Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Feb 1956

Vol. 154 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—National Development Fund.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman):

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £3,000,000 be granted to derfray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the National Development Fund.

The additional amount I am asking the Dáil now to provide for the National Development Fund is £3,000,000. This sum, taken together with the £3,000,000 which the House voted last year and the £5,000,000 voted in the previous year, will bring the total amount available to the Fund to £11,000,000. In reply to the question by Deputy Aiken on to-day's Order Paper, I indicated the various projects towards which allocations have been made out of the Fund since its inception, the amount allocated to each project and the actual expenditure to date out of the Fund on foot of each such project.

The total of the allocations pre-June, 1954, came to £6,521,900; subsequent review of the picture as it then presented itself reduced this figure to £5,560,700. The payments out of the Fund in respect of these projects aggregate £3,599,493. As respects schemes approved since June, 1954, the amount allocated is £1,729,236 and the expenditure £197,870. All told, the allocations come to a total of £7,289,936 and the expenditure to £3,797,363.

This time last year I gave the House an account of all the projects approved to date both by my predecessor and by myself. The particulars I gave Deputy Aiken to-day cover these projects, of course, but they embrace, in addition, the allocations I have since made myself. Following are the figures:—

Department of Local Government:
	£
Local Authority (Works) Act (1955-56)	250,000
Road Fund (for residual commitments in 1953-54)	39,411
Repair of Sea-wall at Bray	15,000
Special Employment Schemes Office:
Supplementary Allocation	250,000
Department of Industry and Com- merce:
Grant to An Óige	29,000
Roads at E.S.B. Hand-won Turf Stations	200,000
Road to Coal Mine, Gubaveeny, Co. Cavan	3,275
Limerick Harbour	79,000
Dún Laoire railway station	20,000
Department of Agriculture:
Department's Schools and Farms—Improvements	150,000
Drainage of River Rye	48,500
Fish Station at Galway, Grant	27,550
Small Farm Units, Athenry and Ballyhaise Schools	8,000
Orchard Planting, Dungarvan area	32,500
Peatland Experimental Station, Glenamoy	45,000
Office of Public Works:
Drainage of Swillyburn and Deele	187,000
Provisional Allocation:
Shannon Survey and Resettlement Scheme	100,000
TOTAL	£1,484,236

There were minor variations of earlier allocations giving an extra £20,300, making the total allocations since I introduced last year's Estimate £1,504,536. Deputies will see from the figures I have given that allocations out of the Fund come to within about £700,000 of the capacity of the Fund. New projects are liable to come along and develop at any time. To enable me to have an adequate margin for such contingencies, I am now seeking a further £3,000,000 for the Fund.

When speaking on last year's Estimate, I told the House it was the Government's intention that the Fund should be maintained to finance capital schemes of a productive character which would make a real contribution to the national economy. It was intended, I said, that the Fund should be drawn upon to facilitate the rapid expansion or the expedition of programmes of public works or to set in motion new schemes of development with a high employment content whenever we considered the employment situation so demanded. While that is still broadly the policy, it is now more than ever essential to ensure that projects financed out of the Fund do not generate undue demands for imports and so widen the adverse trade balance. In present circumstances, only projects that are essentially of a directly productive type can hope to gain access to the Fund. If the House wishes to hear the further details which I made available to Deputy Aiken I will give them. I presume, however, that will not be necessary.

Mr. Lemass:

Am I right in understanding the Minister as saying that the amounts allocated for various projects, except in so far as they are shown in the notes given to Deputy Aiken to have been reduced or abandoned or put in abeyance, are in fact being spent for the purposes indicated? In other words will the amounts, as allocated, be spent for the different purposes for which they were allocated?

Mr. Sweetman:

The amounts are available and there is no change in any individual item, but in the detailed working out of any particular individual item it could be that there is some variation. The amounts are available for the particular projects—if, on detailed examination, they are found to cost that amount. I mention that particularly because there is one item there that I recollect off-hand where the detailed survey showed that the matter could be dealt with in a different way and it therefore would have required only portion of the amount allocated. The general picture dictates the answer: "Yes, if the details so require."

Mr. Lemass:

These projects will be proceeded with except those which are to be abandoned?

Mr. Sweetman:

Those specified in the notes are under consideration.

Mr. Lemass:

I have a particular interest in the construction of roads in the vicinity of the four turf-burning power stations. Is that being proceeded with?

Mr. Sweetman:

That was a re-allocation directed by me.

Mr. Lemass:

Does the fact that only some £10,000 has been spent mean that only that amount of work has been done or is it that the people who have done the work have not yet been recouped?

Mr. Sweetman:

I have a note to say that the expenditure next year is estimated at £70,000.

Mr. Lemass:

I shall tell the Minister what is in my mind. It is only a suspicion which I think should be ventilated. These stations will be in commission next year. At least, they will be available next year for the production of electricity.

Mr. Sweetman:

Next year?

Mr. Lemass:

They were to have been available last year but I think they will not be in commission now until next year. It was with some reluctance that the E.S.B. undertook their construction because I do not think they were very enthusiastic about them. At the time the scheme was devised, it was intended that the stations would be available to take any surplus turf offered for sale in their supply areas so that there was no responsibility put on anybody for organising a supply of turf equal to the demands of the stations. It was recognised that these stations would confer a tremendous advantage on the areas in which they were situated and it was suggested that the supply of turf would be sufficient to keep the stations in full commission. To ensure that, this scheme of road construction was introduced. It was thought that the construction of the roads would indicate to the people of the areas concerned the desirability of producing turf and the availability of a market for their turf. It was thought that the scheme would make the people concerned appreciate the importance attached to their keeping up a supply of turf.

I do not think the E.S.B. have done anything about ensuring a supply of turf for these stations and if there has been a delay or a lack of enthusiasm in the fulfilment of the task of getting the roads constructed, the E.S.B. will have an alibi in relation to the delay in getting the stations ready for production; they can say that the supply of turf did not turn up. It was our hope and intention that the supply of turf would always be there. Somebody should give consideration to the steps to be taken now, even if it is only publicity or propaganda, to get the people in the area to understand that there will be a demand for turf, that the turf will be purchased for cash from them by the E.S.B. and that, as far as they require improvement of the roads to get that turf into the stations, grants will be made available for that purpose. That must be done; otherwise the stations will have no turf to burn. It was part of the scheme that, in the year previous to their going into commission, the stations would build up a supply of turf.

That supply of turf should have been there last year—it certainly should be there this year—and I do not think it is. I want to be satisfied in my mind that its non-existence is not due to the fact that somebody over there in the E.S.B. is not putting into the operation of these stations the enthusiasm and the energy that is required, or, if they regard it as no part of their job—as they possibly do—to organise the production and supply of turf for those stations, then somebody must be given that job, whether it is the E.S.B. or a local organisation in each case, such as the county council or somebody like that. I could not say offhand who should undertake it, but somebody should be given the job of organising resources, to get the peat men in these areas to appreciate the advantage it would be to them to have the stations there, because the presence of these stations would mean that a great amount of money would circulate in districts that badly need that sort of aid.

Mr. Allen:

I notice among the items mentioned that money was allocated towards the repair of the sea wall at Bray. There is an area in Wexford to which we have drawn the Minister's attention on a number of occasions, and that is Rosslare, where we have the problem of erosion. I have always held that the Minister has sufficient power, without legislation, to make a grant in a most serious and urgent matter and that there is nothing in the world to prevent him from doing so in this case. I have always believed that the object originally was to have a fund available that would not otherwise be available for such works or matters of urgency and I want to suggest to the Minister that at this stage out of the new allocation, he should allocate some money for the erection of barriers at Rosslare to prevent the homes of over 1,000 people being washed away.

Mr. James Tully:

I wonder if the Minister could tell us if he actually has the necessary authority to do what Deputy Allen has suggested? I believe he has, but I should like to have a definite assurance on that, because, if it is so, I think the National Development Fund could be spent in no better way than in preventing coastal erosion, preventing the island from getting smaller. Deputy Allen has referred to Wexford, but we have the same problem in other parts of the country to a lesser degree. In the little seacoast village where I live, over the past 20 years, approximately 50 yards of the land along the seacoast—that is, 50 yards in width—has disappeared, and if the same thing happens in the next 30 or 50 years, there is a possibility, a danger, of the road and the houses along the seacoast being eventually undermined and washed away. It is a very serious problem and something which should be considered as coming under the National Development Fund and if money could be made available, I think it could be spent in no better way.

Mr. Allen:

It was done in Bray.

Mr. James Tully:

I suppose the expenditure of money in Bray could be under a different heading. Things have been done in Bray during the time of various Governments that have not been done anywhere else and I would not like to take Bray as a headline.

Mr. Allen:

Now the Deputy is letting them away with it.

Mr. Sweetman:

There is a big difference between storm damage and coast erosion. One is the thing you can do and that is that. Coast erosion is something in regard to which the important point is the maintenance thereafter.

Mr. Allen:

Bray will have to be maintained, too.

Mr. James Tully:

I suppose it could be put under the heading of coast erosion and there may be storm damage in this particular case also, that is, where a water supply, a water tower, exists pretty close to the seacoast and, unless a barrier is put up, in the course of time that water supply will be cut away or destroyed because of the effects of the sea. Sometimes during severe storms the seacoast will lose three or four yards or again for six or eight or 12 months, it will not lose three inches, but gradually, in the one particular instance to which I am referring, the sea has been creeping in, and, while the installation of that water supply cost a very considerable amount of money, no attempt is being made to preserve it. The county council say that coast erosion is not their responsibility and up to recently the Government said they had not responsibility for it, either. If the National Development Fund can be used for that purpose, I think it should be used for that purpose.

Deputy Lemass referred to the encouragement of people close to the E.S.B. station to grow more turf than they need for themselves. While I agree that every possible facility should be given to people living in those outlying areas who want to make extra money by cutting turf and selling it, no matter to whom they sell it, I do not think that somebody putting down roads is going to be sufficient encouragement to those people to cut that extra turf. If what is suggested is some kind of a publicity campaign to cut more turf—we had "Grow More Something" before—it may possibly be a success, but I do not know whether Deputy Lemass was referring to it as the only way of encouraging turf production.

I would suggest that, in areas where there are boglands, a lot more money should be spent from the National Development Fund for the purpose of actually developing bogs generally. I do know a number of people who, for a long time, have been cutting fuel for themselves and selling it and supplying turf over big areas, and they find that, during certain periods of the year, they cannot get near the bogs at all. It is a great hardship on those people that they have to work in such conditions, while apparently no attempt whatever has been made to give them decent roads through the bogs. I think they should be encouraged, whether there is a turf burning station near them or not, and that the bogs should be developed by having better roads made through them.

There is another matter which has not been mentioned here and perhaps, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you may rule that it does not actually come under this heading, but as we are talking about the National Development Fund at the present time, we know that British coal is getting extremely scarce, and is there any reason at all why the deposits of coal which have been worked before in this country and which could, with the expenditure of some money on them, be worked again should not be worked? Why could not some of the money out of the National Development Fund be used to find out whether this coal would be a paying proposition? I know numerous instances where there is no road to the old mine. Some of them are open-cast mines, worked perhaps up to 50 years ago. Coal out of these could be burned—I saw some of it recently myself—and while it does not make a wonderful fire, it is an improvement on the American coal we had up in the Park some years ago. If an effort were made to have some of these mines inspected, it would be money well spent.

Mr. O'Hara:

I am very interested in the point made by Deputy Lemass and also by Deputy Tully with regard to the utilisation of the National Development Fund for the improvement of bog roads. I should like to support them. It should be appreciated that, during the emergency period, particularly in the early years, when we found ourselves in serious difficulties with regard to fuel supplies, county councils had to embark on schemes of production of turf by private methods and also by direct action schemes. Due to the fact that heavy vehicles operated on some of our bog roads—even horse-drawn vehicles were used more frequently than they normally would be, for the reason that increased supplies of turf had been stacked on the roadside for dispatch to different parts of the country where fuel was not available— these roads suffered very seriously, and as far as I can gather no Department of State has taken the responsibility of putting these roads in order since.

It is true that some of them—a very small percentage of them—have been put in order, but, indeed, it is a very small percentage. I would urge upon the Minister that portion of this money could be spent in no better way than on the improvement of these roads. During the emergency, people on uneconomic holdings of land earned sums of £100, £150 and £200 annually in this sort of work. I understand that it is proposed at a later date to erect at Bangor Erris in my constituency a turf-fired electricity station. This is an area from which a considerable number of people emigrate to England annually. I foresee that if hand-won turf is going to be used in that station, it will help to reduce the number of people who are forced to emigrate annually.

During the emergency, these people enjoyed certain incomes from the private turf which they produced under emergency conditions. When the emergency was over, the schemes of turf production almost ceased, which created a very serious problem in these areas. The fact that we can keep our young people at home and employ them in their spare time on such schemes is of vital importance. Before the erection of the turf-fired electricity station, it is of the greatest importance that some attention should be paid to the roads in the Bangor Erris area, Achill, Ballycroy and other places which have been badly neglected by different State Departments for quite a long time.

I urge on the Minister the importance of spending portion of the money as early as possible on works of that nature. That will have the effect of saving certain Departments from providing dole and unemployment benefit for many of these people.

The matter of coast erosion was referred to by Deputy Allen and Deputy Tully and, in that connection, I wish to refer to the position at Lacken, Ballina. There the people are obliged to wade knee deep through tidal waters. In this year of 1956, it is a scandalous state of affairs to have people wading knee deep through tidal waters in order to go to Mass. I am asking the Minister, as I have asked the Minister for Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, to do something about this. These latter told me that the matter was beyond the scope of their Departments. I then tried to interest the Department of the Minister for Agriculture, on the ground that a certain acreage of land would be reclaimed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance told me that it was beyond the scope of his Department, but it ought to be within the scope of some Department and, accordingly, I think that portion of this £3,000,000 which the Minister is seeking in connection with the National Development Fund could be spent in no better way than providing some bridge or some type of breakwater to prevent the tidal waters from flowing in at Lacken.

If the Minister for Finance would direct his engineers to see the place for themselves, I am positive they would do something. The people are enduring hardships, as their ancestors before them had to endure them. The Minister should take immediate steps to remedy this situation, and I urge him to use this fund, in view of the fact that I have been turned down on this matter by other Departments. Portion of this fund should be utilised for an important purpose of this kind. I ask the Minister seriously to consider my proposal. Let me repeat that the place to which I refer is Lacken, Ballina, County Mayo.

Mr. Donegan:

I looked over the list of allocations in connection with this fund and I am sure the House could not disagree with any of the items. They are all very praiseworthy objects which will bring increased revenue to every person in the State in the years to come. I notice that the sum of £79,000 was allocated to the improvement of Limerick Harbour. I am sure this will bring to the port of Limerick an increased tonnage in imports and exports each year and create greater opportunities in regard to trade, commerce and employment for the people of that city.

I, however, would like to have seen an item on the list for Drogheda Harbour, because at the moment the Drogheda Harbour Commissioners, of which I am a member, are faced with a rather extraordinary situation. We have a reasonably good surplus of revenue over expenditure. We are not bankrupt and the harbour is flourishing. Indeed, the harbour will and must flourish, because, as Dublin becomes the bottleneck, the nearest, best and most convenient centre of industry is Drogheda. From Drogheda will go many products and to Drogheda will come many business men. There is no question about that, but the state of the harbour at the moment can and will retard it.

In conversation with any old sailor or person dealing in coal, you will be told the name, tonnage and draught of ten or 20 vessels which sailed up to Drogheda not so many years ago and which could not enter the port to-day. Two or three ships come on occasions weekly. They are Dutch vessels and the stage is now being reached at which these boats can come up the river only during a certain period. That is a very serious and extraordinary situation for a port like Drogheda. The largest vessel that I have seen come to Drogheda port over the past few months is the S.S. Menapia. A few years ago, this vessel could enter Drogheda port without difficulty.

At the moment she comes in at exceedingly high tide and is the cause and subject of quite a lot of controversy between her master and the pilots. Faced with this situation, we wish to purchase a dredger of our own. Yesterday morning at a meeting of Drogheda Harbour Commissioners I was shocked to hear our harbour master verify what I had heard him say in conversation about three weeks before, namely that if the dredger were purchased and delivered tomorrow, it would have before it 15 years' work. We want to get a grant for the purchase of this dredger, and it may well be that at a special meeting next Friday night we will seek a further grant for immediate work on the river, because we believe in Drogheda. We believe it has a great future as a centre of industry, and that as Dublin becomes more and more the bottleneck it practically is at the moment, more and more heavy industries will come to Drogheda, and all we need is a sound and safe port to make sure that without the slightest shadow of doubt, prosperity and employment shall abound for all.

I am also very pleased to see the amount of the allocation made in this list to the Department of Agriculture, and particularly pleased to see the biggest one, for the Department's schools and educational services, namely, a sum of £150,000. The greatest need we have to-day in agriculture is education, and the cheapest thing we can buy is education. Macra na Feirme and kindred organisations, not the least of which is Muintir na Tíre, have done much, but without the necessary finance, schools and educational spare-time activities, not a great deal can be done. Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tíre can provide the background and the base upon which we can build, but it is necessary that we have a good educational set-up within the Department of Agriculture. The advance of £150,000 from the National Development Fund will, I believe, bring back to us a much greater sum in increased earnings from agriculture. We are not a rich nation. We cannot even supply the worldly goods we would like to put into agriculture, but, at least as long as the Minister is in his chair, in conjunction with the Minister for Agriculture, the know-how will not be denied the average farmer of to-day.

Similarly I am very pleased to see that there is a small grant for An Óige, because we do want to broaden our people's minds and to see people get around. As things stand at the moment, a holiday away from home is very often beyond the reach of many of us. An Óige performs a very useful function, but, again, any association such as An Óige must be hampered by lack of funds. A grant of £29,000 to An Óige is quite a lot of money, because they do not believe in spending money wantonly. If anybody has been in an An Óige hostel they will know that there, there is plain, decent comfort, and that the facilities to cook are provided. Beyond that, the traveller who travels with the An Óige badge on his breast gets nothing, and in truth he needs nothing, because nine times out of ten he is a young virile person on a bicycle who can well fend for himself.

The roads to the E.S.B. turf stations, I am sure, are badly needed. We all saw during the war how the turf lorries could cut up the ground and could even destroy our county roads. Turf lorries are heavily loaded vehicles, and very often adhering to them is quite a lot of mud and slime. There is nothing so bad for a road, except a cement road— and I include in the list roads very severely damaged by wet mud—as honest-to-God muck. It leaves a road, even a tarmacadam road, in a bad condition, and engineers will tell you that the farmer's tractor which comes out of the gate with half a hundredweight or hundredweight of muck adhering to its wheels, which it leaves behind to be beaten down into the road by following vehicles, does more damage than a farmer's tractor with spade lugs.

That is all I wish to say, except again to impress on the Minister that, whilst it is not on this list, I hope that a grant for the improvement of Drogheda Harbour will be on the following list. It is absolutely number one priority in my constituency, and I will fight as hard as I can for it. I know that while the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce are in their chairs as Ministers in their respective Departments, we will not stand very long unanswered.

Mr. Derrig:

I think we can all agree with the Minister for Finance that as far as possible the expenditure under the National Development Fund Vote should aim at being of a strictly productive character. I take it that what the Minister means by "productive" in that case is something which will be of permanent benefit, help to create wealth and benefit the economy of the country, as well as the standard of living of the people incidentally. The Minister, I think, will find a good measure of support from all sides of the House in his views that we should aim as far as possible at devoting the expenditure under this Vote to productive work, meaning "productive" in the narrowest sense, if you like, but, as I take it, the best sense. If we ourselves were personally responsible and were expending the money as proprietors or managing directors of businesses, that is the particular way in which we would spend it so that it would be of most benefit to our business or our affairs—not merely spending it so as to create a splash.

Of course when the fund was established it was certainly the intention that the aim should be to give employment as far as possible, but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that, as well as having regard to the productive character of the enterprise or the undertaking, the Government felt that it should not be the position that the National Development Fund would take on the normal responsibilities of either the central administration or the local authority. It would be unfortunate if the discussion on the Estimate were to take the line that the Deputies from all the constituencies had to get up here, one after the other, and point to particular works or projects in their constituencies that they thought might be fitted in under this Vote. I take it that works of that character might be more fitly discussed under the different Estimates, such as those for the Department of Local Government, or Agriculture, Industry and Commerce, Fisheries and so on.

As well as the productive aim, the objective in regard to the Estimate for the National Development Fund would be to initiate, encourage and foster undertakings or works of a productive nature that would not otherwise be undertaken. Of course, there are works that would give employment for which particular authorities, either local or national, have refused to take responsibility. Although it might be argued that they have responsibilities in connection with drainage or road works or even erosion—where erosion is going to cause damage to property or even, perhaps, danger to life—I take it that these well-discussed and well-travelled by-ways, which we are in the habit of bringing up here year after year, were not the types of work which the National Development Fund was intended to cover and that they should be the responsibility either of the local authorities or of the central authority in cases where, as in that of the Office of Public Works, it can be shown that there is a definite responsibility upon them.

The list the Minister was good enough to give in reply to a question by Deputy Aiken disclosed that, of the £250,000 allocated for Gaeltacht projects before the change of Government, only £111,000 has been expended so far. Perhaps the Minister would be able to indicate to us, in his concluding remarks, what the projects were and what the other projects are. If it is not the position that all the projects generally are in course of execution and that the £111,000 is in respect of the fact that they are not all completed, if it is the case that some projects have, however, been undertaken and others for which money has been allocated have not been commenced, would the Minister be good enough to specify the two classes?

Listening to the claims for harbours throughout the country and noting the large sums which have been allocated for the metropolitan harbour here and for the important Cork harbour one is naturally interested to know the position as regards our fishing harbours and the programme of fishery development which the former Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Bartley, had under consideration and to which I have no doubt the Government has given attention, during the past 18 months. One naturally wonders whether any of these projects for the expenditure of money on local fishing harbours, particularly in the West but also in the South, are included in any portion of the schedules which the Minister has been good enough to furnish to us.

I take it that regard is had to the geographical distribution of the moneys in so far as the other objectives which I have mentioned are concerned—objectives which, if they are accepted by the Government must, of course, be the ones which the Minister will primarily bear in mind. It would be natural that in tourist areas and areas where the need for employment is greatest and where the toll of emigration is heaviest there should be a general feeling that the utmost possible would be done when works such as the improvement of harbours, which might help the fishing industry, are in contemplation. They are one of the greatest natural assets we have and unfortunately, I think we have not been doing enough in that respect. The work should go side by side, really, with the work of agricultural development, agricultural research and agricultural expansion generally.

Precisely the same arguments hold where fisheries are concerned though fisheries are not as important in the national economy when we consider the tremendous advantage that the coastal areas have—"the millions of acres of fisheries" as has well been said, that we have, the fishing waters which are available at our doorsteps. We are an island nation, and with the high cost of food and the anxiety about the provision of food generally, it is certainly mystifying, to say the least of it, why greater energy and thought are not given to this very important matter of the development of fisheries by every possible means.

I should like to ask also whether there are any other industries in question in connection with the congested areas. I asked whether there is provision for fishery development and harbour development and, side by side with that, whether there is any provision for any other industry such as the tomato-growing, industry—whether that appears under any heading. The Minister has told us that most of the money that has been granted by this House has been allocated. It has been allocated but it has not, of course, been expended. With regard to the schemes that were approved, for example, before the change of Government, according to the reply to Deputy Aiken's question to-day, the total amounts that were allocated were about £6,500,000.

I understood from the Minister, when he was introducing this Estimate, that the incoming Government reduced that total to about £5,500,000, of which about £3,600,000 has been expended. One wonders, however, why schemes that were approved so long ago as June, 1954, and even earlier, have not been carried forward to a greater extent than the proportion of £3.6 million out of £5.5 million or £5.6 million. With regard to the amount provided for road works, for example —not the total but a very substantial amount—there was a reduction of £400,000 but nevertheless about £2,300,000 was expended on road works and £100,000 was expended under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Then, further down, we find that about £900,000 was spent on special employment schemes.

It would seem, therefore, that very large sums are being spent on road works and employment schemes of a purely local character and not enough, I think, is being spent in proportion on the projects which could really be described as productive in the proper sense, whether they come under the aegis of industry and commerce or agriculture. For example, in the list under agriculture, the total amount, including £600,000 for the eradication of bovine T.B., which the Government allocated for these agricultural schemes, schemes which had been approved prior to 2nd June, 1954, was over £1,000,000; but the amount expended to date is only £112,000, or about one-tenth of that sum. Perhaps the Minister may be able to make an excuse with regard to the later agricultural items on the list of schemes approved since 2nd June, 1954, amounting to £556,000, of which only about £10,000 has been expended. But one wonders whether the Minister is really sincere and whether any energy is being displayed in pushing forward these schemes.

I should like to endorse what has been said about the necessity for helping our educational institutions. In the list before us, which was given to us to-day, it is of course only the agricultural schools and certain institutions under the control of the Department of Agriculture which appear; but if we are to give education its proper standing and its proper value, and to recognise that perhaps no money expended on any aspect of national work would be really so productive or so valuable to the future of our country as money well spent on educational development, we could—certainly I could—make a case to the Minister for doing more for technical education and research in various ways. I think for the moment we might just ask him what exactly he has in mind with regard to the branch of our economy which he has stressed as being of particular interest to him, namely, agriculture. In connection with agricultural education and research, what exactly has he in mind?

Mr. Walsh:

When this fund was established, it had a dual purpose. One was to help in getting greater production from agriculture and the other was to provide more employment. From the reply to the question put to the Minister to-day I see now that the leaning is in one direction, namely, to provide employment. The Minister has been around the country. He has been talking at various places. All his arguments have been based on greater production; if this country is to survive, there must be greater agricultural production. Yet, here, when it is within the province of the Minister and the Government to help to get greater agricultural production, they have neglected to do so.

When this Government came into office, there were productive schemes before them. Some of those schemes have been approved. Others have not been approved because other Departments had come in and were entitled to a share of the fund. Surely, the schemes that were put forward and that had been prepared by Agriculture were deserving of attention; and, if the Minister and his colleagues were sincere and were determined to get greater production, they would have examined these proposals.

These proposals covered a variety of schemes. There were to be, for instance, more demonstration plots and pilot farms. Provision had been made for the eradication of bovine T.B. Preparations had been made and plans prepared for units of the agricultural institute; buildings and equipment for the Department's existing agricultural schools and farms; private agricultural schools and rural domestic economy schools were to get grants; there were to be live-stock progeny testing stations for cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry; grants for university research; additional laboratory facilities; production of fertilisers and feeding stuffs; a control station for eggs and poultry; the establishment of a fish farm; facilities for the drying and storage of grain; expansion of veterinary facilities; reclamation of marginal land and the improvement of hill grazing, mostly in the Gaeltacht and congested areas; improved facilities under the farm buildings and farm water supply schemes; disposal of sewage at creameries; heating of Gaeltacht glasshouses; grants for the establishment of factories for the production of fancy cheese; grants and loans to machinery contractors for certain machinery, such as lime and manure distributors; the provision of facilities for the drying and storage of onions; storage facilities for seed and ware potatoes; provision for tomato houses at power stations; poultry development in Connemara; and the provision of facilities for the production of foundation stocks of seed.

These schemes and proposals were all there at the disposal of the present Government. Every one was designed for the purpose of increasing agricultural production. What do we find to-day? We find that, out of all the approved schemes, approved prior to 2nd June, 1954, out of over £1,000,000 provided, only £122,000, including what was approved since 2nd June, 1954, amounting to £9,700, has been spent to encourage agricultural production. Is there any sincerity in the statements made by the Minister and his colleagues when they go around the country telling the people they are making every effort to increase agricultural production and that, unless we increase agricultural production, this nation is doomed? When they had an opportunity of increasing production, they neglected to avail of that opportunity.

One of the most important schemes approved prior to June, 1954, was that in connection with progeny testing. Progeny testing in relation to pigs could be regarded as being of the most vital importance. At that time, the Dutch and the Danes were capturing the British market. The Danes have proved the value of progeny testing. We had made preparations to have progeny testing stations erected here. We knew we had the pigs. We had the large White, which was as suitable as the Landrace they had in Denmark. We knew that we had good strains— the Large White York—here in the country, some of them equal to the best Landrace that could be found in Denmark. It was a matter of testing them out and finding the best of that Large White York, so that our farmers would be able to compete with the Danes and with the Dutch in the British market. We failed to do so.

What do we find now? We find now that, instead of 1,000,000 pigs that were killed in the factories in the years 1953 and 1954, that number has dwindled down to 5,000 or 6,000. If it continues, the pig industry in this country is killed. We could have avoided that in 1954 by erecting these progeny testing stations. That was one of our failures. We did not do anything about it. We have not spent a shilling on it—not one shilling. The same thing applies as far as——

Mr. Sweetman:

Progeny testing showing results in 12 months?

Mr. Walsh:

It will show results in pigs in 12 months; not in cattle or sheep, I admit. But as far as pigs are concerned, you will get results, sufficient results to go ahead with some pigs, in 12 months. It will not be complete, but you will know where you are going, even after 12 months.

Mr. Sweetman:

What about buildings to carry out the work?

Mr. Walsh:

The buildings to carry out the work—the specifications were already in the Department. These specifications had come from Denmark; everything was ready for the erection of that progeny testing station; but there was nothing done about it.

Now, sheep—another important factor in the country. We do know that the wool produced in this country is of an inferior quality. We know that we have a market in America, but it is not for the manufacture of the highest quality cloths, and some time ago there was even a difficulty in selling it in that market. We want to improve the wool on our sheep and that can be done in our progeny testing stations. We can have our wool graded up and we can find out if we can produce more mutton on these sheep. But it is only by progeny testing that you can do it.

Again, we have the same thing applying to cattle. We are in greater difficulty with regard to them than with any other of our live stock here at home. We have so many breeds—milk breeds and beef breeds—that, if we are going to capture the beef market, we must find out which is the best animal to breed from, the most economical, the one that produces the highest quality beef, the one that is going to be of best value to our people. The same thing applies as far as milk is concerned. We want to find the most economical cow, and it is only through testing that these things are going to be discovered, and, as I have already said, we in our time had made provision for a start on that. But, of the £1,000,000 allocated by the Fianna Fáil Government, prior to the 2nd June, 1954, we have spent £111,000 or £112,000.

What did we spend it on? We spent £7,150 on the fish farm, for which we had allocated £25,000; we spent nothing on progeny testing and nothing on special veterinary research; on foundation stocks of seeds, out of £150,000, we have spent £31,000; on artificial insemination, out of £40,000, we have spent £2,750; and, on bovine T.B. eradication, for which we had made £600,000 available, we have spent the sum of £71,200. Compare these amounts we have spent on this most important industry—the one from which the Minister is hoping to get sufficient money to balance his Budget, to get more prosperity for our people— with what we have spent on relief schemes and on road schemes. We have been able to spend £2,295,129 on these schemes. Under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, we have been able to spend £100,000.

Mr. Sweetman:

I am delighted to find Deputies Walsh and Derrig so clearly endorsing my view of using National Development Fund money for roads.

Mr. Walsh:

I do not understand the Minister. I do not understand what he means. I am not in agreement with spending that amount of money on roads and starving agriculture.

Mr. Sweetman:

What allocation did I make to roads? What allocation did my predecessor make?

Mr. Walsh:

What did you spend? It is what you spend that counts. Let us find what you spent. You spent £900,000 on relief schemes—almost as much on relief schemes as you spent on agriculture and agricultural development—and yet we hear the Minister shouting for greater production in agriculture from every platform in the country—our farmers must produce more, otherwise this country is gone. And this is the assistance the Government has given: spending almost as much money on relief schemes as was spent on agriculture. Does it not show the sincerity behind all the statements that have been made up and down the country from every platform and at every Chamber of Commerce meeting? Does it not show the sincerity behind it?

There are many schemes—the heating of glasshouses, for instance. We know that, in Donegal and Connemara, the one great difficulty for our people who have glasshouses is that they have not tomatoes on the market at the right time. They are about two months too late. The only way in which they can have tomatoes at a time when there is a demand for them, when there is very little opposition—at least two months earlier than they come in —is by heating the glasshouses. Experiments are being carried out, and I understand that the experiments have been successful, but the amount of money that is being spent on these experiments and the amount of money being spent on the installation of heating apparatus in these areas is not even mentioned here. Gaeltacht projects are there, but we do not know whether they are included in that or not. But we do find that the amount allocated to orchard planting in the Dungarvan district is £32,000—£32,000 to grow more apples.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.