Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (13th Dáil) – Thursday, 19 Apr 1951

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

Mr. Aiken

I would like to ask permission to interrupt Deputy Tom Walsh's speech in order to give the quotations to the Minister for Agriculture which he asked me to produce yesterday. The Minister, when I was speaking, denied that——

Mr. Dillon

What exactly is this procedure?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will have to rule that it is in the nature of a second speech.

Mr. T. Walsh

When I was finishing my speech last night I mentioned to the Minister that, personally, I would prefer to have wheat grown rather than barley. I have many reasons for that. One particular reason is that it is much easier to harvest wheat than to harvest barley, but I was influenced by a greater motive than that, and so are the farmers of this country, even though the Minister for Agriculture may not desire it or never believed in it, or does not believe that the farmers are still nationalists. It has been his policy, not merely since he came into office, but during the emergency period, to do everything he could to nullify the efforts that were being made by the farmers, by advice, by example, by statements, and everything else. I believe that his one sole ambition is to see this country subject to Britain again and that that is one of his reasons for not asking our farmers to produce the requirements of food for this country.

Mr. Dillon

Is that an allegation of treason?

Mr. McGrath

I do not think he has ever denied that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not an authority on matters of that kind.

Mr. T. Walsh

I want my beliefs to go on record in this House.

Mr. Dillon

With profound respect, on a point of order—if the Deputy will excuse me—is it in order to charge a Deputy of this House, never mind a Minister, with treason?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No.

I think they are quite different things.

Mr. Traynor

You were protected by privilege.

Mr. T. Walsh

I will go further now and I will tell the Minister that the policy pursued by his Department as regards the production of human food is treasonable.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy might be going a bit too far. The Deputy can deal with the Estimate without making such allegations as he is making at the moment.

Mr. Walsh

Very well.

Mr. Davin

He is doing it for publicity, of course.

Mr. Walsh

I mentioned last night, in reply to Deputy Davin—the admission was not forced from me, because it is my own personal belief—that we should have compulsory tillage in this country. When the Minister was speaking in Clonmel to the South Tipperary Committee of Agriculture he stated that this country was carrying 12 months' supply of wheat and that a survey was being made at the moment of the whole tillage area of the country so that it would be possible in 48 hours, if there was war, to tell each individual farmer the type of crop he would be required to grow on his land. I wonder if anybody has ever heard anything so ridiculous as that. Imagine asking the people to produce, for instance, wheat, in the month of May. Imagine asking them to produce barley or oats in the month of May or June.

We have kept it going in spite of you.

Mr. T. Walsh

The price of machinery, as I have said, has gone up enormously in the last few years. To take one instance alone, a creamery separator of 1,200 gallons capacity, which cost £85 some years ago, has gone up to £560. I am letting that sink into the Minister's brain. Other costs have increased, though maybe the increase has not been in the same proportion. They have increased since 1947 far and away beyond the increase which the Minister now considers good enough for the dairy farmer. Boxwood has gone up; parchment has gone up; oil and petrol have gone up and wages have gone up, but the farmer must now take a lesser price for his milk than in 1947. If the Minister had his way 12 months ago he would have had to take 2d. a gallon less.

Last night we were told by Deputy Rooney that when this Government came into office in 1948 the people were on a 2-oz. ration. If my memory serves me aright, and if my hearing was correct at the time, I think the Minister agreed that we were on a 2-oz. ration then. I wonder did the Minister agree with that statement last night?

Mr. Aiken

He did.

Mr. T. Walsh

I thought he did. It was statements like that of Deputy Rooney that put the Government where they are sitting to-day. These statements were without foundation, and were based on lies, trickery and deception because when the Coalition Government came into office the ration of butter was six ounces and not two ounces as the Minister stated last night. For his information, I will go back over the years and give him the ration of butter since 1942. In part of 1942 it was eight ounces and in part of the same year it was 12 ounces. In 1943 it was eight ounces. In 1944 it was eight ounces part of the year, six ounces for another part of that year and for a further part of the year it went back again to eight ounces. From January until February in 1945 it was six ounces. On the 1st February, 1947, it was reduced to four ounces, and from March, 1947 until May, 1947 it was reduced to two ounces. It was again increased in May, 1947, to four ounces, and in January, 1948, to six ounces.

The Minister has already challenged me regarding some statements which I have read. I am now going to read another one for him. It is in connection with Danish butter. I suppose most Deputies have seen in this day's Independent an article regarding the distribution of Danish butter. I have here a circular letter which was sent to the creameries. It was written on the 9th March, 1951, and is as follows:—

"Sir,

I am directed by the Minister for Agriculture to refer to the distribution by the Butter Marketing Committee of imported butter to creameries to meet their rationing requirements, and to point out that where imported butter is made up into rolls on creamery premises the use of printed wrappers bearing the inscription that the butter is Irish creamery butter is illegal. Such butter should be wrapped in plain paper or in paper on which a proper description of the butter is printed. If, however, supplies of suitably printed wrappers are not available, creameries may, as a matter of expediency, use their own printed wrappers provided they are overprinted clearly, by rubber stamp or otherwise, with an appropriate description of the butter such as the word `imported' in letters at least as large as the largest printed lettering on the wrapper.

It should be clearly understood that imported butter may be disposed of only in accordance with the rationing regulations, and that creameries may not, under any circumstances, sell such butter in the official wrappers prescribed for unrationed Irish creamery butter."

That circular was sent to the creameries on the 9th March by the Department of Agriculture. On the 6th April, 1951, another letter was sent to the Irish creameries which reads as follows:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Agriculture to state that, with a view to reserving all available supplies of Irish creamery butter for ration requirements, it has been decided to discontinue the issue to creameries of supplies of official wrappers for unrationed creamery butter. Arrangements are being made to make available to creameries supplies of imported butter for sale off the ration. Supplies of suitable official wrappers for this purpose are being obtained and will be distributed very shortly to creameries."

Now, the first letter dealt with the distribution of butter, and it warned the creameries that, under no circumstances, should they put wrappers around the imported butter.

Mr. Dillon

That was done to meet the reasonable representations which had been made to me by Deputy Vivion de Valera. The Deputy can now consider the whole scheme as being off.

Mr. T. Walsh

I am trying to elicit some information from the Minister.

Mr. Allen

The Minister is like Cæsar's wife.

Mr. Dillon

I wonder where.

"The Minister for Agriculture had hoped to distribute imported butter outside Dublin, and draw more on the southern creameries, so that Dublin might have a fifty-fifty supply of Irish creamery butter and imported butter.

This scheme, it appears, was found difficult to operate, and has been dropped. For about a month Dublin will be obliged to take whatever butter may be available. Home production is much below normal now because of the recent severe weather."

"Because of the recent severe weather." But Deputies on the opposite benches when they came into the House and wanted to make comparisons about the production of our cereals, of our milk and everything else always conveniently forgot that 1947 was one of the worst years in the history of agriculture and it was on that year that they based their comparisons. Now they are making alibis for the next harvest. I hope there will not be any necessity, but they are trying to do it already by talking about the bad spring we have had in order to save themselves.

It will not fetch 3/6 per lb. in the months of June and July. It certainly should not fetch 3/6 then. We know the way in which the Minister reduced the price of farmers' butter when he removed the subsidy. The Minister should know all about that, too, because it was he who put these people out of production.

I must refer now to another statement of Deputy Rooney's. It is indeed odd to see how Deputy Rooney gets these silly ideas into his head. He said the production of milk has gone up and that more milk is coming into the creameries. Did Deputy Rooney stop to consider why more milk is going into the creameries? He does not have to be a genius to find the right answer. The Minister must know that numbers of people who were producing home-made butter prior to his removing the subsidy were unable to get an economic price and consequently they have to send their milk to the creameries. That accounts for the increased milk production reaching the creameries. The Minister has never come in here or gone round the country telling the people the true reason for these increased supplies of milk to the creameries; but he gets Deputy Rooney to come in here and talk about increased supplies and also about the dual purpose hen, a bird we heard so much about some months ago. It is a pity Deputy Rooney did not get away with that.

I would ask the Minister to consider the suggestion I have made to give the farmers an increased price for their milk. As I have already pointed out, the Minister will not be asking the people in Dominick Street, and the other streets adjacent to it, to pay more. When the Minister came into office he stated publicly that he intended to be Minister for Agriculture and for nothing else. My belief is that when he was appointed to that office his first responsibility was to ensure that the farmers would get a fair crack of the whip. I am sure he has been told often enough that he has not done anything like what his predecessors did for the farmers. The Minister's predecessors made the farmers prosperous and independent. The present Minister is pursuing a policy which will only have the effect of making them once more dependent on the gombeen man and the shopkeeper. In other words, he will put them back into the position in which they were prior to the advent of Fianna Fáil.

For dead-weight pigs, irrespective of whether it is the yard, or in the sty and not in the factory. I grant that much. Has the Minister forgotten the statements he made in 1947, when he talked about maize at 2/- and 3/- per stone and how impossible it was for the Irish farmer and cottier then to produce bacon? He stated at that time that the cost of production was far in excess of what the producer was getting. Let us come back to the present. He is now Minister for Agriculture and surely he will not deny the statements he made before he became Minister for Agriculture. I know he has already denied letters that have issued from different committees under his control. Surely he will not deny now that the price of pig feeding is round about 35/- per cwt. and that it takes about 7 cwt of admixture to produce 1 cwt. of bacon. It is then only a matter of calculation to find out what it costs to produce 1 cwt. of bacon and discover the difference between that and the price the farmer would obtain for it. There was only one period during which the Irish farmer was given an opportunity of getting a decent price for his pigs. That was a few months back. In May of 1950, at column 2226 of the Official Report, Dr. Maguire put down a question to the Minister:—

"To ask the Minister for Agriculture if he will arrange to facilitate the export of pigs to Northern Ireland in view of the high prices prevailing there."

The Minister replied:—

"The British Ministry of Food, which is the purchaser of all fat pigs exported from this country, accepts such pigs only at designated centres in England, namely, Liverpool and Birmingham. There is no approved purchasing centre for our fat pigs in the Six Counties.

The future position as regards exports of pigs as well as bacon is at present under discussion with the Ministry of Food and pending the outcome of these negotiations it is not considered desirable that there should be a departure from the present arrangements in regard to the export of any classes of pigs."

Some time around October then the Minister had a meeting of the clan— the Molly Maguires up in Monaghan. The bacon curers were represented at that meeting and it was suggested to the Minister that the ban on the Border should be lifted. They were perfectly right. The price of pigs up North was around 285/- per cwt. They are that price to-day. The price of pigs in the South is 220/- per cwt., a difference of 65/-. Why should they not ask for the lifting of the ban? All pig producers would regard it as a reasonable request. Indeed at the time we did regard it as reasonable and lorries were hired all over the country to send fat pigs across the Border when on the 25th October the ban was lifted. I wonder who it was who advised the Minister to lift the ban. But three weeks later the Minister clamped down and the southern farmers were once more denied a legitimate price for their pigs. The northern price was a legitimate price because the people there were ready and willing to pay it. They wanted first quality bacon in the North and they were prepared to pay for it.

When an intimation came that it was proposed to reimpose the ban, lorries were hired in Waterford, Clonmel, Carrick, Kilkenny and everywhere else to transport pigs across the Border in an attempt to beat the ban. In fact, there was actually a race. Two lorries of pigs left Waterford at one o'clock in the morning on the day on which the ban was reimposed in a desperate attempt to get across the Border before closing time. Subsequently, the Minister came in here and said that nothing but suckling pigs went over the Border. Why has the Minister now to go to England? Why has he to incur the expense of sending representatives over to deal with the British Ministers and the British officials when all he has to do is lift the ban on the Border and allow our pigs to go across to the people who are prepared to pay 285/- a cwt.?

If he were carrying out the promise he made to the farmers, that he was going to be the Minister for Agriculture and nothing else, he would say: "It is my duty to stand by my people and get the best price possible for produce; I will take off the ban and let the pigs clear out." He has not done that. Why has he not done it? Is he concerned about the farmers? It looks to me as if he is not, but there are many sections of the community about which he is not concerned. The dairying people, for instance, are asking whether they will get an economic price for milk or not, but no statements that can be made here will induce him to give a better price. He did not want to give a better price for wheat, but it was forced from him, as, if we had not wheat next year, possibly the people of Dominick Street would be after him and would tie kettles out of his tail, if they did not do anything worse. He did not interfere in fixing the price of barley. That had to be done outside him, and the Beet Growers' Association had the price of barley fixed.

There is nothing he has done, and he has gone even further in the one and only agreement he made, that is, to ask our Irish farmers to sell their fat cattle at a lesser price than they could now obtain. We are compelled to send 90 per cent. of our fat cattle across to England when there is a market on the Continent prepared to give us a much higher price than the English are prepared to pay. It can be written down by the people, and particularly by the farmers, that of all the Ministers for Agriculture that ever sat in this House the man who now occupies that position will go down in history as being the worst.

There have been advertisements all over the country regarding the land rehabilitation project and the amount of money being spent and to be spent, £40,000,000 in ten years to reclaim 4,500,000 acres of land. I have put one question to the Minister on several occasions, namely, why not make the good land better, why not make the land capable of producing more food better than it is, so that it will produce more? Why waste money on land that will not produce more or, if it does, very little, and where unless it is carefully watched and minded, in ten years' time the money now being expended will be a dead loss. I know that in many cases throughout the country most of the people who are availing of these grants under the land rehabilitation project are large farmers in the main who for years past have neglected their farms. Having allowed the drains to choke and bushes of every description—furze, briars and hawthorn— to grow out into the fields, they are now asking the people of this country to borrow money to rehabilitate that land.

Why would the Minister not consider giving a subsidy on fertilisers? I believe it would not amount to the sum now being spent on some of our bogs. I do not know offhand what amount of fertilisers were used this year, but pre-war it used to run round the 250,000 tons mark. If £1,000,000 were spent on the subsidisation of those manures, I could give a guarantee to the Minister that he would have greater production. Fianna Fáil were criticised by the Minister and other Deputies for introducing the voucher scheme. It was one of the best systems ever introduced and it was a pity it was not continued, not at the value put on them when they were introduced in 1942 or 1943, but at an increased value. Those vouchers were issued to people who put their land under the plough and when they came to get the value they bought manures. That is what should be encouraged. It created a benefit for those farmers who were growing wheat during the emergency and a benefit that was richly deserved. If the Minister continued the policy, I could guarantee to him that not merely would he have more cereals produced, but he would have a greater quantity of milk and beef. That would be done by looking after the good land and forgetting about the bogs that will never come to anything.

I would make one final statement, regarding the Minister's offer at Dungarvan last year of 1/- a gallon for milk. It has been stated here that we have abnormal people in this House. The Minister was either abnormal then or he is now, as he has readily agreed now not to give 1/- a gallon, but to give 1/3 for the summer. When was he right—in 1950 or 1951? He has to answer that question. We all agree that the price is not sufficient to attract our people to produce more milk and at this price more milk will not be produced. The Minister need not get up—neither need Deputy Rooney—and say it was altogether because of the bad spring. Next summer, it does not matter how good it comes, the Minister will find that milk production is not on the increase —because of the price, and for no other reason. The farmers are prepared to produce food if they are paid for it, but I cannot see why every other section of the community can run to the jackpot and pull from it while the farmers cannot pull at all. They have realised their position and they know that there is no jackpot there for them, that they can pull only from the general pool and that the Minister is not doing anything to help them get proper prices.

The Minister talks of Ymer barley I grew some Ymer barley last year— not a big acreage of it, because one cannot grow a big acreage of anything if he has not the land. Any farmer, be he big or small, who does not put down a certain amount of his grain crop in Ymer barley—which he needs to feed his sow, or his one more sow, and his pigs—and who does not try to produce enough foodstuffs on his land to feed his live stock is very foolish and is a bad farmer. It must be obvious that if a farmer has to go to the shopkeeper to obtain the foodstuffs for his live stock, he will find it difficult to make a success of his job. The Minister once said that such a farmer would be better off earning his living in some other capacity, such as tailoring or something like that, because to have to buy foodstuffs for his live stock from the shopkeeper is hot a paying proposition. I think that every farmer should put down even a small amount of Ymer barley and do so in accordance with the instructions of the agricultural instructor. The present Minister for Agriculture is to be congratulated on the fact that there are instructors attached to his Department who are available to give advice on every problem.

There is no use, however, in gambling on it and in sowing Ymer barley without having obtained expert opinion as to where it should be sown and so forth. If a man takes a gamble on it and thinks that he knows where it should grow or can grow he may find at the end of the year that it is not more than four or five inches high and that it will be impossible to cut it with any implement. Therefore, he would be well advised to seek instruction on the matter first. He should bring the instructor of the Department of Agriculture to visit his land, have the soil tested and get advice as to how much lime, phosphates or other types of manure should be applied to it. A farmer may think at the outset that the crop will work out pretty expensively but if he does things well at the beginning he will have cause to be glad later on. Anything done well pays dividends but anything half done is not any good at all. The man who does not take advantage of the free education at his disposal by the officials of the committees of agriculture is very foolish, particularly in relation to the sowing of Ymer barley. I agree with the Deputies who have said that Ymer barley is a peculiar crop which requires more careful consideration than the sowing of ordinary malting or feeding barley. If it is sown properly it will give a good return and it will prove to be a useful addition to the foodstuffs which the farmer requires.

As far as I can see, there is a lack of proper organisation in the Department of Agriculture. I heard Deputy Corry and the Minister praise each other—a thing which is very rare in this House —because of agreement on the price fixed for feeding barley. I think it was 20/- a cwt., or something like that. The people of my constituency would be delighted if they could get feeding barley at 20/-, 22/- or 25/- a cwt. If they could get it at that price, the foreign feeding stuffs could stay where they are. The new type of hammer-mill which has been introduced has proved a boon to the farmers. It can turn out a first-class foodstuff equal indeed to any that is imported. In addition, the farmer has the satisfaction of knowing that when he makes use of the hammer-mill he is keeping his money in this country and that, therefore, inflationary conditions abroad do not affect him so far as the price of his feeding stuffs is concerned.

That brings me to the subject of tillage. I wonder if the majority of the farmers of this country think that they can make money easier or that life can be lived easier on a farm where the tillage policy is not being carried out. A successful tillage policy should not have to be brought about by compulsion but certainly if it is not brought about by good-will it will have to be introduced compulsorily. We have had experience of compulsory tillage. We have heard the Deputies on the Opposition Benches refer to the Fianna Fáil tillage policy. We know perfectly well that the tillage policy was put into operation when the wolf was at the door. Early in the life of the Fianna Fáil Government they recommended the growing of beet and the success of the policy of growing beet was due to the very poor prices that prevailed for livestock at that time. Even the smallest farmer in my area grew a certain acreage of beet because it was the best paying proposition. Live stock were absolutely valueless while, on the other hand, there was a guaranteed market and a guaranteed price for beet.

When a real emergency arose, Fianna Fáil introduced the policy of compulsory tillage—and it will have to be made compulsory again if another emergency should arise. However, it was not compulsory tillage—it was compulsory murder of good land. There were farmers who hated to see one acre of their land opened up and tilled in order to produce food. There are people who prefer to grow grass and who preferred to do so even during the emergency years. In certain midland counties, hordes of inspectors were let loose in an effort to get these farmers to till their land and to produce, first of all, wheat and, secondly, foodstuffs for their live stock. The present Minister does not believe in compulsory tillage. We have often argued with him on that matter. I hope that his appeal to farmers to grow a good amount of food for the country—irrespective of the bad spring and the bad start which we have got—will be successful. I hope that the farmers will co-operate with him in that respect. There are farmers in Ireland who most certainly will co-operate with him. They till for the love of growing crops and because it has been in their blood for generations to do so. On the other hand, there are farmers with equally good land who will not till. Undoubtedly they are being given every opportunity —much more of an opportunity than I should like to see them getting—to till. If they do not do so this year they will have to do it next year.

Mr. Allen

They are not doing it.

Mr. Commons

I am aware of that. I can see that they are not doing it. There is no point in saying that the Minister is to blame. The price for wheat is good. The beet price is very tempting and we are all satisfied with the price of barley. We are told that there is a market for bacon, live stock and for other commodities. Deputy Allen and every Deputy must know that cattle fed from November and sold in the early months of the year are the best paying proposition of all if the foodstuffs can be produced at home to feed the cattle during the winter months. If the tillage is not done to make those foodstuffs available, then we must have compulsory powers. If, however, we should ever have to go in again for compulsory tillage, whatever else he does, the Minister will see that it is carried out in a more efficient manner than it was carried out before.

Last year in this House I got into an argument with Deputy Childers about political pull and compulsory tillage. I quoted for him an instance of a certain aristocrat who is a very good friend of his who allowed 30 acres of wheat to rot on the ground. He wanted it for feeding or for pheasants and he was allowed to get away with it. There is something wrong there and there is something wrong in a lot of other places and I want to impress on the Minister that if compulsory tillage is to come in it must come in fairly; scratching the ground and putting in one, two, or three cwt. of wheat, barley or oats over ten acres of ground must be stopped.

I remember listening to a radio broadcast from a farmer during the emergency. Why he was picked to broadcast from Radio Eireann I do not know, but he told us how he had grown five consecutive crops of wheat on the same land without artificial manure. In the latter end he admitted however that 99 per cent. of every sheaf of the last crop thrown from the binder was either thistles or weeds of some other sort. Why this sort of thing should be put over on the people or why anybody should be allowed to waste fertile land is something which I do not understand.

If we are to have compulsory tillage let us get the maximum out of the land because every farmer in the House will agree with me that the good farmer's nature is to get the most he can out of his land. He will not do it by compulsory powers if he can get away with it but like the fellows long ago will obey the law to evade the fine. If the larger farmers will not till their land there will be plenty of people who will till it for them and the Minister I think is in full agreement with me on that— at least he said it recently.

Deputy Tom Walsh, a very good friend of mind, was inclined to talk too much about the goodness of the compulsory tillage policy. In my constituency a farm of 600 acres came into the hands of the Land Commission in the last month.

Mr. Dillon

I have nothing to do with the operations of the Land Commission.

Mr. Commons

I am on compulsory tillage and I am praising the Minister for Lands. This farm during the war years was registered as a stud farm and there was no tillage at all on it. It is now being made available for tillage on conacre lettings from the Land Commission to small farmers and I can safely say that without any compulsion at least 300 acres of this farm will be tilled this year. Let those who talk about compulsory tillage be cautious.

I have a cutting from the Irish Independent of Monday, October 30th, 1950. Mr. Paul Miller, chief of the E.C.A. mission in Ireland in a broadcast from Radio Éireann pointed out the value of tillage in this country. He said:—

"Ireland could save substantially on the dollars now being spent on imported maize through increased production of feed crops to take its place."

Here we have an outsider, an American salesman, if you like to put it that way, who should be trying to sell us maize, telling us instead: "You are very big fools to be spending your money buying maize when you could grow just as good stuff here at home."

There is only one thing wrong: a lot of people who would grow wheat have not the wherewithal to do so. However, that problem will be well taken up if an emergency arises and even without an emergency in this present year something more should be done to increase our acreage of wheat, beet, barley and oats, four very essential crops. Everybody knows that beet is a very good paying crop, having also the advantage that as a root crop it leaves very fertile soil behind it and having even a third advantage which we always knew about in the West and needed no agricultural instructor to tell us, that is the feeding value of the beet tops. Back as far as 1933 not a single beet top was allowed to be trampled or wasted on small farms in Mayo. Cattle would eat them, cattle would thrive on them and cattle got them. The same applies everywhere else but from what we have heard it seems that only in recent years has it dawned on the Department of Agriculture that beet tops are very valuable for food and fodder. It is a root crop which, as well as leaving very fertile land behind it, will grow reasonably well on worn land and is, therefore, a good crop for those who have to use such land.

We have now a great advancement in mechanised farming. As I said last year, the man who invented the hydraulic lift on small-sized tractors did more for agriculture and for farmers than all the Ministers for Agriculture in the world put together. At the present time two millionaires are fighting a legal battle to decide which is the inventor, but whichever wins one of them has done a good thing by giving us hydraulically-operated machinery. Before that a man who set out with a team of horses to do a large amount of tillage had a long and hard job. It was hard because he had to plod day after day on a single furrow and it was long because a lot of useful work could be done in the time he spent plodding after his team of horses. Now, even in small holding areas mechanised farming is coming in. We have, as the Minister said, young people purchasing tractors and going around working for their neighbours. While in fairness to the poor old horse I must say that he cannot be displaced altogether, a lot of the drudgery and heavy work can be taken off the back of the farmer if he decides on increased tillage and increased output. We have the same thing where there is a larger acreage. We have the combines.

Even in the smaller areas one can see reapers and binders in places where these machines were not even heard of some ten years ago. Now they have found their way into everybody's field. A man sitting on his tractor can plough so many acres and get off the machine in the evening fresh and happy. Sometimes when he finishes on his own land he can earn something towards the cost of the machine by doing work for his neighbour's, to the satisfaction of all concerned.

All the implements necessary for cultivating the land can be carried in a unit behind the machine. We all know of the work that was accomplished by the tractor and trailer, the plough and trailer and the harrow and mowers. Nowadays it requires only the pull of a lever and the cultivating implements go into operation. The tractor can cover ten or 15 miles an hour and go from one man's land into another's and when the cultivating implements are in operation they can do two and a half to three and a half miles an hour. Perhaps in some cases the work might be slower but, nevertheless, those machines can do a great amount of work in a much handier way than the old trailer system.

That is why I have great respect for those people who gave us hydraulically operated machines. They certainly did a good thing for the farming community. The older type of farming machinery was somewhat cumbersome, but nowadays the farmers have everything to their advantage in the way of the most up-to-date machinery.

With all these advantages in the hands of people who have land, and with good prices prevailing—even the Opposition are inclined to admit that—there is no reason why there should not be much greater production. The only fault the Opposition find is that the Minister did not announce these new prices in time.

Well, if the Minister announced these prices even last Christmas it would not have served any great purpose because since Christmas the amount of seed that could be put down was very limited indeed. However, with the good weather approaching, everything tends to encourage the farmers to do more tillage and to produce more food. Why people who have land to cultivate and with everything in their favour will not carry out this programme, is something I cannot understand. If they do not do it this year, they certainly should be made do it next year.

Mr. Allen

They will starve in the meantime.

Mr. Commons

They should be made do it and we should be ruthless in our decision to make them do it.

Mr. Blowick

We did not starve up to this.

Mr. Commons

There is one thing which I must draw to the Minister's attention and that is the flop in the price of eggs. In all fairness to him, he has admitted that the price is no good. Definitely, it is of little use to the egg producer. The State subsidised hatchery system was introduced here by Deputy Smith and was put into operation by the present Minister for Agriculture. The foundation, however, was laid by Deputy Smith. I objected to it at the time. I was sitting on the Opposition Benches then and I said it was all right to produce eggs and poultry and even treble or quadruple the quantity that could be produced, but when all the production was at its peak, would eggs and poultry hold their price? I thought then that it was a very wrong policy, and anybody who studies the 1947 debates will see the attitude I adopted at that time.

I thought it very wrong that we should subsidise hatcheries out of the taxpayers' money in order to give some gentlemen a chance of making more. They got a start with the State behind them, and there were pretty substantial fortunes made within the last few years on the State hatcheries. Chicks were produced by the thousand and reared and sold by the thousand. They laid plenty of eggs and then the price flopped. At that time I suggested that if we were to subsidise anybody we should first of all subsidise the provision of ordinary incubators for farmers or farmers' wives so that they might be in a position to increase their flocks of poultry. Those people are the best judges when it comes to producing the right amount which will give them a profit. If you leave it to them, you will not have any overloading of eggs or poultry on the market, and that is the cause of a lot of the trouble.

Now we have too many eggs and there is no market for them in England, and there is less of a market any place else. Egg production at the moment is not profitable, but when we reach the 1st August, they will go up to 3/6 a dozen, and then they will be worth while. But what is to happen in between? In between, we definitely will have a very bad period in the matter of the production of eggs and poultry generally.

A certain amount of credit must be given to the veterinary side of the Department of Agriculture. We all know the immense losses suffered by farmers through the deaths of calves and, later on, of yearlings. In every county, but more particularly along the western seaboard where the land is wet and the grazing conditions are not good, every year there is a great loss through the deaths of year old cattle. It may be that one yearling died belonging to Mr. So-and-so and five or six holdings away another yearling died. Perhaps three or four died in a townland. That may not seem so serious, but when you add up the deaths for every parish and make a tot finally for the whole country, you will find a very considerable figure is reached.

Many head of young cattle, involving a considerable amount of money, are lost in this way every year. I am glad to say that through the intervention of the Department's veterinary staff a tremendous amount of good work has been accomplished and there is a great reduction in the loss of live stock. Every effort is being made by the Department's inspectors, through the use of drugs and doses and medicine, to save our live stock. In that way, much is done towards accumulating wealth for the country. The departmental staff have saved many young animals that would otherwise be buried now. We know they are doing useful work and that is a section of the Department I would like to compliment.

The same applies to contagious abortion. There, again, great strides have been made. Great work has been accomplished because it has been tackled in the right way. There are some of us who criticise the Minister, some of us who are by no means loud in our praise of him; even though we are sitting on the Government side of the House, we still keep that privilege that we can speak our minds about Ministers whether it is liked or disliked. I weigh on the one hand all the good things the Minister has done and, on the other hand, I place all the things not so well done, whether it was his doing or not. As far as my county is concerned, where 82 per cent. of the people are small farmers, I definitely say that we are better off than we were for a good number of years. Again, whether that is the result of world conditions or is due to the Minister for Agriculture, I do not know. In fairness, it must be said that the Minister and the world conditions and the increased price of food have helped to make us prosperous and to put us in our present position.

Mr. Cogan

It is a pleasure to take part in a debate on agriculture in the presence of the fine respectable Minister who is present to-day. It is a pleasure also to take part in a debate on agriculture in weather conditions such as we are blessed with this week. We should be grateful for those small mercies. One of my first duties to-day should be, as a farmer, to express my gratitude to His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin for having so kindly intervened in the farm wage dispute in County Dublin. I trust that the efforts of His Grace to bring about a settlement of that dispute will be crowned with complete success. Both farmers and workers deeply regret that, in the improved weather conditions of this week, their work should be held up. Both sections are equally eager and anxious to get back to work in the fields and to the full operation of sowing the crops which are so urgently needed.

There are people, of course, who say that members of the Irish Hierarchy should not intervene in ordinary economic or social matters. I do not share that view. I think that these men who have consecrated their lives to the highest vocation should be invited to help in solving the difficult social and economic problems which confront us at every turn.

I feel that the wage disputes and demands which have cropped up so frequently during the past year are due in a large measure to the unfortunate manner in which our Minister for Agriculture has misrepresented the position of agriculture. The Minister has gone out of his way to claim that farmers are rolling in wealth. If the farmers were half as prosperous as the Minister claims they are, the workers and their leaders would be fully justified in making even higher claims than they are making.

We all know that the exaggerated claims that farmers are making enormous profits out of pigs, eggs, milk and every other agricultural commodity, tend to create envy amongst the farm workers who are trying to eke out an existence on a very inadequate wage. The fact, however, is that the average working farmer has very little more, and in some cases less, than the agricultural worker at the end of the average week. Those of us who know the working farmers and the agricultural labourers know that the standard of living amongst the ordinary small farmers is as low as that among the paid agricultural labourers. We know that where the farmer's family consists of a number of adults who work on the farm the farmer is pretty prosperous. The same is true of the farm labourer's family. Where there are three or four adults working with the farmers and bringing in their wages each week to the family pool there is a certain measure of prosperity. When people talk about the improved standard of living amongst farmers, they should also admit that there is an improved standard of living amongst a considerable section of the community.

Anyone who examines the position fairly will see at a glance that the increase in agricultural wages, for example, over the past 40 years, if you like to go back that far, is much higher relatively than the increase in agricultural prices. From figures which were produced in this House some time ago, we know that the average agricultural wage prior to the first world war was about 12/- per week. In some counties it was something less. To-day, the very lowest minimum wage is £3 per week. That is an increase of over 400 per cent., although agricultural prices have not increased to anything like the same extent. So, we see that the farmers are not being selfish in regard to their workers and are not grasping an excessive proportion of the income derived jointly by themselves and the workers from agriculture.

One of the most remarkable achievements of the Minister for Agriculture, during the past year at least, is that he has succeeded in some way in winning for himself the unstinted admiration and applause of Deputy Peadar Cowan. The Minister should examine his conscience carefully when he finds that he is being applauded by this gentleman whose policy is the confiscation and collectivisation of land in this country. If the Minister's policy is applauded by that member of this House, then it is quite clear that his whole agricultural policy is, whether he knows it or not, directed or leaning towards the ultimate failure of individual farming and the ultimate nationalisation of land.

The Minister has made frequent attacks upon farmers, carefully concealed at times, but always sustained, and on farmers' organisations, and made the accusation that milk suppliers, if they organise, are racketeers. I think he even went so far as to describe them as a Fianna Fáil ramp. Some of the farmers concerned mistook the word and thought he said a Fianna Fáil "romp"; but I think the word was "ramp". Even that was a disparaging remark and one calculated to arouse anger, particularly amongst those who are not associated with the Fianna Fáil Party, but who are actively associated with the vocational organisation of farmers who are trying to get a better price for their milk.

Is this sustained attack upon the farmer from every angle to be continued, led by the Minister, supported by Deputy Peadar Cowan? I was interested to note that while the Minister was carrying on a sustained campaign of interruptions against Deputy Aiken yesterday, Deputy Oliver Flanagan sat beside him, evidently determined to show his applause and approval of the Minister. At the same time, Deputy Flanagan, by his series of questions on the Order Paper to-day, reveals that he is out to abolish individual ownership of land in the speediest possible time. The Minister has collected around him some queer allies and I think there is no doubt that this support would not come to him if he were engaged in a sound agricultural policy calculated to increase the income of the individual farmer, to increase his security on his farm and to enable him to live and support his family and maintain his hold on his farm. Security of tenure is a right for which Irish farmers have fought over a long period of years. I feel that the Minister has set out to destroy that security, to destroy it ruthlessly by misrepresentation and now further by threats.

A good deal has been said about compulsory tillage but the Minister for Agriculture, supported by Deputy Flanagan and by Deputy Cowan, has introduced a more serious threat to the independence of farmers than compulsory tillage. I think the farmer would prefer to be compelled by law to till a portion of his land rather than to be told by Deputy Cowan or Deputy Flanagan in support of the Minister, and threatened by the Minister himself that his land would be confiscated if he did not comply with the rather vague and indefinite requests made by the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Blowick

Surely the Minister for Agriculture never said that?

Mr. Cogan

I am saying that the Minister for Agriculture has made an appeal to farmers to till the maximum amount of their land this year and he has issued a threat that if they fail he will resign. That I do not think is a very serious threat; I think it is more in the nature of an inducement to farmers not to till but in addition to that there is a vague threat, not too definite perhaps, that the land will be ultimately confiscated from them. When the Minister finds himself supported in this House by Deputy Flanagan and applauded by Deputy Cowan who stands for collectivised farming, when he finds his policy meeting with that kind of support. I think he has very grave reason to examine it and to see where he is drifting.

There is no doubt whatever that agriculture, if you like, is somewhat more prosperous as an industry than it was, certainly during the war years and before the war. I do not think that we have ever experienced a period when prices were higher, except perhaps during the first world war. Costs as I have indicated have increased relatively to the same extent as prices. That, in the main, is due to the lowering of the value of money. I think that there are more important considerations, however, than the money value of agricultural produce. I think that if this country is to be prosperous the real output of the land must increase. It must increase in every respect both in regard to live stock and in regard to tillage. When we examine agriculture from that standpoint, we find that the results are very disappointing. It has been stated that the index figure of the net volume of output is 102 for the last year for which figures are available as compared with 100 pre-war-that is an increase of 2 per cent. An increase of 2 per cent. in the volume of agricultural output is not sufficient. It is not sufficient when we have regard to the needs of the present time, when we have regard to the expansion of agriculture in other countries, and to the expansion in our own manufacturing industries. They have shown a much greater expansion than agriculture.

I believe that when the Minister secured office in 1948 he had handed to him the greatest opportunity that was ever presented to a Minister in any country. In 1948 we had definitely emerged from the war period and the grave emergency period. Supplies of agricultural requirements were becoming available in the later part of 1947. In addition, we had emerged from the very serious climatic conditions of 1947 and we were favoured by being included amongst the nations that were being assisted by the United States to increase their production. All these factors were an advantage to agriculturists; all these factors could have been marshalled and mobilised in order to ensure that the output of agriculture would be rapidly expanded but after three years' experience the Minister can only show an increase of 2 per cent. over 1938. As a matter of fact, the net volume of agricultural output is 10 per cent. lower than it was in 1945. That of course was the period of maximum compulsory tillage and there was an increased output as a result. I do not know that that year is altogether comparable but certainly the position is that there has been only a very slight increase as compared with the last pre-war year when agricultural conditions were not so good or agriculture was not assisted to the same extent from external sources as in 1949.

I believe that a fundamental mistake was made by the Minister in his attitude towards tillage. It is possible when he entered office that he had a deep-seated prejudice against tillage farming. At any rate he certainly treated tillage farmers so badly during his years of office that he has reduced the acreage under tillage by over 500,000. He brought down the number of acres under tillage by 500,000 in the course of three years. He brought about that reduction in the main by refusing a reasonable market for the surplus produce that was produced in 1948. As I have said, the Minister took office when circumstances favoured him. There was a large acreage under tillage. Farmers were finding it difficult to maintain that acreage but if it was desirable—and I think it was; I am in agreement that it was desirable—to get away from compulsory tillage, it was urgent there and then to substitute for compulsory tillage a new policy, a policy of inducement for tillage.

I believe that policy would have achieved results if it had been introduced promptly and carried through effectively. Instead, however, we found that when the bountiful harvest of 1948 was ready for the market the Minister ruined the market completely. by announcing that he would import into this country cheap maize. I heard Deputy Commons say that the farmer who would depend on going to the shop in order to buy feeding for his pigs or to rear his poultry would be better off by getting out of farming, but what about the nation which goes to the shop for its basic food supplies? I think that nation would be better off to get out of agriculture. That was the policy which the Minister strenuously advocated during his first two years in office. I believe he would still be strenuously advocating it if it were not for the fact that supplies of imported maize are not now available.

I would say that it appears to be the deliberate policy of the Minister to force down the acreage of tillage by something like 600,000 acres. He claims sometimes that he has succeeded in getting an increased yield from the reduced acreage. Now, the Minister had as much to do with the yield secured from our tillage area in the last three years as the clock on the wall. I can prove that to be a fact.

I asked a question last week as to what was the yield of wheat during the past three years and the Minister replied 17.6 cwt. per acre. I asked what was the yield during three similar years under the previous Government, the three years ending in 1940, and I was told it was 19 cwt. per acre. That is nearly 2 cwt. per acre higher than in these past favourable years. I went into the matter a bit more fully myself. I had secured the average acreage of wheat over the whole period that Fianna Fáil were in office. I was not going to leave anything to chance, and I found that the average yield per acre of wheat during the whole period that Fianna Fáil were in office was practically exactly the same as during the past three years.

I think that does not prove very much, except that Ministers have not power over the weather, the climate, the land, the soil and over agriculture generally which they claim to have. It proves that agriculture functions, to a great extent, independently of ministerial control. In spite of all the Minister said about the increased yield of wheat which he had secured, we find that the yield was exactly the same under the despised Fianna Fáil régime. I think that is the supreme reflection. I think, too, it is about time that Deputies on both sides of the House would come to realise that the agricultural industry is bigger than political Parties and bigger than Partition. I think that for too many years the agricultural industry has been made the plaything of Party politics. We have had people on one side of the House denouncing beet and people on the other side of the House denouncing wheat.

We have had a lot of anger and heat aroused amongst farmers by different sets of politicians trying to lead them astray and to bewilder them, each political Party telling them it had some marvellous and wonderful solution for our agricultural problems. The plain fact of the matter is that whether we have a Fianna Fáil Government or an inter-Party Government farmers have got to work their land at every available opportunity, just as they are doing in the fine weather we are enjoying this week. They, through their efforts, will produce the maximum if only they are given a reasonable chance. That is all they ask. They do not want to be patted on the back by any Minister for Agriculture and told that they are good boys and are doing quite nicely. They do not want to be insulted or abused by the Minister for Agriculture as they have been repeatedly insulted and abused by our present Minister. Governments can help, if they are willing to help, but they require to have the will to do it. They also require not to be blinded by silly prejudice against particular crops or against particular sections of the farming community — by silly animosities of that kind, or by the tendency, particularly on the part, I think, of the present Minister to blame every misfortune that may occur upon his political opponents.

I remember the time when I was trying to secure a market for the surplus produce that we had. Deputy Commons referred to that period to-day. He said that during it there were farmers in Mayo who were finding it difficult to secure enough feeding oats and barley for their live stock. I asked the Government then to intervene in that crisis and help to ensure that those who had a surplus would secure a market for it, and that those who required to make purchases would have grain made available for them. I asked that, after these requirements had been met, and if there was a little surplus left over, arrangements should be made to hold it until the following year when production might be less bountiful.

That was the substance of the scheme which I put up to the Minister, and that was the substance of the scheme which was accepted by the Government in the absence of the Minister. When they got his back turned they succeeded. They were able to adopt a scheme which I had suggested. That was the scheme which the Minister sabotaged afterwards by exporting to Germany at a reduced price the surplus of oats which had been purchased under it. It is difficult for farmers to get the best out of their land and to till the maximum proportion of their land by the growing of essential crops if they are hampered and obstructed by their own Government. That has been the position, and I am afraid that is the real cause why we have to-day great difficulty in maintaining our live stock.

I think that the Minister, in his opening statement, was inclined to jeer at some of us who have suggested that the position in regard to live stock during the winter months would be severe. We made suggestions to that effect early in the past winter. The results have shown that live stock to-day are in a very poor condition. I have seen herds of cows that are very weak and I know that, while sheep have survived well and are in fairly good condition, cattle generally have suffered from the severe winter and farmers have suffered very considerable losses. It is always very difficult, of course, to estimate the losses which farmers suffer as a result of a shortage of feeding stuffs. Usually, when cows are weak, a certain number of them will perhaps be unable to survive. There have been very substantial losses, but there are no figures available to prove to what extent those losses have been suffered. If we had had a better-balanced agricultural policy since the end of the war, however, I think we might have avoided much of that loss.

We also know that the position in regard to bacon supplies is not so good. There has been a very substantial reduction in the number of pigs reaching the factories, and the factories are finding it very difficult to carry on and to meet the demand of consumers for bacon. That, again, could have been avoided if we had, linked with the pig producing industry, a sound policy of mixed tillage. I can trace that back to the failure of the Minister in the first years to give reasonable encouragement and support to those who embarked on a fairly substantial amount of tillage.

Up to the present, even in regard to the coming season, it is very difficult to know where we stand with our present Minister. Early this year he launched out into a nation-wide publicity campaign, starting off with an interview given to the Irish Independent. In that campaign he called upon farmers to produce more food for live stock. The Minister was then beginning to wake up to the fact that we had not been producing enough food for our cattle and pigs and he was further supported in that view by the fact that we have to pay such excessive prices for imported maize. It struck me as rather strange that the Minister would not make an equally emphatic appeal to farmers to increase the acreage of wheat and the acreage of sugar beet. I was further surprised when I found the Irish Sugar Company, which is a State-run company, launch out on another advertising campaign calling upon farmers to increase their sugar beet acreage. It seems strange that a State-subsidised company should be forced to launch out on a campaign like that while the Minister and the Department of Agriculture in their publicity campaign made no appeal to increase the acreage of either beet or wheat.

I put down a question to the Minister and I raised the matter on the Adjournment, but I did not get any satisfaction. As usual, I got a certain amount of abuse, but no assurance that the Minister was going to do anything to amend or improve the publicity campaign he had embarked upon or to do anything to improve the price for wheat. It was quite obvious that we could not expect the same acreage of wheat as last year in view of the fact that the prices of other tillage products had advanced beyond the price for wheat. The guaranteed price for wheat up to a month ago was 62/6 a barrel, which is 25/- a cwt., while the guaranteed price for malting barley was 28/9, and the price of good quality oats ranged from £3 10s. 0d. to £4 per barrel, and the prospects were that the price of oats next year would be reasonably good. In view of these circumstances, it seemed to any person of ordinary intelligence that unless something was done by the Government the acreage of wheat would decline, but nothing was done.

It was not until after the 1st April that the Minister issued an appeal to farmers to grow more wheat, but it is satisfactory to know that he did issue an appeal after the 1st April to farmers to grow more wheat and more beet. His notice in the Press, however, was much smaller and less impressive than the notices which it succeeded. It was less characteristic of the Minister. It looked more like something he had been forced or coerced to do. It lacked the "splash" which the Minister usually introduces into his advertising campaign. I do not know who forced the Minister to embark on this publicity campaign to grow more wheat so late in the day. Some person's attention must have been drawn to the fact that he was endangering the national position and that something would have to be done about it. After the 1st April, when normally all the wheat would have been sown, the Minister announced that he wanted an increased acreage of wheat and he agreed to offer a slighly improved price. It does not bring the price of wheat up to the top price available for barley and it is doubtful if it will bring it up to the price which is likely to be available for oats if there is no reduction in the price of imported feeding stuffs.

It is deplorable that the Minister for Agriculture, in a country depending upon agriculture and where the majority of people live on the land and by the land, should allow himself to be blinded by silly prejudice into standing against and obstructing the best national interests.

On frequent occasions during debates on agriculture, particularly in the closing stages of the debates, the Minister announces that those who criticise his policy are influenced in some way by personal ill-will, hatred or malice. Nothing could be more childish, silly or vain than that accusation. Apparently, the Minister is under the impression that nothing wrong could be found in his policy except through malice or ill-will. He has upbraided certain Deputies for allowing themselves to be influenced by personal ill-will towards him. I do not think the Minister can expect anyone to take that suggestion seriously. I have criticised the Minister very considerably during the past three years, particularly since we had our first clash in regard to the marketing of tillage produce in 1948. I do not think the Minister would seriously suggest that I have any influence with him. I had many clashes with the Minister on matters of policy when both of us were here on the Independent Benches. That did not prevent me, however, from supporting the Minister's election to the office he now holds. Any disagreement I may have with him on matters of policy will not influence me in the slightest degree in my personal attitude towards him.

I believe that he has allowed himself to drift into the adoption of an attitude towards agriculture which is not calculated to build up and improve that industry and expand its production. The fact that output is static and that we have made very little progress over the last few years is clear evidence that the Minister's policy is failing to deliver the goods. Possibly that is one of the reasons why Deputy Captain Cowan in his zeal for collectivised farming is so enthusiastic in his approval of the Minister. He says the Minister for Agriculture is a good Minister, just as facilely as he says the Irish Hierarchy are wrong. He has given his views on these matters very forcefully and very dogmatically. If Deputy Captain Cowan thinks the Minister for Agriculture is a good Minister, those of us who believe in a Christian society, in a democratic society and in farmers using their own farms independently must feel a certain amount of uneasiness with the present Minister's policy.

The Minister has submitted a White Paper to the House purporting to show certain increases in various branches of the agricultural industry. I admit there have been some increases. In the overall number of cattle, for example, there is an increase; but in, the number of in-calf heifers there is a reduction. That reduction is a disquieting feature in relation to our cattle trade. I know the problem is somewhat difficult of solution. It is one to which the Minister will require to give considerable attention. One cannot have cows without in-calf heifers. Because of the present prices for store cattle there is not much inducement to the ordinary dairying and tillage farmer to keep good heifers for breeding purposes. I think the Minister should direct his attention to that problem. I think he could cope with the problem if he would set his mind to it.

With regard to pigs, there has been a substantial reduction over the past 12 months. In 1950 the total number of pigs was 644,000. It is down to 530,000 to-day. The number of poultry has also reduced. That is inevitable having regard to the unsatisfactory prices available for poultry produce.

Speaking of pigs, I was interested to notice that last year the Minister introduced a new form of sport. It has been described as cross-country pig-racing. He opened the Border for a short period and permitted the export of live pigs to Northern Ireland. The result was a rush of pigs to the Border and the consequence is a reduced supply of pigs for our bacon factories at home. I do not think that is a sensible way of dealing with pig production and pig marketing. Stability is most important in an industry which entails so much expense and labour. A high price for a couple of weeks followed by a collapse does not help anybody. One or two producers here and there who had pigs to sell when the ban on the Border was lifted got away. The remainder found themselves worse off.

The trouble with our pig industry is that the Minister is trying to enforce on our producers a price considerably lower than the price which producers with similar production costs are obtaining in the Six Counties and in Great Britain. The price of pigs has been fixed in Great Britain—and, I take it, in Northern Ireland, too—at 280/- per cwt. The Minister expects us to go into rapturous enthusiasm because we are being offered 220/-. I do not think there is very much difference between our costs of production and the costs of production in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is certainly not a difference of £3 per cwt. The Minister seems to think that our farmers should be happy with a very low standard of remuneration for the finished product. In fairness to the farmers, I think the Minister should notify them now if and when he intends to institute another cross-country pig race this year. The farmers may then have to consider the problem of producing a dual-purpose pig, a pig that will give a good side of bacon and, at the same time, have a turn for speed so that they will reach the Border quickly when the Minister again decides to lift the ban.

I do not think the lifting of the ban was a sound policy. Stabilised fair prices are the best inducement that can be offered to increased production. I am in wholehearted agreement with Deputy Commons and others who said that the pig industry should be based on home-produced barley, potatoes, roots and on a balanced ration. Unfortunately the Minister, in his enthusiasm for maize, started off by discrediting home-produced feeding stuffs. Though the eventuality may never arise, I would like to know from the Minister what his attitude would be if feeding stuffs could be imported at very low prices? Would he allow them to depress the market here for home-produced grain?

I know that may be a difficult problem to solve, but it is one that should get reasonable consideration. Fianna Fáil tried to deal with it by means of what they call the admixture scheme. I never liked that scheme because it produced for the most part an unbalanced ration. Just as there is a solution to every problem, there is a solution to this. That solution can be found by having a certain measure of control over imports so that their impact cannot depress the home market and drive the tillage farmers out of tillage production and into pasture. I believe that the shortage of foodstuffs all over the world, and the shortage of feeding stuffs also, will tend to drive up the acreage of tillage. It may be too late this year, but that will be so next year; and there ought to be a long-term policy to maintain the acreage under tillage, so as to ensure a balanced farm economy and a mixed system of farming.

I am not in agreement with those who suggested that tillage should be made compulsory. There are inducements which could be offered to the tillage farmer which would be more effective than compulsion. I have often wondered why, in the subsidisation of certain requirements of farm agriculture such as fertilisers and ground limestone, the benefits of that subsidy should not be related to the percentage of the farm under tillage. The Commission of Inquiry into Agricultural Policy, which sat for a considerable time during the war, presented three conflicting minority reports, but the three agreed on one point and one point only, that fertilisers should be subsidised. The Minister has never agreed to that. I do not know why. There does not seem to be any valid reason now why you should subsidise lime and not cheapen the price of artificial fertilisers.

In regard to subsidising lime, the Minister's policy has been equally erratic. When he took office, ground limestone and burned lime were carrying a subsidy, paid out by the county committees of agriculture. The Minister, for some unknown reason, decided in 1949, to abolish the subsidy on ground limestone and retain the subsidy on burned lime. I was a member of a committee, the Carlow Committee of Agriculture, which considered that question and could see no justification for abolishing the subsidy. We sent a deputation to the Minister and the Minister made his case for the abolition so well that he convinced the majority of our deputation that he was right. I found myself in the embarrassing position of being the only member of the committee who was not carried away and converted completely to the Minister's viewpoint that there should be no subsidy on ground limestone. That has been the position for the past two years. Now suddenly—whether, as in the case of his belated decision to improve the price of wheat or for some other reason, it is that he has been subjected again to benevolent external pressure he has decided to grant a subsidy on ground limestone. That, however, requires explanation. Why now has he completely somersaulted in regard to his attitude two years ago when he decided there should be no subsidy for ground limestone, only for burned lime; now the position is reversed, ground limestone is to be subsidised but burned lime is to be left to fend for itself, to decline gradually and disappear.

I do not see any valid reason why one particular type of lime should be in and another not. The urgent need is to get lime in any shape or form into the land as quickly as possible and the more burned lime you get in this year the better. Ground limestone is excellent for improving the land and removing acidity, but it is slow acting and with land in its present cold condition it would be extremely desirable to get as much burned lime as is available into the land. In any case, the amount of subsidy required for the small amount of burned lime available will not be much, and I do not see why a distinction should be made between the two types. Each is good in its own way. I agree that, in the main, the ground limestone is the more important and the form in which lime will be applied in the greater proportion. Nevertheless, the other form of lime is useful also. Personally, I have found that the by-product of the sugar factories, what was once regarded as a waste product, the factory lime, is also an excellent fertiliser for the land and certainly much more quick in acting on the soil than ground limestone.

In this connection, a question arises as to why the freightage subsidy on ground limestone has been given in its present form. Why should one company be singled out to derive all the benefits? Is this a subsidy on ground limestone or a subsidy to Córas Iompair Éireann? Surely any firm that is prepared to carry lime to the farms should be equally entitled to the subsidy. At present a number of companies have provided themselves with fleets of spreaders which can carry and deliver the ground limestone without any rehandling, thus avoiding additional expense.

Why have those companies been refused the benefit of the subsidy which would enable them to expand their business of providing an increased number of spreaders and thus ensure that the production and distribution of ground limestone would be carried through in a most efficient manner? Surely every branch of agriculture and industry calls for the highest degree of efficiency. The most efficient manner of distributing ground limestone is by the use of spreaders, which eliminates the necessity of rehandling. Nevertheless, the Minister for some reason—there may be pressure again there which influenced him—decided to subsidise Córas Iompair Éireann while purporting to help the agricultural industry. If we accept the view —and we must, of course—that this subsidy, such as it is, reduces the cost of ground limestone to the farmer, is there not an unanswerable case for reducing the cost also of foreign fertilisers? The commission which impartially considered all aspects of agricultural policy, the Post-War Agricultural Commission, did definitely agree unanimously that the price of fertilisers should be brought down, by whatever manner could be found possible. They recommended a 25 per cent. subsidy, and I think that they would have been even stronger in their recommendation if they knew that prices would substantially increase as they have done.

It is a matter of grave concern that a very large proportion of our land is deficient in phosphates. The yearly intake of phosphates into this country is utterly inadequate. If you were to spread the total imports of phosphates over the 11,000,000 acres of land in this country, you would have less than three stone per acre. Having regard to all we imported during the last year, it can be readily understood that only a very small acreage has been treated with phosphates. At the present rate of progress, the deficiency in phosphates will never be overtaken. One is up against the difficult problem of supply—a problem which, I suppose, will be aggravated also by a shortage of sulphuric acid and other ingredients. At any rate, we should take such measures as may be necessary to bring whatever phosphates there are available to the poorest land. Everybody engaged in agriculture or who moves among the agricultural community knows that it is better to use the maximum amount of phosphates on our vast areas of poorer land—areas which have never got their fair ration of lime or phosphates. If supplies are limited and if phosphates are to be expensive in the future, some effort should be made by the Deparment to ensure that the poorer land would get its requirements in the way of phosphates.

I advocated a credit scheme in this respect last year in the course of this debate. When concluding the debate, the Minister indicated that he intended to implement that suggestion and to introduce a scheme which would enable farmers to get lime and fertilisers on credit. I found, however, that the Minister apparently adopted this scheme reluctantly and in implementing it he imposed impossible conditions on those who applied for this amenity. First, there was an acreage fee and then it was necessary to pay down 10 per cent. of the cost. In addition to all that, there was a requirement that the farmer would have to accept the Department's estimate in regard to what his requirements were. In the case of the farmer who felt that the Department's estimate and costs were too high and who only required to do a smaller proportion than the Department suggested in order to test out the scheme, his application was turned down and he forfeited his initial application fee. If the Minister looks into the figures, he will find that, while there was a considerable number of applications under the scheme, the number of people who actually availed of it was very limited. Only a small proportion of the total number who had applied under the scheme have actually implemented it.

On this whole question of credit, we had a discussion in the early part of this session on a motion which I introduced asking for better credit facilities for agriculture. There is a wide feeling amongst many sections of this House and, I think, a very widespread feeling amongst members of the inter-Party Government that credit facilities are essential if agriculture is to expand. I have heard many members of the Labour Party and some members of Fine Gael strongly advocating that view. However, when I raised this matter by way of motion in the Dáil, the Minister met me, in the main, with abuse. He concentrated his abuse mainly upon the Protestant minority in my constituency. He attacked major-generals and the company that begot them. I suppose he thought that by attacking a denominational minority he was attacking a section of the community who were weak and could not hit back. It is possible that he was feeling a bit sore over his defeat in the battle of Baltinglass and wanted to get back in some way by his reference to the major-generals.

Mr. Dillon

And the gallopers.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister knows that if this country is to survive as a nation and if it is to become a united nation, we ought to have a reasonable amount of respect for the people who are in a denominational minority in this country. We all respect our own religion and I think that it is our duty to respect the religion of others.

Mr. Dillon

But not to the extent of becoming their running footmen.

Mr. Cogan

The suggestion, that in some way those people are discreditable and that decent people like myself ought not to associate with them, is a contemptible one.

Mr. Cogan

We know that what happened was that concrete pipes had gone out of use altogether, but they may be brought back again, and that would be a good thing from every point of view. We would avoid sending considerable sums out of the country for the importation of pipes, and in addition, the production of concrete pipes is a small industry which could be established in many of our towns and villages and which would provide useful employment. If these pipes could be produced in the areas in which they are required, they would probably be much cheaper than the imported goods. The cost could be very much reduced and the pipes could be supplied in the areas where they are produced at a very reasonable price.

I do not want to say very much on the price of eggs. That matter has been referred to by other Deputies, but there is one very remarkable feature about this whole question of egg production and marketing which does require a full explanation by the Minister. The Minister has stated during the past year that one of the reasons for his difficulties in regard to the marketing of eggs was an unwise expansion of production initiated by his predecessor. If that were true, it would perhaps be some justification for him, but the fact remains that the Minister did a very considerable amount to encourage an expansion of egg production during his first year of office. He was loud in his appeals to farmers and farmers' wives to produce more eggs. He wrote to every farmer's wife in the country, and even sent his photo along with the letter in order to impress them further, urging them to produce more eggs and stating that the more they produced on their farms, the higher the price. Now he blames his predecessor. I do not know why the Minister always looks for someone to blame. The decent thing would be to say that he had made an error of judgment, that he had made it with the best of intentions and that he was sorry, but one cannot get that admission from our Minister.

Last year, in introducing this Estimate, he announced a new agreement with regard to the price of eggs. The price was 3/- when he took office. Subsequently it was reduced to 2/6. Last year he announced that, as from 1st February, 1951, until the 31st August the price would be reduced to 2/-. As reported at column 1795 of the Official Report of 15th June last, the Minister said:—

"Twopence an egg: I remember when it was the top price for eggs...."

That statement was made publicly by the Minister at a time when he was actually negotiating with the British to secure a better price for our eggs. What would you think of a farmer, who, when you had offered him a price for a beast, would turn around and say publicly and in your presence that the offer was a good one? What prospect would he have of getting that offer increased? Yet that was the position.

I found, by way of question, that the agreement fixing the price of eggs for the present year was signed only last August. Therefore, long before that agreement was signed the Minister was publicly proclaiming that the British were making a very good offer of 2/- per dozen for eggs. I think that that was a reckless course for the Minister to follow in regard to a vital product. I think that the Minister should not have lauded that inadequate offer of 2d. per egg before the agreement was signed. We all know now that the Minister has found out—too late, of course—that the agreement which he so strongly recommended this time 12 months ago was a bad one and that the price which he accepted with such joy was a poor price. Can we hope that when the Minister goes over to Britain again his attitude will be firmer and that he will not go over there prepared to laud any price which they offer and prepared to commend it to the Irish people as he did last year? As a result of his reckless action he has inflicted a very grave loss on the farmers' wives and on the farm workers' wives in this country, so far as the poultry industry is concerned.

I come now to the price of milk. The Minister, in dealing with the price of milk, launched a fierce attack upon the Creamery Suppliers' Association. He declared that that association was "a Fianna Fáil ramp". I think he went even further, during the present week, and described it as a "racket". But who established that association? The Minister himself. Twelve months ago he announced that he was going to reduce the price of milk to 1/- per gallon. He brought the strongest possible pressure to bear upon all the creameries to accept that offer. The creameries unanimously turned it down. However, the fact that the Minister had made that move alarmed the farmers in the dairying industry and led them to form some sort of a defensive organisation. The Minister refused to meet the representatives. He said that the chairman of the organisation was in some way connected with the saw-milling business and that the secretary was a civil servant. But the Minister met another organisation—which is also a very reputable organisation—of the dairying industry. At the time he was meeting the representatives of that organisation he knew that the chairman was not a full-time farmer, though I understand that he is well qualified to speak for the dairy farmers. The secretary also was very well qualified to speak for and represent the dairy farmers, although he, too, was not a full-time farmer. Why the discrimination between the two organisations? Why this attempt to introduce rancour and bitterness into what should be an ordinary business transaction? Why drag politics into the matter?

I do not know whether the Minister knows the political views of the members of the I.A.O.S. I am sure that the individual members of that association hold various and perhaps conflicting political views. The Minister was willing to meet them but, because of some little personal prejudice or something else, he refused to meet an extremely representative organisation of farmers—and by so doing he has created a position whereby additional fuel has been added to the general discontent which prevails in the dairying industry. At any rate, the Minister has made a very miserable offer to that industry. I do not want to dwell on it at any great length except to refer to an unjust statement by the Minister in which he quoted costings figures in regard to the dairying industry. He said that these costings figures were produced by Professor Murphy. He mentioned a price of 8½d. for milk produced in the summer months. I had a look at these costings figures. I do not know if they were publicly circulated but certainly I had a look at the figures in question. I found that though the cost in the summer months was 8½d. it was 1/6 in the winter months. I must admit that I am speaking now from recollection and that it is some years since I read that paper. Those two figures would mean an average of something like 1/2 the whole year round. But the Minister wants milk produced only in the summer. I think that 8½d. for that particular year would have been a reasonable figure for the summer months provided that the cow that produced the milk would be taken up to heaven on the 1st November and returned again to the field on 1st May, complete with her calf. Otherwise, I do not see how one can base any costings figures on a six months' period. There is no such thing as a cow that lives only for six months and produces a calf at the end of the six months— the Minister did refer to the value of the cow. I think it is a pity that the Minister allows his enthusiasm for scoring little freakish debating points to obscure his vision and to interfere with the operation of the ordinary common sense which a Minister should possess if he wishes to deal with ordinary everyday problems. There is no such animal as a cow which is milking only for six months and will not require to be fed, will live on air, for the other six months of the year. That is where the Minister's whole approach to the dairying industry was hopelessly wrong, biassed and irresponsible.

He told us a few months ago—early in the session—that he had no intention of revising the price of milk. However pressure again has been brought to bear on him, desirable pressure too, and has forced him to give way to the extent of granting 1d. a gallon. I do not think that even the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society can be expected to agree to that increase as being adequate or sufficient.

There is another section of the milk producing community with whom I am very much concerned, the producers of milk for Dublin market. Those people have also, like the man in the Scriptures, been given 1d. When we realise the value of 1d. at the present time when it comes to purchasing goods we can understand the value of the increase which our milk producers in the Dublin supply area have secured.

Two years ago and even last year the case was made against the milk producers that their business was too remunerative and that they were flooding the City of Dublin with milk. I do not think that the Minister can repeat that suggestion; I do not think that there is any surplus milk in or about the City of Dublin at the present time or that there will be for a long time to come. I think that those engaged in that industry are finding it extremely hard to balance their budget having regard to the present cost of foodstuffs and the increased cost of labour.

Unless the Minister meets the people in a more reasonable mood they will tend to get out of dairying and concentrate on dry stock. With the present meat situation in Britain we can reasonably foresee a demand for beef for a long time to come and as long as that is the position there will be a natural tendency for farmers to adopt the type of farming that gives them the most remunerative return. For that reason the Minister should reconsider the position with regard both to the suppliers to the city and the suppliers to the creameries.

The Minister's eyes should be opened this year to the fallacy which he so frequently announced, that is that the month of April is a summer month. I wonder would anybody who produced milk on his farm during the past month regard April as a summer month? April, as most farmers agree, is the most expensive month in which to produce milk and yet there is a reduction of 9d. per gallon in April as compared with the winter months. If the Minister, without reducing the prices for the rest of the year, were to give a concession for the month of April it would be appreciated by the people in the dairying industry for the City of Dublin.

I have indicated that over the past three years many grave mistakes have been made by the Minister following his first fundamental mistake of forcing down the price of tillage produce. That has led to a chain of evils which farmers have suffered up to the present day. It is hoped, with a world situation in which food and feeding stuffs of every kind are at a premium, that that position will rectify itself. It is hoped that an increased effort will be made, both by the Minister and by farmers, to produce throughout the length and breadth of the country a system of mixed farming by which farmers will grow most of the food they require for their live stock and also a substantial amount of food for sale for human consumption because such a system of farming is fundamentally sound. It does not require compulsion or force; it requires reasonable cooperation on the part of the Department with the farmers and reasonable enthusiasm on the part of those engaged in farming operations.

The Minister should even now realise that in many ways his whole attitude towards farmers has been mistaken. Many of the things which he dogmatically asserted have been proved to be wrong; many of the things which plain plodding farmers have told him and which he repudiated in an intolerant way have been proved to be right. Farmers suggested that we should grow most of our grain for live stock; the farmers were right when they suggested that we should grow a substantial proportion of the beet for our own sugar factories and of wheat to supply our own bread needs, and the Minister on those questions has been proved to be wrong. The farmers were right when they told the Minister last year that his proposal to reduce the price of milk was ridiculous in the face of rising costs and the Minister has been proved to be wrong.

With such a formidable list of mistakes to his credit or to his discredit, the Minister should be more inclined to co-operate with farmers, to meet them as ordinary human beings and not to treat them as if they were serfs. Since becoming Minister, I do not think he has met his fellow Independent Deputies once in council. He, of course, will always be willing to receive an individual Deputy and talk down to him, but he has never met the Independent Deputies as a group. During the past three years he has never met the Agricultural Productive Council. It would not appeal to his vanity to meet a body of ordinary farmers, hear their views and argue out the various questions of agricultural policy with them. He prefers to act as a small dictator. I think that attitude is wrong; it has been proved to be wrong. A list of the mistakes he has made proves that his own judgment in these matters has not been a safe one. He may, like another great dictator, rely on his own personal intuition; but he should remember that that great dictator came to a sad end. In a democratic country like this, a Minister is much better advised to accept the view that he is only an ordinary human being. It was said of Roman emperors in the old days, when they were parading in triumph through the City of Rome, that each emperor used to employ a slave to whisper into his ear "Thou art only a man". The Minister would do well to have some junior official, not, perhaps, to whisper into his ear, but to slip him a note reminding him he is only an ordinary human being and that he, too, could make some slight errors of judgment.

The Minister has been so busy sounding his trumpet that he has never been able to hear the voices of his best friends advising him, or of his more competent officials trying to give him directions. He has wandered from blunder to blunder. He was exporting oats at a time when there was a great shortage of foodstuffs; he was exporting butter at a time when there was a butter shortage here, and then he started importing an inferior product. A lot has been said about Danish butter. I believe the first consignment was rather inferior. We all remember some of the farmers' butter which the Minister exported during his first year of office. We all remember how he came into this House and gave an impersonation of Jimmy O'Dea, when he described how he had to call out the fire brigade to conduct the farmers' butter from the store to the quays. I suppose he had to call out the same fire brigade to conduct the first consignment of Danish butter that arrived here. I dare say if some other Minister had imported it this Minister would have given us a description of how the fire brigade had to be called out to get it off the boat and conduct it to the various distributing centres.

The Minister mentioned that he was having some trouble with potatoes. He said that the British Parliament suggested that some of our potatoes were suffering from a disease that might be described as boast. I do not think that was the word used, but if it was it is a kind of disease which only those potatoes that would come in contact with the Minister himself would be likely to contract. In many ways he has reminded me of a variety of potato which flourished——

Mr. Fagan

Will you leave the Minister out of it and talk about something else? Why talk about the Minister all the time?

Mr. Cogan

This variety of potato was described, strangely enough, as the farmers' glory. It was noted for the fact that it produced a very heavy supply of leaves and blossoms, but a very bad crop of potatoes. I think it will be admitted that in some ways the Minister would remind you of that particular variety of potato. We have all observed the great amount of publicity in regard to what the Minister has done, is about to do or is thinking of doing, but when we come down to bedrock we find there is very little visible evidence of anything being done by the Department. Whatever is being done is being done by the ordinary farmers. Agricultural output is 10 per cent. lower than it was during the war years. That is clear evidence that very little is being done for the agricultural industry.

If the Minister would only listen to the constructive suggestions I have made, he might benefit by them. It may be that Deputy Fagan has missed some of them. I have put forward a number of constructive suggestions which, if adopted, would lead to an improved agricultural output and to better conditions for our farmers and farm workers. The workers can, through their organisations, secure better conditions at the expense of the farmer. The condition of the farmers must also be improved. They can improve it by enforcing higher prices upon the consuming public, but the average farmer prefers stability. He likes a stable condition of affairs in which, through industry and efficiency, he will be able to increase output. It is to increased output that we must look if we are to hope for any improvement in agriculture and in the standard of living of people on the land and in the towns and cities. While Deputy Fagan and Deputy Giles and others of the Minister's admirers may be a little intolerant of criticism, I think a little criticism is good for everyone.

Captain Giles

We do not like to hear a jealous man.

Mr. Cogan

I am glad to draw that remark from Deputy Giles. Why should I be jealous?

Captain Giles

Because you are not in his shoes.

Mr. Cogan

The fact of the matter is that I was one of those who selected him to be a member of the Government and who voted for his election. I selected him because I believed he was a very able man. I knew his brilliance as a debater here. I knew also he had made many wild and irresponsible statements in the Dáil as a Deputy before he was elected Minister, but I had great hope that once the responsibility of office was placed on his shoulders he would change completely, turn his back on the irresponsibilities of the past and become an efficient and responsible Minister, applying his undoubted talents to the development of agriculture. If I have been disappointed, it is not my fault. I have no reason to be jealous of the position he holds, a position which exposes him to very considerable criticism, I must say, and it is a position of considerable difficulty. The suggestion that there is jealousy on my part is absolutely absurd. I have more reason to be jealous of Deputy Giles, who represents with such efficiency a very worthy constituency. I think it is time that that silly approach to criticism of the Department was abandoned. It is time that suggestions put forward by Independent and other Deputies were considered on their merits, not through the smoked glasses of Party animosity, or through a veil of prejudice.

If the Minister will agree to extend to fertilisers the subsidy for ground limestone, that will be appreciated. If he will agree to meet milk producers in the Dublin City area and in the creamery areas and give them a better price, comparable to their increased costs, that would also be appreciated. If he would announce that, come what may, he will never expose tillage farmers to the risk and loss to which he exposed them in 1948-49, he would, I think, be applauded for so doing. But if he adopts the attitude that he is invaluable, if he gets some Deputies to lick his boots and to accuse everyone who criticises him of being inspired by some unworthy motive, the Minister will make no headway in the development of agriculture and the farmers will only wait impatiently for an opportunity to replace him.

Mr. O'Grady

I do not propose to speak at any great length on this Estimate. Nevertheless, it is of such importance—it is possibly the most important Estimate that comes for consideration here—that I cannot allow the occasion to pass without drawing the attention of the Minister and the Government to a few matters which I consider of vital interest.

One of the Minister's admirers, speaking from the benches behind him, paid him some left-handed compliments. In fact, I was intrigued listening to the speech of Deputy Commons who, to my mind, was paying him a tribute with the left and giving him an uppercut with the right. For instance, with reference to the rehabilitation scheme, about which we have heard so much, and on which Deputy Commons had some favourable comments to make, he passed the very significant remark that a big percentage of the money was wasted under the rehabilitation scheme. If such a remark came from these benches we would be accused of prejudice and of a departure from the truth but, when it comes from such an ardent admirer of the Minister as Deputy Commons, I do hope the Minister will take serious notice of it and try as far as possible to prevent this wastage. The money, eventually, will have to be paid by the taxpayer.

The Deputy went on to refer to the pig industry and the production of bacon. He stated that the price which the Minister is offering now, as having been obtained from the British, of 220/- a cwt. for pigs leads farmers to the high road. If that be so, following the decrease in the price of eggs and the very low price of milk, it is a poor lookout for the thousands of small farmers along the western seaboard.

Deputy Commons referred to the fact that there are 22,000 farmers in County Mayo whose valuation does not exceed £10. In Clare there are 10,000 farmers whose valuation does not exceed £10 and, with the present low prices for their produce and the present high cost of essential commodities which the farmers use in their industry, it is little wonder that the people are leaving the land.

Some months ago His Lordship the Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise deplored the fact that the people were leaving the land. It was not the departure of the young people that shocked him so much, but the departure of whole families. I would ask those Deputies, particularly those on the Labour Benches, who never tire telling us about the amazing prosperity of the farmers, is it as a result of prosperity that these farmers are abandoning their holdings and running from them?

Mr. Fagan

Have you seen all that are looking for land? There was a queue outside the door on Sunday. I am telling the truth.

Mr. O'Grady

Deputy Fagan may be prosperous. I can assure him that he knows very little about farming conditions in the West of Ireland and I am sure that, if I had time to look up the figures, I would find many thousands of these smallholders in Deputy Fagan's own constituency.

Now that the Minister has returned, I would like to direct his attention to another matter. Deputy Commons referred to the growing of Ymer barley and advised farmers to produce as much as they could of it. I wonder if the Minister is aware that some farmers at least have found it extremely difficult, within the past week or fortnight, to obtain the necessary seed. A few cases have come to my notice in my own constituency and in County Dublin, where farmers have been waiting and could not obtain the seed. I hope the Minister will look into that matter before it is too late.

Deputy Commons also stated that the Fianna Fáil policy of tillage was embarked upon only when the wolf was at the door. For seven years before the wolf arrived in the shape of World War II, Fianna Fáil had been endeavouring, by word, action and example, to induce our people to adopt a policy of increased production of our essential requirements, as far as it was humanly possible to do it. I am glad the Minister has at last come around and has accepted that point of view and that, even in the eleventh hour, he is now making a somewhat similar appeal. My only regret is that the Minister's appeal has come rather late in the day.

Deputy Commons also spoke of his anxiety to have compulsory tillage. This is a point upon which there are a great many points of view, and different Deputies in different Parties hold different views. My view is that you do not need compulsory tillage provided you can make tillage compulsory by inducement. If you give the farmers the prices which will enable them to market their products at a fair profit to themselves and to pay reasonable remuneration to their employees, there need be no question of compulsory tillage and the farmers will produce what is required of them.

I noticed recently where the Minister's opposite number in Britain made an announcement regarding guaranteed prices which he is offering—and offering apologetically—to the farmers of Britain. Our Minister boasts that he is the proud servant of the farming community but recently the milk producers organised, because of the Minister's refusal to meet them to discuss with them the prices at which they could produce and sell milk. That organisation came into being following on the Minister's request to the milk producers to reduce their price from 1/2 to 1/- per gallon over a five years' period and the Minister did not, even in that offer, refer to the possibility of an increase in the cost of production. His opposite number when offering minimum prices to the producers in Britain was, as I have said, apologetic. He stated that the farmers' leaders had met him in the same spirit—that is a spirit of goodwill. He asked those who might be a little disappointed to remember that all classes were being asked to make a sacrifice. He was afraid the consumers would not be left wholly out of the sacrifices. In reply to another questioner, the British Minister said that the negotiations were carried out on the basis of figures prepared by the university economists and that, in the main, they accepted those figures. What were the prices offered and how do they compare with the prices here? Mark you, that in every other sphere of life, in industry, in business, you have the wages, salaries or earnings, whatever they may be, stepped up to a level corresponding to the level of the opposite numbers in Britain. The one exception is the agricultural industry.

If it is right and fair that wages and earnings here in industry and business should be brought up to the level which obtains across the Channel, I should like to hear an argument put forward by somebody proving that it is not right to bring up to the corresponding figure in Britain the prices which obtain here for agricultural produce. The new prices in Britain will be as follows: Wheat, 29/- a cwt., or 72/6 per barrel as compared with 62/6 here with the promise of 67/6 now for grade A wheat; feeding barley, a guaranteed price of 23/- per cwt.; oats, 20/8 a cwt., or 2/7 per stone; rye, 21/6 per cwt.; potatoes, £11 8s. 6d. per ton; sugar beet, £5 8s. 8d.; milk, 2/11½.

Mr. Dillon

Liquid milk.

Mr. O'Grady

Hen eggs, 4/3¼. Take the last two.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is not comparing creamery milk with milk for human consumption?

Mr. O'Grady

The Minister, on coming back from London, told us that was a reasonably satisfactory price, if my memory serves me rightly. But the Minister, when on these benches, never tired of reminding us that, if only the Fianna Fáil Ministers had the courage of their convictions and crossed over to London to meet their opposite numbers, they could make a satisfactory long-term agreement without more ado. The Minister himself, before leaving to make this very satisfactory agreement which leaves us with the price of 2/- a dozen for eggs, announced that he would rather sell our Irish products to his old and valued customer at prices less than the world market price, at less than he could command from the fly-by-night boys from the Continent of Europe. The Minister set forth to insult the representatives of various European countries who were coming in here and thereby serving a very useful purpose.

I was speaking about the price of eggs and the promises which the Minister made to the farmers' wives that there would be a guaranteed price. At the time the Minister was speaking the price of eggs was 3/- per dozen. The inference, therefore, to be drawn from his speech was that for quite a long while at all events that price was going to continue. The fact, however, is that the Minister made his bargain with the British and the price of eggs flopped. There was a little publication, a copy of which I used to get occasionally from the Minister's Department. It was known as P.E.P. The pep is gone out of the eggs now.

Another prophecy made by the Minister was contained in the famous speech he made at Portumna when he gave an undertaking to all whom it might concern. He said on that occasion: "I am your Minister for maize," adding that in no foreseeable time the price of maize would not go up by, I think he said, a brass farthing. But the price of maize has gone up and the price of feeding stuffs generally has gone up, with the result that eggs cannot be produced profitably at present-day prices.

With regard to milk, when the milk producers, as a result of the Minister's invitation, accepted a reduction in the price on being guaranteed 1/- a gallon for five years, and when the producers were driven to organise themselves, the Minister, in order to evade meeting the organisation, described it as "a Fianna Fáil ramp". One gentleman, who claimed the credit of forming this organisation in the County Limerick, was a very prominent supporter of the Deputies sitting behind the Minister and of the Minister himself when he was at one time a vice-president of the Fine Gael organisation. But, of course, the Minister is not very much concerned when making remarks of that kind, especially when he hopes or thinks he can get away with them.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Deputy will agree that it was an insult.

Mr. O'Grady

I do not agree because I do not know exactly what the Deputy is driving at.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

To be called a Fianna Fáiler.

Mr. O'Grady

If it was an insult, his insult was given to supporters of the Deputies sitting opposite. He is welcome to do that. The more of these insults which he flings around the better, I suppose, it will be for our Party, and the more it will drive people towards our Party.

There is another matter to which I want to direct the Minister's attention. It was brought to my notice recently that, due to the extremely bad harvest and the exceptionally severe weather conditions which prevailed in the last eight or nine months, the hay saved last year after the month of June is of exceedingly low nutritional value, with the result that the milch cows fed on it are so emaciated that considerable losses are being suffered by small farmers up and down the country as a consequence. These cows are so thin and emaciated that they are incapable of calving and losses are being suffered all over the country. I am not accusing the Minister in connection with that, although when he was on these benches he accused Fianna Fáil of all the crimes in the calendar because of the exceptionally bad weather in 1946-47. Unfortunately, we have had a repetition of these weather conditions in the year which has just passed. A number of smallholders are losing their cows therefore through no fault of their own and it would be well for the Minister to get his officials to inquire and see what can be done to save these people who can very ill afford such losses.

Mr. Dillon

What does the Deputy suggest I should do beyond making available abundant supplies of feeding stuffs?

Mr. O'Grady

I suggest that the Minister might do what Fianna Fáil did in a similar situation.

Mr. Dillon

What?

And we organised a credit scheme and we went down and fed the cows. The same thing happened in North Leitrim. We organised the local creamery and they provided the people with fodder for their cattle. We will do the same in Clare.

Mr. S. Flynn

Did you say North Leitrim?

Mr. Dillon

Yes. I brought hay from Donegal.

Mr. S. Flynn

You did, but it was too late. What was the report of the veterinary surgeon there to your Department?

Mr. Dillon

Did we not do it just as soon as we found out?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us hear Deputy O'Grady to a conclusion.

Mr. Dillon

Mr. Coburn

Whether it be a coincidence or not, since the introduction of this Estimate the sun has been shining all the time. Beautiful rays have spread an invigorating warmth over this House. I am sure that the sunshine is as welcome to the farmers as it is to us, those hard working farmers who are serenely oblivious of all the nonsensical speeches made here within the past three days.

I wish to refer now to the remarks made by my colleague, Deputy Aiken, on the subject of the potato industry as it affects the farmers in the Cooley area. During my 24 years' membership of this House I do not remember any occasion upon which I was compelled to cross swords with my colleague. But I must cross swords with him to-night.

His remarks in relation to the potato industry can only be characterised as ill-timed, ill-judged and, in relation to the officials of the British Ministry of Food, grossly ill-mannered. There is an old adage that: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Deputy Aiken's entrance into this debate in relation to the question of potatoes in Cooley at this particular juncture was one which I certainly did not expect from him. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Deputy Aiken is not an ordinary member of this House. He has in the past carried the portfolios of Minister for Defence, Minister for Lands and Minister for Finance. Because of the experience which he must have gained in those offices he should never have given expression to the utterances he made here last evening on this particular matter.

It is a well-known fact that whenever there is a dispute between two Governments and a decision that the question is sub judice, it is most unwise and improper for any reference to be made that would interfere with or affect the outcome of those deliberations. Deputy Aiken came in at the last moment completely ignorant of the situation, otherwise he would not have made those remarks. If he were aware of the situation, it would have been quite easy for him, as a responsible Deputy, to walk across to the Department of Agriculture and get from the officials there certain facts regarding the Cooley area and other areas concerning the export of potatoes. It seemed to me, listening to him, that his one ambition was to down the Minister and damn the consequences. He gave me the impression that he was not concerned with the 2,000 or 3,000 tons of Banners that still remain unsold on the hands of the farmers of Cooley, so long as he got a dig at the Minister. I happened to be in on this question very early on. I have kept in touch with it and I know the position. I know the negotiations that have been carried on and I personally, on behalf of the farmers of Cooley, wish the Minister luck in his negotiations. Judging by his past experience and by his previous deliberations with the British Ministry of Food, I know that a satisfactory solution will be found.

I wonder why Deputies opposite, including Deputy Aiken, cannot bring themselves round to pay even a small tribute to the Minister's work. Deputy Aiken was well aware of the very satisfactory agreement the Minister made for potatoes last year and the year before, when the whole of the potato crop was exported at from £7 10s. to £8 10s. per ton and the farmers of Cooley were quite satisfied. In my opinion, Deputy Aiken—I am sorry he is not here—would have been much wiser to wait a few days before passing the remarks he made yesterday evening.

Speaking generally, the condition of agriculture is satisfactory. In striking contrast to the attitude of Fianna Fáil Deputies on this occasion, I have always made it a point to pay a tribute whenever it was deserved. I was always prepared to recognise difficulties, but seemingly Fianna Fáil cannot recognise difficulties. They avail of this discussion as a sort of dress rehearsal of the speeches they intend to make in the event of a coming general election—which they have been told by their Leaders is to take place. Everybody knows—except the person who does not want to understand—that the figures there are in the White Paper, which gives the whole policy pursued by the Minister through his officials. There is no secret about it. It deals with every aspect of his policy, and anyone who takes the trouble and time to study the White Paper will see the progress that has been made. Large funds have been placed at the disposal of the farmers to improve their land, to reduce the mortality in cattle and to improve the agricultural industry in general.

The all-round revenue derived from the exports of cattle, poultry, eggs, sheep and everything else amounted roughly to £46,000,000 in 1950 as against £25,000,000 in 1947. I readily admit, of course, that there has been a difference in prices, but I ask, in answer to the doleful speeches delivered here that farmers are down and out: "Why do Deputies opposite always find delight in making little of their own class?" I never could understand those on the opposite benches on that point. How could the farmers live for the last three years, if their plight was as desperate as one has been led to believe? I know the farmers as well as anyone else, as men of courage. Would they not meet the Minister at every crossroads with the old shillelaghs as they did of old, and would not every Deputy on these benches be met, when he returned to his constituency, and told of their plight? I mix with farmers as much as any Deputy opposite. I do not say they are all millionaires, but I hold they are tolerably prosperous at present and so long as they mind their business, as they are allowed to do so, they will continue to be as prosperous as in the past three years.

I enter an emphatic protest against some of the complaints made from the opposite benches regarding the Minister's policy, especially on tillage. I was amused at Deputy Cogan twitting the Minister that he was discouraging tillage, when every paper in the country carries advertisements exhorting the farmers to till all the land they can. The Minister made it clear that, this being a democratic country, he is not going to apply compulsion. Does not commonsense tell anybody that no one can look after a man's business as well as himself? Surely the farmers know what kind of economy will yield the best results. They can be depended on, by their husbandry and their long years of experience, to get the best return. Deputies opposite expect the Minister not alone to provide moneys to help farmers to till their land but they want him to sow their oats. If there happens to be a stack of oats left unsold, there is a hullabaloo about it, but the moment the Minister makes arrangements to dispose of it, those opposite twit him for having exported and sold all the oats, leaving the farmers short. It is very difficult to please the Deputies opposite. It is generally agreed that the Minister is doing all he possibly can to improve the position of the farmers.

It is the duty of Deputies opposite to give all the help they can in regard to the rehabilitation scheme and all the other schemes that have been set up under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture. In order to help the farmers, it is the duty of the Deputies opposite, instead of engaging in a campaign of destructive criticism, to, at least, do a little by way of cooperation and advise the farmers of this country to take advantage of the many facilities which have been placed at their disposal by the Minister for Agriculture. In that way, we can face the future with courage, fortified by the thought that, come what may, we can depend upon our own efforts. By co-operation, we will be able to come through whatever difficult times lie ahead.

I am not a bit alarmed at this prospect of a war referred to so often by the Deputies opposite. The farmers do not require to serve five years in order to switch from the growing of oats to the growing of wheat. It is simply a matter of rotation. They can change overnight, as they have done before and, if the worst comes to the worst, they will be ready to meet any situation that may arise in the future. We can have absolute confidence, owing to the ability of the Minister, aided by the very efficient staff, that we will be able to do in the future as we have done in the past, namely, provide for our people the wherewithal for a decent standard of living.

Mr. Harris

The year that has passed has been a very severe one for the agricultural community. It is not the farmers alone who will suffer for that very bad summer and winter. The whole community will be affected. In contributing to this debate, I do not stand up to plead for the farmer. I feel—in this debate on agriculture— that it is not the farmer alone who will be affected by our agricultural policy but the life of our community.

This is an agricultural country and the development of our agriculture will mean prosperity for all sections of the community. I felt sorry for the Minister when I heard him say that he did all he could to help the farmers when they were short of fodder and feeding stuffs during the past year. I am sure he did. I believe that the Minister was sincerely worried. I did not envy the Minister his position nor do I envy him his position at the present time. I do not want to be destructive in my criticism, but I feel that I cannot throw bouquets at the Minister for the policy that he has carried out during his three years of office. It is not for any political reason that I say that. The Minister has been very disappointing. He is a disappointment to the people who were opposed to him in politics. The farmers of the country of all shades of political opinion have lost faith in him. In his early period of office, I thought that the Minister had a grasp of the agricultural situation and for a time I believed that he would avail of the opportunities that we now have to build up agriculture and lay a good foundation. The Minister was not in office during a period of world depression in agriculture. He came into office in a very good time. There is money in agriculture now.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear! A Daniel come to judgment.

Mr. Harris

If we had a policy that would take the most advantage of the present situation, there is money to be made out of agriculture. Whatever prices we have at the present time for our agricultural produce, the prices of cattle are high. The Minister believes in the cattle trade. I also believe in the cattle trade. I believe that our cattle trade is a very important part of our agricultural economy. I believe that had we developed our cattle industry as it should have been developed and as the Minister for Agriculture has neglected to develop it, we could bring great wealth to the farming community and to the country as a whole. But the Minister has done nothing about that. He has sat back and claimed the credit because the world prices of meat are high to-day. He did nothing about the matter. During his period of office, millions of pounds have been lost that could have been made out of the cattle industry.

I spoke on this Estimate 12 months ago. We had passed through a very mild winter. The winter of 1949-50 was very mild. The previous year, the people were short of fodder and the farmers had a very lean time but, the winter being so mild, they got through with their cattle alive. In the spring of 1950, if one went through the fairs of the country, one could see that the cattle were thin because they had not been lined with the feeding that they should have been getting during the winter months. The result of that was that it took them a very long time to pull up for their losses even in a mild winter. A big number of cattle could have been matured if they had been properly looked after during the winter of 1949-50. The cattle remained on the land until late in the year. As a result, I saw throughout the country last spring, that the farming community were not able to hold up their meadows and the cattle that should have been kept off the meadows were roaming over them. The hay season was late. The cattle were out on the meadows too long and they had to let the meadows grow on late and when the bad weather came, the hay was lost. The farmer who was in a position last year to take the cattle off in time and had his meadows fit to cut in the early part of June, got very fine weather for making hay and obtained hay of the best quality, but these farmers were in the minority.

The Minister came down to a committee of agriculture meeting in Kildare about last October and boasted there that there were more cattle in the country then than there were within living memory. I thought that a very foolish boast on the part of the Minister. Comparing 1947 with 1950, he pointed out that, in 1947, there were less cattle in the country, but we all know that the winter of 1946-47 was very severe and that there were big losses. I believe we have not seen the full extent of those losses yet, because it is not the cattle which died that are the real loss to the country, but the cattle which were emaciated and reduced and which will take another year or year and a half to recover. That is where the loss to the farmer and to the country comes in.

The Minister, I think, was dishonest. He knew that the 1946-47 winter was a very hard winter and that cattle were reduced by reason of that hard winter and that it was not due to the policy of any Government. When he got into office, he should have learned from that experience and should have done something about it, as he could have done. He had the greatest opportunity ever presented to a Minister of doing something for the cattle trade about which they talk so much, but for which they never did anything but allow it to jog along in its own way, letting the cattle roam over the ranges in the old way and develop up to three or four years old, which was the policy in the old British days. That is their policy, and that is all they did for the trade about which they talk so much.

Great amounts of money were made available to us through Marshall Aid, and all over the country schemes were started which, we were told, would bring vast improvement to the land. We had drainage schemes and the rehabilitation scheme, for which we got great machines from America. I presume all that money will have to be repaid, but many farmers through the country to whom I have talked say that a very large proportion of that money was wasted and that agriculture is not any better off. If anyone who knows anything about agriculture or land travels around the country—and I go around a little—he will see, even in areas where they have the best land, that the land is impoverished and has been impoverished for a long time, and that much more could be made out of it. The Minister has initiated a scheme whereby a farmer who wants to get his soil tested can pay so much an acre and send a sample for test. He will then be told what his land requires. Such a soil analysis may be necessary on land on which the farmer is putting too much artificial manure, but in the case of most of the pasture land of this country, which has never seen artificial manure within living memory, which has been grazed and meadowed for generations, I do not think such a soil analysis is so very necessary. So far as most of the land I see is concerned, one would not be running any risk of throwing away money if it were given a dressing of semsol or phosphatic manure, at the rate of ten or 12 cwt. to the acre, or potash, even without an analysis. It would vastly improve that land.

The Minister and the Government with all this money at their disposal could have done a lot for themselves, if they had used that money to buy artificial manures. They could have made it available at a very low price and could have given it out to farmers of all valuations, because whatever you give to the farmer you get back from him. It is all taken back from the farmers in the long run. We are building houses, improving our roads and providing very elaborate social services and a very large part of this burden is placed on the farming community. The farmers are not able to keep ahead of the high rates and taxation which they have to pay, notwithstanding the high prices for agricultural produce at present. I believe, however, that if the Minister had persuaded the Government to put all the money available three years ago into artificial manures for putting on the land, the grassland of this country would have carried double the stock it carried and there would have been so great an increase in fertility of the land that more land would be available for tillage. I believe he would have done much to improve our cattle and improve their value. We could have had extra tillage—extra wheat, extra potatoes and extra root crops. We could have employed more people on the land and there would not have been any difficulty in getting very much better wages for the workers employed on the land. If the Minister had approached the problem in that way agriculture would be in a sound and prosperous position now. He neglected to do so, however, and the farmers are disappointed.

Many farmers in this country are not in very good circumstances. There are farmers whose land is poor and they find it very difficult to pay their way. They are living from hand-to-mouth all the time and, to a great extent—and I must say that I think this is unfair— they are carrying on with the aid of the unpaid labour of their families. I think farmers are very foolish to work their families without at least putting by for them the agricultural rate of wages which is fixed. Very many of them do not do that and their families work long hours. Unfortunately, that is the position with a very large section of our farmers; that is the way they have made what money they are supposed to have made. A trade unionist would describe that condition as one in which the farmer's family work for nothing. We talk about family labour. Many people seem to think: "Oh, it is all right, that man has his own family." I think we should get away from that idea and that we should see to it that the farmer's family will get as good a standard of living and as good a return for their day's work as any trade unionist. I know that it is the farmers' own fault because they do not look for it, but it is time for them to do so.

I think, with regard to the land rehabilitation project, that the Government and the Minister have made a very bad mistake. We had a farm improvements scheme under the previous Administration that met the situation adequately.

Mr. Blowick

For drainage?

Mr. Harris

For farm improvements. That scheme was adequate in many cases. A very large amount of the arable land of this country is not productive to its full capacity. The land rehabilitation project will not appeal very much to a farmer who has land of that type. He will say: "I have 30 or 40 acres of land that could produce more if it got some artificial manure," and he will consider that that is a more economic proposition than the land rehabilitation project because the reclaimed land will never be as productive as the refertilised arable land.

The Minister will point out that there is a credit scheme and he will ask why the farmer does not get the artificial manures. I know farmers who use artificial manures and who do everything in the most up-to-date way, as recommended by the Department of Agriculture. They follow closely all the experiments. These people may not have capital. When the end of the year comes they sell their crops but by the time the merchant is paid for his seed and artificial manures, and they pay for the labour and their rates, there is very little left for themselves. They run the risk all the time of incurring a debt for a very slender return. If a bad year comes they may lose everything. Farmers are not anxious to get into debt and they have very good reason for wishing to avoid it. When a farmer borrows money and puts it into his land it is a long time before he gets it back again. A slump may come and he may be caught out in the meantime. He is not like an industrialist who can get his money back more quickly. There is an inducement to the farmer, in practically every one of the Minister's schemes, to get into debt. The Agricultural Credit Corporation is there and he is asked to borrow money and pay it back on the instalment system. He is asked to buy milking machines, and so forth. On top of all that, his rates are increasing year by year. His position is anxious enough. He has very good reason for not wishing to incur more debt. His costs are going up year after year.

I think that the Minister has failed completely to improve the lot of the farmers. Three years have been lost and the country must have lost millions of pounds, not so much on the cattle that died, as because of the delay and the set-back they received for the want of proper provision being made for them. I realise that the Minister could not do very much last year but I hold that if the Government had faced the situation squarely —instead of wasting a lot of money on drainage schemes and the land rehabilitation scheme, which they talk so much about—the country would now be in a far better position than it is and the farmer would be able to pay his rates and pay better wages, and so forth.

I come now to the question of wheat. I notice that during the past week or fortnight wheat has been put at the top of the list in the Department's advertisements as the crop which it is most necessary to grow. In previous years the Minister advised farmers to grow potatoes, oats, and so forth, and in a little footnote to the advertisement he would mention wheat or beet or something like that. As a result of the Minister's recommendations, the farmers rushed into potato production. I know farmers in my constituency who never grew potatoes before, and who did not do much tillage of any description because they did not care for that type of farming. However, they were loyal supporters of this Government, and they said that they would give a hand and give some encouragement and follow the Minister's advice. I know one man who put a fairly large acreage under potatoes. I asked him what he was going to do with the potatoes, and whether he was sure of a market, and I said that it would have been wiser to have grown beet. His reply was: "James Dillon will get me a market for my potatoes." I suppose that many farmers throughout the country felt the same way. Then the potatoes were there and there was not a market for them. Similarly with regard to oats. Farmers had rushed into the growing of oats—but, of course, the oats were needed. Unfortunately, these people could not wait when the harvest time came. They had to cash their oats to pay their bills. The Minister told them to put their oats in stacks and to thatch the stacks. One thing followed another. Take, for instance, eggs. We were told that the more eggs that would be produced the better off the country would become. The Minister went the wrong way about everything which he tackled. He has discouraged the farming community. Wheat is now at the top of the list. Only a fortnight ago the Minister announced that he would give 67/6 a barrel, weighing 61 lb. to the bushel, for wheat. The Minister should have made that announcement last September and, even so, I do not think that the price is sufficient.

If I remember aright Britain is giving a better price to her farmers for wheat than 67/6 and I think that artificial manures in Britain are much cheaper than they are here. If the Minister had announced last September or October that he would give that 67/6 for wheat that would weigh 61 lb. to the bushel it could have been an inducement to the farmers to put in some winter wheat. I think it has done nearly more harm than good at the present time because in the case of most of us who sow spring wheat there is a lot to be put in yet and I think that very little was put in before the 1st April. It is a bit late now and every farmer who sowed wheat in the past week feels he is taking a chance and a gamble. If it is late the wheat will not get sufficient time in the ground and the yield may be low—this is the way farmers look at it—and it will not bushel so well. What the Minister should have done is——

Mr. Blowick

To change the weather.

Mr. Moran

He would have no hesitation in promising to do it.

Mr. Harris

——to put in no stipulation at all as to bushelling this year. We may consider the year before last when any wheat would bushel 61 or 62 lb. because it was a good season but there are years when wheat bushels only 56 or 57 lb. and this may be one of them. In 1947 after the late spring wheat bushelled badly and the yield was low. Farmers cannot look forward to this being a profitable year for wheat and with high wages the increase of 7/6 is not really an increase at all and is no inducement to farmers to take the risk. They may want a good deal more if they are to get a profit out of their crops this year.

There has been a lot of talk about compulsion: "Everybody is free now and can do what he likes with his own land." Fianna Fáil never stood for the compulsion of farmers.

Mr. Blowick

What?

Mr. Harris

Fianna Fáil were forced to bring in compulsion.

Mr. Blowick

Ah, the poor things.

Mr. Harris

They were compelled to do it by the attitude of the Fine Gael Opposition, particularly Deputy Dillon. This will just give an indication of their mentality and of the harm done by Fine Gael and of Deputy Dillon when in opposition: if you go back to the files of local papers in Kildare and other counties in the Midlands as well you will see advertisements declaring that land should not be used for the growing of wheat, that wheat impoverished land and ruined soil. That was the attitude of large farmers at the time when our people were in danger of starvation and we could not bring food into the country. It was Fine Gael propaganda that brought that about and if Fine Gael had not adopted that attitude the farmers would not have been misled as they were and we would probably have been in a much better position. They would have been anxious to help in growing wheat and food for the people if it were not for that attitude held particularly by Deputy Dillon who did everything he could to discourage land-owners from helping out.

I have my wheat vouchers for the past year still. I have been watching the papers for an advertisement to see when the Minister is going to give us 2/6 for them but I did not see it yet— I may have missed it.

I am sorry that the Minister has wasted three years in which agriculture could have been made prosperous. I remember the first great war and after that war farmers thought they were very well off. Everybody said that the farming community were very prosperous. When the farmer has money he spends it and lives well and sometimes he even makes out that he is better off that he really is. The slump came in 1921 and everything was depressed. Prices fell and we were dependent not on our own market but on the foreign market. Now we are back to that policy again and I hope it will not end as it did after that period of prosperity between 1915 and 1921.

Mr. Crotty

Deputy Harris has just stated that there is money in agriculture now, Deputy Harris being Fianna Fáil representative of County Kildare. If it were one of the Deputies supporting the Government who made that statement everybody would feel that he was just boosting the Minister, but apparently Deputy Harris is an honest man. As far as I could gather he put the onus on the farmers and said that if a man works his land there is money in agriculture. That coming from a Fianna Fáil Deputy is a great tribute to the Minister.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on placing his trust in the Irish farmer and I can say that in Kilkenny that trust is not misplaced. The farmers who have suitable tillage land will till not only the quota but much more provided they get a fair return for their crop, and I think that the Minister is giving that at present, especially since the increase in the price of wheat. I was very surprised to hear Deputy Walsh last night coming out and stating that he was in favour of compulsory tillage. I take it for granted that he was representing the view of the Fianna Fáil Party. Apparently Deputy Walsh is not prepared to put his trust in the farmers of County Kilkenny. When we had compulsory tillage before what did the Government do? They gave the farmers 35/- a barrel for barley although it could easily have been sold for 55/-, and I am sure that if Fianna Fáil were still in office the farmers would still be receiving that sum, but thanks be to God they have got a fair chance and the £1 increase which they could have got during the whole of the war if the Government had allowed Messrs. Guinness to pay it. Farmers are only too anxious to till provided they get the money but really the only people I know who are anxious for compulsory tillage are the people who are taking conacre. They do not want to pay the price for conacre but want to get it cheap. They will work the land, run out the land and leave it impoverished so that it is not fit for the growing of grass or for tillage.

Farmers are helping the Minister and he should help them to get ample drying facilities for this year. The number of combines coming to my county and all over the country as well has been very large during the past year but you cannot expect the corn from those combines to be in the same condition as corn cut by a reaper and binder and stacked, so you require many more drying facilities.

I trust the Minister will make every possible effort to give the farmers facilities for drying corn and also for storing it. In 1949 we had a very good yield of barley and some farmers had to hold on to it until the December of that year although they had not much storage. Some of them were compelled, not alone to store it in a very bad way, but also to be out of their money for some three months, money which would have been useful to many of them in paying their way. I trust the Minister will do all he can to provide good storage accommodation and drying facilities.

I am very pleased that the Minister has adopted the policy of giving farmers the benefit of world prices. Everybody thought when wool prices went up this year that the Minister would have stepped in and halted that increase so far as this country is concerned. I am very glad he has given a fair chance to our farmers. When the wool prices went up throughout the world our farmers got the benefit of that increase. I wonder did the Government of the day subsidise the farmers when they were selling wool at 2d., 3d. and 4d. a lb.? The farmers then had to put up with low prices and now when the prices have gone up they deserve to get the benefit.

This year turkeys went up to 4/- a lb. and the farmer got the full benefit of that price. In the days of the last Government when turkeys were 2/8 a lb. the then Minister put a levy of 8d. a lb. on the turkeys leaving the country. They imposed that type of tax on the farmers and it was a considerable one when you consider the turkeys on an average would weigh 15 lb.

Mr. Allen

What did they do with it?

Mr. Crotty

Yes, that is the point.

Mr. Allen

They subsidised the price of eggs, and well you know it.

Mr. Crotty

The present Minister for Agriculture has given the farmers the full benefit of the increased price for turkeys, and the farmers appreciate that. Likewise with cattle. As a result of the agreement with England our cattle will go up another 10/- a cwt. The Minister will give us the benefit of that too. In that way he is giving our farmers a good chance. As Deputy Harris said, there is money in agriculture. The Minister has put the agricultural industry in that position and we must thank him for it.

As far as lay in his power, he has also given guaranteed prices to the farmers. The farmers have to work in the open; they do not labour in a workshop or any industrial concern. They have to take chances with the weather and also with the prices they get for their crops when they have them harvested. So far as lay in his power, the Minister has given them a guaranteed price for wheat and beet, and now for milk. There is a guarantee of 1/3 a gallon for the next five years, come what may. He is about to arrange a guaranteed price for pigs.

There is one matter I would like to bring to his attention, and that is the present grant for farm buildings. Take a cow house. The grant at the moment is £4 per cow. In a way, that is very small. It was all right a few years ago when building costs were not high, but now, allowing for the increased cost of building, the £4 grant is rather small. For ten cows it would be only £40. A house to accommodate that number of animals would cost £300 to £400. I suggest he should increase that grant.

I will again bring to his notice the need, especially for the coming harvest period, of supplying ample drying facilities for corn. Last year the mills were not able to handle all the corn, and people had to hold it, sometimes for a period of three weeks. The mills could not handle it because of the lack of drying facilities. I trust he will be able to provide better drying facilities and better storage accommodation in the immediate future.

Mr. Moran

My main purpose in intervening in this debate is to refer to a matter of urgent importance in my constituency and, indeed, generally throughout Connacht. I refer to the hundreds of cattle that are dying from starvation. It is a very serious matter for the people I represent. It is very serious that cattle are dying. They are contracting disease due largely to bad nourishment, to bad hay and fodder, throughout the counties of Galway and Mayo, Roscommon and Leitrim, and in certain parts of Sligo. Something should be done for these people. In some cases their stock have been completely wiped out overnight. The least the Minister can do is to make available interest-free loans, as his predecessor did during the bad year of 1947, when sheep in mountainous areas were lost in the snow.

While I do not propose to blame the Minister for the bad weather, I have no doubt that he would have no hesitation in promising good weather if he thought it suited his book. But this is a matter the Minister got due notice of here, because on 30th November of last year there was a motion tabled, not by Fianna Fáil racketeers, as the Minister calls them, but by different Deputies, including Deputies Cogan, P. O'Reilly, J. Flynn, Cowan, Flanagan and Maguire. That motion read:

"That, in view of the grave danger of a shortage of animal feeding-stuffs in many areas during the coming winter and early spring as a result of the almost complete loss of the hay crop and in order to prevent great suffering to animals and serious loss to farmers, Dáil Éireann requests the Government to take immediate and adequate steps to deal with the situation."

That motion was debated by the House. What was the Minister's attitude and what was his answer to that motion when it was brought before this House and when he was solemnly warned as to what would be the effect at that time of the year on the farmers' stock? A typical example of the Minister's attitude was that all these fears were groundless. He suggested that the motion was put down for a particular purpose. The Minister for Agriculture always finds a particular purpose for any motion put down here for consideration. Let me quote the Minister in that debate. I refer to Volume 123, column 1692, 30th November, 1950. He said:

"What I am trying to do is to arm all those who share my anxiety, lest hard-working small farmers be bluffed or defrauded into throwing stock away, with statistical material to reassure them that there is not the slightest need, that if they hold them to the normal time the price will be good, the demand will be strong, and there is no possibility of a situation arising in which our cattle will die or even be injured."

That was the attitude of the Minister on that occasion to that motion, when he was solemnly warned by Deputies that this very situation of which I am now speaking would arise.

I have received various complaints and other Deputies, particularly Deputies from western areas, have received specific complaints of cattle being wiped out, particularly calving cows, due to bad fodder at this particular time and, as a specific and typical instance of the letters I am receiving, I will read for the House one that I received this morning:

"Dear Mr. Moran,

Mrs. John Kilgallon of Chancery, Turlough, was in with me to-day and informed me that all their stock had died due to the bad winter and bad hay.

Deputy Moran, without interruption, unless he gives way.

Mr. Moran

I want to get from the Minister, for my own information, and for the information of the Deputies who are interested in this situation, as I am, and for the public, if there is such a scheme whereby people like Mrs. John Kilgallon, of Chancery, Turlough, Castlebar, can be assisted. I am sure the Minister must know that particular area. Is there a scheme whereby, in cases like this, where stock has been completely wiped out due to the bad fodder and due to the fact that the price of feeding stuffs was prohibitive so that people of her type were not in a position to purchase them, even though the cattle were starving, can be assisted? I want to know from the Minister now, before the conclusion of this debate, whether this imaginary scheme mentioned by Deputy O'Higgins is available for people of that kind.

This Mrs. John Kilgallon comes from Chancery, Turlough. It is quite obvious that the Minister paid no attention to the motion here last November and that this woman is put in this position by the Minister for Agriculture. Her whole stock is completely wiped out. That is due to the fact that no attention was paid to the warnings that were given to the Minister in this House and that the Minister's attitude at that time was that there were no possibility of a situation arising in which cattle would die or even be injured due to the bad fodder and the bad hay and it is due, in my opinion, mainly to the fact that the Minister threw overboard his undertakings to the Irish farmer that, while he was Minister for Agriculture, the price of maize would not be increased.

The position of the small people that I am speaking of is that, where the hay was bad, where they had been discouraged to till due to the Minister's policy, and they found themselves in the position that the price of maize and feeding stuffs shot up, they were unable to purchase feeding stuffs to keep their stock alive, and had to let them die. They are dying in Mayo, and this is not one isolated instance.

I only hope that the Minister for Lands, who has listened in particular to this letter and generally to my assurance that I am getting these complaints—possibly the Minister for Lands has also got complaints from our constituency—will prevail on the Minister for Agriculture to come to the aid of these people who, through no fault of their own, find their stock completely wiped out, due to the bad winter we have had and due to the lack of feeding stuffs for their stock.

As far as the Minister's policy generally is concerned, I do not propose to keep the House very long on that. As far as the small farmers in the congested areas that I represent are concerned, what the Minister has done for us can be summarised very easily. The Minister has failed to keep feeding stuffs at a reasonable price so that our people who are accustomed to producing poultry, eggs and pigs, in the West of Ireland, could continue with their ordinary economy. The Minister has succeeded in ruining the poultry industry for us, in ruining the egg industry for us, in ruining the dairy industry for us, in ruining the tillage industry for us, in ruining the bacon industry for us.

Considering the trend of the times, it is a good indication of the position of this country that we have already got Danish butter; that bacon has gone under the counter and eggs are getting scarce. Unless the Minister goes—and Ministers have a habit of disappearing in this House with very little notice in recent times—inside six months, the Dublin housewife will be compelled to fry African eggs with Chinese bacon with Danish butter in her pan. The Minister, by slashing the pig prices, has destroyed the bacon industry. There has been no stability. Pigs were allowed over the Border to-day; they were stopped to-morrow. Prices have been cut down and now we are told there is going to be some kind of agreement whereby the pig will go out on the trotter the same as cattle. If we want to know the reason for that, we have to go back to the Minister's last agreement with the British and it is quite clear to everybody in Ireland who read the recent questions in the British House of Commons what the position is.

Whether I am making a good income out of it or not, the Minister is getting an excellent income from the Irish taxpayers. I would not mind paying the Minister twice as much if I thought he was worth it. I consider that when the Irish taxpayers' money is wasted in the payment of the Minister for Agriculture, by providing him with his thousands a year and a free car, it is time we should call a halt. If we were getting value for our money, I would not mind, but I do not believe in paying a man if he is not able to do his job.

The Minister has succeeded since he took office in ruining the poultry industry, the egg industry, the dairy industry, the bacon industry and in ruining tillage, and I think then it is about time that the Irish farmer should ask the Minister for a reckoning. Notwithstanding the fact that, as I proved, the Minister was solemnly warned, even by some of his own supporters, here on the 30th November last that cattle would die of starvation, the idea was pooh-poohed by the Minister. He said that no cow would die or even be injured. Notwithstanding the assurance with which the Minister spoke on that occasion that prophecy came true. Although on that occasion Deputy Cogan asked: "Will the cows be able to digest that?" and Deputy Maguire asked: "Will the empty haggard not have an impression on the feeding stuff position?" the Minister was insistent that something would happen to relieve the situation because Deputy James Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, and that, irrespective of good or bad weather, no cattle would starve.

I asked the Minister's colleague when the Minister was outside the House to convey to him the fact that cattle in my constituency and in adjoining constituencies are dying of starvation, that I had got a specific complaint that the stock of a certain farmer had been wiped out and that a local veterinary surgeon had certified that they had died from malnutrition because of the fact that they had not sufficient fodder. I want to ascertain from the Minister now what he is prepared to do in that situation to assist these people to restock their land in view of what he said in his reply to the motion which was debated in this House on the 30th November last. I again ask the Minister to read that statement and to say, when he is cleaning up the job, what he is prepared to do for these people who were misled by the Minister's attitude on that occasion. These people have had their farms denuded of stock because of the fact that they have Deputy James Dillon as Minister for Agriculture.

There is just one other matter to which I should like to refer and I take it that it comes within the ambit of this debate. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that certain persons can call themselves agricultural contractors, whether they own a bog, a piece of land or whether they own nothing, and they can come along, I presume under the Minister's direction, to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and can get loans up to £5,000, £6,000 and £7,000 to purchase bulldozers, calf-dozers and all kinds of American machinery without one ounce of security except the machine itself, whereas if a small farmer in the West of Ireland wants to raise £25 from the very same corporation to buy a cow, a cart or a horse, not alone is he supposed to put a mortgage on his farm but in most cases the Agricultural Credit Corporation will insist on two of his neighbours going security for him.

We have these American machines being bought with American dollars, I presume out of Marshall Aid or out of some of the dollar loans we are getting from America, and any chancer can come along to this corporation and without any security except the machine can get up to £7,000 and be handed out one of these machines. What is the security there for the Agricultural Credit Corporation? If any of these gentlemen who calls himself an agricultural contractor comes along to the corporation, gets a loan and purchases one of these machines and works it for six months or 12 months and does not wish to carry on any further, he can say to the corporation: "There is your bulldozer" and the Irish taxpayer will have to pay for it because the only security he has is the second-hand bulldozer. I am not satisfied in the first place that some of the work done by these machines could not be done as well by the many unemployed men we have in the country but, if we are going to make these machines available, I think there should at least be some type of security provided by the person who is to get them. It amounts to a present of these machines under the present system from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, particularly having regard to the fact that the same Agricultural Credit Corporation insists that any small farmer who wants a loan must mortgage his land up to the hilt and supply other securities.

Finally, I want to appeal to the Minister in respect of those people whose stock are being wiped out or whose stock at the moment are dying like flies owing to the shortage of fodder. I think that in view of the Minister's attitude to the motion which was discussed in this House on the 30th November last it is his duty to come to the aid of these people. These people were certainly misled, deliberately or otherwise, by the Minister.

Mr. Fagan

The boot and shoe factories that we have are all right, but they are costing us £7 for every hide that is retained in the country. We are subsidising your shoes. If the English boot factories had to give £10 each for the hides that we produce they could still sell their boots and shoes here at a cheaper price than the boot factories we have. The position is that we are keeping the country going.

As regards cattle prices, I think that at the present time the English farmer gets for our cattle which go to the English food controller 124/9 per cwt. Our price is fixed at 1/10 a lb. for grade A cattle. The calculation is somewhat complicated but, so far as I can make it out, on that price of 124/9 per cwt. we should be getting something better than 1/10 a lb. I think it should come to 2/- and something less than a farthing. That is a matter which should be looked into. It has also to be taken into consideration that, in addition, the English farmer gets the offals of the beast, which should be worth in or about £10. The Minister, I think, should look into that and see whether, on the figures I have given, we are losing. A lot of people seem to think that we are. There is another matter which the Minister might look into and that is the way the cattle are graded. We are at a disadvantage in that respect. It would be a great advantage to our farmers if, instead of the present arrangement, we could, when sending cattle to Manchester or Glasgow, get them graded at the ports, and so be put in much the same position as the farmers in the North of Ireland who send cattle to the other side.

The Minister and the Government should look into the question of hides. At present the tanneries are paying £2 5s. 0d. each for hides. If the butchers were given 3/- per lb. for the hides it would be a help so as not to increase the price of meat to the consuming public.

The farmers in County Westmeath maintain that the Minister's policy in regard to tillage is the best policy—not to have compulsory tillage —because if you have to compel a farmer to till he is no use to the country. I say honestly that if a farmer does not till a certain amount of his land the land should not be left with him. He is a menace to the country; he is no good to the country. Those farmers who do not follow the Minister's policy of tilling the land and producing all the foodstuffs they want should not be left with the land. Compulsory tillage, however, is no good.

We in Westmeath are going in largely for the Minister's new barley scheme, as Ymer barley is suited to our county. It is a barley which will not fall down. The Minister must be congratulated on introducing that scheme into this country. I know that since farmers in the North of Ireland heard about the Ymer barley they are all clamouring for it. They never heard of it until the Minister for Agriculture brought it in here. It has been a great success. I should also like to ask the Minister when agents will be appointed for Westmeath in connection with the parish plan. Westmeath and a few other counties were the first to fall in with that parish plan and to urge that it should be started.

I heard some Deputies criticise the Minister for advocating the use of tractors as against horses. The Minister said he did not go that far. If he did it, it would be a godsend to the country. Coming up to Dublin a fortnight ago one noticed that nothing had been done on the land. But during the last week there were so many tractors out working that great progress has been made. If the Minister had not advocated the use of tractors, where would we be now? It is a good thing that we have them there. I should like the Minister to tell us when we are going to get the parish agents in Westmeath because we are waiting anxiously for them. I hope he will also look into the other matters which I have mentioned.

Mr. Allen

When talking about tillage, Deputy Fagan suggested to the Minister that farmers who would not till their land should have the land taken from them.

Mr. Fagan

I stand by that.

We got more wheat out of 366,000 acres in 1950 than we got out of 579,000 acres in 1947.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order. Is the Minister for Agriculture conducting a dialogue? I thought he had already spoken in this debate. Every sentence uttered by Deputy Allen is interlarded with a silly interjection from the Minister.

Mr. Rooney

It is deliberate misrepresentation.

Mr. Flanagan

Deputy MacEntee has not improved the situation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Whatever may be thought about Deputy Allen's statements by the Government Deputies, he is entitled to speak without interruption.

Mr. Flanagan

Even from Deputy MacEntee.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Allen

In the three years 1937, 1938 and 1939 the average yield of wheat per acre was roughly 19 cwt. If the Minister looks at the returns he will see that. I am sure he will have no trouble in getting them. He probably has them on his desk or somewhere convenient to his right hand. The wheat yields in the three famous years 1948, 1949 and 1950 were roughly 17 cwt. per acre. The Minister has nothing whatever to boast about. For the sake of accurate statistics in the future I hope that the famine year of 1947 will be omitted. When the Minister is talking about increasing yields in future he can leave out that year. He can compare the yields with any other year Fianna Fáil were in office. We will then be quite satisfied.

Tillage has been reduced by 500,000 acres. Pigs, cattle and sheep have increased by very little, unfortunately for the country. In appealing to the farmers now to increase their tillage the Minister has spent a considerable sum of money since last February in advertisements. For the first six or seven weeks wheat and beet were scarcely mentioned. In the last two or three weeks, after someone kicked the Minister in the pants——

Mr. Dillon

Figuratively speaking.

Mr. Allen

——he has put wheat and beet at the head of the list. Food for human beings now takes pride of place and food for animals follows after. That is as it should have been originally. The Minister should not insult the farmers by asking them to provide for their animals before asking them to provide for human beings. We hope the Minister will not again commit the unpardonable offence of calling on the farmers to utilise their land for the provision of foodstuffs for their animals before they make provision for human beings. We hope that will never happen again.

Farmers throughout the country are perturbed at the present time because the Minister failed to provide out of Marshall Aid a subsidy for the purpose of cheapening the price of artificial manures. They hold that a large part of the moneys being spent on the land rehabilitation would have given a better return to the nation as a whole if it had been used for the purpose of bringing down the price of artificial manures.

Mr. Keane

Does the Deputy not like that scheme?

Mr. Allen

Some of that money should have been earmarked for that purpose. This Party has consistently advocated over the past three years, since the money became available, that some of it should be used to subsidise artificial manures and pay the carriage on ground limestone to the farmer's yard. After three years' agitation and thanks to the E.C.A. representative here, Dr. Millar, who first announced it at a meeting in the Shelbourne Hotel saying he had offered the Minister about $5,000,000 and suggested that some of it be used over a five-year period to reduce the price of lime to farmers, the Minister accepted that and the farmers are well satisfied with that scheme. They are not at all satisfied because a further portion of the money is not being spent to reduce the price of artificial manures, which are beyond their reach in sufficient quantities to increase their output. We hope that in time, as a result of slogging and pressure on the Minister, he will suggest to the E.C.A. that it would be a good way to spend portion of the money. It will be still more than the Minister would spend over many years on rehabilitation, land drainage and so on. It is all important that tillage crops this year would be the largest ever. I am afraid they will not.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy wants me to go begging to the E.C.A. for money for fertilisers for the farmers of this country?

Mr. Allen

The Minister is not begging anything. The money is available for investment in Irish agriculture and if there were a wise Minister sitting there three years ago he would have succeeded in getting portion of the E.C.A. funds to reduce the price of fertilisers, knowing that it would have given good results.

The price of milk has been a burning question for some months. Efforts have been made by the farmer, by pressure, by deputation and otherwise, to persuade the Minister to provide an increased price for milk sold in towns for human consumption and for milk delivered to creameries. The pressure has succeeded to the extent of a 1d. per gallon—one-eighth of a penny per pint. That is the increase farmers will get over last year, for the summer period only. It will amount to 30/- per cow on the average. Surely farmers' costs have gone up much more than 30/- per cow. A farmer who keeps a dozen cows finds his expenses increased more than £18. If he keeps 25, they have gone up much more than the 30/-. That increase of a 1d. is the only return the Minister will give the farmers to cover expenses, cost of labour, machinery, bindertwine, manure, feeding stuffs and maintenance of machinery, and to pay his own personal cost of living and that of his family, which has gone up for every section of the community. For that fundamental item the Minister has failed to get an economic price. We do not know what could be done about it, but sitting behind him is a group calling themselves farmers' representatives, Clann na Talmhan, the men of the land——

We are not going to discuss any group.

Mr. Keane

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

Mr. Allen

We hope that the Minister, at this late hour, before the 1st May, when milk production increases from that on for a few months of the year, will alter his present decision and do justice to the farming community by giving them an economic price. It is all-important that they be not forced, as they are being forced at the present time, unfortunately, to put calves on cows. It is unfortunately a growing practice to put two or three calves on a cow and turn them out in the fields. They are making a six-day week out of dairying. They have found a way of having cows and having a six-day working week, by turning the calves out in the fields with the cows. That is a growing practice and a most undesirable one. If any collapse comes in the price of cattle, that practice will pay very bad dividends to the country.

There is another type of butter, home-made or farmers' butter, of which about 500,000 cwt. is produced each year. I want the Minister to pay particular attention to what I am going to say, as it is important in the present year. Farmers in the non-creamery areas are putting the calves to milk the cows and not making but ter any more. The farmers' butter that would ordinarily be made will become an important factor this year in the amount available for home consumption in this country. As things look at the moment, the Minister may find that before next winter he is much more short of butter, even the ration, than in the present winter. If he does not take advantage of farmers' butter by utilising it during the months of peak production for the off-the-ration butter, he may be in difficulties.

I suggest in all seriousness that he has a duty to provide an economic living for producers of farmers' butter, just as in the case of creamery butter, to keep up production, as he will need it this year much more than previously in order to fill the ration. I suggest that during the peak months he should not allow off-the-ration creamery butter to be put on the market and should compel the people who need off-the-ration butter to buy farmers' butter during that period. He must fix a fair price, something comparable to what a creamery supplier is getting for his butter at present. It is only fair that, if he is not prepared to provide a subsidy, he should at least provide the market, retaining the home market for that butter at a certain period of the year. That will give more creamery butter for the ration during the coming winter. If he does not do that and farmers' butter has to be sold this year at 1/6 a lb., as it was last year, he will be needing 50,000 tons of Danish butter next winter. Enough has been said to convince the Minister that he is dealing unjustly with the farmers.

The Minister gets the returns every Monday morning in his office from all the agricultural instructors, as to the price of pig meals and so on in the principal towns. It would be in the Taoiseach's office or the Minister's office and he would have no trouble in getting it if he asks for it. In making this agreement, has the Minister considered what way it may affect the bacon necessary for home consumption. Is he aware that we have little, if any, over our present needs, that we have no surplus bacon to export? He must be aware of that. Does this proposed agreement mean that live pigs will be sent out? The country would like some enlightenment on that. The workers employed in the bacon factories would like to know if their interests are being safeguarded? Is the Minister safeguarding in this agreement the interests of the people generally, those who have sunk their capital in the bacon factories, and the other interests concerned?

The question that occurs to most people is as to the necessity for making any agreement. In May and June last year, the Deputies asked the Minister: "Why not open the Border for the export of pigs?" and he answered Deputy Maguire and Deputy Smith that owing to an arrangement with Britain he could not take any such action, and he said there were only two points where pigs could be exported from this country—I think they were Manchester and Liverpool. Then, without notice to anyone, on a certain date last October, the Border was thrown open to the free export of pigs. We had races from Kerry, Cork, Waterford and the farthest points from the Border, every lorry being pressed into service, to send not alone the suckers across the Border but the fat pigs also, at 285/- a cwt. The Minister has at this moment a ready-made way of getting an increased price for pigs, with one stroke of the pen. He can open the Border, as he did last October, and allow free export. We on this side do not think that is desirable, but instead of the tedious negotiations since last April twelve months about the price of pigs, the Minister can as he did last October open the Border by a stroke of the pen and get 285/- instead of 220/-. Why does he not do that? Who advised him last October to open the Border without notice to the trade, to the bacon factories, to the producers or anyone else? He kept it open for three weeks and the only result was that the farmers got an increased price during that period, but the unfortunate consumers of bacon in the towns and cities had to pay up to 8d. per lb. more than they should be asked to pay. The price of pigs will go up and down week after week, £1, 30/- or £2 a cwt. Farmers do not know where they are with the result that they are, unfortunately, generally getting out of keeping sows in many parts of the country.

While we have the type of policy that was operated in the matter of pigs by the Minister for Agriculture, the pig population will not increase in the country. We find ourselves now, this Minister having been in office three years, almost where we were at the end of the emergency, with plenty of maize and plenty of cereals of all kinds to feed pigs. He flooded the country with maize in the first year of his office. He was going to double and treble the number of pigs in the country but he has not succeeded in doing so. The country has to pay dearly for maize at the present time, not for exporting bacon, but for the simple purpose of keeping bacon available for the Irish people. Under the Minister's tillage policy, it became necessary, in order that our people would have bacon, to import maize from the ends of the earth at a huge price in dollars. Eggs are a commodity that are unpopular with the Minister at the present time. He does not like to hear anything mentioned at all about eggs or the price of eggs.

Mr. Corry

What about the dual-purpose hen?

Mr. Allen

As late as 1949, the Minister addressed a meeting of the Irish Countrywomen's Association in the Shelbourne Hotel. The Minister for Agriculture appeared in a photograph in the daily papers the following day holding a countrywoman's basket of eggs in his hands and he made a pronouncement. "I stand or fall by this," said James Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, with the basketful of eggs in his hand. We wonder that the Minister has not fallen by now, because the price of eggs has fallen and the Irish housewife has gone out of producing eggs and is going out of doing so very fast. We wonder why the Minister for Agriculture lost quite suddenly his negotiating ability with his opposite number or the Minister of Food in England. He went over to England in 1948 with a great flourish of trumpets. He told the British then that he was going to drown them in eggs. I am afraid the drowning is over and the British need no longer fear being drowned by the Minister for Agriculture of the Irish Republic because we are scarcely producing enough eggs in the present year to supply our own needs. Egg production is falling and falling very considerably because of the Minister's failure, as Minister for Agriculture, to negotiate with his opposite number or the Minister of Food in Great Britain an economic price for eggs.

The Minister was going to provide maize. He was Minister for maize. He declared on one occasion: "While I am Minister for Agriculture, I am also Minister for maize and I am going to see to it that the price of maize will not increase beyond 20/- a cwt. in this country." The retail price of maize has now reached the figure of 38/- a cwt.

Mr. Corry

It is not maize.

Mr. Allen

It is not maize. It is a bastard maize called milo maize. "Sell every egg to the eggler." That was his slogan at one time. Now he is going to give the British no more eggs and he is not prepared to subsidise the export of eggs from this country. He is not going to pay the British to eat our eggs and he is not going to give an economic price to our Irish producers to produce those eggs.

What advice is the Minister giving to the farmers of this country? What help can he give them with regard to the live stock in the coming winter? What are the indications as to what will be available from the root crops? Will it be sufficient to maintain the present live stock and the cattle that may be on farmers' hands next November? Would it not be wise for the Minister for Agriculture to advise farmers, who have cattle fit for marketing, to market them early this year and reduce the number of cattle that a farmer must carry over next winter? We have a good hay crop.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Allen

Under sub-head M (11)— Land Rehabilitation Project and Water Supplies—we notice that the number of officers employed in the Minister's Department has increased from 305 last year to 427. I would like the Minister to give us some information, when he is replying, of the necessity for increasing the number of administrative officers in his Department for this purpose. It is quite evident from the figures given in the sub-heads that the farmers are getting a very small proportion of this £40,000,000 that is being spent. In the first instance, of the £275,870 for officers of this branch of his Department, travelling expenses are estimated this year to be £75,000. The amount in respect of purchase of machinery and implements is £153,500, and for grants towards the purchase of machinery and equipments, £60,000. Lime fertilisers amount to £778,000, while grants to farmers are £475,000 only. Less than £500,000 of this sum of £2,500,000 goes direct to the farmers. The figure for materials for drains and fencing is £160,000 and payments to contractors, of whom I am sure very few are farmers, £375,000.

——and was not, unfortunately, the Minister indicated that the guaranteed price for wheat of the 1951 crop, in certain conditions, be increased by 5/- a barrel. I am afraid that the higher bushel rate which is necessary in order to obtain the increased price is very seldom reached. The Minister knows that, too.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Allen

The increased price of 5/- a barrel could have been announced, without conditions, on 1st April this year because it is an emergency year. There should not be any conditions whatsoever. Does the Minister want to encourage the farmers to keep their wheat in stack until the spring of the year and not to thresh it until then? If so, he should have offered them an increase of more than 5/- a barrel. He should have indicated that it would be in the national interest if farmers did not thresh their wheat until the spring and he should have given more than an increase of 5/- to farmers who deliver wheat to the mills from February onwards. We must bear in mind that we have not storage accommodation or extra drying facilities for the very many farmers whose wheat is threshed by combine harvesters. We shall find this year that matters will work out the same as last year. We shall find that the mills will refuse to take wheat that has been threshed by combines and the farmers will be at their wits' end to know what to do with the bags of damp wheat that was threshed all in the one day. We know that scarcely anything has been done to provide extra drying facilities to cope with the increased number of combine harvesters that have come into the country and that will harvest the corn this year. It is all important, even at this late stage, that the Minister should see to it that a sufficient number of drying plants are made available to farmers next August and next September to dry their corn which has been harvested by combine harvesters. If he does not do so, a crisis may arise and much of our valuable cereals may be lost just for the want of drying plants. We in the corn growing areas —in Wexford, Kilkenny, Cork and so on—know that nothing whatsoever has been done since last year and even the year before that to increase the drying facilities that will be required next autumn.

In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister to give immediate consideration to all the agricultural matters which need his immediate help and assistance.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present. House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Sweetman

On this Estimate we have heard a great deal from the Deputies on the benches opposite which, I am afraid for them, will in the years ahead, when the remarks they have made will be quoted against them and when they are there on the record for all time, cause them to be sorry that they gave forth the stupid sentences which they have uttered in the past three days.

Mr. Corry

What about all that James did?

Mr. Sweetman

We heard Deputy Corry. We could not help hearing him, unfortunately. Deputy Corry started off on this Estimate as if he was going to have a field day, and as if we were going to get the type of four hours' speech to which we have become accustomed to hear from him in the past two years on this Estimate. Then suddenly he realised that he was on very weak ground, and he threw in his hand on the second day.

Deputy Corry must have a very short memory. He must think that the farmers of this country have a very short memory. He spoke about barley—but we all remember what his Government did to the farmers, when they were in power, and particularly in regard to barley. South Kildare, which I have the honour to represent, is a barley-growing district. The farmers there are not as stupid or as forgetful as the Deputy tries to imagine that they are. When Fianna Fáil were in office we know that the price of barley was deliberately depressed: we know that the farmers were allowed to be paid only 35/- a barrel for their barley while Messrs. Guinness were willing and prepared to pay 70/-, and that they did pay it to the English farmers. We can remember the time when the Fianna Fáil Government were requested to allow that money to go into the pockets of the Irish barley growers in South Kildare—and we can remember that Deputy Corry trotted up those steps there to ensure that Irish farmers would not get that higher price which they could have got for their malting barley. Deputy Corry must think that the farmers of this country are all fools, that they have no memories, and that they do not remember these happenings—or else Deputy Corry must hope that they do not remember them. The fact is that the farmers remember very well the treatment which they received from the Fianna Fáil Government. They have reason to be thankful now for what they are getting from this Government and for what they will get from this Government in the months and in the years that lie ahead.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported. The Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 24th April, 1951.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 19 Apr 1951