I am sure it is the experience of other Deputies from rural constituencies, that malting barley is getting preference this year over wheat. I have been speaking to farmers, maltsters and seed merchants, and in all cases the output of seed barley has increased, while the output of seed wheat has decreased. They use malting barley to make stout. That is largely the purpose for which it is grown, and the price is 3/7 per stone, while the price of wheat was 3/1½ per stone until the Minister made the announcement yesterday. That is the reason why our farmers are growing barley in preference to wheat.

What about Smithwick's?

It is a going concern, giving good employment, but at the same time the people of this country can exist without Smithwick's or without Guinness's if they have a sufficiency of bread. Without bread, ale and porter will not keep them alive.

All through the years I have heard comments regarding the amount of barley that was produced. In 1945 we grew 170,339 acres of barley, notwithstanding the fact that we grew 662,000 acres of wheat. In the past few months the Minister has issued advertisements in every paper printed in this country asking our people to produce more cereals. In 1945 we grew 170,339 acres of barley. Last year the acreage was reduced to 123,000. In all cases of wheat, barley, oats and potatoes, the net returns show that the tillage area has gone down considerably, and, as Deputy Aiken pointed out to-night, when Deputy Rooney was complimenting the Minister on the amount of money that had come to this country as a result of the export of live stock and live-stock produce, putting one against the other, our exports are just balanced by our imports.

We cannot produce bullocks on a field that is growing barley or wheat. If we have one, we cannot have the other, and it is a matter of choice between grazing and tillage as to which in the long run gives the best return to the country. I argue, from my point, that tillage is better than producing beef for Britain, that the policy of Sinn Féin, the policy of self-sufficiency and the export of our surplus is a better policy than exporting beef, mutton and bacon and importing foodstuffs. The latter policy has been enunciated by the Minister for Agriculture and has been supported by the farmers, by the Fine Gael members and by the Labour members of the Coalition Government. That is the policy, the policy of grass, that has been condemned in this country for the past 50 years. That is the policy that has caused the flight from the land and that has driven our agricultural labourers into the towns and cities, and that is the policy which, if it is pursued, will one day have Ireland within ten or 15 miles of Nelson Pillar, leaving nobody on the land.

Again I say to Deputy Davin, you and your Party are as responsible as Mr. Dillon, the Minister for Agriculture, as the Taoiseach, as the Minister for External Affairs. All of you have collective responsibility on the matter and when the time comes that you have to render an account of your stewardship to our people I hope you will make no apologies for the action you are now taking.

The Deputy should use the third person.

What does he want? Compulsory tillage?

We do not know yet.

He is silent on that.

I am not silent. Yes, compulsory tillage for this country. It has been said many times in the past by Mr. Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, that due to his management, due to the amount of fertilisers he brought into the country since the emergency, and due to no other factor, the wheat yields have gone up. He has chosen the worst year in the history of farming in the past 30—and I can remember 30—namely, the year 1947, to compare with the years that have followed. I remember that in 1947, in my own locality, there was not one sod turned on the 24th April. That was the first day that a plough and horses could go into a field. There was no winter wheat sown and the spring wheat was more than six weeks late and, having regard to the late sowing, it was a mystery and a marvel that any crops were sown that year. That is the year that the Minister for Agriculture has chosen to compare with the years 1948, 1949 and 1950.

Notwithstanding that, taking the average yield for 1938, 1939 and 1940, immediately before the war, our production of wheat was 19.2 cwt. per statute acre and the average yield in 1948, 1949 and 1950 was 17.9, showing that, notwithstanding the flooding of our country with artificial manures, the yields had gone down. Nobody from the opposite benches has mentioned that fact.

Why did that happen?

I wonder why it was that the Minister for Agriculture did not mention the fact that the yield of wheat—in fact the yield of all cereals —has not yet come up to the average yield of 1938, 1939 and 1940. He will not answer it now, I am sure.

I will answer it when the time comes.

"When the time comes." The same applies as far as all cereals are concerned. If a suggestion that has been made in this House on a number of occasions had been carried out, if the good land that had been growing wheat for the past nine, ten or 11 years, had been fertilised as it should have been, the yields would have improved. During the war, fertilisers could not be obtained. Some lands had to bear two, three or four crops of wheat or other cereal, without receiving any artificial manures. If the Minister, when he got all the money he got under Marshall Aid, had subsidised artificial manures and had given it to farmers who were prepared to till their land, he would have been doing something far better than trying to drain bogs and spending on the drainage of bogs more money than the land would be worth when he would be 100 years dead. It will be there as a monument to him.

Hear, hear!

Not the kind of one you think.

I have been told on very reliable authority that in some cases the drainage of bog lands under this scheme is costing as high as £70 per acre. A residential farm in my county—and I believe that the land in it is as good as in any county in Ireland—would not make £70 per acre if put up for sale.

We do not drain bog land under this scheme down the country.

I have seen your machinery working in bog lands—lands that could produce only a very bad quality grass.

In Kilkenny.

What place?

In Tullaroan.

On whose bog?

There are strips of several farms availing of the scheme which can never produce anything but a very poor quality of grass.

Can the Deputy say where he saw drainage being carried out on bog lands?

I have told you. There is another at Poulaphouca.

On whose holding?

I cannot give you the names of the owners of the farms but I can give you the parish.

I should be obliged to the Deputy if he would.

There is another one I have passed several times coming up —near Baltinglass.

Maybe the Minister will hedge on the word "bog". Say "swamp".

Now Deputy, you know what you are to say. Say "swamp". What a loss it would be to the Party opposite if it had not Deputy Aiken to tell Deputies what to say!

The Minister would be well advised to avoid the swamps.

Say "swamp".

They have a knack of holding you and sucking you in.

And sucking in a lot of Marshall Aid.

Say "swamp" and be a good boy.

As regards the advertisements that appeared asking people to produce more cereals, Ymer barley is mentioned as one. I am taking this opportunity to challenge the Minister regarding the advertisement he had in the papers in reference to the yield in County Kilkenny. It is the first opportunity I got because it was only recently I was able to get the proof and the proof is in the report of the committee of agriculture. Six plots were grown in County Kilkenny on average land. One of these plots was where Swede turnips had been grown in 1949. It was heavily manured in that year and in the following year Ymer barley was sown.

And it failed on turnip land?

It did not fail but it was dressed with a 4-4-2 ratio dressing in the springtime and it yielded 40 cwt. to the acre.

4-4-2 of what?

Four cwt. of potash, four cwt. of super and two cwt. of nitrogen.

Four cwt. of potash to the acre?

That was a great dressing. Deputy Allen could give you a lecture on that.

Perhaps it should have been .203.

If the Minister had any knowledge of agriculture, I can tell him it was the Department's recommended dressing 30 years ago.

Four cwt. of potash, four cwt. of super and two cwt. of nitrogen?

I am telling the Minister that it was recommended by the Department 30 years ago for corn crops.

That may have been so 30 years ago.

And it gave as good results as the Minister is getting to-day. Do you remember what you told us last year down in Kilkenny about the lady, the harp and the greyhound?

I thought you did not remember. However, it is on record. We took the precaution of having a record of your speech that day.

That was very polite of you.

You told us all about the lady, the harp and the greyhound. However, that is not the point. The point is that we had five other plots.

If they were dressed in the way the first plot was dressed, I am sure you had some peculiar results.

They were not all dressed but they were on average land. The results where the swede turnip had been grown and where the heavy dressing was applied, gave two tons to the acre, and the average for the other five plots was 27 cwt. per acre. These plots were under the control of the county committee of agriculture and were supervised by our agricultural instructors.

Was the soil tested?

Yes, in all cases. The average yield on these five plots, as I say, was 27 cwt. to the acre. I have been growing barley for many years and I can tell the Minister that if I applied the same dressing to Spratt Archer barley——

You would be daft.

I would not be daft. I would not turn cattle in on wheat as the Minister did. If I applied the same dressing I do not say that I would get two tons per statute acre but I certainly would get a crop of malting barley that would pay me far better than Ymer barley.

If you apply 4 cwt. of potash to the acre, you would get the queerest crop you ever saw. It would have whiskers on it.

If I put it on wheat——

I thought we were talking of barley.

This is supposed to be a debate, not a conversation.

I want to challenge the Minister on the statement he issued to the Press and the advertisement published all over the country that the average yields of Ymer barley in Kilkenny were two tons per statute acre. That was your statement.

The Deputy might use the third person.

That was the Minister's statement.

Has the Deputy got the statement?

I will send you a copy of the statement.

You will read it here, my boy.

I will send you a copy of it and if you wish I will get it from the Press for you. However, that is the position. I should like to see Ymer barley grown in the country if it would give a fair return to the farmers but I believe that, at the price that is being offered, a sufficient inducement is not provided to people to grow it. Just the same as the acreage under the wheat crop is going to drop this year, the acreage under barley will drop because the price will not induce farmers to grow it. Neither will it induce them at this late hour to grow wheat. As I mentioned already, the Minister is grasping at a straw like a drowning man.

What are the Fianna Fáil farmers going to grow now?

We are growing wheat, barley and oats just as we did always. In fact, at the present price, I would still prefer to grow wheat.

In spite of all you have told us.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again.
Top
Share