Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Feb 1953

Vol. 136 No. 6

Grass Meal (Production) Bill, 1952— Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a second time. In any review of the progress of industrial development in this country, special reference must be made to the exceptional circumstances prevailing in the Western areas, and the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill is perhaps an appropriate one on which to recall the more obvious of these circumstances.

As has been indicated on more than one occasion previously, this country has for historical reasons suffered from underdevelopment of industries. Such industries as existed, or were developed, tended to become concentrated in the eastern and southern areas of the country, which were already established as the centres of financial and commercial activity and represented the principal market for industrial products. Even under the impetus of the industrial drive begun in 1933, this tendency has continued, for the purely economic reasons mentioned, to the almost total neglect of industrial development on the Western seaboard.

Chronic underdevelopment of industries produced a situation in which the level of industrial employment in this country was substantially lower than elsewhere, and as non-industrial employment was insufficient to absorb the available labour force, a tradition of emigration grew up as the only solution to the resultant economic problem.

In the Western areas, the proportion of the population engaged in industrial employment is less than half the proportion for the country as a whole, and, as emigration continues to be heaviest from those areas, it is a reasonable assumption that the most effective way of checking emigration would be to provide a wider variety of employment, and particularly industrial employmentin those areas. Positive steps to this end have already been taken by the Government. The Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952, provided for the grant of substantial financial assistance to encourage the establishment of industries in the undeveloped areas.

The competitive disadvantage arising from remoteness from the main centres of consumption, and the lack of indigenous raw material have combined to make industrial development in the Western areas a matter of peculiar difficulty. Industrial activity based on agricultural products appears to afford the greatest prospect of successful development and it is on this assumption that the scheme covered by the present Bill has been put forward. The natural wealth of the Western areas consists almost entirely of extensive peat bogs and considerable progress has been made in the development of these bogs for the production of peat as fuel. There are, however, many bogs which will not be required for the production of fuel for many years to come. If left unworked, these bogs will merely continue to grow peat— producing vegetation which will add only slightly to the potential fuel supply.

The value of these bogs and their contribution to the economic development of the Western areas in particular, and of the country generally, would be immeasurably enhanced if it could be shown that by drainage and cultivation they could be utilised for the production of agricultural crops suitable for subsequent drying or other industrial processing.

Grass crops have already been grown experimentally on drained bog land. The primary purpose of the present measure is to enable further, full scale, experimental work to be undertaken to demonstrate the possibilities for the economic utilisation of drained bog land on a commercial basis. For this purpose it is proposed to set up a limited company, Mín-Fhéir Teoranta, to acquire, drain and cultivate bog land in the Bangor-Erris area of County Mayo, and to process grass and other plants for sale. Primarily, the company will manufacture grassmeal, but they may also undertake the productionand processing for sale of other plants, such as medicinal herbs, which are in short supply throughout the world, and some of which can possibly be more successfully grown on drained bog land than elsewhere. If and when required Mín-Fhéir Teoranta will have the benefit of the technical advice and assistance of Bord na Móna as well as of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teoranta, who have already undertaken experiments in the cultivation of drained bog land in other areas.

The scheme is in the nature of an experiment and it is not possible, therefore, nor is it desirable, to attempt to anticipate the method of working which may be adopted by the new company. It is obvious, however, that two or three years may elapse before grass is available in sufficient quantities to justify the economic operation of a full-scale drying plant, and other methods of disposing of the crop may have to be adopted during this initial period.

It would be idle also to suggest that even the most successful outcome of the experiment would automatically solve the problem of industrial employment in remote western areas. As has already been indicated, the purpose of the experiment is to demonstrate the commercial possibilities for the successful cultivation of drained bog land, and it is the intention that expenditure by Mín-Fhéir Teoranta during the experimental period should be limited to the amount necessary for this purpose.

Several considerations influenced the choice of the Bangor-Erris areas for this experiment. Firstly, Bord na Móna are in process of acquiring a substantial area of bog there (about 20,000 acres) out of which the much smaller area of 2,000 acres required for the grass meal experiment could readily be made available without in any way interfering with the plans for turf production. Secondly, the larger area of choice would permit the selection of a location suitable for the use of the mechanical equipment proposed to be used. Finally, as the ultimate objective in the bog development at Bangor-Erris was the erection by the E.S.B. of a peat-fired electricity generating station, the availability of anyelectric power required for the industrial processes would be ensured.

Grass meal is used here mainly as a constituent in the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs for which purpose there is a demand both at home and for export. Grass meal may also be used as a source of chlorophyll, a substance now used extensively in pharmaceutical preparations, and it may be possible to develop a new export market for this purpose. (The plant for the extraction of chlorophyll would involve a capital expenditure of the order of £500,000 which could not be justified at the present stage of development.) It is estimated that approximately 4,000 tons of grass meal will be produced annually.

From 2,000 acres?

Mr. Lynch

Yes.

Surely there must be a mistake—4,000 tons of dehydrated grass meal from 2,000 acres.

Mr. Lynch

It has been proved at Gowla bog that four tons per acre can be produced on a selected patch. It is estimated that approximately 4,000 tons of grass meal will be produced annually and that, on the basis of present costs and prices, the company, when in full production, will operate at a profit. (Adopting the least favourable figures, the grass meal is estimated to cost £22 7s. per ton at plant against the current delivered sale price of £31 to £34 per ton, according to quality.) It is understood that there is a market for all the grass meal estimated to be produced at Bangor-Erris.

Capital expenditure on the grass meal project is estimated to amount to approximately £165,000——

Is that for the total period or just for the year?

Mr. Lynch

For the total period-and provision is made in the Bill for the making of grants to this amount out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. It will be recalled that the Minister for External Affairs informed the Dáil on the 10th June, 1952, that proposals for the utilisation ofmoneys in the Grant Counterpart Special Account were sent on the 4th June, 1952, to the American Ambassador for transmission to the United States authorities. These proposals included the grass meal project, for which it was proposed that £150,000 be provided from the Grant Counterpart Special Account to meet capital expenditure. Irrespective of the outcome of this proposal for the use of counterpart funds, it is intended that capital expenditure on the project should be met in the first instance out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

Under the terms of the Bill, the activities of the new company are restricted to the processing of grass and other plants, but there is provision under which licences may be granted to the company permitting it to manufacture other products suitable for use as animal feeding stuffs or fertilisers. I have particularly in mind the production of seaweed meal.

The licensing provision in the Grass Meal (Production) Bill, 1952, might be described as merely precautionary. A final decision regarding the large-scale production of seaweed meal has not yet been taken. One of the major obstacles to the development of the production of seaweed meal so far has been the absence of a suitable organisation, within a reasonable distance from the source of supply of the seaweed, adapted to undertake the actual drying and grinding processes. The occasion of the introduction of legislation to provide for the production of grass meal has been availed of to provide that the proposed new organisation might undertake, under licence, the production of seaweed meal. That, however, is not its primary function, and if a decision were taken to introduce a comprehensive scheme of seaweed meal production, separate provision would have to be made for the financing of such a scheme: there is no financial provision for it in the present Bill.

I might add that in relation to giving Deputies a general picture of the proposed project, I myself was not enamoured of the suggestion in the initial stages. Since then I have had the benefit of reports of progress atGowla bog. Coupled with that I have seen a film which gives a very clear picture of the progress and which, to say the very least of it, is most encouraging in relation to the prospect of a fuller and better utilisation of drained bog land for agricultural purposes. That film is available for showing at very short notice by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. It can be shown in a small room and in all it takes only about 20 minutes. I have been given permission by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann to say that they will make it available for any Deputies who may be interested in seeing it. The projector and films could be brought here or it can be seen in the boardroom of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann in Clare Street. I am sure that seeing it will more than convince any Deputies who still have any misgivings about the utilisation of drained bog land for agricultural purposes.

I want to comment on one remarkable fact. In this Bill the Minister means the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It certainly marks a new era in the economy of this country when the Minister for Industry and Commerce becomes responsible for growing grass. I would have thought that if there is one function in which the Minister for Agriculture could unquestionably claim discretion it is in the matter of growing grass in the land of Ireland.

Will it not take a very considerable amount of machinery and industry to convert it into meal?

Why should it not be under Industry and Commerce? It is industry and commerce.

I admire the unfailing forbearance of my successor. There is no indignity to which he is not prepared to submit himself for the common good. I do not think my bona fidesin this matter can be questioned because very shortly after the Parliamentary Secretary was appointed I heard this project mooted. Probably one of the first letters he got as ParliamentarySecretary was a letter from me because I was concerned to help him, if I could, in the work to which he put his hand, urging on him most strongly that before he seriously entertained a proposal along these lines he should consult the Department of Agriculture and have their view upon it. I think it is immensely significant to-day that in the carefully prepared statement which the Parliamentary Secretary has made he has told us that he has had the benefit of the advice of the Turf Board and of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, but the one party to whom he has not apparently applied for advice at all is the Department of Agriculture of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Lynch

I have had their advice but I referred to the other two companies inasmuch as they were actively engaged in the development of bogland.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us what the advice of the Department was. Did they commend it?

Mr. Lynch

It had to be considered the same as any advice, and one had to take the good with the bad and make up one's mind.

It is pretty obvious what the advice was.

I do not want to press the Parliamentary Secretary unduly but I think it would have been more disingenuous if the Parliamentary Secretary had mentioned that he had consulted the Department of Agriculture and that their opinion of it was of so sulphurous a character he did not care to communicate it to Dáil Éireann.

I would remind the Dáil that this country has 12,000,000 acres of arable land, most of which are acknowledged the world over to be the finest grass-growing land in the world. I would ask the Dáil is there reason or common sense when one has 12,000,000 acres of the best grass-growing land in the world in turning to the bogs of Bangor-Erris for the purpose of growing grass?

Would Deputies reflect for a momenton what grass meal is? Grass meal is grass. Now who in this country ever heard of anyone paying 32/- a cwt. for hay? That is all that grass meal is, good hay. All the difference between grass meal and hay is that for grass meal one cuts the grass before the seeding stage and, instead of allowing the sun to dry it, one dries it artificially by electricity, or coal, or whatever else one pleases; having dehydrated the grass, if one wants to sell it as meal one passes it through a mill, breaks it up and puts it into large bags. But in our economy that product must compete with silage and good hay. It is ordinarily estimated that after pulping it has a crude protein content of 22 per cent., which is a very high percentage, in the first quality such as the Parliamentary Secretary suggests might command £34 per ton. But, even at that, it is a very expensive form of live-stock feeding.

There is a big demand for it in England where it is almost entirely used for fowl kept in the backyards of the big cities. It is of very special value as an element in the diet of fowl confined in a small space. Eggs are so scarce in England that every woman likes to have a few fowl and if, in order to keep them healthy, in addition to the ordinary cereals with which they are fed, grass meal completes the diet and thus a very fancy price is obtained. But in our economy you cannot compete against silage and hay with grass meal at 34/-. It is true, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, that this product may pass into consumption mainly as a constituent of compound feeding stuffs, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to recall the fact that if it is to be in compound feeding stuff and the compound feeding stuff manufacturers are required to use it, the net result will be an increase in the cost of pig meals, layers' mash, calf meal and the other meals the farmers have to use in producing live-stock.

Surely if we are going to use grass meal our purpose should be to make the best grass meal we can at the lowest possible price. Under the Department of Agriculture there wasinstalled a grass drying plant at the farm at Grange, County Meath, installed to see, if we grew grass on the best grass land in Ireland and dried it as economically as it was humanly possible to dry it, using the best mechanical devices you could employ, what was the lowest penny at which you could produce dried grass. It was decided to make that test before determining whether the Department would recommend as a general practice to the agricultural community the preservation of grass by its conversion into dried grass rather than silage or hay. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has asked the Department of Agriculture to give him the benefit of their experience in the operation of their grass drying plant at Grange, but I think it is strange if he has not taken the opportunity to do so.

I am anxious to help the Parliamentary Secretary in any way I can to promote in the congested areas the sort of industrial activity that would provide work for the people and useful activity, because I think one of the great mistakes that has always been made with regard to the congested areas is to smother them in relief schemes, whereas I believe their productive potential is great. Their ability to earn profit and a decent living for themselves is very great if they are given a chance. It is common knowledge that the last kind of land in the world on which you ought to grow grass is bogland, because, in order to be bog, it must be acid. If it were not acid, it would not be bog. The first thing you must do if you want to grow good grass, is to produce a hydrogen iron concentration of about 6.5. You cannot have a bog in the presence of that concentration, so that vast quantities of lime must be put down to begin with. Then you find the bogland is destitute of phosphates; you cannot have grass without phosphates and that must be provided. Your next problem, if you want to get any kind of return for grass for land sown is to provide nitrogen. I do not know what the potash status of these boglands is. It is conceivable that their potash content is adequate andthat they do not require much, but it is possible that you might, in addition, have to supply a grave potash deficiency.

Anybody who understands the growing of grass knows that you cannot contemplate the growing of grass by the annual application of artificial fertilisers exclusively, because if you did that the grass would become more expensive than asparagus. The only way you can profitably grow grass is to have in the soil where you propose to grow it a cycle of fundamental fertility to which you might make modest annual additions. The very essence of successful grass growing where grass has not been grown before is to establish a sward on which you can graze livestock whose manure establishes in the soil a certain basic fertility which can be augmented annually by the application of artificial fertilisers, but in the absence of that natural organic manure in the ground the expense of growing good grass would make the crop hopelessly uneconomic and you would find you were growing grass under conditions which would make its production more expensive than if you tried to grow it on top of Nelson Pillar.

Supposing we were faced with the dilemma that if we did not grow grass in Bangor-Erris we would simply have to abandon the whole countryside, I would be prepared to say that since it involved such a big loss we ought not to suffer the loss and therefore we should grow grass there. But it is not so. Bogland is the best land in the world in which to grow potatoes. Anyone who knows anything about it will tell you the best seed potatoes in the world are grown there, and you will get the best of ware potatoes in bogland. If you asked Professor Sherrard of Glasnevin he will tell you there are certain types of bog soil uniquely suitable for the growing of vegetables like asparagus and carrots. I agree there is no market in Ireland for our capacity to grow vegetables of this kind in Bangor-Erris. But why should we not can them? There is an immense market in all the cities of England and Great Britain and indeed on the Continent for canned asparagus andcanned vegetables of other kinds which are quite too expensive for the ordinary greengrocer here. A locality like Bangor-Erris could be made the basis of a canning station and when you start canning vegetables you can contemplate the canning of a variety of other commodities. I merely say that it is something worthy of investigation and I think it should be effectively investigated and a useful opinion secured upon it by the experts whom we have already in our service.

Some of them are some of the most distinguished men in Europe. The only place in which there is no respect for them is in their native country. I know of whom I speak because I travelled with them. In Washington, Rome and Paris their word carries great weight and their opinions are listened to with great deference, but when they come back to Upper Merrion Street it seems to be pretty generally accepted that they are not worth listening to.

There is an alternative method of providing employment and, I think, at great profit in that area stretching from Ballycastle right out to Port-naCloy and that is, the growing of potatoes on a large scale, the provision of piggeries and, if necessary, the provision of pigs on credit. Such a scheme is operating under the Department of Agriculture through the Pigs and Bacon Commission at the present time. The scheme provided that a man could take a sow or a number of store pigs and he could get potatoes and meal and the pigs on credit on the understanding that, when they were fit for market, the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Commission would market the pigs for him, deduct the cost of the bonhams, the meal and the potatoes which he had received, and give him the difference. As often as he was prepared to do that, three or four times in the year, they would give him as many pigs as he was in a position to house and let himself and his family feed them. Now, we have an unlimited market for pork, pigs and bacon at prices that I think would provide any industrious man with a very good living producing them. We could afford to pay 260/- per cwt. forall the pork produced in Bangor-Erris, cure it at Ballina or Castlebar or ship the pork through the port of Ballina or ship it in the form of bacon from other suitable ports.

The Bill deals with the production of grass meal, and I think the Deputy is getting away from the subject matter of the Bill.

It deals with grass meal but I am suggesting it should not deal with the production of grass meal. Grass will produce almost anything. I am suggesting that the Parliamentary Secretary concentrates his attention on asparagus and potatoes. Does the Leas-Cheann Comhairle think that a reasonable alternative?

Is not this potato a plant?

The question of pig-breeding certainly is not relevant.

There is no use producing any vegetable in Bangor-Erris —be it grass, potatoes, sea kale, asparagus or anything else—unless we see some means of consuming it. The Parliamentary Secretary says that he proposes to put the grass meal into compound feeds or to sell it abroad. I propose that he should put this into live stock and sell the live stock produce abroad. I say we should produce grass where we can produce it best and cheapest and try to use the resources of Bangor-Erris to their best advantage in another direction. I think we can do that.

The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of converting seaweed into meal. I remember being exposed to great ridicule here when I said, from the very seat where he is now sitting, that I hoped in Kilkerrin in Connemara to convert seaweed into nylons. I remember Deputy the Lord Mayor of Cork going into paroxysms here on the suggestion to put silk stockings on the girls in Cork from seaweed grown in Connemara. First of all, he was an ignorant man and did not realise that it had been found an eminently possible thing to do, something that we oughtto do. I have a feeling that if we can convert seaweed in Kilkerrin into suitable fibre for weaving, we should not baulk at the task.

I see no reason why we should get the raw material in Kilkerrin and ship it into Glasgow and there see it woven into textiles, when we could make the filament just as easily in Connemara. I would see no objection to making seaweed meal, if I knew what the Parliamentary Secretary intends to do with the seaweed meal, but I think it has very limited value. Certainly, looking into it very closely, I could not find out if we would get very much out of seaweed meal worth getting and it seemed probable that the most attractive user of seaweed was as a fertiliser in the wet state in the immediate vicinity of where it was taken ashore. The expense of handling it beyond that puts it out of court.

Surely this House ought carefully to reflect before it launches out in Bangor-Erris on an experiment in growing grass which is commended to the House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce but on which the Minister for Agriculture has not a word to say and under a scheme in regard to which the Parliamentary Secretary has sought the advice of the Department of Agriculture and has received so sulphurous a reply that he does not care to indicate its contents to Dáil Éireann. Surely before we throw ourselves on a scheme of that kind we do ourselves more credit and we do the whole of this plan for the development of the Gaeltacht more justice, if we embark on something which has in it a promise of success and of the rational exploitation of the resources that one naturally would expect to find there. Is it not more sensible to grow potatoes in bogland and grass on grassland, than to grow grass on bogs and potatoes in County Meath?

If it is true—as I believe it is true— that this land in North-West Mayo is uniquely suited for the production of vegetables of a character that can be canned and sold in the luxury markets of Great Britain and abroad, would it not be a more rational thing to grow such products there and process themthere for export than to attempt to grow grass to be converted into grass meal, with the knowledge that if there is no other means of disposing of it, it will be put into the compound feeds used by our farmers and will ultimately constitute a hidden charge on the export branch of our agricultural industry?

There are 4,000 tons which will have to be disposed of, I take it, and I suppose that in the last analysis the compound feed people will be required to take it at a price and that they will recover that price from the stock feeders of the country. That means an addition to the cost of production of the live stock that must ultimately be exported. I would welcome any scheme which I thought provided employment and enabled the people of Bangor-Erris profitably to spend their time in their own service, primarily, and secondarily in the service of the community at large; but I do not believe it is consistent with reason or common sense to adjourn to Bangor-Erris for the purpose of growing grass.

I invite Deputies to address their minds to this question. They have as fine a Department of Agriculture as functions in any country in the world. There is no country in the world that would not seek and profoundly respect the opinion of the Irish Ministry of Agriculture on the question of growing grass. Do not Deputies think that they ought to know the opinion of their own Department of Agriculture on this question before coming to a final decision on it? I do not know that I can add anything to what I have already said. I am bound to tell the House—and I would be false to my trust if I did not—that I think this scheme is not a practical user of the resources that are available in that area. I think the scheme will fail because there are none of the constituents for success present. I saw this film two and a half years ago.

Mr. Lynch

This is a much later one.

This is not the one in which the tractor sank?

Mr. Lynch

That is a much earlier edition. The film the Deputy refers towas in Kenmare. The film I refer to was taken on Gowla Bog.

And where is it?

Mr. Lynch

In County Galway.

It is outside Tuam.

Is it in the Tuam area?

Yes. Perhaps Deputy Dillon could tell me what processing will be carried out before this place is cultivated?

I should be long sorry to charge the Parliamentary Secretary with sponsoring a project to put soil into the bogs of Bangor-Erris. I am not alleging that against him. I am assuming that he is going to try to grow grass on the boglands there and I think he is going to have a very stormy passage in trying to get the grass to grow. That he can get it to grow is perfectly certain. You could nearly grow grass on top of some of the Deputies' heads here, if you wanted to, and if you were prepared to spend enough money, time and attention in getting it to grow, but it would scarcely be an economic proposition.

In intention, perhaps.

That is the sole ground on which I challenge the desirability of what the Parliamentary Secretary is putting his hand to. A proposal to grow grass in Ireland which is presented to the House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the recommendation of the Turf Development Board and the Sugar Beet Company, without any reference to the Department of Agriculture of the Irish Republic is about the daftest proposition I have ever seen even Fianna Fáil bring before Dáil Éireann. I want to say, with respect to my distinguished successor, Deputy Tomás Breathnach, the Minister for Agriculture, that much as I admire his modesty and even his humility, I do feel constrained to say to him that he can carry these two great Christian virtues too far. There is such a thingas duty and when he undertook the assignment of Minister for Agriculture, he undertook the duty of protecting the interests of the agricultural industry and all those engaged in it. I think the time has come for him to ask himself if he discharges that duty when a Bill, designed to promote the growing of grass in this country, is presented to the House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, sponsored by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government and sustained, not by the technical advice of the Department of Agriculture but by a film of the Sugar Company's and the encouragement of the Turf Board.

I am afraid that I am in no way qualified to assess the value of this scheme, or indeed the value of the alternative schemes proposed by Deputy Dillon. Many of his arguments did seem to be based on common sense and I think should be examined by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am afraid, however, that my approach to it would be a completely unscientific one. Bangor-Erris is one of the areas from which there is a very heavy drain of emigration. There is a proposal embodied in this Bill which provides for the spending of £165,000 in Bangor-Erris—at least, I hope the money will be spent in Bangor-Erris and not on Civil Service offices up here.

The bulk of it will be spent on machinery imported from Great Britain.

If even half of it were spent in Bangor-Erris, it would be of quite considerable assistance to many people in that area. The only word of warning I should like to utter to the Parliamentary Secretary is this —and this applies not merely to this scheme, but to many schemes which, I am sure, he has considered from time to time. There is always a temptation to put up some employment-giving industry in an area, in the hope that it will be an economic proposition, or will require only a small subsidy. I can see that in a number of cases it would be wise to pay even a permanent subsidy, provided the employment content was sufficient to justify it. Thereis a great deal of danger in putting up small schemes which involve a large amount of State expenditure without providing any substantial employment. I do not know what employment these proposals will provide and the Parliamentary Secretary might tell us later whether he has any indication of the number of people who will be employed locally; but I urge him to resist the temptation to put up a spectacular scheme which may prove uneconomic and will not have a sufficient labour content.

If I may digress for a moment—the Parliamentary Secretary ranged fairly widely in his opening remarks and perhaps I may be allowed to make this disgression—I should like to urge him to try to move the Department of Lands and Forestry into acquiring more land and planting more land in the West of Ireland, because it is a sound investment. Forestry work has a greater labour content than any other public works. It provides an investment which will keep it going and provides raw material which make secondary industries possible within a reasonable space of time. I would prefer to see this sum of £165,000 spent on forestry in County Mayo than on a scheme which may or may not succeed for the growing of grass, but again I am in no way qualified to express any view on whether or not the scheme is feasible or good.

I have not studied the Bill very carefully, but I do not quite know or understand the purpose of Section 11 and its consequential provisions. It does seem to indicate that the granting of a monopoly to the company is contemplated and, if a licence is granted under Section 11, nobody else will be allowed to manufacture the same product. I may be mistaken, but I think that would be dangerous. Most of the suggestions made by Deputy Dillon do appear to be constructive and should be considered. The question of the growing and canning of vegetables for an export market, for consumption in the bigger cities, in Mayo and Bangor-Erris is probably worth pursuing, and likewise the developing of the growing of strawberriesin the whole of Mayo is probably worth considering.

Strawberries?

It is one of the best strawberry areas in Europe, though I am quite certain Deputy Cowan knows nothing about that.

I did not understand what the Deputy said. I was not sure if he had said strawberries.

Coming events cast their shadows before them.

Mayo happens to be one of the few areas in the world which is free from disease in regard to strawberries and in which the best strawberry plants are produced. I do not think that the growing of strawberries has been sufficiently developed in Mayo and, in my opinion, it should be helped considerably. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary envisages the development of a sufficient strawberry acreage to warrant the establishment of a canning factory for strawberries and vegetables, but these are matters that are worth considering.

The only other remark I should like to make is that I am glad to hear that some proposals have been put forward in regard to the utilisation of the Marshall Aid Grant Fund. Not a penny of that money has yet been utilised, as far as I know, or allocated for any purpose. I hope if we are going to spend that money now, we shall be a little more grateful than we have been in the past in regard to Marshall Aid.

I had not the pleasure of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary introducing this Bill and I can only take the Bill as I find it. The purpose of the company to be set up under the Bill, is the acquisition, drainage and cultivation of bogland in the Bangor-Erris area, the processing of grass and other plants for sale, including in particular the manufacture of grass meal. As a farmer, I should like to urge consideration of the fact that a fundamental principle in farming, even if it is being carried out by a State company, is to put back into the landa certain amount of organic matter, or as much organic matter as it is possible to use. I should like to advise the Parliamentary Secretary that, in so far as it is possible, there should not be complete reliance upon one particular type of plant or crop. I think that farmers have invariably found that a certain amount of variety is essential. Therefore if the Parliamentary Secretary has decided on the advice of experts or after experiment, to grow grass and utilise this land for the production of grass meal, he should also give attention to the production of other crops.

Deputy Dillon suggested potatoes and I think there might be something in his suggestion, but I do not know the exact quality of the land in question. I am aware that sugar beet of various kinds can be grown on very peaty soils or actually on peat. I have seen good beet grown for the Carlow factory on land which resembles peat. I am wondering whether it would be possible to utilise this land for the growing of potatoes and other crops and also for the growing of sugar beet or, if it is thought desirable, fodder beet for the feeding of pigs.

I was interested in Deputy Dillon's suggestion in regard to the growing of potatoes, to be supplied to small-holders in the district for the feeding of pigs. That might be a sound proposition or an equally sound proposition might be to carry on pig feeding on the property on the extensive scale which has been in operation in Mitchelstown creamery or cheese factory. There you have an industry for the conversion of the by-product of cheese into pork or, if you like, pigs which are sold to the bacon factories. I think that is a proposition worth considering because if you require, as you must, a certain amount of organic manure, the best way to get it is actually to feed the pigs on the property and utilise the manure which is the by-product of the pig-feeding industry for fertilising the land.

I am sorry that I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary's introductory statement but I think that this projectis worthy of support. Every aspect of the question should be considered. One thing essential is that an effort should be made to make this project economic at the earliest possible date. We cannot afford, even for the laudable purpose of assisting a distressed area, to spend or waste large sums of money. When an industry such as this is established, it should be our earnest effort to try to make it remunerative at the earliest possible date. I feel that the growing of feeding stuffs and the utilisation of these feeding stuffs for some form of live-stock production —pig-feeding is the form of live-stock production I would suggest—is a sound proposition.

It is clear that such an industry would give a certain amount of employment. I think it should prove profitable, provided always that it is established on a sound basis and after scientific investigation has convinced the Parliamentary Secretary that this particular soil will produce the plants which it is proposed to grow on it. I am satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary would not embark on a scheme such as this without very careful examination. The House will watch this experiment with very great interest. There are wide stretches of bogland and wasteland of various kinds in the country and any movement which is set on foot to utilise such land for productive purposes must command the sympathy and the support of everyone who has the interests of the country at heart.

I welcome any suggestion or legislation from the Government that would tend to ease the problem that exists in Mayo, whether it be North or South Mayo, or in any of the Western counties such as the Parliamentary Secretary referred to in the course of his speech. To be quite candid, while I am prepared to welcome legislation which would ease the problems of these areas, I do not believe that the production of grass meal in Bangor-Erris or elsewhere will contribute towards easing the unemployment situation, as we know it, in Bangor-Erris. It has been there since the establishment of the State and before. If I thought it would bea success I would be prepared to give it every possible support but I do not think it will be the success that we are led to believe it will be. I could hardly imagine that we will have on the bog in Bangor-Erris—I know it very well—a successful output of grass such as the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to believe. If we do it will be a very costly success indeed.

Coming from the County Mayo where a considerable amount of land is bog or reclaimed bog, I have a good idea of what can be produced from bogland. Bogland requires careful nourishment and if it does not get that nourishment it reverts to growing heather. I have noticed that land on which considerable energy and labour was employed for 30 or 40 years became derelict and eventually heather and besoms grew on it when it was left unattended for ten or 12 years.

If we are going to have this grass on the ordinary raw bog in Bangor-Erris it will require special care in the form of fertilisers. Deputy Dillon said— and quite rightly—that it will need ordinary, natural manure, cow manure or horse manure or some form of stable manure. It will also require a certain amount of soil to build it up for the process of turning it into turf mould. It will need an addition of ordinary soil taken from the mountains or from places where there is a surplus of soil. That will have to be added to the ordinary raw bog. Where upwards of six or seven inches of soil is mixed with ordinary raw bogland we find that after a period of years, when it is left to rest and is not cared for carefully it reverts to growing heather and besoms.

I cannot see how this is going to be a success. I hope it will be. If it is going to be a success it will be costly and who will pay for it? I do not know. I am told there will be a limited company with £165,000 capital. Who will be the gentlemen in this company? We have not got the names. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary gave the names. We do not know who they are but I have a feeling that Mr. Costello, the Chairman of the Sugar Company, is keenly interested in this. Has he induced the ParliamentarySecretary more than anybody else to utilise this bog? Is it his will that has been imposed on the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government arising out of the experiment by the Sugar Beet Company in the neighbourhood of Tuam?

I hope it will be a success as far as employment and manual labour are concerned. The number employed will be small having regard to the output of capital and expense which this project will cost. I can speak with authority in regard to bogland and reclaimed bogland because the land I live on in my own holding at home is reclaimed bogland and is much more suitable for the growing of potatoes, carrots, parsnips and a variety of potatoes than for the growing of grass. One will notice that after using the best grass seeds there is a tendency for weeds to spring up unless the grass is carefully tended. It goes back into heather if it is not carefully husbanded and looked after.

I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary who the gentlemen are who will be responsible for the formation of this limited company. I would like to know who the chairman will be, how many workers in the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary will be employed and what amount of manual labour this company will employ. I would also like to know how many grass crops he would expect to get out of it in a year. I am also anxious to know if the Parliamentary Secretary will have a factory established there with a view to processing the grass into meal and the cost per cwt. of this meal. Will there be a levy imposed upon any other animal foodstuffs with a view to making this grass meal cheaper for the farmer to purchase? These are just a few things I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer in the course of the reply he may furnish to the House. I hope he will give a clearer explanation than he gave in his opening remarks.

I believe the acreage is roughly 2,000. Bangor-Erris is a very big bog. The Parliamentary Secretary was down there recently. He knows the difficulties and he knows how littleland the tenant farmer has in that particular area. If we are going to rehabilitate 2,000 acres of raw bog, such as exists in Bangor-Erris, it would be much better to divide the bog into 50-acre holdings among 40 tenants roughly. By doing this you will have 40 tenants established on 50-acre farms. If you are going to have 2,000 acres rehabilitated and made productive it would be much better to have a semi-State farm so to speak on which you would have the workers employed. It would be much better to have the 2,000 acres divided up and allocated in 50-acre lots among 40 tenants. The 40 tenants would give their little holdings better care and attention because bog land, like a baby, requires constant attention not merely for a day or a year but at all times otherwise the bog land will revert to heather and besoms. That is my experience of reclaimed bog. Even though you may carry out a wide scheme of drainage and take away a considerable tonnage of water, and even though the bog may fall and dry up, nevertheless, there is always that tendency.

A considerable amount of fertilisers will have to be applied at least every two years to keep body in the bog land with a view to growing grass. If that is not done the body will disappear and the grass will die away. It is well-known to country Deputies that you find rich grass growing for a time only on the wild bogs where cows graze and where their droppings and urine fall. That is well-known to everybody who travels the country particularly the boggy regions. But the rich grass fades away after a short time and falls back again into heather. That proves that it needs the constant attention of natural manures and fertilisers. Constant digging and turning of the subsoil is essential in the reclamation of bogs. I want the Parliamentary Secretary and the House to understand that I would be with him if I thought the Bill would be a success but I fear that it will be a costly success and that the produce of this undertaking will, so to speak, be outside the purchasing power of the consumer. The consumer will be the farming community andunless a levy or a subsidy is forthcoming from this State I fear that the produce of the undertaking will be outside their purchasing power. I have a feeling also that the amount of employment which will be created will not justify the development. I understood that this bog was to be used for the development of electricity and I thought that, as the bog was cut away, it would be reclaimed. In my time, five or six acres of my own holding were reclaimed. They started off by reclaiming the virgin bog. I know from experience that you are seeking trouble, and considerable trouble—unless, of course, you have great wealth at your command and can afford to apply a great deal of fertiliser year in and year out. By getting near the subsoil, and with a certain process of drainage combined with hard work, you might be able to get the land into production and with constant care you might then be able to keep it up.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary's scheme will not be a success although I sincerely hope that it will. I fear that if it should prove a success it will be a costly success. I welcome any step that will relieve the situation in that particular area. It is not my constituency but I know the district well. Any scheme which will help to create employment and keep at home our young men who are accustomed to emigrate to Scotland and elsewhere would be a godsend. I am afraid that this is just another hare-brained and costly scheme which eventually will go up in smoke and be forgotten about.

There is a great deal of sense in the speech which Deputy Dillon made. The Parliamentary Secretary would be wise to consider his suggestions. As a former Minister for Agriculture, I believe Deputy Dillon was interested in a similar project of this nature and secured the best possible advice on the matter. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should work in close collaboration with the Department of Agriculture and not with the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Department of Agriculture will inform him of the advisability of spending £165,000 and of taking a chance on a scheme of this kind for the success of which there is no guarantee.

I mentioned carrots, onions, parsnips, artichokes and also strawberries. Our county is remarkable for the fact that the strawberries grown there are free from disease. I know from experience that reclaimed bogland is very suitable for the growing of strawberries. The Parliamentary Secretary should consider the development of strawberry-growing in that area because it would tend to create employment there. I know a number of farmers in my part of the country who go in for the growing of strawberries. Some of them have five and six acres under strawberries, some three and four acres and some as high as ten acres. Not long ago the Minister for Agriculture received a deputation with regard to certain production and markets. Their big complaint at the moment, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, is that they do not receive the protection or the consideration they are entitled to receive as an industry. I am afraid that this Bill will be like some other Bills that were passed by the Oireachtas. I am afraid that, after it is passed, we shall hear very little about it.

For instance?

I hope that if this scheme is undertaken, and if this money is spent, it will be a success. Time will tell. I shall be very pleased indeed to be able to go down to Bangor-Erris and to see the 2,000 acres of bog there brought back into production. I feel that if we are going to bring it back into production it should be done with one objective and that is that the small tenant farmers who live adjacent to the bog will, in time, be allocated 30 or 40 acres of it so that they will have a permanent means of making a livelihood there. That would be better than a State farm or whatever else may be the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to this Bill. These small farmers and their sons would put their labour and energy into the working of the holdings in adding soil and in endeavouring, in every way possible, to make the land richer.

Deputy Dillon mentioned pig production. One of the constant complaintsof farmers in the West of Ireland is in regard to the interference of the Pigs Marketing Board. They claim to this day that the Pigs Marketing Board killed pig production there.

Is the Deputy not straying from the Bill?

I am discussing suitable alternatives to the production of grass on these 2,000 acres which are to be reclaimed. Deputy Dillon suggested that if we produce grass or grass meal, carrots, onions or other vegetables we must also find a market for that produce. If the production of pig feeding is going to be controlled by the Pigs Marketing Board, that certainly will ensure its downfall.

I want to make it clear that I welcome the Bill. I welcome anything that is calculated to help the unemployed in the County Mayo because at present the conditions there are even worse than they are in the City of Dublin. There are more unemployed in the County Mayo at this moment than there have been for a number of years. Things are in a bad state, and if this tends towards easing that position then we are all out for the success of it. I have grave doubts however, of its success and of the outcome of it.

I regret that Deputy Cafferky has so many doubts as to the success of this scheme. I had thought that he, at least, representing Clann na Talmhan, and claiming to represent the small farmers of County Mayo, would have given every encouragement to the scheme. Instead, he has drawn red herrings into the discussion on the scheme. This is a great scheme. It is one that gives great hope, new hope, to the people of Bangor and in Erris generally. The people in that area have been migratory labourers since I was a child. The men, women and children go off in their hundreds every year to seek work in foreign fields. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that the people of Bangor and in Erris generally will do all they can to co-operate in making this scheme a success. It is a chance that has never come their way before, a chance to turn cold and barren land into a prosperous countryside,a chance that will give new hope to the people instead of having the prospect before them of having to go away every year.

During the last few days, and indeed over the years, we have listened to lamentations about unemployment, but to-day we see some new hope for Mayo, some hope that we may end this problem so far as our migratory labourers are concerned. I know that the scheme will be a success. It deserves to be. It is a bold scheme. The only regret I have is that a Deputy from the County Mayo should stand up in this House and draw a red herring across the trail which is calculated to keep the scheme from being a success. It is a great pleasure to me, on the occasion of my first speech in this House, to rise to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on this scheme, and to express the hope that it will be a success.

I should like to congratulate Deputy Calleary on the very succinct way in which he has made his first contribution to debate in this House. I think that many of us could take example from the way in which he marshalled his facts and arguments, and on the forcible way in which he put his case. His speech was certainly in contrast to the speech that was delivered by the speaker previous to him, a Deputy from the County Mayo. I had hoped that when Deputy Cafferky started to speak that he would have welcomed this or any scheme that would provide employment for people along the Western seaboard. Any scheme that was put forward with the full authority of the Government on the advice which they have got, and which will give employment and bring into production an area that is barren, should, in my view, have the support of Deputy Cafferky. But, unfortunately, Deputy Cafferky, I think, was misled by the criticism of the scheme that we had from Deputy Dillon.

Not in the slightest.

Deputy Dillon, if not a Mayo man——

Speak for yourself.

——is very closely associated with it.

He did more for Mayo that ever you did.

You asked the Parliamentary Secretary to take Deputy Dillon's advice.

Deputy Cafferky followed Deputy Dillon in throwing the coldest of cold water on the scheme. I was more than amazed at another man with associations with the County Mayo, one proud of claiming associations with the County Mayo. Deputy MacBride also threw as much cold water as it was possible to throw on this scheme. He is a man who is going around the country talking about full employment and saying there must be imagination and money spent on capital development, that we must work away from the old ideas and go out and do something for the Western seaboard and other areas. Here, with the first practical proposal to do something to bring barren land into production, to give employment and to improve the wealth of the community, we have Deputy MacBride again afraid, as it were, to be too different from Deputy Dillon.

Has the Deputy any idea of the employment content that is likely to be in this?

He is singing the praises of Fianna Fáil.

I am dealing with a point of view and I am not going to be put off by Deputy Sweetman.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Cafferky must cease interrupting.

Deputy Cowan will get the interruptions unless you protect me.

If the Deputy is making any reflection on the Chair, he must withdraw it.

I am not making any reflection.

Our great difficulty is to try to get anything done. Deputy Dillon leads off and, instead of the scheme that is provided here, he wants vegetables to be canned, potatoes to be canned, and several other things.

He never said "canned".

Deputy MacBride wants to grow strawberries on the bogs and he wants forests on the bogs. The peculiar thing is that when any scheme is put forward somebody wants to do something different, and suggests that something else should be done. Deputy Cafferky hopes that the scheme will be a success. He will be glad to go down to Mayo when it is a success, but he has the gravest doubts that it will be a success, and if it is a success it will be a costly success. If the Government were to accept the advice of Deputy Cafferky they would abandon the scheme right away because there can be no other interpretation of Deputy Cafferky's speech than that this is a bad scheme—it is costly, inefficient ill-thought out and should not be done.

But it could be a success. It might cost something.

That is not a fair argument as far as Mayo is concerned. Mayo is entitled to have an effort made by this Government to give employment there and to try to stop emigration from that particular part of the country. I welcome the scheme. I welcome any scheme that gives employment, that brings an area of barren land, waste land, into full production, that increases the national wealth. I welcome it and I hope that this scheme will be a success. I sincerely hope it will be a success.

You are only hoping, so? He has condemned me for hoping it will be a success and he is hoping now himself.

The Deputy is disorderly.

I hope it will be a success and I hope that the ParliamentarySecretary will persist in his endeavours to find other areas in which productive work will be started and in which opportunities for employment will be given to the people. As Deputy Calleary so well said, yesterday we were condemning the Government for making no provisions to ease unemployment. All over the country we hear this wail of nothing being done and the moment something effective is being done, the moment some scheme is brought into this House to give employment, then we have the moaners and the wailers getting up and the one thought in the minds of each and every one of them is that it will be a failure so that they will be able to look back and say, "That is what I said in the Dáil in regard to it." I sincerely hope that the speeches made by Deputy Dillon, Deputy MacBride and Deputy Cafferky will be condemned by the events that will occur.

I hope so.

I trust that will be the result and that this scheme will be a great success.

Deputy Cowan, of course, can never resist the sound of his own voice, even when he knows nothing whatever about the subject under discussion. As he showed clearly in respect of this Bill, when he was asked to give an estimate of the labour content involved, he was unable to answer it at all.

He was well able to answer it but he would not be driven off by the Deputy.

The Deputy did not know what he was talking about. The Parliamentary Secretary told us when he started out that he approached this scheme from the angle, first of all, that he did not think there was any possibility in it and was convinced as he went on. I approached it in exactly the reverse way. I thought, when I heard the scheme first of all, that it had great possibilities but the more I went into it the more I came to the reverse of the Parliamentary Secretary's conclusions.

Let me say quite clearly that, so far as the Bill is concerned, it providesthat the objects of the company will be two-fold, that the first object shall be the acquisition, drainage and cultivation of bogland. The second object is to utilise that bogland, when cultivated, for the purpose of grass meal. So far as that is concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary gave us the minimum of information. I do not believe that any Department, even the Department of Industry and Commerce approaching what is an agricultural matter, dealt with the matter in the dark in the way the Parliamentary Secretary left this House. I believe that he must have some figures, that he must have got some estimates and that he must have some knowledge in regard to the processes that are intended and the probable effects.

I want to put this to the Parliamentary Secretary in the most categorical manner so that he can contradict me if he has estimates that are to the contrary and can show the figures. This scheme, according to the Parliamentary Secretary's statements, is to provide 4,000 tons of grass meal per annum. By and large, you may take it that to provide 4,000 tons of dried grass you want five times that tonnage of wet grass and that in regard to the drying of 20,000 tons of wet grass the amount that will be spent in wages on the drying process, that is to say, on the second part of the scheme, will not exceed £1 per ton per annum and that the labour content in regard to this scheme will be a maximum of £4,000 a year on the grass-drying part of it. It does not require very much calculation to see that that will not be a very great contribution to the success that, with Deputy Calleary, we all hope there will be in regard to providing employment in the congested districts.

The complaint that was made by Deputy Dillon was that the production of grass meal is the least employment-producing method of utilising the bogland when it has been acquired, drained and cultivated.

If the Parliamentary Secretary has any different figures, I will be delighted to hear them but I have a little experience in regard to grass drying, not in bog. There is, as the ParliamentarySecretary told us, bog reclamation work done at Gowla, on the Galway-Roscommon border, by the Sugar Company. That dealt with the acquisition, drainage and cultivation of bogland but, of course, it has not dealt with the grass meal end of it. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that in producing 4,000 tons of grass meal the employment content for labour would be high at £4,000 a year, that the fuel content will be a very, very big cost and that there will be for fuel cost, for drying, somewhere about two and a half times the ordinary labour content.

The fuel is alongside.

Wait a minute. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that this was being taken off a part of the bog that would be utilised for electricity production and that, therefore, there is no use counting in this scheme the labour content in the production of fuel as applicable purely to the grass drying because similar production would be available there for the electricity generation and that if you take it from one you merely add it to the other. There will be a substantial user of electricity, I agree, but that will not provide additional labour content. So far as the purely drying costs are concerned, probably somewhere about three to one or four to one against labour content will be the proportion in costings.

Let us consider the costings from the other end—the capital cost. The Parliamentary Secretary as far as I could follow him, suggests a capital cost of £165,000. I would like to know how, approximately—I am not trying to tie the Parliamentary Secretary to anything like accurate estimates—that figure is proposed to be divided between what I might term bog costings, bog capital expenditure and factory expenditure.

First of all you will have purchase cost. The bog is already bought. It was bought, as well as I remember, about two years ago by Bord na Móna because I remember being down there about this time in 1951 and seeing acquisition notices with people who came to see me at the time. The purchasehas to be paid for, whether it is paid for by the grass meal company or by Bord na Móna or the E.S.B. On what figure is the Parliamentary Secretary estimating his cost for purchase and drainage? Is the Parliamentary Secretary proposing that the 2,000 acres would be a block or would it be dealt with in separate units? The reason I ask that is because when you are dealing with a block the fencing costs would be lower than when you are dealing with separate units. Is the Parliamentary Secretary proposing that there would be no live stock grazed on the sward produced and that it is merely necessary to keep off strays from outside. One of the points that Deputy Dillon made was that in the Bangor-Erris climate it would not be possible to graze the sward at all. I do not know enough about that area to be able to give any indication of that, but it might be possible by way of electric fencing.

I want to know what is the cost involved. I want to know what estimate has been made of the prime cost in relation to liming and in regard to fertilisers. We all know that, in order to cultivate bogland, it must be limed and manured heavily to start with. I imagine that some estimate of costing has been made there. One estimate given to me was that it would cost in or around £30 an acre. I do not know whether that is justified or not. I am not capable of making an assessment, but I say it is the job of the Parliamentary Secretary when he brings in a Bill like this to give us these figures.

There is also the question that it has to be sown down for the first time. What will be the cost of that? What will it cost to put 2,000 acres under grass to start with? Of that cost which is going into the putting down of 2,000 acres under grass, how much will be money expendable in local labour, either directly or indirectly? I am sure that, apart from that first costing, there will be in the figure of £165,000 a substantial sum for the purchase of suitable machinery for the job. I have not any idea of what the cost will be in that regard. I am notso interested in that, because I started off by being interested in grass meal from the employment angle. The position, as I see it, is that, of all the things that could make bog land, when reclaimed, pay, grass meal will give the least employment of the lot. If the Parliamentary Secretary's figures are opposed to that, then let us have them, and we will be in a position to put them side by side with the figures that we have with regard to grass meal plants in Leinster, the only ones I have any contact with.

Apart from the capital cost for purchase, drainage, fencing, fertilisers and lime and for the setting up in the first instance, there will be a substantial cost for the erection of what I might term the factory plant. How much of the £165,000 will go into the erection of the plant? What type of plant is visualised? Is it to be the tray type or the fan type of drier or the new type which has only become available experimentally within the last six months, and which has the effect, according to what is claimed for it, of fixing the carrotene content in the grass meal in a way it is not possible to fix it with the older types of drier? Where can that plant be got? Can it be got in a sterling country or have we to pay dollars or other hard currency for it? What will be the cost of that plant that has to be bought outside the country compared with what has to be spent in Bangor-Erris on labour? These figures should be capable of being given to us, and I think that we should get them.

So far as annual costs are concerned, will the Parliamentary Secretary break down the figure of £22 7s. per ton which he gave us into the bog proportion of that and the factory proportion of it? I suppose a more accurate description would be as to the production cost on the one hand and the factory cost on the other. With these figures which the Parliamentary Secretary should have brought in we can have some appreciation of whether the information available to some of us is correct or not. I am not being dogmatic with regard to the figuresgiven to me by people who operate grass meal drying plants in Leinster, but I must accept their word for the figures they give me until such time as more authentic figures are put up. The figures given to me show that this scheme will be an extremely good scheme in respect of the first half of its operation in regard to the drainage and cultivation of bogland, but that when it goes into the utilisation of the bogland for grass meal you are going into the worst type of thing for the congested districts because you are going into a type of utilisation of your produce in which much more machinery is used than in other methods of utilisation of that produce. Grass meal is one of the most mechanised forms of production and the more mechanised form of production you have the less will be your employment content.

We are agreed that what we want in the West are things which have in their economic fabric and build-up a form of production that utilises a high labour content rather than a low labour content. I suggest that in this respect the Parliamentary Secretary has got in this something which is of very low labour content once he has done the first part of the job set out in the Bill, and then he is going into a production which is going to utilise substantial costings in machine processes and very little in labour costings to balance it.

That is the kernel of the objection of Deputy Dillon and it is the kernel of my criticism. It is a criticism which can be very easily disposed of if the Parliamentary Secretary puts all the facts and figures before the House. It is a criticism which can be easily met if the figures are not as I have stated. But, with those figures, we are entitled to more than the Parliamentary Secretary has given us. He has just come in here and the sole statistical information he has given us is that there are 2,000 acres to be developed to give us 4,000 tons of grass meal, the cost of which will be £22 7s. per ton. At present it can be sold for between £31 and £34 per ton. For that he wants £165,000. I suggest that when he reflects on the matter he will agree that is hardly the right way to treat the House. TheHouse is entitled to at least some of the estimates on foot of which this scheme is being prepared so that people will have an opportunity of judging whether or not this is a wise way to utilise this money or whether, having acquired, drained and cultivated the bog, it may not be better for the people in Bangor-Erris to utilise some other method of dealing with the subsequent production in a way which would provide a substantially greater labour content than I believe this scheme will give.

Mr. Lynch

First of all, I must express my appreciation of the objective manner in which most of those who spoke approached this subject. In introducing this measure I made no attempt to pander to any feelings one might have towards the development of the West of Ireland in any particular respect. We all know there is a problem there and that any means we employ to solve the problem in the West must naturally be welcome to the members of this House and to the community in general. It has been stated in the course of the debate that some enterprise and some vision is necessary if the peculiar difficulties of the West are to be overcome. In presenting this Bill I hope that we have with some vision at any rate adopted one of the means whereby we can achieve that end.

I want to make it quite clear that the emphasis on this scheme is not on grass production. It is on the utilisation of boglands for the production of food and for the provision of employment.

In that case the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that its title is an unhappy one.

Mr. Lynch

We had to have some title on the Bill. I am convinced from my examination of the proposal that bog can be successfully reclaimed in such a manner as to produce wealth far in excess of what it is doing at the present time. I prefer to regard the choice of grass only as an initial crop from reclaimed bogland. As far as I understand the rotation of crops the production of grass for some years is necessary to the subsequent growing or production of root and other crops where reclaimed bogland is concerned.

I am afraid that is a very revolutionary view.

Mr. Lynch

I am advised that in order to utilise reclaimed bog the growing of grass initially is very desirable, if not essential, in order to tune up or prepare the soil for the ultimate production of other crops.

The utilisation of bogland is the main object of this Bill. The suggestion by Deputy Dillon of the growing of potatoes or other crops naturally occurred to me and, as Deputy Sweetman pointed out, there is provision in the Bill for the growing of other plants. I understand, for instance, that it is on bogland mainly that peppermint and spearmint are grown. As a result of repeated growings in America the plants have become susceptible to different types of disease and there is a marked shortage of spearmint and peppermint at the moment for the distillation of the necessary oils for medicinal and commercial purposes in the United States of America.

I have been told on good authority that there are many plants growing wild on our boglands which are very useful for commercial purposes. Some two years ago I referred to the possibility of using wild plants, processing them and selling them commercially at a good profit to those who harvest them, and particularly to those who live in the bogland areas of the West.

With regard to the utilisation of bogland after it has been drained and brought into heart, surely the simplest process is the growing of grass. The areas which have been drained by the sugar company in Gowla bog are growing quite good grass at the present time. I have seen in the film to which I referred earlier fairly heavy heifers grazing in the month of October on land drained earlier in the year and sown down to grass in the month of March. I am informed that sheep feeding on such grass increase their live weight by 2½ lb. per week, and I believe that is a pretty good standard.

Deputy Dillon referred to the utilisation of seaweed and the possibility of processing it under the terms of this Bill. I referred to seaweed in orderto illustrate what might be done under the licensing provision of the Bill. I admit that Deputy Dillon is a much better authority on the matter than I am. He said that the best utilisation of seaweed would be the spreading of it in its wet state as fertiliser as near as possible to the place from which it is won. There are, on the other hand, strong views held by people with chemical qualifications that there are other means of profitably using seaweed as a fertiliser or as feeding stuff. That is a matter upon which I have no technical knowledge at the present time. I mentioned seaweed merely to illustrate what might be envisaged under the licensing provision of the Bill.

Deputy MacBride, in particular, and subsequently Deputy Sweetman referred to the employment content of the scheme envisaged under the Bill. I would like again to say that the Bill is not primarily designed as an employment-creating vehicle. It is primarily an experiment to demonstrate whether the utilisation of reclaimed bog is economically feasible. He expressed some fears as to whether Section 11 might tend to create a monopoly for this company in the manufacture of any particular commodity. There is no intention whatever of granting such a monopoly to the new company.

It is purely an enabling section and not an excluding section?

Mr. Lynch

Yes. It is probably self-explanatory. If some commodity that might be grown, manufactured or processed is not being produced at all or not being produced sufficiently by private enterprise, this company under this section might consider applying to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for a licence to embark upon such processing or manufacturing. In all the circumstances, I think it is a desirable section to have in a Bill such as this.

Before you leave Section 11, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider between this and the next day whether he would notinsert some sort of tabled addendum to that section so as to be sure that the House would know all the things the company was going to do.

Mr. Lynch

Yes. The employment content is candidly rather doubtful at the moment. In the initial stages it is envisaged that between 40 and 80 men will be employed. The company which it is proposed to set up will have perforce certain latitudes with regard to the manner in which they propose to drain and put this bog into production. The method used in Gowla is, I think, the best system. It is to drain the bog in strips by cutting drains, subsequently using mole drains flowing into the cut drains and saving the turf within the cut drains and utilising it, first of all, by drying it on every alternate strip going through the bog. The strips of land are designed to be long enough to enable modern machinery to traverse them. It has been achieved in Gowla, and I believe it is possible to achieve it here.

Deputy Cafferky was concerned whether this land, if it can be reclaimed, will not require a considerable degree of attention, otherwise he considers it will revert back. I think that is fairly well true of almost all land which is not in itself good land. Most of the land that Deputy Dillon attempted to reclaim under his land rehabilitation scheme was, I am sure, not very many years ago, reasonably good land that was allowed through disuse to revert back to the stage when production of crops off it was impossible or very difficult without some extra special measures being applied to make it productive. The same applies to this, and constant fertilising will be necessary in order to ensure that the cultivated bogland will continue to be productive.

I do not agree with the suggestion made by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Cafferky that this grass meal production would have an effect on the prices of all feeding stuffs, if used as a constituent of compound feeding stuffs. I do not think that fear is apparent at all. The disposal of the meal, when manufactured, will be a matter for the company, and naturally they will haveto find the best market they can, but I am asured there is a sufficient market and I believe that there will be no difficulty in disposing of the output when that stage of development has been reached.

Deputy Sweetman, I think, was fairly accurate in assessing the cost of drying the estimated output of grass. However, we must realise the drying end of it is really very secondary. As regards the employment content of the whole scheme, the actual number engaged on drying will be very small, that is, in relation to the number of men who, first of all, will attempt the drainage and cultivation of the bog, the fertilising of the bog and the cutting of the grass. It is all part of the process and the fact that a limited number of men will be engaged actually in the drying will in no way reflect the total number engaged in the whole process.

Does that not rather underline our point of view that it is good to cultivate but not to use it in this way?

Mr. Lynch

Again I want to impress the fact that the production of grass meal is not by any means primary in the Bill.

In justice, is it not a bit late in the day that the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that a Grass Meal Bill is not designed to produce grass meal?

Mr. Lynch

I told Deputy Sweetman —I do not know if Deputy Dillon was in at the time—that the title of the Bill is certainly the Grass Meal Bill, but the object is to undertake the drainage and cultivation of bog land. Goodness knows, we have sufficient bog land in the West of Ireland to make it at least worth while for the Government to attempt to indicate to the country generally whether it is possible to make that bogland more productive.

Surely not in a Grass Meal Bill but in a Bogland Development Bill?

Mr. Lynch

I do not know if any of the Deputies on the other side were over that particular area. I am sureDeputy Dillon was and Deputy Sweetman says he was.

I know every yard of it.

I was there too.

Mr. Lynch

I was there for the first time two years ago.

Did it take your breath away?

Mr. Lynch

I was amazed at the extent of the wasteland.

About a year and a half ago, the Parliamentary Secretary was there.

Mr. Lynch

It does not matter when.

It does. It was in the summer you were there.

Mr. Lynch

It possibly was but the fact that it was summer or winter does not take away from the vastness of that particular bog.

And the breezes that blow.

The breezes in the summer would be very different. Ask Deputy Calleary.

Mr. Lynch

Deputy Sweetman asked me a question in relation to the capital formation of the company. I think that it is more appropriate to the next stage of the Bill and I prefer to deal with it then but the estimates given for the different aspects of the undertaking—acquisition, drainage, drying and ultimately the cost of production per ton—have been based on the least favourable figures, with the result that the estimated figure of £22 7s. per ton cost of production is erring, if anything, on the high side.

I commend the Bill to the House because it shows an earnest on our part of our desire to grapple with the problem of the West of Ireland, with the under-employment problem, with the problem of creating work and maintaining the people on the land. No doubt, as Deputy Dillon said, we have 12,000,000 acres of good grass land, but nevertheless no matter how much there is, we have far too little to maintainsufficient of our population on the land. That applies particularly to the West of Ireland. If we can illustrate and establish that the big tracts of bogland and the smaller tracts of bogland in the West of Ireland can be cultivated, I think it is a step in the right direction to maintain employment and to maintain the people on the land and particularly go some of the way to make up the shortage of arable land in the West of Ireland. Deputy Dillon suggested that it was a daft scheme. Let him throw his mind back some four years, when he referred to tomato glasshouses as an exotic scheme.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that it costs £457 to instal heating in one glasshouse?

Mr. Lynch

I did not hear that, but will not dispute the point now.

I can assure him the Minister for Agriculture told us that to-day.

Mr. Lynch

I was not in the House at the time; but without any heating there can be earned by the individual owner of a glasshouse in Connemara upwards of £120 per annum in the sale of tomatoes. That was daft and exotic. This may be daft, but I am convinced, firstly from what I have read and seen, that bogland can be brought into useful cultivation——

No one is arguing about that.

Mr. Lynch

——and, secondly, that this grass meal project, as part of the bringing into cultivation of the bogs, can and will be profitable and that ultimately, with the powers created for the new company in this Bill, the growing, processing and sale of different plants will be a practical proposition and will be a step in the right direction towards utilising to the full our natural resources. By assisting the people who live in these areas in such a manner, we will be doing practical work in making employment available for them and so maintaining our population on the land and particularly in that part of Ireland.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that for the last 40 years the Department of Agriculture has carried out experimental work for the exploitation of bogland under crops? Does he think it is unreasonable if we ask that he should let us know broadly what the advice of the Department of Agriculture is? That Department has been engaged in this work in Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Kerry for the last 40 years. Could he not give their opinion purely on the technical side of the proposal he now submits to the House? Surely, if we have a Department of Agriculture which has that kind of experience in this work, Dáil Éireann ought to know broadly what it thinks of the technical merits of the proposal now before us?

Are we not going to get an answer? I wanted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question also, but I did not wish to do so until we heard his reply to Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Lynch

I told Deputy Dillon that, when this Bill was in course of preparation and before it was envisaged as a Bill, I did inquire as to what advice the Department of Agriculture had to offer. I also sought the advice of the Turf Board, who were well used to draining bogs, and of thesugar company, who were well used to attempting to cultivate bogs. The Department of Agriculture told me candidly that if it were grass meal I was concerned with I would get a better return from good land. But on every consideration and having regard to the particular work with which I am charged, I decided that it would be worth while, from the point of view of the West of Ireland, to undertake drainage, cultivation and growing of grass and other plants on these bogs. This Bill, and the company proposed to be set up under it, was the best means by which I could have that done.

In view of the Parliamentary Secretary having given his whole case away, I will reserve my question for the Money Resolution. I warn the Parliamentary Secretary in time that I will be looking for a whole lot of figures.

Mr. Lynch

I will have them for you.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25th February.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.40 p.m. to 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 13th February, 1953.
Top
Share