Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Apr 1956

Vol. 156 No. 4

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

I think I made it clear that it is now pretty generally agreed that the economic future of us all, whether we live in city, town, or village or on the land itself is, in the last analysis, dependent on the success or failure which attends our efforts to expand production from the land. It is most urgently necessary for everyone in this House, and in the country, to bear in mind one factor in relation to the expansion of agricultural production that does not as yet apply to the expansion in our industrial industry and it is that our domestic potential for consumption, though very much expanded, has now almost reached its limit with the result that increased agricultural production, in the main, must be for export.

A great many people over the last 17 years have become so accustomed to living in a seller's market that they forget, or are prone to forget, the fundamental change that is introduced when we find ourselves in these times in a buyer's market. We are back once more in the atmosphere of pretty acute competition in the foreign markets in which we trade. Fortunately we have been able by a series of trade agreements, principally with Great Britain, substantially to mitigate the severity of the impact of that competitive atmosphere; but, more and more as it impacts on us, our success or failure to expand production here will depend on our ability to expand it on terms which will enable us to meet competition, and beat it, both as to quality and price in the markets where we trade.

Bearing that in mind, I do not think we can doubt that the future of expansion lies mainly, but not exclusively, in the realm of live stock and live-stock products. I have indicated how urgently necessary it is that we should increase our cow population. One of the most remarkable phenomena of Irish agriculture over the past century has been that, though the total number of cattle has fluctuated quite widely from time to time, our total number of cows and heifers has remained virtually stable; and nothing is more urgent in our present situation than that we should exert every effort to increase our cow population.

Now, when it comes down to the concrete question of how this is to be done, I have a pragmatical mind: it seems to me the only way to do it is to keep more cows, and the only way to keep more cows is to try to persuade our farmers to retain more of the heifers bred on their holdings and send them to the bull. One may ask not unnaturally why they have not done that in the past and I think, when one comes to examine that question, one is forced to the conclusion that one of the reasons is that, while our farmers are pretty well as good as any farmers in the world in respect of tillage techniques, it is undoubtedly true that we have fallen far behind in a proper appreciation of the capacity of grassland to produce, with the result that the quality of much of our grazing land and meadows is deplorably low.

This leads me then to ask the question as to how best that problem can be surmounted? I think we are providing the answer to that problem reasonably well, but it behoves us to persuade the farmers to avail more energetically of the facilities which are being afforded them now and which were not available to them in the past. Those facilities may be numbered as, first, the supply of ground limestone which is an essential prerequisite to improving our grasslands; and it is important to remember that we now have available unlimited supplies of ground limestone at a price which brings it within reach of every farmer who is prepared to use it. The second thing that is urgently necessary is that the farmer should know what essential constituents his land lacks in order to evoke its maximum output and, to do that, soil testing facilities are essential.

It is satisfactory to know now that we have at Johnstown Castle in County Wexford a soil testing laboratory second to none in Europe or, indeed, I believe, in the world, the facilities of which are available to the farmers on more advantageous terms than are such facilities available to any other farmers in the world, because our farmers need only ask the agricultural instructor or the parish agent to come and test their soil and that will be done free of charge and a report made, without any cost of any kind, as to what the particular farms may require.

There is no doubt that at the present time what the grassland of Ireland first requires is an adequate supply of lime, phosphate, potash and nitrogen; and it is the duty of the Department of Agriculture, as it is of the county committees, to direct the attention of the farmers to the necessity for these things and to their availability. I think it would be of service to the agricultural community if all of us who have an opportunity of reaching that community directly would emphasise to those who are habitually taking conacre at the present time for the accommodation of their surplus stock that if they would spend one half the rent they at present happily pay for conacre on the purchase of lime, phosphate, potash and nitrogen and apply them to their own land, they would be able to carry their cattle on their own land, and, at the same time, by a process of residual values, they would greatly improve the quality of their own land, thus fulfilling the injunction of getting from it its maximum output, always provided they leave it in the autumn a little better than they found it in the spring.

It is true that a great deal of the land of the country has been in a state of chronic dereliction through waterlogging and excessive fencing, through the occupation of too much land by shrubs and ditches, through the overgrowth of much land by scrub and bush and rock. I think the land rehabilitation project is making good headway towards the elimination of these obstacles, thereby increasing production. Now, all this is primarily referable to the increased output of cattle and milk, but we must not overlook, as some of us are too often prone to do, the very important contribution that can and should be made to the economy of our small farmers and medium sized farmers by the keeping of greater numbers of sheep. I am happy to see from the returns that the numbers of our sheep are steadily increasing and I like to recall that very energetic measures were taken over the past eight years by the Department of Agriculture to improve the quality of our mountain sheep by the introduction of very large numbers of imported rams of the highest quality, the results of which imports are now being seen in the quality of the wool and of the character of the blackfaced sheep on our mountainsides and indeed on the sheep which normally are reared and fattened on the lowlands as well.

We are unfortunately late in starting in the eradication of bovine T.B. By a series of circumstances into which it is not necessary to go to-day, it has been possible for Denmark and Holland to travel further and faster in that direction than we have been able to do. There is no use in pining over the past. We put our hand to the task of eliminating bovine T.B. in this country when the bovine eradication scheme was launched a little over a year ago. I think we may justly claim to have found ourselves much more fortunate than we had any right to anticipate.

We took, as the House knows, three areas for intensive eradication—County Sligo, County Clare and the parish of Bansha and two adjoining parishes. The incidence of the disease in the Bansha area was much what we anticipated and was undoubtedly high. The incidence in Clare was not alarming but substantial and it manifestly presented a relatively long-term problem for its complete eradication. Our experience in Sligo, however, has been so encouraging as to persuade us that it is not impossible that, within the next year or two, we shall be able to designate Sligo as the first T.B. free area in this country. It is our purpose, when we have reached that stage, to require everybody in the area to participate in the task of eradicating T.B. just as we would require them to eradicate anthrax and foot-and-mouth disease, if it appeared in any part of the country; and then, by the erection of a cordon sanitaire around Sligo, gradually to expand to the adjoining counties a T.B. free status so that, within the foreseeable future, we may have a substantial area in that part of the country which shall be eligible for the style and title of an attested area under the terminology commonly employed in international practice in the elimination of T.B.

An essential part of that scheme for the elimination of bovine T.B. is the facilities which are being made available to co-operative creameries to install pasteurising plants to handle the skim milk which is being returned to the farmers. I am happy to say that advantage is being taken of the 50 per cent. grant that is available to those who install the plant, and we hope that every creamery in the bovine eradication area will have that equipment in the early future. I think it is true to say that, in respect of the entire County Clare, all the creameries have it or are in the process of acquiring it, and I hope that we shall be able to make a similar report in respect of Sligo at a reasonably early date.

The next item in our expansion programme must be pigs. Over a short term, pigs have the greatest potentiality for dramatic expansion because you can expand the pig population very much more quickly than that of cattle or sheep. When one came to ask oneself what required to be done in order to bring this about, it seemed to me that the first essential was to ensure, as far as our resources would permit, that that hazard in pig production, which has operated always heretofore to restrain full scale expansion, would be removed. And that hazard was the danger that, when the number of pigs increased, the prices would collapse. Bitter experience in the past persuaded those who produced pigs that that habitually happened and, accordingly, the Government has authorised me to inform pig producers that for the next 12 months—and we intend to maintain it thereafter—there shall be a minimum guaranteed price for pigs of Grade A quality delivered to bacon factories.

It may be well if I make it clear what that provides. It provides that every pig going into the factory shall be graded under the supervision of the officers of the Department of Agriculture who normally attend there for veterinary inspection purposes. Over and above that any farmer has a right to go and see his own pigs graded if he wants to. In respect of any pig which attains to Grade A, he is guaranteed that he will receive not less than 235/- per cwt., no matter how many pigs are delivered to the factory. He may receive more but nobody can offer him less.

A constant source of complaint has been that it is a terrible hardship on a man, who delivers a pair of pigs to the factory and discovers that they are 1 or 2 lb. overweight; he is heavily cut and his pigs reduced from the relatively satisfactory price provided for Grade A pigs down to the relatively unsatisfactory price provided for Grade B pigs. I have tried to meet that situation, and the way I have tried to meet it is by establishing a new buffer grade. Grade A pigs will be pigs from 1 cwt. O qr. 8 lb. up to 1 cwt. 2 qr. O lb., with certain fat measurements which are set out in the Order, and anybody delivering pigs within that definition is guaranteed not less than 235/- per cwt.

Then I have asked the bacon curers to produce what I call a buffer grade —Grade B1. For pigs with those fat measurements but which fall within the range of 1 cwt. 2 qr. 1 lb. or 1 cwt. 2 qr. 7 lb., they will receive 230/-. If the pig falls into Grade B ordinary, I do not seek to fix the price at all, and the same applies in the case of Grade C and what is called Grade X, if it falls below the very minimal standard fixed for Grade C. I think that will be some contribution to the problem of the man who feels a deep sense of grievance if his pig has gone 1 lb. or 2 lbs. over the maximum prescribed for Grade A, as a result of which he is called upon to bear the full impact of the reduction which, we may anticipate, would arise as between Grade A and Grade B pigs.

At the same time, as from May 1st, there will be no restriction on the export of live pigs. Deputies may ask me: "What do you expect the result of that will be?" I would like to say that I do not know. Some pig dealers take the view that they will be able to build up a large market for live pigs, and the view has also been expressed to me that they will find it very difficult. However, it is a free open market and those engaged in it can make the best fist of it they can. I shall be very glad to see them export as many pigs as they can find profitable markets for, and I will be very glad to see the advantages of that accruing to the farmers who produce the pigs. I do not know what contribution that is going to make to stability but this, at least, seems certain: it will be an additional guarantee of assistance to the prices generally available for pigs of all grades if there is an alternative market available for them through pig export channels.

That brings me to a problem which confounds the mind of many people and that is whether we have the best type of pig in this country or not. That is one of the most difficult of all the questions to answer because you are in this position. The type of pig we have in this country is intimately familiar to us all. It is as old as human wisdom that distant hills look green and far off cows have long horns. Anything you do not know and that some other fellow has looks lovely, but the thing you have yourself you are always inclined to regard as rather pedestrian.

There is another element that a lot of people forget. It is that the man who has the new thing is in on the ground floor and the louder he toots his horn about the virtue of the new thing of which he is exclusive possessor for the time being, the higher he can jack the price to anybody who wants to purchase half of his output. Deputies have probably noticed that in Great Britain two or three years ago the fortunate few who bought first drafts of the Swedish landrace pigs got the most incredible prices for sows from people who were eager to share in this bonanza. The price has gone back considerably now, but over and above that those who rushed in to participate in the bonanza were not aware that they were buying something more than the pig. A great many of them were buying a risk and our friends in Northern Ireland who admitted the Swedish landrace pig in the early stages discovered to their horror and dismay that there had turned up in Northern Ireland that which had never been there before—a most obscure and dangerous pig disease from which this island had been free up to that.

Fortunately, by diligent exertions on the part of our friends in Northern Ireland they have pretty well succeeded in stamping out the disease of atrophic rhinitis, an outbreak of which threatened them there. I am being pressed to throw open the gates and let in the landrace pig, the representation being that the landrace is so much better than the strain of pigs we have. I do not believe it is. I believe there are good Swedish landrace pigs just the same as there are bad ones, just as I believe there are good large Irish pigs and bad ones. Even if I make the concession that the generality of landrace pigs has possibly reached a higher level at this stage than the generality of large Irish white, I am convinced that it would be folly to run the risk of bringing in something which will attack our pigs for whatever passing advantage there might be available in having a limited number of Swedish landrace pigs at fancy prices available to our farmers at the present time.

But I could not honestly take up that position if I were not in a position to add that we are pursuing with all the energy we can command the task of progeny testing and raising the standard by a process of selection of our own large Irish white pigs. We have inaugurated progeny testing in an experimental way at Ballyhaise and a progeny testing station where progeny testing can be done by the best possible methods is in process of erection at the Munster institute.

That is not all. In addition to that, we have, with the collaboration of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board, set up a system in every factory whereby a constant watch is maintained to see if any exceptionally high proportion of Grade A pigs is coming from any particular district and wherever that becomes manifest we send an investigation officer to that district to see if we could identify the boar which is passing on this peculiarly desirable factor in the progeny that is taken up in the factory. So far, these efforts have been attended by some measure of success. Where we establish that a particular boar seems to be producing an exceptionally high proportion of high quality progeny we are endeavouring to use his progeny as boars to let out or to sell to other breeders so that the excellence of his produce can be disseminated as widely as possible.

That procedure is attended by its own perils because sometimes when you establish the desirable quality of a boar either at a progeny testing station or through this procedure in the factory by the time you get to the boar he has been turned into sausages or has met with some disaster. We had one instance in which we thought we had identified a boar but by the time we reached his residence the boar was dead. He had met with an accident. That happens from time to time.

Nevertheless, you do identify a number of them and it is along those lines that I would hope to establish in due time that the large Irish white would produce at least as high a percentage of Grade A pigs as would suit our export trade and provide our bacon factories with as high quality a pig as is available to a bacon factory in any part of the world.

That does not finish the job because when our farmers have delivered to the factories the highest grade pig the quality of the bacon depends upon the skill of the curer who produces the bacon. We have in this country some curers who are as good curers as can be found anywhere but we have some curers who are not. It was a source of constant difficulty and anxiety to me how best to deal with the curer who is getting the right quality of pigs all right but who is not producing the right quality of bacon and who by putting inadequately cured bacon on the British market may do serious injury to the reputation of Irish bacon as a whole.

I have felt bound, therefore, to set high standards and high accommodation and equipment in Irish bacon factories as the minimum that will be accepted in regard to bacon curing in future. I have got to bear in mind what will be reasonable requests on established firms so as not to present them with a programme of re-equipment and reform which if enforced ruthlessly would wreck them financially but I have got to give notice and make it perfectly clear that in the defence of the agricultural industry as a whole I must ensure that reasonable accommodation is available in bacon factories to do justice to the pigs that are slaughtered and cured there and that people who have not got the resources themselves must seek the resources, not to carry out any fancy or unnecessary frills in the equipment of factories, but to bring these factories up to the minimum requirements of modern bacon curing. We cannot all try to produce bacon in factories equipped in a style that was appropriate to 1880, and sell the product in a market which is being supplied in 1956 from the four corners of the earth.

I spoke of the knowledge we now have of the relative merits of our own breed of large Irish white pig. I think it may be of interest to the House to have some information which I give them most tentatively and under every sort of warning that the conditions under which these progeny tests were carried out are experimental and could not be deemed to be identical with the conditions obtaining in progeny testing stations recognised internationally, as our new progeny testing station at the Munster Institute will be when it is built. But, subject to those emphatic reservations, we have conducted and completed two progeny tests to-day. Another, the third, is in process of completion at the present time.

In the first test, there were 74 pigs on test and in the second, 71. The average weight of the pigs at eight weeks was 34.67 lb. in the first case and 36.75 in the second. The average weight at slaughter in the first test was 193 lb. and in the second 190. The food conversion rate, which is a very important factor, and this not at all under ideal conditions, was 3,369 in the first case and 3.502 in the second. The killing out percentage was 75.57 in the first test and 76.93 in the second test. The length of carcase, measured according to the Danish system —and there are two systems— averaged 93.5 centimetres in the first test and 94 centimetres in the second test. These are figures that I have compared at length and they compare very favourably with the Danish figures. There are a number of other criteria here set out by which carcases are judged but, when you bring them down to the point of grading, we have had this not unsatisfactory experience. In the first progeny test 67.5 per cent. of the pigs graded A; in the second progeny test 76.3 per cent of the pigs graded A. In the first progeny test, 23 per cent. of the pigs graded B; in the second progeny test 16.6 per cent. of the pigs graded B. In the first test only 9.5 per cent. were graded C; in the second test only 7.1 per cent. graded C. That means that, in the first test, we had over 90 per cent. of the pigs grading A and B and in the second test we had nearly 93 per cent. of the pigs grading A or B. That is by no means perfection, but it is not at all bad. I think it would be a ridiculous procedure to throw away the position we have, that is, of having a population of that breed free from very grave disease and exchanging it for the Swedish landrace which certainly, in our opinion, is a vector of atrophic rhinitis and which we very much doubt will produce a result substantially superior to that result as of to-day.

Could the Minister give us the food ration?

I will find that out for the Deputy. I have not the details by me at the moment. However, we doubt if the foreign breed of pig would give us superior results. We have little or no doubt that, given the maintenance of progeny testing, we can secure that that disease-free variety of pig can be raised in its general strains to a level which will compare very favourably with the best any foreign country can produce.

Would it be possible for the Minister to make that information available with the particulars of the food ration—on the restricted basis the Minister has mentioned?

I will certainly look into that. However, when I come to discuss the food ration, that brings me to another point which I wish to emphasise to-day. I would ask the House to give very special attention to what I am going to say. We have had a long tradition in this country of importing maize wherewith to feed pigs. Prior to the 1939 war, so long as we proposed to remain in the export business, there seemed to me to be an unanswerable case for leaving access to these cereals such as maize freely available to the pig rearer of this country. We have to remember that the food which a pig producer in this country feeds to his pig is as much the raw material of his industry as cotton is to the spinner or yarn is to the cloth weaver or metal is to the man who is making pots and pans. Nobody would ever suggest that you should ask a factory to manufacture pots and pans for export to a foreign market and tax the iron which has to be imported wherewith to make them. There was not a doubt that, prior to 1939, maize was an incomparably cheap foodstuff for pigs compared with any cereal we could produce in this country.

A Deputy

What about pollard?

Pollard was a by-product of the flour mills. My principal concern was access to grains primarily intended for the feeding of live stock. Maize was infinitely cheaper than any grain we could produce in this country. The varieties of barley which we grew had so low a yield per acre as to make them luxury grain for the purpose of feeding pigs. They were primarily grown in our conditions for malting and only as the raw material for malting. Now, in 1948, we introduced into this country Ymer and Herta barley, the short straw high yield feeding barley from which it became possible to get an average return in the order of 40 cwt. per acre and, in the hands of an exceptionally skilled grower, yields of three tons per acre were not unknown. However, the moment we popularised these varieties of barley in the country we were faced with the knowledge that, in certain areas, they tended to fail. It quickly became manifest to all that which was known to the experts all along, namely, that you cannot grow barley and you cannot grow beet in the absence of lime.

The difficulty was that oats and wheat and divers other crops would grow on relatively acid soil, but that beet and barley died completely away in the absence of lime and there was no source from which that well-nigh universal shortage of lime in the West and a great part of the South and Midlands could be procured until adequate lime grinding capacity was established in the country and it was possible for a farmer anywhere to get a sufficient quantity of ground limestone to correct the acidity of his soil. It is now possible for any farmer in any part of the country to say with a reasonable degree of confidence that any ground that will grow oats or wheat will grow feeding barley, if its lime status is corrected. I cannot say that as an absolute rule without exception, but reference to his parish agent or the agricultural instructor of the county committee of agriculture will readily inform him as to the general rule in that regard. The result is that it has now been brought effectively within the reach of every farmer, small or large, to grow on his own land a cereal which, value for value, is as good as maize for pig feeding and the yield now obtaining is comparable in money value to the cheapest maize available in the world.

In these circumstances, and, bearing in mind the acutely competitive nature of the market in which we have to trade abroad, I would like to direct the mind of Dáil Éireann to the question of the pursuit of a course which, subject to the approval of the Dáil, I propose to adopt, that is, to persuade the pig raisers of this country to produce pigs from home-grown barley and skim milk. I make that addendum, skim milk, advisedly because any man who tries to raise pigs on barley without skim milk is courting disaster, unless he incorporates into the barley a suitable percentage of some other protein food such as meat meal or fish meal where these are available. The man who tries to feed pigs on barley without skim milk or meat meal or fish meal is heading straight for disaster, but the man who feeds pigs on barley and skim milk, if he adds about 1 lb. of salt to the cwt. of barley, and no more, has, I believe, a full and adequate diet for pigs.

I know that animal dieticians would qualify that considerably and advocate an ounce of this and a quarter ounce of that, and doubtless those who are in a position to introduce these refinements into their feeding may find them rewarding, but I dare to generalise and to say that any farmer who will feed his pigs on barley meal and 1 lb. of salt to the cwt. of barley meal and skim milk or meat meal or fish meal, has a full and adequate ration for his pigs. It also has this immense advantage, that in respect of the small farmers they can grow the bulk of it on their own holding and without giving any profit to the bag manufacturer, the wholesaler or the retailer, or to the miller other than their local miller. They can reserve for themselves the profit on their own crop and on the end product produced from it, the pig, instead of selling their cereal and then buying it back after it has passed through the hands of the miller, the wholesaler, the shopkeeper, the transport company, the bag manufacturer and all the others who take a bite out of it in the process of converting it from barley into a compound or straight feeding in a bag.

I do not want to say that there may not be farmers in the country whose special circumstances make it more convenient and advantageous for them to feed their pigs on a suitable compound feed, notably those who have not ready access to skim milk, but as regards the small farmer, who particularly stands in need of advice of this kind, I would say to concentrate on barley meal and skim milk with a lb. of salt to the cwt. of meal, bearing always in mind that salt, while excellent in limited quantities, is deadly poison to a pig if given to excess. Many are those who, leaving a bag of salt in a pig-sty, came back to find the pigs all dead, because pigs will eat salt until they die; where a little is good a surfeit is poisonous.

However, these are too intimate details to go into on an occasion of this kind. What I would suggest is that we should aim to ensure that in the long run we would grow all the coarse grain required for the pig industry and that, as we approach that stage, we would be justified in proposing to the pig feeders that from, say, September to December or even later, while supplies of barley are readily available from home sources, we should import no maize or coarse grain. This course is to be justified by this test, that the farmer who grows his own and feeds it to his pigs will get a better profit on the operation than the farmer who buys coarse grain through the shop or the mill for the same purpose. We have no right—I want to emphasise this and this is the appropriate time to say it—to subsidise the relatively wealthy grain growers of the East at the expense of the poor pig producer in the West, but we have the duty to cast our eye around and see how best we can marry the interests of both to the advantage of the country as a whole.

No matter how earnestly we put our minds to that task we must realise that the best way for the pig producer to procure the coarse grain he requires on which to fatten pigs is to grow it himself and it is only for that part of his requirements that he cannot produce upon his own holding that he should have recourse to the merchant or the mill. From the national approach, seeing that we now have a coarse grain available which is the economic competitor of imported grain, we will be wise, without undue upset to anybody, to urge on all to avail of that grain which can be produced from our own soil before we supplement it with such additional imports as may be requisite from foreign sources.

One of the great difficulties about a new departure of that kind is that if you declare an absolute famine of maize from September to December or January and then use up to all your domestic supplies of barley and go over to maize, you run the serious risk of killing half the pigs in the country because you cannot change a pig's diet from barley to maize in 24 hours. It must be a gradual process of adjustment. But you run another risk. If the whole pig producing community adapt themselves to the use of parley for four months of the year and then find themselves for the remaining seven or eight months dependent almost exclusively on maize, by the time the seven or eight months are over they do not want to change over to barley; they have got accustomed to the process of using maize.

Therefore, I must seriously consider whether it is necessary or desirable to import supplementary supplies to those which we shall produce at home, and, where prices are comparable, instead of importing maize, we should seriously consider importing barley.

Hear, hear!

Rome was not built in a day, and it is only fools who would try to do it, but I think that is the right line of policy on which to proceed and that what we are doing is something that would commend itself to the prudent man. But it could not be done, and it cannot be done, without ground limestone and without the varieties of barley which I am happy to remember I was primarily responsible for introducing eight happy years ago.

I am glad to be able to give Deputies ad interim information on the ration given to pigs and I shall, of course, be glad to send Deputy Walsh a copy of it. For the first period of fattening, that is from 45 lb. until they attain, I think, a weight of 112 lb. live weight, the ration is, barley, 50 per cent.; oats, 10 per cent.; bran, 5 per cent.; pollard, 22½ per cent.; grassmeal, 2½ per cent.; fishmeal, 5 per cent. and soya bean meal, 5 per cent. It will be noted that in the area where these progeny tests were proceeding supplies of skim milk were not available.

From 112 lb. to 200 lb.—these were live weight figures—the ration was 55 per cent. barley, 10 per cent. oats, 22½ per cent. pollard, 2½ per cent. grassmeal, 5 per cent. meat and bone meal, and 5 per cent. soya bean meal. One lb. of salt and 1 lb. of limestone flour—per cwt., I think—was added to all rations. Vitamins A and D were also added. Pigs were fed to appetite until 6¼ lb. of meal were consumed. Feeding was then restricted to 6¼ lb. of meal per diem until the pigs were finished. Up to a certain stage—I think up to 112 lb.—they were fed ad lib., then, for the final part, restricted to 6¼ lb. of meal per diem. There is, of course, a very important matter to which I must refer——

Might I ask where the pigs came from?

They were bought from a number of pedigree pig producers, a number of whom are already co-operating with the Department in a litter testing campaign to determine the fecundity of each sow. That diet, with all the trimmings in it, is, in fact, closely related to the diet ordinarily used internationally in pig progeny testing stations, but as you will observe, if you leave out the soya bean meal, the fishmeal, the grassmeal and so on, it is the kind of diet available to any Irish farmer, and if, for all the frills and furbelows, you substitute skim milk, even without the grassmeal and the soya beans or the fishmeal or the Vitamins A or D—I am not saying it might not be better if a farmer was in a position to put these in—I am convinced, particularly if in the final stage he restricts the pigs to not more than 6 or 6½ lb. of meal per day he will get a reasonably high percentage of Grade A pigs.

There are one or two other things to which I want to refer. One is in regard to a new departure which has been embarked on in the course of the last 12 months in connection with purchases and equipment—these purchases are already completed—being planned for the farm at Backweston, near Lucan, which is designed to form part of our pedigree seed production programme. The aim there is to expand the work of testing varieties of seeds and the production of what I believe is called a mother-stock of suitable varieties of wheat, barley, oats and grass seed which can be distributed to be grown under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture as certified Irish seed of these various varieties.

I think the highest compliment that can be paid to any certified seed scheme is that in so far as we have had a surplus of certified seed wheat available we have had inquiries from abroad to purchase it. I would like to see these certified seeds ultimately made available to the farmers of this country on the basis that if they did not want to pay for them there would be plenty of others who would be glad to pay for them and to get them. I think the less protection we have in respect of seeds which farmers have to buy, the better for everybody. The aim ought to be to produce certified seed of so high a reputation that it requires no protection from any competitor in the world but will be eagerly sought by all, both at home and abroad, on its merits, and value-for-value in competition with seed from any other source.

I want to refer to the parish plan, but before doing that I would like to catalogue shortly certain services which we now have and which, looking back to the recent past, we had not— certain services which I think are vital to the successful campaign to expand agricultural production in this country and without which it would have been impossible to do so. I refer principally to the ground limestone scheme, the soil testing facilities of Johnstown, the land rehabilitation project, the farm building scheme, the pig progeny testing scheme, the bovine T.B. eradication scheme, the creamery milk pasteurisation scheme, the parish plan and the pedigree seed production of wheat, oats, barley and grass seed, all of which I am glad to report to the Dáil, were organised under the inter-Party Government.

It is not so.

I put them in catalogue form so that you could argue about that until the cows come home.

The Minister tried to kill many of them.

I would like to refer to the parish plan. I feel it is probably agreed on all sides of the House that one very vital adjunct to any campaign to expand production is to bring within the reach of individual farmers the know-how of how best to exploit the potentialities of his land so as to secure the best possible results permanently. There are various services available under county committees of agriculture, but I want to make this clear, that where the farmers in any area seek the service of a permanent parish agent to help them and their neighbours in three adjoining parishes, they may seek it from the county committee of agriculture, and if the county committee of agriculture is prepared to supply it—well and good. But if they do not supply it, I want to fix all with full and fair notice that I have no intention whatever of allowing any vested interest successfully to prevent me from bringing within the reach of our farmers the expert advice without which they cannot get for themselves, for their wives and families from their holding a decent living and the production that the land should allow.

I know of my own personal knowledge of farmers who could greatly increase their yield, and who would greatly increase their yield, if they had at their disposal the advice which they require in order to achieve the results they would like to achieve. I know from personal experience of parish agents who are working under my Department in the country at the present time of the dramatic and superb results that have been secured as a result of the co-operation of farmers who sought that advice and got it and manifested their zeal and hunger for these facilities.

I intend to proceed until I have ensured that every farmer in this country has at his service the kind of advice he wants and the kind of advice to which he is entitled. Where he gets it from is a matter of indifference to me. If he can get it from the county committee of agriculture, he is quite welcome to do so, but, if he cannot, he will get it, on application, from me.

I reiterate, that in cleaving to that policy resolutely I want to pay a tribute to those who inaugurated it first in this country. Amongst the parish agents serving under my Department at present there are two categories, one, of the men who hold degrees in agricultural science and who have been appointed in the course of the last 12 months, but, over and above them, we dispose of the invaluable services of the old parish agents who were sent out originally under the Congested Districts Board, of whom there are 111 at present functioning in my Department.

These men were sent out as parish agents 50 years ago by the Congested Districts Board under the chairmanship of the late Cardinal O'Donnell, the late Dr. Kelly, Bishop of Ross, and the late Father Denis O'Hara, parish priest of Kiltimagh. I believe that these men knew their theology and loved their country just as well as any of the men of this generation and I am proud to follow in the footsteps they first made when they recognised the urgent need of bringing the right kind of advice and instruction to the small farmers of this country 50 years ago.

The world is changing and the standard of instruction required under modern conditions may be somewhat more exhaustive to-day than it was then, but it does seem, probably, appropriate that in this day and age the parish agent, acting directly under the Minister for Agriculture in this country, should be a graduate in agricultural science. That is not in any way to belittle the incalculable services that have been and are being rendered by the Department of Agriculture parish agents in the congested areas of this country.

I would like Deputies to bear in mind that, sometimes, when they read statistics—statistics are queer things in the hands of those who want to use them for their own purpose—about the multitudes of advisers available in Denmark and Holland, it might do them no harm to study the qualifications of a great many of the instructors in Holland because they will discover that, beside them, our parish agents of the Department of Agriculture under the old Congested Districts Board scheme are the equal or superior of a great many of the instructors that are at present serving under the Government of Holland and who are recorded for the benefit of the people of this country as being agricultural advisers in the same context as we refer to the graduates who are functioning as county advisers and parish agents under our several schemes here.

On the Continent the same type of parish agent as we provide in the congested areas of this country is very widely available. I think, probably, it is good that we should aim at a system ultimately manned exclusively by graduates in agricultural science but, obviously, the limits imposed upon us by the availability of such graduates must constrain us to travel very much less fast than we would if the supplies of trained personnel were available.

Deputies may wish to know what the prospects are of our tillage output this year. I am not in a position to say with any degree of accuracy what it is likely to be but, subject to the most exhaustive reservations which must be made at this stage of the year, it looks approximately like as if the acreage of wheat will be something similar to what it was last year; the acreage of feeding barley appears to be very much greater than it was last year; the acreage of beet appears to be something about what it was last year and the acreage of other root crops is as yet unascertainable because as Deputies are well aware, they are at present still being sown.

There are certain other details of which I would like to inform the House but I can do so in an abbreviated style, I think. Most Deputies have received a copy of the White Paper which I circulated for their information. I would like to direct their attention to every paragraph of that paper but with special reference to bog reclamation on pages 26 and 28 because that describes a project which is proceeding in collaboration between the Department and Bord na Móna, where Bord na Móna is placing at our disposal areas of cutaway bog, where they have removed the turf and the best methods for its prompt conversion to arable land are being studied by the scientists of my Department.

I would direct the attention of Deputies to the paragraph dealing with the cattle artificial insemination service because there they will learn that with the construction of the insemination co-operative in the north-west area we will, I think, have completed this service for the whole country. Deputies are no doubt aware that a good deal of controversy attended the establishment of the artificial insemination centre in the Sligo-Donegal-Leitrim-Mayo-Roscommon area. It was of a character which I did not think was unreasonable on either side and I was profoundly reluctant, in the early stages, to appear to take one side rather than the other but I was finally constrained to come down on the side of artificial insemination by the urgent necessity to control certain bovine diseases rampant in that area, notably trichomoniasis, and veterinary science, I think, has established that the reduction of that particular disease without the availability of artificial insemination is impossible. That consideration finally persuaded me, having weighed up the pros and cons of the case made on both sides, that I had a duty to press forward and I am happy to say that I think I now have the collaboration of most of the co-operative dairy societies in the area who have combined to form a co-operative to administer the artificial insemination service throughout that north-west part of Ireland and, with its establishment, that service will be available to farmers, large and small, in all parts of the country.

I would refer Deputies to the demonstration plots scheme on page 31 and to the farm buildings scheme on page 30. The farm buildings scheme falls into two tiers. One is that which is applicable to a wide range of farm buildings and the other is in respect of the double grant in respect of cow-byres for those who participate in the bovine T.B. eradication scheme. I am bound to tell the House that the demand for this scheme seems to be almost unlimited, and we have to fix a global figure which will be available in each financial year. Those for whom provision cannot be made out of that global sum will have to wait until next year when more money is available.

I would refer Deputies to page 27 of the notes which deal with the peatland experimental station. I went into that matter, Sir, in some detail when introducing a Supplementary Estimate recently—so recently that I do not think it is necessary to trouble the House with detailed information on it again. I should like the views of anyone who feels he would be in a position to give advice with regard to the elimination of the warble fly. To tell the truth, so long as there was a control on the price of hides, I did not see why the farmers should be asked to eliminate the warble fly for the benefit of the hide merchants who bought the hides cheap and sold them dear. Now there is a free market for hides and the benefit of any plan to eliminate the warble fly should accrue to the farmers. How can the warble fly be eliminated? I do not know how to eliminate the warble fly.

It has been done on some farms.

It is being done under my Department on Whiddy Island at the present time and in Loophead in order to demonstrate that it is physically possible to do it. I am sure Deputy Aiken does not mean to be provocative but he could not say anything more obviously absurd than to suggest that the warble fly has been eliminated on individual farms. How can you eliminate a warble fly on one farm? You cannot put up a notice saying: "Trespassers will be prosecuted" if the warble fly comes in from the next farm. A man can kill the warble flies which may infest his own cow, but what good does that do him? It is the neighbour's fly that might come in and sting his cows that is the trouble.

They do not travel any distance.

They can jump across a ditch. If the Deputy ever saw cattle gadding in a field pursued by the warble fly, he would marvel at the distance it can travel. I do not think Deputy Aiken fully excogitated that interjection before he made it. If the solution of the problem was so simple as that we would have no trouble at all. A notice could be put up stating, "Warble flies prosecuted if they enter here" but I cannot prosecute a warble fly.

How were the rabbits done away with?

Fortunately, a selective disease was discovered which would affect the rabbits and if the Deputy could tell me of any selective disease which would affect the warble flies he would be regarded as a benefactor, not only in Ireland but throughout the whole world, and F.A.O. would undertake to pay him many thousands of pounds. It is exactly what Deputy O'Leary has in mind that I am thinking of. If we could get some systemic drug and administer it to cattle in order to destroy the warble in the cow's system, that would be the ideal solution. If we could find some drug which could be administered in order to kill the warble fly in its passage through the cow's system, then the elimination of the warble fly would be, not an absolutely easy, but a relatively easy problem to solve.

The real problem is the one to which Deputy Aiken inadvertently referred. He pointed out that it does not matter how many warble flies you will cope with. If one farmer in one parish fails to collaborate, he will breed enough warble flies to warble the whole parish. We had a scheme with inspectors and that scheme became a laughing stock. I do not know which was the worst, the warble flies or the warble fly inspectors. A good many thought the inspectors were the worst. They did nothing and could not do anything. They were given an impossible task.

I did consult with those who manufacture the preparations for the destruction of the warble fly and suggested that if they could introduce some indelible dye, a proviso could be made similar to the Sheep Dipping Order. I was told that is not practicable. I wish we could devise some means to destroy the warble fly.

In order to demonstrate the possibility of eradicating the warble flies in a restricted area, we are carrying out experimental demonstrations, one of which is on Whiddy Island because we know that on a sea-girt island the thing is certainly possible and you could extinguish the warble fly in two or three years. The second experiment is being conducted at Loophead, which is a peninsula. We are seeking to eliminate the fly on a peninsula.

think that probably can be done and it will give us a good deal of information as to what area you require in order to remove the danger of infestation. If anybody can give me help as to some practical scheme for eliminating the warble fly, I would be very grateful for his assistance. I can assure him that his proposals will be carefully considered.

There are two matters upon which I ask the assistance of Deputies. One is the popularisation of Strain 19. One of the things at which we ought to aim is the elimination of contagious abortion from our cows because, firstly, it is the cause of immense loss to our stock-breeders and, secondly—and this is the more important aspect—because it is the source of undulant fever which affects human beings. This disease is contracted from the consumption of milk from cows infested with contagious abortion. I do not know if everybody is aware of that. A person may become infected with the very grave disease of undulant fever from the consumption of milk which is contaminated.

Contagious abortion can be eliminated and we have the means of doing it. All the farmers should get their cows and heifers inoculated against contagious abortion. The inoculation is not an expensive procedure and rarely has to be done more than once. It is very nearly a 100 per cent. effective protection, if the beasts do not come into intimate contact with massive infestation in the early stages after inoculation.

We are trying to continue as much propaganda as we can through the newspapers and the veterinary profession and I would be grateful for further suggestions as to how we could persuade a greater number of farmers to avail of this important remedy, particularly farmers in the dairying areas and, indeed, everywhere, although the disease is certainly more common in the dairying districts than in other parts of the country.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is the eradication of white scour in calves. We do not know, and I do not think anybody knows, the full extent of the calf mortality from white scour. There are certain areas in which calf mortality must have gone up to 60 per cent., due to white scour. I do not say that that is the average over the entire country, but in certain areas white scour has come to be regarded as almost the norm. We now have a certain cure and preventative for white scour. It is cheap and is readily available in any chemist's shop in any town in Ireland. I am trying to make that knowledge widespread throughout the country. The veterinary profession are doing their part and in so far as Deputies can help to popularise that knowledge, I should be greatly indebted to them for doing so. Any details required will be available on application to the Department of Agriculture.

I am discharged, I think, from going further into this matter by referring Deputies to the White Paper I have circulated. I will conclude as I began. The whole economic future of this country depends on our success or failure in expanding agricultural production. I must say that the number of highfalutin theorists that are now appearing in the guise of agricultural economic advisers have become as common as the warble fly, but they have little practical application to our problems. It may be that I have not got a sufficiently theoretical mind. If I have not got it now, it is too late for me to try to develop it, but I prefer the pragmatic approach.

The first and most important approach to expanded agricultural production is the improvement of the quality of our grass land. I put my faith in the reseeding of grass land, where that is necessary, and in the application of sufficient quantities of lime, phosphate, potash and nitrogen in the other areas. The second step is the expansion of the cow population. I know of no other way to bring that about than by convincing the mind of the farmer that he should keep two more heifers, where formerly he kept five; four more, where formerly he kept ten, and eight more, where formerly he kept 20. That procedure will pay the farmer, even though he has not sufficient equipment and labour to milk them all. Let the farmers have the calves to suck on the surplus cattle which they are not equipped to milk for the time being. The farmers will find that that procedure will pay them well when they come to sell the calf in six months' time and also if they want to sell the heifer, should she not prove suitable as a milch cow.

Secondly, we should extend our output of sheep and lambs, bearing in mind that the old market for ewe mutton has practically disappeared and its place has been taken by a highly competitive market for lamb.

Thirdly, we should expand our output of pigs for live export and conversion into bacon for export, mainly through the medium of barley and skim milk. If these things are done, then I believe that the land of Ireland is capable of providing for us all a high standard of comfort in our own country.

If these things are not done, I do not care what else be done, it will not be possible to provide for our own people in our own land. I have no doubt that, by bringing facilities within the reach of the farmers of this country, they will do their job. I know that the philosophy has been preached that that is not enough and that over and above that, it may be necessary to line the ditches with Civic Guards and to recruit the full of ten fields of inspectors and to equip them with bulldozers to break down the farmers' ditches and gates in order to make them do what the Minister for Agriculture thinks they ought to do. I stake my reputation on the plan of providing the facilities for the farmers and helping them to get from the land the maximum it is capable of producing. If that fails I freely concede that the other policy may become necessary. If that day should come, I would leave the prosecution of that policy to someone else.

I move:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

I do so, not for the purpose, as the Minister stated in his opening speech, of widening the scope of the discussion, but to register our disapproval of the ineptitude of the Coalition Government, and particularly the Minister, as regards agriculture. The Minister, on Thursday evening, opened his speech on the Estimate by making a charge against the Irish Press in connection with cattle prices. The Irish Press did nothing other than to print factual market reports that had already been published by the Independent and the Irish Times. The Minister went out of his way to talk about racketeers and Fianna Fáil speculators in cattle. Let us just consider some of the statements reported in other papers and see how they compare with the reports of the Irish Press on 2nd February. We have some reports going back much further than that.

The first one we have is from the Irish Farmers' Journal of 21st January, 1956, where the headline is “Drastic Fall in Cattle Prices.”“Beef Price Shock.” On 28th January, 1956: “Foreign Beef Affects Markets. Leaner, Lighter Beef Wanted.” On 4th of February, 1956: “Stores Still Slow.” On 11th February, 1956: “Heavy Cattle Fall”; and on 3rd March, 1956: “Hope for Better Cattle Trade.” On 10th March: “Beef Men Shocked. Market Trends—Cattle Prices Fall Sharply.” On 17th March: “Another Bad Day For Beef.” On 24th March: “Beef Prices Steadying”; and 7th April: “Beef Goes Up Again.” These were the reports that appeared in the Farmers' Journal long before there was ever any mention of the fall in cattle prices in the Irish Press. On 8th December, 1955, the Irish Independent had a heading: “Prices Firmer For Bigger Supply.” On 15th December the Irish Independent had a heading: “Quieter Tone And Lower Prices”; and the text reads: “There was also a quieter tone at the store markets, where cattle that made over £6 6s. were the exception. A feature of these sales was the number of local farmers who bought stores for feeding.” On 19th January, 1956: “Prices Reflect Trend at British Centres,” and there follows: “The downward trend in dead meat prices, which has been a feature of market reports from British centres during the past few days, had repercussions at the Dublin Cattle Market yesterday when prices fell to the level of a few weeks back.” On 25th January, 1956, the following appeared: “The much lighter supply may have had the effect of helping to steady the cattle trade at the Dublin Market yesterday. Whatever the reason, it was easier to sell all sorts of stock; and while prices did not show any changes compared with those of a week ago, the opinion of the trade in general was that the market could have handled a slightly better supply.”

There is no mischief in that.

No, there is no mischief in that. I am merely reading the reports as they appeared from week to week. On 18th January, 1956, according to the Irish Independent:“Prices had got to the peak” and, said the exporters, “expenses are rising. Cattle prices have reached their peak and are tending to fall. With expenses rising the outlook is not as attractive as we would wish it to be.” So said Mr. Leonard Ferris, chairman of the Irish Livestock and Cattle Traders' Association. These are the reports that appeared in the other papers. Was it not wrong then for the Minister to come in here on Thursday evening holding out the Irish Press as being responsible for the fall in prices? The Irish Press was merely giving a factual report of the markets, as they were, during the months of January and February. Of course, the Minister used this as a red herring. He was not prepared for his Estimate on Thursday evening and he had to come in here and talk about something; and he started by making this slashing attack on the Irish Press. We were not expecting that. We were expecting the Minister to say something about agriculture, but we did not get it. The attack had to be made at the first opportunity because of the by-election in Laois-Offaly, or something like that. It will be used there probably as it was used in Kerry, and it was in order to clarify the position, that I have quoted from these other papers this evening.

Let me come back now to the statement made by the Minister in relation to the expansion that has taken place in the cattle population during 1954-55. We have the enumeration for January, 1955, which gives us the total number of cattle. In January, 1955, the number was 3,983,000 and in January, 1956, it was 4,069,500 showing an increase of 86,500, or 2.2 per cent. That may look good on paper, but we must ask ourselves: does this represent more cattle produced? Does it represent more calves born in the year 1955? It does not. That figure is simply found by calculating the amount of frozen meat, chilled meat and tinned beef which was not sent out last year, but was sent out the year before. That is how we find the additional number of cattle. Our exports of chilled and frozen meat were down in 1955. Chilled meat and fresh meat were down to the extent of 95,897 cattle. That is what it represents, calculating four cattle to the ton. Frozen meat was down by 9,477. There was an increase in the number of cattle which went out in the form of tinned meat, but the net loss to the country was 93,115 cattle.

We are told that there has been an increase of 86,000 in the enumeration through that reduction of 95,115 cattle in our exports. Our exports of live cattle showed an increase of 1,547 in 1955 over 1954, that is, calves to bulls in all categories, fat bulls and stores, fat cows and heifers, stores, cows and heifers, milch cows and springers and calves. The position, therefore, is that we have less cattle produced in 1955 than we had in 1954. If we had maintained our export of frozen and chilled meat in 1955, we would not have that number of cattle on hands to-day.

In 1954, we exported 711,542 cwt. of fresh or chilled meat and in 1955, we exported 232,054 cwt. That shows the first drop we had. Again, it represents a further drop in frozen meat and, as I have already said, the only increase there was, was in frozen meat. We have, as the enumeration indicates, a reduction of 136,000 in our pig population and we have a reduction of 115,000 in our poultry population. The only category in which we show an increase is sheep. We have 195,600 sheep. We have a reduction in tillage of 80,000 acres. Is there anybody who has the temerity, in face of those figures, to come in here and say that our agriculture is progressing and that we can look upon our agricultural economy as improving? There has been no improvement in output. There may have been an improvement in value, but there has been none in volume.

The Minister now talks of keeping four more cows where a man has ten and two more where a man has five. Why? What guarantee has the farmer who keeps the extra two or the extra four cows that he will get rid of his stock?

The British market!

The British market was there in 1954 for our chilled beef and frozen beef, but it was not there in 1955.

It was there for three years.

Can they not walk?

We walked them out to the extent of over 600,000. There has been no reduction in that. Is there any guarantee we can walk out more?

The Minister stated, when he was talking about this racket in the Irish Press, that these market reports were going to do tremendous damage to the British Farmers' Union when they were negotiating prices under the prices review. But how could our supply of beef and stores to the British market determine any change in prices? Our total quantity of beef going into that market, taking all the classes of cattle—stores, beef, and every animal we send out—represents anywhere from 125,000 to 130,000 tons of beef, out of a consumption of 900,000 tons. What about the Argentine sending in almost 300,000 tons? Would one not think that the sale of their beef at 1/7 per lb. had a far more damaging effect on the British farmer when he went to negotiate prices than the fact that something about prices appeared in the Irish Press or the Irish Independent here in this country? The Minister did not refer to that. As far as we are concerned, we supply them with about 13 per cent. of their meat requirements. The Minister has been stating that we should export more and more, but we find that in 1955 we were not able to export what we had or as much as we exported the year before. The really important thing, as far as I can see, is that the Minister gave no explanation of why this drop in demand took place—why we had not the same demand in 1955 as we had in 1954.

The Deputy ought surely know the reason for that.

The Deputy has heard many rumours and many reasons have been given for that. But the Minister has at his disposal in the Embassy in London agricultural representatives who could have gone around to the principal markets, found out the trend of those markets, and got a general picture of what was happening. In that way, the Minister could have notified the Irish people and the farmers of this country of what was happening beyond. It would have helped and there would not be any question of racketeering. Fianna Fáil would not have driven the farmers to the markets with their cattle, if they had been able to get a true picture of what the situation was like in England. But nobody knew; they were in the dark; and they were left in the dark.

A similar situation regarding poultry existed some years ago, but to-day there are weekly reports in the papers. I claim credit for introducing that; and the same thing could be introduced in regard to cattle. These reports could be made available to enable the people to see the trends of the different markets throughout the country. People could form their own opinion. I know we have been told that it was because of the big consignments of meat from the Argentine that there was no demand for our chilled and frozen beef; and we have been told that there was no demand for our cattle in the winter, because there was no fodder in England. We have been told so many different things that we do not know which is the right one. But we do not know that, as a result of the drop in demand last year, we have about 93,000 or 94,000 more cattle to get rid of than our normal production for the year should amount to.

Is that not a good thing when the price is better now?

The price is not better than it was 12 months ago, nor within £2 or 30/- as good as it was this time 12 months.

It is better than it was 12 months ago.

At this time 12 months, cattle were making £8 a cwt. or up against it. They are not making that yet. I hope they do make it, but I suppose it is not likely. However, it was not a question of price, was it? What stopped the English farmers and the English buyers from taking our cattle last year? There was an unprecedented price paid in the months of April and May, and even up to June last year, but then there was a complete drop. Our cattle for the latter end of the year were not going out in the same numbers as in 1954. Our dead meat trade is finished—completely finished.

The best thing that ever happened.

The Deputy says: "The best thing that ever happened".

"The beast alive is worth gold; when he is dead, he must be sold." That is the old saying.

Is it not a good thing for the farmer to have two markets? He had the live cattle market and he had the dead cattle market. He could very well escape the racketeers in that case. Now he has only the one market. He is at the mercy of the shippers.

He is at the mercy of the ring.

Deputies will get an opportunity of speaking.

Previously we were sending out a great quantity of meat from our factories and they were giving good employment. The offal was retained here at home; good use was made out of it, and good money was made. Deputy Fagan does not want that.

I do not.

He is not interested in whether we give more employment or not. He would like to see the offal going across the water to John Bull.

Definitely.

I suppose that is the Coalition's policy. I am glad we know what their policy is and what is the policy to which the Minister subscribes. He has not contradicted the Deputy and I assume he is prepared to subscribe to the view expressed by Deputy Fagan regarding our cattle.

The Deputy is apparently attempting to provoke me into interrupting him.

He is unprovokable.

The Minister is in very chastened mood this evening.

The Minister is out to give the farmers the best prices for their cattle.

Listen to the Waterford boy!

Deputy Lynch can speak later.

But he will not speak later.

I will speak later.

The Minister was in very chastened mood this evening, not a bit like the Minister who came in here on Thursday evening. I suppose, on reflection, he thought it better to adopt the other method. So much for the cattle industry.

Let us now have a look at the tillage side of the picture. I am glad of one thing: that the Minister has changed his mind about maize. Maize will no longer be our principal feeding stuff. The Minister is now going over to barley. We were talking about barley, trying to get our people barley-minded in 1952, 1953 and 1954, but when the Minister came into office, he killed that scheme. He put maize back again on the free market.

In the early part of 1954, feeders could buy maize on the free market. They had to take a quantity of barley with it because we wanted to get them barley-minded. As I have said, the Minister killed that scheme and now he sees the folly of his action and he is coming back to our policy. In 1952, we started with an admixture of 12½ per cent. barley. We increased that to 25 per cent. and eventually to 50 per cent., and now the Minister talks about a 50 per cent. barley admixture. But the damage has been done to our exports of pork and bacon. Is it any wonder our exports of pork and bacon went down? No answer has been given by the Minister or by anybody else regarding these reductions. I wonder would this have any bearing on it: on 1st June, 1954, when Fianna Fáil went out of office, the price of pollard was £20 a ton; on 28th of June, it was raised to £20 10s.; on 16th August, its price was raised to £21 10s. a ton; and on 7th September to £25. Is it any wonder the people went out of pig production?

Their profits were gone. On 19th May of that year, pig meal was £29 15s. a ton. On 1st September, it was £29 15s., but on 11th September, it was £30 15s. Again, is it any wonder the people went out of pig production? The cost of their feeding stuff was going up and the price of their pork coming down. You have the results of that to-day. There has been a reduction of 136,000 pigs. In all, this year, we have a reduction of 8,000 sows, 200 boars, 68,000 pigs of three months of age and upwards and 59,000 pigs under three months. The inducement that the feeder had was taken away from him and the result is he had no option but to get out of bacon production.

Now the Minister has guaranteed a price of 235/- a cwt. as a minimum price, but he has told us nothing at all about the carcase levy of 4/7. Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll has left the House. I intended to ask her if she was satisfied with the fact that the Dublin consumer will have to pay that levy in order to subsidise first quality bacon for John Bull.

How much per pound is that?

I am sorry Deputy James Larkin is not here. The Minister will remember that, when he opened the Border, Deputy James Larkin told him to close it and he did close it. If the Minister wants to recapture the bacon and pig trade, it will be necessary for him to induce our people to produce pigs. He is not going to do it when he is charging such fancy prices as £26 a ton for milo which can be bought for much less on the free market. The barley can be bought for less than the £26 he is charging.

At present?

It was bought for less this year. Perhaps it was not purchased, but it certainly was offered for £22 a ton. All this adds up to one thing. We want to register our disapproval of the manner in which agriculture is being conducted. Everybody knows the losses the farmers of this country sustained during the past year and a half. Exports of pigs, of pork, of sausages, of bacon hams and tinned ham have been reduced to the tune of £3,000,000. In the export of cattle, the farmer in this country has lost £5,250,000. Almost £2,000,000 has been lost in the export of chocolate crumb, which, added together, makes a loss of £10,500,000. We have paid over £13,000,000, nearly £14,000,000, for imports of wheat, barley, maize and other feeding stuffs.

The Minister stated recently that our adverse trade balance must be attacked on two fronts, on the imports front and on the exports front. This does not give us any indication that the Minister is going to make a fight on the imports front when we see £14,000,000 down for commodities that could be produced at home. This has been a settled policy which is characteristic of the Minister and the Coalition Government. It is policy which will drive up our adverse trade balance. It is not so long since the Minister was talking about buying in the cheapest market. Now he has changed his mind. You can buy wheat and barley at the ends of the earth cheaper than you could produce them at home, but of what use is that, when you are exporting your own people, because you have nothing for them to do at home?

You can have mass emigration and buy cheaply at the ends of the earth. But is that good national policy? That is the policy being followed by the Coalition Government and that is the policy the Minister's attitude in this matter will lead to. We are expecting the foreigner to produce commodities we can produce here at home. Live stock are our principal export and no explanation is given as to why that export dropped by 95,000 cattle in 12 months. No explanation has been given as to why our chilled and frozen meat trade went. Our policy for 1951 to 1954 meant a higher income for farmers. Any item you may mention realised more money; costs of production were lower than they are to-day; and the volume of output went up. That policy, if followed, would have given us increased agricultural production. There was an incentive and an inducement offered to the farmers at the time, and they responded to it.

We were reaping the reward in 1954 until the policy was changed so radically in that year when the price of wheat was slashed. That was the first thing that was done to stop our people from giving us that production they had been giving in 1953 and 1954. The price of feeding barley was reduced. These were two items that the tillage farmer was relying on the Government to subsidise. They were both subsidised crops. Then, for one reason or another, the Minister failed to protect chocolate crumb and went to the other extreme of subsidising butter for export. He paid an export subsidy on butter. If he had put that subsidy into the chocolate crumb industry— there was a free market at the time value for about £158 a ton—we could have gone into the free market with very small subsidisation and the value to the country would be very substantial. I am talking now of the production of chocolate crumb in preference to butter. It takes 700 gallons of 3.5 butter fat milk to give one ton of chocolate crumb and the value of 700 gallons of that milk converted into butter is £52 10s. 3d. at present prices. Its price, converted into chocolate crumb, is £63 8s. 9d.

What about the skimmed milk?

3.5 butter fat.

Deputy Walsh is making no allowance for the return of skimmed milk to the farmer.

You bring it down to 3.20, with the addition of skimmed milk to it: that is chocolate crumb. Therefore, in actual fact, it is not a 3.5 milk you are selling. You are saving money on that. It is not as valuable as 3.5. Only 3.2 is going to the chocolate crumb factory. It is adulterated with skimmed milk in order to bring down the butter fat. But it is making £9 per 700 gallons more than butter. As I say, there was a market for it at £158 a ton.

Is the Deputy allowing for the value of skimmed milk returned to the farmer?

I am, in this way. The farmer's price at the creamery is based on 3.5 butter fat. In the chocolate crumb factory, it is based on 3.2. The comparison is in the price.

If a farmer were sending his milk to a creamery at 3.2, he would not be getting 1/6 a gallon for it. He is getting that now for his 3.5. Therefore, the value of the whole milk at 3.5 is practically equivalent to the price he would pay for the skimmed milk. There is very little in it. The only difference was £4 19s., which prevented the chocolate crumb manufacturers from going into the free market. Only a very small subsidy would be required to make up that amount and give them the right to enter into it. There was an open field there. The Dutch have gone into it now. We could have gone into it.

Why did you not use that £9 you were talking about? You said there was a difference of £9. Why was that not used in respect of chocolate crumb?

There is such a thing as transport. You have to make provision for transportation to the British market. The difference was £4 19s. when all these items were taken into consideration. The subsidisation of chocolate crumb at the time would have been of greater benefit to the milk producer and the country generally. That market was wide open. We are talking now of getting rid of our surplus milk. You cannot do it in the form of butter unless you subsidise it very highly. We are not able to compete with New Zealand in the British market because their price is so much lower than ours. They are selling at 375 whereas we are selling at 448.

What about the 25 per cent. devaluation in the currency?

The difference of price prohibits us from going into the British market. That was neglected; I do not know why. In 1953 it was value for over £9,000,000. Now it has been reduced to something like £5,000,000. Possibly, as time goes on—when conditions improve for Fry-Cadbury beyond and if they erect new factories, as they may, and as they have threatened to do—we shall produce no chocolate crumb except in Carrick-on-Suir. It will be the only one left. That business has gone from us because we neglected to look after it ourselves. The same thing applied regarding the export of our bacon, so far as the price of our feeding stuffs is concerned. That is something that could be remedied. We made provision to remedy it but that was changed also. The present Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman, and the present Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, seem to have some bee in their bonnet as to how this money was to be found and disposed off. They even threatened to produce files. I should like to see the files. There was a certain sum of money in that fund when I was leaving office which would have enabled the price of coarse grains to be kept firm. There was a sum of £117,365. That has disappeared. The Minister for Finance says it was used to meet the flour subsidy. That was not right. It was to meet the subsidy so far as home produced pollard was concerned, which was a very small quantity at the time because it was late in the year. Only six weeks or, at the outside, two months remained.

The Minister has mentioned that he does not think there will be any improvement in the wheat acreage this year. What is the general policy of the Government regarding wheat? Are they going to continue a guaranteed price for wheat or are they not? During the 1954 elections, the Taoiseach said they were guaranteeing the price of wheat for five years. At that time the price was £4 2s. 6d.

A few months afterwards the price was slashed and the period of five years seems to have been forgotten. It is now a two-year term. That five year plan has gone. What is the future of wheat-growing in this country? Is it the intention of the Coalition to import wheat? Conferences are being held in London at present. This House has no information regarding the quantity of wheat the Coalition expect to get out of the pool. The Minister has not told us what the Government intend to do regarding that.

The arrangement, as you know, in the past was to get 275,000 tons provided it was at a certain price. The price will be lower now. I heard this morning that the American farmer is being guaranteed two dollars and it will probably be lower in price than it was in the past. Does that mean our Government will buy in the cheapest market and that there will be no wheat grown by our people? Our farmers would like to know what the future holds regarding wheat production.

Let us consider the other cereal crops, barley and oats. In relation to malting barley there is a very definite arrangement. Guinness speak largely for the brewers and distillers and their price generally fixes the price; they are restricted to purchasing about 750,000 barrels and the total quantity of malting barley required is less than 1,000,000 barrels, so that that can be grown in a very limited acreage. Malting barley is not even as important as oats because of the low acreage, 120,000. Feeding barley now being produced will in time take the place of wheat and of oats, but we do not want that to happen. Instead of having 1,700,000 under the plough, 3,000,000, acres should be our target. It represents only 25 per cent. of our arable acreage, I suppose the lowest in Europe. Is it any wonder that it has been said by visitors to the country that we are the most expensive feeders in the world, that farmers here feed their cattle on beef steak?

We can do with 3,000,000 acres and produce more, but again we want to know what the policy is; the farmers of the country want to know what the policy is both in regard to wheat and barley. Are we to have this new maize policy that the Minister mentioned this evening? Is he going to introduce a prohibition on maize imports and concentrate on barley? We would like if the Minister would state for the people if it is now our intention here to prohibit the importation of maize and produce our own barley instead.

I thought the Minister made that very clear in his statement.

He qualified it, if the Deputy remembers. When the Deputy reads the report he will find that, but we would like to have it made more clear with the qualification removed. The other matter which is agitating the minds of a great number of our people is the future of the dairying industry. The Minister made a promise some time ago; of course we have arrived at the stage when nobody accepts the Minister's promises as being very reliable. They have changed so often that they have now become unreliable. The Minister promised some time ago that we would have the milk costings report before the end of March. We have not seen it yet.

I do not think I promised that.

The Minister has not received it; otherwise we would have it. That has been the stock answer for two years, that the Minister has not received the report and consequently is unable to produce it.

The Deputy passed the buck.

The Minister has one responsibility in this and that is to provide the staff. If he provides the staff, he will get the report. If more staff were put on it he would have it in a week. There is no use coming in here and telling the House that he is not responsible and that he is unable to get the report. It is only a matter of putting staff on the job and then he would have it in a week.

Might I assure the Deputy that the commission has been invited to take over any staff it wants and I now invite them in public to bespeak any staff they want and it will be provided? That invitation has been tendered to them for the past six months.

To Professor Smiddy?

To the commission, and I now tender that invitation in public.

It is most peculiar.

I understand that only trained staff are of value at this stage of the inquiry and that they are working as fast as they can.

The technical staff must have finished in 1953.

I am only telling the Deputy what was told to me, that only trained staff is of value now. But lest there be any ambiguity I now in public declare that the commission can bespeak any staff they want to expedite the preparation of the report and they will have it.

Fair enough, but the people are clamouring for the report. If I were in the Minister's position, I would put in all the staff of Merrion Street that was required to produce this report and stop this clamouring and agitation.

There is no delay so far as the supply of staff is concerned. The Deputy will agree with me that I cannot with propriety interfere with the discretion of the technical director appointed by him.

No, but two years ago this report was to be ready and it has not come yet.

What does the Deputy suggest we should do? It is his commission.

If I were in charge of the commission now I would have the report long ago. That is the only answer I can give the Minister.

You had your staff let off.

The staff was not let off.

Order! The Deputy should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

The Minister went further than that. He stated outside this House, I think, that he has already seen figures that would indicate a substantial reduction in the price of milk in the Dublin area. I think he was reported as saying that he had come across figures or was told unofficially that such was the case.

The only rumour I heard I mentioned to this House and it is in the Official Report.

It was a most opportune time to make the statement because it was coming into March. It might have had a preventive effect but it did not succeed.

There was one matter to which I want to refer in connection with ground limestone, about which we have been hearing so much recently. I was glad to see that the Minister hopes to go to the million mark this year. There has been an expansion every year over the past few years since people began to see the benefits that accrued from using ground limestone, but we are depending on C.I.E. to a very great extent for the distribution of ground limestone. That is most unfortunate because C.I.E. for some reason or other seem to be very unconcerned whether ground limestone is being used in the greatest possible quantities or not. I have here a letter addressed to a quarry owner who had a truck working and he had applied for a second truck but it was refused. It is stated in this letter:—

"It is an essential requirement that each load is signed for on delivery and it would seem you deliver loads at times when farmers cannot be expected to be available. At this time of the year it is dark at 7 p.m. and no delivery should be made after this——"

I am glad to inform the Deputy that regulation has been suspended.

I am very glad it has been. There was a man prepared to work three shifts, but C.I.E. came along and told him he could not work three shifts. I am glad the Minister has fixed that matter up.

The Minister has talked about farm buildings and the grants that were being made available for the erection of cow-byres in areas where the scheme for the eradication of T.B. is in progress. There has been no increase in the amount granted for reconstruction work or for the erection of cow houses since 1953. The same grants, the same amounts of money, still apply and there has been no change. Does not the Minister think it is time, in view of increased prices, cost of labour and cost of materials, to try to increase that grant? The same situation arose in 1953. We examined it. We increased the grants from 25 per cent. to 100 per cent. in some cases. That is one matter, an increase in the amount of grants being made available. The other is that I am informed—I do not know whether it is correct or not— that in the case of a farmer getting a grant for the erection, say, of a cattleshed or house and who got a grant in 1954 or 1955, no matter what size house was erected, whether it was 120 or 240 square feet, if he applies for a grant for a similar house now he will be refused because he has already availed of that grant.

To what extent?

It does not matter, so long as he has availed of the grant at all. If he has already got a grant he will not get a second.

For the same house?

For the same type of house.

Yes. Many farmers might not be in a position financially to go ahead with the building completely. For instance, they might like to erect a house of say 480 square feet, but find that their finances would not enable them to do so and build only 240 square feet in 1955 in the hope that they would get a further grant in 1957 to complete the work.

To build a second house?

It would be a continuation of the original house, or it would be based on the area of 120 square feet on a graded basis. I think the Minister is wrong in not making these grants available.

I think the position is, you can build only one building and get one grant, but suppose you build for less that the maximum number of cows——

Leave cows out of it.

——you could then finish it and you would get a second grant to finish the cow-house. Suppose you build this year for only ten cows and your circumstances improve in three or four years, you can get a further grant to extend the cow-house to accommodate up to 15 cows, which is the maximum.

I am not speaking of cow-houses but of other houses, houses for machines, cattle-sheds or granaries.

They can get only one grant for each of these.

The Minister can then see the reason behind my case. The farmer may not be in a position to go ahead and complete the work in one year. I think he should go into this matter and see if something could be done.

Not wishing to give the Deputy the slightest offence—did he look into that matter when he was Minister and what was his judgment?

It did not occur. As a matter of fact, the grants were given.

I shall look into it, so. It is a question that has occurred to me and I think it applied to cow-houses. We decided that if a fellow could not afford to build a cow-house for 15 cows, he could build for six to ten that year, and then get another grant to finish it. Otherwise we felt that it should be a case of one building, one grant.

Thank you. I was glad to hear the Minister talking about the development of the certified seed wheat scheme and I hope the other schemes for barley, oats and grass and all the rest, will go ahead as well. I was just wondering, when I heard the Minister state that our export trade devolved on our live stock, what is to prevent us developing an overseas trade in seeds?

We recently had inquiries from abroad.

Why not expand that and develop it? We could send out a few hundred thousand tons of wheat to where the Swedes are sending it just as well as the Swedes. Is it not a matter that should concern the Minister and his Department—to see if there is any opportunity there? If there is he will find the farmers here prepared to grow that wheat and develop an export trade. The same thing applies to barley and oats.

The Minister spoke of the warble fly at length here this evening. I believe the warble fly is doing tremendous damage to our live stock, causing loss of meat, loss of milk and loss of hides. I think this is really a matter where our young farmers, Macra na Feirme, the National Farmers' Association and Muintir na Tíre should co-operate and get out and do this work. Throughout the country now, we have cattle markets being erected run by the National Farmers' Association and young farmers' clubs, and I think one of the stipulations laid down by the directors of these cattle markets should be that no cattle suffering from warble infestation should be permitted to go into these sale yards.

It would be one of the penalties imposed on people who have warble-infected cattle. That is the only way in which it can be eradicated. It will not be done by kid-glove methods. It must be got rid of and there must be some penalty attaching to it. The matter is too serious not to be taken seriously. It represents a loss of about £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 to the country every year. There is no great hardship attached to it. I suppose farmers are unconcerned about it and are not paying the attention that they should to its eradication. If there were something to indicate the seriousness of warble, such as the penalty I have suggested, we might be able to get something done in connection with it. I do not mean that any other penalties should be imposed, but the one I have suggested would, in my opinion, have the desired effect. It is only by securing the co-operation and help of the organisations throughout the country that success can be achieved. There are very few houses now in rural Ireland that have not in them a member or two members of these organisations or associations and these organisations should be able to give a helping hand.

I understand there was a report made recently by Dr. Hammond. Is there any hope of that report being circulated?

Certainly.

Thank you. Another matter about which I have been told is the grading of pigs. Does this mean that the liveweight basis for purchase will be discontinued throughout the country? I have been told, again, that, in parts of the Midlands, buyers are going around offering a flat rate of 230/- a cwt., without any grading. In my opinion, that will kill the scheme that has been introduced by the Minister of a guaranteed price of 235/-. If buyers pay 230/- for ungraded pigs, the position will not be improved.

They will get 235/- only for Grade A carcases at the factory.

And farmers will be inclined to sell on a liveweight basis at 230/-, if there is any danger of the pigs being graded C.

On reflection, I think the Deputy will agree that we both are anxious to increase the percentage of Grade A pigs.

If we do find a profitable market for Grade B and C, we do not want to close it.

I wonder who will buy the Grade C pig?

There used to be a great trade in Birmingham for what is called the Birmingham cutter.

Better sell them to Birmingham because they will not be eaten at home.

If we are going to sell them to Birmingham, the less talk we have about them being Grade C, the better. Is that not right? We will call them Birmingham cutters.

I was glad when the Minister mentioned the type of pig he will have in the progeny testing stations. I think last year, on the debate on the Estimate for Agriculture, I made the suggestion to the Minister that he should get his men into the factories and select the pigs of top grade, have them tested and have the sows and boars followed up. That is the only way in which the best bacon pig can be found, and not, in my opinion, through the pedigree pig breeders. Most of the pigs produced by the pedigree pig breeders that I have seen are good pigs for show purposes, but a lot of them are damn bad when they get on the table.

We are trying to do both.

The good pigs that are going to the factories should be followed up. We should concentrate on them and find out the area from which they came. In that way, progress will be made.

It was for the purpose of registering our disapproval of the manner in which agriculture is being conducted at the present time that we put down the motion to refer back the Estimate. Unless we get a guarantee that there will be a change of policy on the part of the Government, we will oppose it to the end.

I fail to understand why certain members, even of the Minister's Party, or of the combination opposite, have not come in here to take up the running now. It would be their duty to do so and to express their opinions or suggestions regarding the agricultural policy of the Government.

I am sorry that the Minister started on the note on which he did. This is an Estimate that should be dealt with in a very serious, very cool and common sense manner, because of its vital effect on our people, not merely the agricultural section, but all sections of the community.

My opinion on this question of the Irish Press depressing cattle prices is this: it was the fat cattle which were first hit. People who have any knowledge of the live-stock trade know that those people who put in their stock to fatten bank on selling them at a certain time and understand the limitation of the food they require to feed them. If it so happens that the price drops at the particular time when the reserve is running out, they have very little option, and it would be very difficult for them to take the Minister's advice, to hold them over to the end of April. In fact, it is quite impossible for them to do so.

At what time does our grass begin to grow?

There are good farmers in Kildare, Meath, Laois and Louth and they sold their cattle because they did not have the grass. The weather was pretty severe in February and during the period in question, particularly in the east of the country. It was much more severe in the east than in the west at that time. I do not see how anybody who was running out of the food reserve could turn the cattle out in that type of weather. They certainly did not have the grass for them.

Cattle prices are something about which it is very difficult to give an accurate forecast and I think it is very foolish for a Minister in any Government to claim credit for high prices for cattle and to try to disclaim responsibility when there is a reduction because, in the main, cattle and live-stock prices are something over which no Minister for Agriculture in any Government in this country has any real control.

It is just a question of supply and demand to the British market; it is the old story over again of our total dependence on our exports of live stock to the British market. If the British people could find better beef, better mutton or better meat of any kind at one-eighth of a penny a pound cheaper in the farthest part of the earth, even in Communist China, they would throw us to the winds to-morrow morning and purchase it there. I am glad to see that the Minister is slowly but very surely being converted to the Fianna Fáil policy as regards agriculture.

That is the policy, in so far as it is humanly possible, of self-sufficiency. He was not helpful to that policy in the past, but conversion, even at the eleventh hour, is, I suppose, better than no conversion at all. I think it is a very good thing for him now to encourage the production in this country of all the feeding requirements of both the people and their live stock. He has told us about what is being done in his Department in order to produce good wheat and good seed wheat. I think that is a step in the right direction, but there is one thing for which I cannot forgive the Minister. It is not so much the reduction in the price of wheat, which was a very great blow at a time when there should not have been anything like such a drastic reduction in price after the very severe harvest. What I cannot forgive the Minister for is the raising of the bushelling from 60 lb. to 63 lb.

I think that was undoubtedly a mistake because I believe the percentage of wheat bushelling 63 lb. in this country, save in an abnormally summer-like and harvest-like last year, is very small indeed. I believe that wheat bushelling 60 lb. is very good wheat. A better policy would be to adopt a sliding scale upward and downwards—to increase the price by so much for wheat bushelling over 60 lb. and reduce it for wheat bushelling below 60 lb. If the Minister had left it at that he would find that the acreage of wheat would be quite high though not nearly as great as when the price was £4 2s. 6d.

It is almost too late now but, if the Minister had made an announcement a month ago that he was reverting to the 60 lb. bushelling, I think we would have a far greater acreage of wheat this year than last. The imports of maize, milo and other such things had a very adverse effect on the price of oats during the last harvest. Oats is a very important crop. It is very fine feeding for cattle or sheep, whether the cattle be cows, dry stock or calves. I have heard it in this House from the Minister himself that oats should be moved off the farm on the hoof. That is all right for people in a position to do that, but there are numerous farmers in the West of Ireland whose land is more suitable for growing oats as the Minister knows than for any other cereal crop. They grow oats as a cash crop to enable them to pay the first moiety of their rates at the end of September or to meet other obligations at that time of the year. They are not in a position to put in sufficient live stock to absorb or use the amount of oats they can grow on their small holdings. That is why I say there should be restrictions placed on the importation of maize and other feeding stuffs, because in that way the farmer in Leinster or in Munster and, to some extent, in eastern Connacht, would give a reasonable price to the smaller farmers for oats as a feeding stuff. Surely, 28/- per barrel for good oats or from 30/- to 32/- per barrel was a very poor price, and was no inducement to farmers to go in for increased acreage this year.

That was a price which was very uneconomical and I do not think anybody could produce oats at any profit whatsoever at a price of that kind. It must have been cheaper than any imported feeding stuff. The farmers were not very well organised, they were not very well able to advertise the commodity, just throwing it to a merchant who is now charging from 52/- to 55/- per barrel for oats for which he paid only from 30/- to 32/-. The merchant certainly has more profit and less labour out of it than had the farmer who produced it.

The Minister has given advice to the House which, in my opinion, is very good advice. He has advised farmers to keep more cows and, if they are not in a position to milk them and to sell the milk to the creamery or in a town, to rear calves on it. That is all right for people in a position to avail of that advice, but there is a goodly section of our farmers who are not in a position to do that. There is the old saying of cutting the gad next to the throat if you are being strangled by the tie and the farmers have to sell off perhaps very good heifers at a time when they could be mated to a bull or sent to an insemination station. Consequently, many farmers are not in a position to put the Minister's advice into operation unless there is something done to help them.

Perhaps the Minister will say that they could get a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. They certainly can, but the rate of interest is very high and the increase in the rate of interest which has been permitted by the present Government, even though they said they would keep it back a year ago, has made it very difficult for farmers to adopt the advice of the Minister. To do something in that line to encourage farmers to increase their breeding of calves, from heifers and cows, I think there should be something by way of loan made available, in respect of which neither principal nor interest would be collected for at least 18 months. I think that would be a very great incentive.

I do not suggest that money should be handed out to every farmer. I believe the Minister, with his parish agents, his county agricultural instructors and his many types of inspector, would be able to set up an organisation to ensure that any money given out in that way would be given to people who would make use of it in the proper way. I know very well that it might be abused and that is the big danger in doing anything like that. On the other hand, I believe that there could be safeguards and that the responsible officers of the Minister's Department would only recommend people who would avail of the scheme for the purpose for which it is intended. There are other things to be taken into account as well. The people who would avail of that scheme would require a certain amount of housing accommodation in the winter period when the calves would be young. When the weather became severe, these farmers would need shelter for their calves.

Could not they sell them in the autumn?

If we all go into the one thing and all sell at the one time, the price would be very depressed. That has been the position with everything over very many years. That is the reason why our farmers are inclined to close their ears to the appeals made by the Minister and various other Ministers to increase production. Even within the last few days, we have had the example of the wheat conference at which the importing countries state that the exporting countries have such a great surplus that there should be a reduction in the price. Other people are fighting on the other side and it is a question of whether they are going to give it to them at the reduced price, or destroy the surplus, as they did once before and then demand their full pound of flesh for the requirements of the importing countries.

The same is true as regards any other line of production. This is a matter that should be very thoughtfully examined and its implication should be explained very fully to the people. It should be explained to them how great the national importance of increased production is. It is not an easy thing, in view of tradition if you like, and in view of their experience in the past. They ask why they should produce a lot more in order to give cheap food to other sections of the community who are not increasing their return in any way. Certain sections of the community, as the Minister knows, have got increases time and time again. I am not saying that they were not entitled to those increases, but they are not working a minute longer and one bit harder, while the farmers are expected to work harder and to work longer hours in order to get this increased production. That is the kernel of the whole difficulty—the question of increased production, versus a kind of half production and the question of asking the farmer to take the same price for double or treble his production. There will have to be some adjustment and some great inducement given to the people before they will respond as we would like to see them responding.

The Minister has referred to ground limestone. Ground limestone is very cheap—there is no doubt about that. Nobody can find fault with the price they have to pay for the limestone delivered to them. I am glad to say that the people generally in my part of the country are availing of the scheme and using ground limestone in increased quantities. The same is true of fertilisers. I think the people are becoming more fertiliser-minded every day and that is a good thing.

The land reclamation scheme has done very fine work in a great many instances, but in a number of cases I believe that the money is being wasted on the type of land on which all this elaborate reclamation work is being carried out and which will not give a proper return for the next 60 years. I believe the Minister and the experts in his Department should examine carefully the question of mole drainage. What a good deal of the land in this country is suffering from is surface water. If that could be got away and the pan broken by way of subsoiling and if we had mole drainage, I believe that a very great improvement could be made in the land at far less cost than all this elaborate drainage, with the use of piping and the rest of it.

The Deputy is aware that we do mole drainage.

I am, but I think it should be more general and that there should be a survey of every county to see which districts would be suitable for mole drainage and which districts would be suitable for reclamation.

The Minister has been talking about the warble fly. I know that is a great loss to us and a great national loss, but the farmers do not see that. It is very difficult for them to see it. We hear a lot here about the necessity of improving the quality of our wool. There was an Act passed here about 1946 or 1947 about the marketing of tarred wool, but the strange point about that is that the farmer who has complied with that Act and responded to the appeals made by the Minister and his Department as regards keeping the wool clean will not get a penny more for it than those who bring in their wool with the tar daggings on it. If we are going to put our wool in its proper place on the world market, it would be a reasonable step for the Department to require that all wool should be purchased by grade, because it is no incentive to one farmer, or to 20 farmers, in a district to do what he, or they, have been asked to do, when another farmer gets away with it, the merchant accepting the wool with the dirt and the daggings on it and giving the same price for it. Actually, the price works out to that farmer's advantage because there is more weight in the fleece.

Would not that be best done by a co-operative society representative of the majority?

I know that would be a good way of dealing with the problem, but it is very difficult, in my opinion, for such people to establish a wool market as sellers of wool. There are a great many in-betweens. There are vested interests in the trade, interests which are not by any means too helpful.

I know very little about pigs and bacon production. I heard the Minister read out the proper rations, and all that kind of thing. I suppose if we could make out the proper rations for ourselves, we would, in time, rob any Government because there would be so many old age pensions to pay. I suppose it will take a good while to get that idea of proper rations across.

Barley and skim milk.

I know that rations nowadays make the work much easier than it was in the days when we had to boil the pot of spuds and chop them with a shovel, and so forth. If there is the Grade A pig, so far as the farmer-producer is concerned, then there should be Grade A bacon in the shops. There is no reason why the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry and Commerce should not co-operate in that respect. There is no use in the Minister for Agriculture saying that the grading of bacon is a function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Industry and Commerce throwing the onus back on the Minister for Agriculture. If the farmer feeds and produces a Grade A pig and gets a Grade A price for that pig, the consumer should have such protection as will ensure that he will not pay a Grade A price for Grade C bacon.

Is the Deputy aware there is 60/- per cwt. differential between the price quoted for leanest bacon on the curer's list and that quoted for fat bacon?

I wonder if that is reflected in the retail shops all over the country?

I think it is, mainly because our people will no longer eat fat bacon. If one puts fat bacon on the counter, it will be left there.

That is true. Our tastes have changed in that respect. Nevertheless, I think the consumer is entitled to the knowledge that he is getting Grade A bacon when he pays the Grade A price. There should be a variation in the price of bacon, just as there is apparently a variation in the price of pigs.

The Minister mentioned parish agents. This matter has become a somewhat controversial one. I think the present services should be coordinated through the agricultural instructors employed by the county committees. They have done excellent work and the appointment of parish agents should not militate against them in any way, either in relation to salaries or status. Some people hold the view that the parish agent idea will never work. My own opinion is that when the Minister first mooted this idea, he took, so to speak, too big a bite, and that is the main obstacle to progress. He spoke of a parish agent for every three parishes. Now, three parishes would cover a pretty small area. If the Minister had said a parish agent for every 15 or 20 parishes in co-operation with the county committee of agriculture and the agricultural instructors, I think that would have been more than ample to meet the needs and requirements of the farming community; and I think there would have been a much better chance of success for such a plan. Anyone who has a degree in the faculty of agricultural science can be very helpful to the farming community. The agricultural instructors have been extraordinarily helpful, and, in my opinion, it is they who are mainly responsible for the improvement we have had. Our people are becoming intelligent enough to avail of their services.

I do not like to see this controversy reach such an acute stage and I believe something should be done to reconcile the various interests involved. There should be some give and take. A proper scheme should be formulated. It is not a good thing to have jealousy on one side or the other in a matter of this kind.

The Minister referred to the elimination and eradication of diseases. There has, of course, been a considerable advance in that respect and millions of pounds have been saved to the farming community as a result of the progress made in veterinary science over the past decade. Farmers should be encouraged to avail of veterinary services. There was a time when farmers looked upon the cost of such services as prohibitive and they depended on some local man to advise them on the treatment of their animals, despite the fact that this individual had really no knowledge as to what the diseases or complaints were from which the animals were suffering.

The chief impediment to agricultural expansion is, in my opinion, under-capitalisation. It is easy to say why does a man not do this or do that. There are hundreds and thousands of farmers in this country at the moment who would be delighted to avail of every scheme that would tend to improve their farms, improve their agriculture, improve the breed of their live stock and so on, if they had the capital. But they have not the capital. It is all very well to say that they can get loans if they are credit-worthy —I suppose nobody would get a loan if he was not credit-worthy—but, in my opinion, if agriculture is to get the incentive and encouragement it requires, 5 or 6 per cent. is too much to ask any farmer, particularly a small farmer, to pay over a number of years.

It will be argued that, if a man gets £100 to utilise and pays 5½, 5¾ or 6 per cent. in the 12 months, he is a very bad farmer if he is not able to pay a certain amount off the principal, and, at the same time, have a profit for himself. As far as a lot of the theorists who advance that idea and who come back with that reply are concerned, I would like to see them in the place of some of the farmers to whom they are giving that advice. Some of them were in it in their younger days and were very glad to run away from it, to come to the cities and towns of this country, and try to get white-collar jobs. Now they are offering that advice. I believe that it is all right to pay high interest in a boom period, and, if you want to restrict spending, that is the time it should be put on; but, in my opinion, it is not in a period of recession that interest charges should be raised, and I think the matter has been approached in the wrong way.

I notice in the opening address of the ex-Minister for Agriculture and, to a certain extent, in the address of the Deputy who followed him from his side of the House, a note of despair and a note of, shall we say, no hope in Irish agriculture. I should like to dispel that and to say that, in my view and from my general approach, there is quite a cheerful outlook. Things are much better than they were and there is no sign of recession and no sign of despair. I will try to follow that up in the next few minutes.

I do want to say that, from the far side of the House, it is easy to decry anything that has been done when you want to, but in something so important as agriculture that should not be done from either side of the House. I believe we have a cheerful outlook. I believe it is prejudicial to the national interest to try to foster thought of anything otherwise in the minds of the farmers of this country, and I think it is necessary that it should be shown that agriculture has a good future and, in the immediate past, has progressed very favourably.

I should like to discuss corn. In my view, the thing about corn was that, up to 1954, notwithstanding occasional gluts of individual types of corn, such as oats and malting barley, it was a fact that nobody ever conceived a situation where we could grow all our own corn. That idea was dispelled by the fact that, in 1954, we planted 486,000 acres of wheat, and the yield, compared with the yield of the previous year, has proved, because of the availability of the combine drill in the harvest of that year, that in future years it will be possible—and, please goodness, that day will not be long delayed—that we can grow all our own corn. Never up to that year did anybody question the advisability or necessity of having to use a certain quantity of foreign wheat because it never was conceived that we would be in a position of being able to produce more Irish wheat than we could easily include in our mixture for breadmaking.

It is history now. In January of that year, the then Government produced a memorandum and the finding, when all the Departments and advisers had their say, was that we could eat 300,000 tons of Irish wheat. We were in the position, but for the act of God that followed in the harvest, to have produced much more than that. Therefore, it does seem, no matter what Government is in power and no matter what the price for corn is, provided it is an economic price, that we must space our three varieties of corn in such a manner as to enable us to use as much as possible of each of them. There is a possibility of our being able in the future to use 100 per cent. Irish wheat, and I should like to discuss that further later.

Now, however, I should like to mention something about which the Minister was very emphatic and in regard to which I have very great hopes for the future, that is the production of native feeding barley to supplant our imports of maize. I do not know whether it is well known, but it is a fact that Cork supplied 120,000 barrels of feeding barley this year which supplanted exactly that quantity of maize. This was of very definite advantage to us in our struggle with the balance of payments, and all the farmers who grew barley made a profit. I think any farmer in this House will concede to me that, if he sows wheat in a field and gets 12 barrels per Irish acre in that field, if he sows seed barley in that same field, he can ordinarily expect to get a minimum of 18 sacks of barley per Irish acre; and if he does get that at the prices that have prevailed for the past two years and so long as the prices of coarse grains remain firm—and there does not seem to be any danger of a change—he will find that, not only is his bill for fertilisers and seeds less, but he has derived the same actual cash return. Therefore, while nobody would seek to say in 1956, now that we have our combine drill and balanced fertilisers, that wheat is not an economic proposition for the Irish farmer, does it not behove us to think that we must now try to balance our production between the production of wheat and the production of feeding barley, so that we will be in the position ourselves to assimilate the whole yield profitably for the Irish farmer?

In my view, there is in this country at the present moment a perfect system by which the farmer can get cash at harvest time and a wonderful service from the dealers, agents, millers or whoever takes his wheat away. Sometimes their cash is supplied within seven days. While I agree with the Minister that the right way and the easiest way to make profit on barley is to feed it on your own farm and walk it off, I am not satisfied that there is as adequate or as excellent a service for the grower of feeding barley in about nine counties, and these are the only counties which are worried about it because they specialise in the growing of the grain for sale.

It is very easy to say: "Walk it off the land." I am wholly behind the Minister in that but I think in those nine counties—Deputy Corry's county, Deputy Hughes's county, my county and many others—there will always be a surplus grown for sale. These people produce wheat and malting barley and have a surplus which every spring they sow if the market is right. They will sow that little bit extra in addition to their other crops. If they are to grow barley for feeding live stock, we must gear up a system for them. The perfect system does exist in regard to wheat but it does not exist with regard to feeding barley.

The position this year in regard to feeding barley grown in Cork was that quite a large quantity of it found its way to Monaghan to feed pigs there and in neighbouring counties. That is a totally uneconomic position. It reached Monaghan and other areas with all the intermediate handling and conveyance charges because there was not a proper system geared up to assimilate it at the time of harvest. Some of that barley would not be able to stand in sack where it was grown for more than a week or so.

Everybody knows that the flour millers in this country are paid subsidies on the production of flour for which Irish wheat is used and that they are compelled to use a certain quantity of Irish wheat. They have a guaranteed net profit, provided their expenses are normal, and it is obvious that any bank in the country would give them all the money they want to buy native wheat for milling. The banks in this country do that and the Government need not do a solitary thing except to guarantee the millers a net profit of 6 per cent. on their turnover. I do not see anything wrong in that system but I think the Minister might come in and introduce some such system in connection with barley for the replacement of maize as a feeding stuff. Then all feeding barley, no matter how much was sown, could be immediately sold for cash at harvest.

As I have said, in the system in connection with wheat, the miller may raise the required amount of money, perhaps even up to £250,000, to go out and buy Irish wheat. That does not exist in regard to feeding barley and in the nine counties, where barley is grown, my suggestion is that the Minister would do something to assimilate at harvest time the surplus which will exist. The Minister must meet the difficulties with which he is faced in this matter. He must buy the huge quantity of coarse grains which come on the Irish market at harvest time and store them. He must run the risk of the price of coarse grains on the world market becoming depressed over the next 18 months. If that depression came, nothing could be done about it and the pig feeder and the cattle feeders must compete on the British market against the Danes and the Dutch and all their other competitors for that market.

The Minister might then find himself with all this accumulation of coarse grains at a time when the world price of such a commodity had become depressed in value and would, therefore, suffer a loss, but I think it is better to do this than leave us in the position which we shall have reached, in 1956, namely where the production of the maximum amount of wheat we can eat ourselves has been achieved and when we must turn our hands to assimilating at harvest time the large amount of coarse grains that will become available.

I think nobody is better fitted to face such a position than is the present Minister for Agriculture. He must face the risk that there may be a loss on the assimilation on such a large quantity of coarse grains. This loss may not occur for a period of ten or 20 years but, if the price of maize dropped by £5 a ton and a quantity of 50,000 tons of barley had been accumulated, a loss must accrue to somebody. I think that risk must be taken and that machinery must be built up to take over the large quantities of feeding barley for the supplanting of maize.

If that were done it would be a great job for the people and would considerably alleviate our balance of payments problem. We would have created a second cash crop which would have no limit in the foreseeable future. That should be the first concern of the Minister and I will leave it in his capable hands.

I listened to Deputy Walsh in his remarks regarding cattle. As the Minister for Agriculture said, anybody can play with figures and, of course, spacing them in periods of 12 months will affect the validity of any figures. There are, however, figures which cannot be refuted and which tell us that our cattle industry is prospering, that there is no reason for dismay. In my view that industry will continue to prosper and it will bring much greater prosperity to the country. To quote two very relevant figures, the number of cattle in this country in 1948 totalled 3,921,000. In 1954 the number was 4,504,000. That is an increase of over 500,000 cattle which represents a very real increase in the capital value of live stock. If that had happened during a period of low exports, very little could be said for it because it would be no advance. However, it has not happened during a period of low exports and to show how far we have gone with regard to the advancement of our beef export trade, I shall quote from the Irish Times of August 25th, 1955.

The heading is: "Thirty-five per cent. Rise in Irish Meat Production." The article begins:—

"In 1954, meat production in Ireland was 35 per cent. higher than before the war, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations reports. ‘Of particular significance for trade,' says the report ‘were the increases in production in the three traditional exporting countries of Western Europe, i.e., in Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland. Denmark's production in 1954 exceeded the pre-war volume by 40 per cent.; the corresponding increases for Ireland and the Netherlands being 35 per cent. and 32 per cent."

In other words, notwithstanding all we hear and all the criticism voiced from so many places, we have kept step with our competitors in this matter of meat production. I think it is very fair to say that, if the figures were looked up, it would be seen that we were very much further advanced than they were previous to the war and that—while they can show a higher percentage increase than we can, in one case, and a percentage advance in the other case —their initial position was so much worse than ours in regard to the production of beef that there was plenty of room for improvement, while we had not that room for improvement. The greatest advance in agriculture in this country took place since 1948 when the propagation of cattle again became something to be lauded amongst the farmers.

I want to quote now from the Irish Independent of Saturday, 17th September, 1955. This, to me, is very hopeful and something which I look to as a sign of future prosperity. The article is headed: “Big Jump in Number of Young Cattle.” It says:

"The most significant figures in the preliminary estimates of crops and live stock for 1955, released last night, are those for the younger age groups of cattle, which show quite substantial increases. It is clear from these figures that despite the large exports of all cattle in recent years there will be no appreciable fall in supplies in the future. What perhaps is more important to the livestock industry as a whole is the fact that this very satisfactory position discloses a surprising drop in the mortality rate of calves and young cattle."

We have people to-day who decry the Government and say they failed in their duty to Irish agriculture. The position is not one of despair; it is one of hope and assurance in the future.

With regard to the numbers of cattle we are carrying on our farms at present, I believe capital is one of the greatest deterrents. In my view, the Irish farmer does not get the accommodation he should get from the banks. All over the country, there are firms which can and do provide seeds and fertilisers on credit to farmers and carry that credit until the harvest. That is done through the extraordinarily large accommodation offered by the banks to certain firms. I regard this as rather an unhealthy situation, because it does away with the bargaining powers of the farmers when making their purchases and it leaves the banks with their eggs all in one basket. I know that the matter I mention largely deals with fertilisers and seeds for spring trade; yet it is a sign that the farmers are starved for capital. That is the present system by which seeds and fertilisers are provided in this country.

Two out of every three accounts are carried from spring to harvest by somebody who, just because he can show a balance sheet each year, is in a position to command accommodation that a first-class genuine farmer cannot get, a man who has paid the same account for the previous 30 years. Surely that is an unhealthy situation. I am sure the banks in this country could produce 101 reasons for their stand in this connection. I have heard the view expressed, and I rather believe it, that ever since the plan of campaign, the battering rams, and so forth, banks are a bit shy of Irish farmers. They know the Irish farmer regards his home as his citadel and his ditch as a place where he can stand with a shotgun if anybody attempts to cross it. I laud that point of view of the Irish farmer, but I think the banks are failing in their responsibility to move with the times and realise that that situation no longer holds. The Irish farmer now is a businessman and, like every businessman, he has to live on a profit. He is no longer working on a subsistence margin. He is credit-worthy. He is somebody to whom, within the normal limits, there should be no hesitation in affording accommodation.

I shall quote now from a leading article in the Farmers' Journal of Saturday, 4th February, 1956, in which the small amount of advances to Irish farmers by our banks is criticised. There is a sub-heading to the second paragraph entitled “A Small Sum.” Reference is made to the statement of the Governor of the Bank of Ireland as follows:

"The Governor of the Bank of Ireland recently defended banking policy here by stating that Irish banks had advanced £19,500,000 to Irish agriculture. This works out at less than 22/6 per acre. Although it probably includes money lent to cooperatives, it is only 12½ per cent. of the total amount of money lent by the banks (agriculture produces over 30 per cent. of the national income)."

Add to that the facts that agriculture has been depressed for 700 years and that, when there was a battle, the farmers were in the front line trenches. Irish farming must, except in the outstanding case of the really successful farmer, be rather starved for capital in the situation to-day—a situation in which, to quote the words of a politician of great fame, "We must export or expire." In that situation, is this not an unhealthy sign? I believe the banks should enlist the aid of agricultural advisers, even if they employed only one for each bank, capable of giving the farmers help and seeing how much can and should be advanced and for what purpose it should be advanced, to aid in increasing the production which we need so much. I believe they should give our young and old farmers an opportunity to bring themselves and everyone in this country to a greater level of prosperity

I feel I should not let this opportunity pass without referring to a certain viewpoint which seems to be everywhere expressed in the past few years, whenever agriculture is discussed. We find a great measure of criticism of certain groups, bodies and individuals and if one really examines most of this criticism, one finds it is ill-founded. I am aware that, whatever Government may be in power, you will have agitations fanned by agitators who must and will agitate. However, even outside politics, one can find at the present moment, even among our farming organisations, an undue spirit of unhelpful criticism of business groups, professional groups, milling groups and other persons who have to earn their livelihood. I make no apology for saying in Dáil Eireann, as a farmer's son who is now a businessman, that we are all in this together, from the lady who works in a gown shop in Grafton Street to the man who is ploughing in his field this evening for roots. We are all in this together and there is not one of us who does not depend on that man who is ploughing his field with his tractor.

We have no other hope for the future; we must resign ourselves to that, and we must moderate the spirit of undue criticism which has been so marked in the past few years. I believe that to criticise farmers is unfair and to criticise businessmen is unfair, unless you can prove what you say; and, as somebody said here this evening, figures can be made to prove anything. Many times when I believed that I saw something wrong about a policy or about a business deal, or about anything else, whether public or private, and when I took the trouble to examine the facts, it was clear to me that everybody in the case had acted in good faith.

We should never approach agriculture politically, but in the realisation, on each side of the House, that every step forward is a step towards greater prosperity for every person in the country. I acknowledge that Fianna Fáil when in office tried to do good, and that we, in office, are trying to do good. It is up to the people to say who is the better. Except when we are out on the hustings, we should not be actively over-critical of what is being done because, first and foremost, our farmers must believe in us, and unfair criticism can do a great deal of harm. Unfair criticism can leave farmers, who have not the same contact with business or the same contact with facts as we are privileged to have here, in the position that they do not believe in the word of the Government, in the word of the Minister or in the word of any other member of the Cabinet in regard to a certain crop, so that an opportunity to make profit is not taken. That cannot be emphasised enough and everybody who contributes to this debate should do so in a constructive way and not in a spirit of undue criticism. I do not think it has been done and, remember, I started my remarks by saying that outside this House there was far more undue criticism than inside it.

At the present moment, there is a sum of £1,840,000 lying in the coffers for the proposed Institute for Agriculture. Again, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the American people for their wonderful generosity in placing this sum at our disposal and I hope that every £1 of it will be used to the best advantage. But now is the time to say what one thinks and, having examined in detail the White Paper the Government has produced and in which the previous Government also had a hand, I find that it is about the only practical approach to the problem.

Dáil Eireann, which is highly representative of the agricultural community and, if not, it certainly is and must of itself be representative of the whole country, has ten representatives on the board of the proposed Agricultural Institute, according to the White Paper. I do not think that number is excessive, but that it is about the right number. The agricultural organisations, which have done so much good in the past five or six years, have ten representatives. That seems to be a balanced situation. The universities and the chancellors of the universities are also represented by the numbers to which I think they are entitled.

There has been severe criticism of the fact that the Government appoints the chairman of the Institute for Agriculture, that this interferes with the autonomy of the proposed institute. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Provost of Trinity College is appointed by the President on the advice of the Government and I do not think anybody has ever questioned the complete autonomy of Trinity College. I have been very interested in this project and I have devoted quite a while to the study of the N.F.A. report in relation to the commission which they set up. While finding them an excellent body who must be a great help to any Minister for Agriculture in the future when he comes to negotiate with farmers, I find myself disagreeing with their majority report and wholly agreeing with my county man, Dr. P. Moran, and his colleague on the N.F.A. Commission, Mr. J.G. Litton, in the minority report which they produced. In this connection, I wish to quote from the Irish Press of Friday, December 23rd, 1955:—

"Two members of the Commission, Messrs. P. Moran and J.G. Litton, issued a minority report. They disagreed with the majority on the following points:—

"The suggested establishment of four facilities.

"The ‘persistent advocacy' throughout the report, ‘of an extreme measure of decentralisation and regionalisation' in higher agricultural research and education and in the advisory services."

I think it would be a terrible thing to have four slices of the Agricultural Institute situated in different parts of the country. I admit that farming in various parts of the country is different but it is not fair to say that everywhere within 100 miles or so of one point where you might have a slice of the institute, you would have a certain type of farming. I am sure you can find in Cork, for instance, plenty of bogland and also some of the best tillage land in the country. It would be a great mistake to make these four slices of the Institute for Agriculture. I would stand wholly and completely for one autonomous institute and I think the Government White Paper, in which the previous Government and this Government have had their hand and their say, is the nearest approach that can be made to the solution of a very difficult problem and is the most factual and the most practical approach that can be made. It is very easy to criticise and I am sure there are members of this House who could find themselves in complete disagreement with me, but, if they examine the matter in a fair spirit, they will find that this report is as good as we can expect.

In relation to milk, being a dairy farmer myself within the Dublin dairy milk district, I think there is a case for some increase in the price of milk. While I am not very cognisant of the position so far as creamery suppliers are concerned, I do know that, in the five counties that supply Dublin, the cost of production is such that, in my view, in order to derive the profit that we derived in the past, it is necessary to get some increase. But the situation is terribly difficult. In this area, there is a fund established by the Dublin Dairies Milk Board for which there is a levy made on all the milk we supply, and when there is a surplus of milk delivered to Dublin in the summer, that surplus goes to the chocolate factory for far less than our contract prices, and this levy is used to subsidise the price paid to us and the cut is not just quite so severe. But, as a supplier, I got a circular letter yesterday to say that already there were 100,000 gallons too much milk in Dublin in the month of March. If this trend continues, we may find ourselves with such a surplus of milk in Dublin in mid-summer that this fund will be of no value whatever to us. It will be completely dissipated, and the prices we can get for our milk, over and above the daily figure which we supply in the winter, will be so low that our position will be far worse than that of any creamery supplier who has not got to put up his milk every day of the year and sign a contract to do so.

It is a very difficult position and, of course, every Government has had its difficulty with milk, but I know that in our area these difficulties will have to be met in a fair manner. I think that the commission was the greatest fiasco that anyone ever perpetrated on the Irish farmers. I do not want to criticise anybody, or to express any views that anybody might find unfair; but I think that the costing of any farm crop or product in Ireland, with its greatly differing methods of agriculture and varieties of land, is impossible and that anybody who attempts to do it is either a fool or a knave. It is completely impossible to produce costings for any crop. If somebody says to me: "There is a piece of land of five acres and you made £150, £200 or £250 or even £500 on a crop you had last year" I can say: "How much did I put in for the previous ten years?" If I have another field and I do not get even the price of the seed out of it, is it not valid for my neighbours to say: "As you sow, so shall you reap. Why did you not fertilise your previous crops? If you grow five or six crops of wheat without fertilising, what do you expect?"

I do not know how many years you would need to go back to cost a crop— and I maintain that milk is a crop. The grassland, the situation in regard to the land where the cows were fed, the fodder that was fed to them during the winter—all these things come into the question, including the grading-up that a man may have put into his herd of cows over 20 or 30 years, and the reference of the matter of milk to the commission by the ex-Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Walsh was—I will be very mild— foolish in the extreme. It was not a fair crack of the whip for the Irish farmer. There are enough men in this House on both sides competent to know whether increases are warranted from year to year. With those men to advise him and the men in his Department also to advise him, any Minister for Agriculture can sit in his office and meet ten farmers and talk about milk. I think, therefore, the costings commission was the most ridiculous idea put forward by any Minister for Agriculture I have known.

Finally, I should like to say that the cheerfulness and hope that is everywhere to be seen in Ireland to-day is something which we will not continue to get, if we do not organise for it. I am confident that the Irish farmers will increase their production; I am confident of that because they have done it every year, taking the dry years and the wet years and all the rest of them, from 1948 on. In each, there has been increased production. I believe the Irish farmer will continue to increase his production. As long as he has behind him the land reclamation project, the ground limestone scheme, the farm building scheme and all these, not end-product subsidies, but subsidies on production to help him, where if he puts £1 in, he may expect to get £3 out, he will bring us out of the balance of payments problem and rise to the occasion as he did in the past. Ireland may again depend on the farmer and he will not fail her.

I would like first of all to compliment Deputy Donegan on the speech he has made here to-night, because Deputy Donegan has approached the matter, to my mind, very fairly. He said the lady in Grafton Street and everybody else were all in the one shop and the one bank, but the lady in Grafton Street and the people in the Government offices got over £1,000,000 the other day to help them out with the increased cost of living. What did the farmer get?

I am very glad to see that there is a farmer's son occupying a position as a businessman and that there is one farmer's son anyway who has moved in to take over the profits that some of the merchants were getting all along.

Now, that is adverse criticism of certain bodies.

I am very glad to see it. I want to start by dealing with the latter part of Deputy Donegan's speech in regard to costings. There is no justification whatever for the manner in which the farmers have been blackguarded—I cannot describe it in any other way—regarding the milk costings. I will give a fair illustration of what I mean. In the autumn of 1947, General Costello and our Beet Growers' Association had a discussion on whether it would not be far better to find out the cost of the production of beet and pay the cost of production, plus a fair profit, than the old bargaining system. That was in the autumn of 1947 and costings were a new thing in this country. We had to search throughout the country, in the first place, to find a neutral chairman and then we had to find a basis of costings. But we did it all. Men of all shades of opinion met together. I can say here with pride that I was very proud to have the late Deputy James Hughes— God rest his soul—on that committee and a very worthy member of it. We had ex-Deputy Lehane; Deputy Beegan was on it and men from all the different Parties here were able to meet and work on that basis. I should also like to say this, that while the man on the opposite side might be a soldier and a hard-headed businessman, he was the one man I found who was prepared to give a fair crack of the whip to the farmers. That is General Costello.

Did you like the results of it?

Of what?

Of the costings.

I was satisfied with the result.

I was not.

If you want to know what the milk producers should get, take the price of beet then and the price of beet to-day and see what the milkman is entitled to having regard to the increase in price. The point I am coming to is that we had to set up the complete machinery—farmers, agricultural advisers, a whole field team. We had to find over 200 farmers who would be costed. We did the job. We worked on the costings and produced the costings and the farmers were paid on those costings for the 1949 crop of beet. The operation started in the autumn of 1947 and they were paid on the 1949 crop. When were the milk costings started and where are they now? If we were able to produce the costs of production of beet in 12 months, what have the professors, judges, civil servants and the rest of them who are engaged in milk costings been doing for the past four or five years?

Who appointed them at all?

What are they doing?

Who appointed them at all?

I am not concerned with the individuals. I am concerned with that team of men and their results. If the work of finding the cost of production of milk were handed over to the farmers on the one hand and even to the milk consumers on the other hand, the results would be available in 12 months.

Bad judgment in the appointment.

It is only when the dead hand—I can call it nothing else—of the Civil Service is introduced that we are left. I happened to be the vice-chairman of the Cork Milk Producers' Association when we first went into milk costings. We carried out milk costings there 15 years ago and were able to produce the results in 12 months. What is wrong with the present commission or what is the political play-acting—I cannot describe it as anything else—that is holding up the report?

The facts are there. If a neutral body, not having the power that a Government commission has, were able to find the costs of production of beet in two years, at the outside, what is that milk costings commission doing? It is a fair question. The milk costings they bring out, whenever they do bring them out, will be at least three years out of date. Take, as an example, the difference in the cost of production of beet as between last year and this year—3/6 a ton, as found by costings. We got an increase of 3/6 a ton on the coming year's beet due to the increased cost of production. Farmers will be told to-morrow or later: "There is the cost of production of milk as found in 1952 or 1953." They will be sneered at by the Minister, who told us about the rumours he has heard about milk costings. He is the first Minister that I ever heard telling us about rumours in regard to the price of a commodity in which the farmers, of whom he is the representative here, are interested. One would expect some results. What is the use of costings that are three years out of date? Have the commission any machinery for bringing them up to date whenever they bring them out?

In each of the past three years there has been an increase in the price of beet. When did the field team study milk costings? When did the field team finish on milk costings? Whatever number of years ago that was, what is the increase in the cost of production since? These are the points that the farmers will be very anxious to learn.

Deputy Hughes knows very well what the price of beet was in 1948-49, the first year in which a price based on the costings was paid and he knows the price of beet to-day. What was the price per gallon of milk in 1948 and what is the price to-day?

I do not think the two are comparable.

Does that account for the disappearance of the milch cows from this country? Does that account for the fact that a Deputy travelling by train can see fine herds of cows along the route—ten, 15 and 20 of them —each one of them with two little calves suckling it. What is the reason for the change?

These are the matters to which I would like our Minister for Agriculture to devote himself, instead of coming in here talking about rumours that he heard about milk costings and the whisper around the corner that the farmers were getting enough for their milk.

He never said that.

I beg your pardon.

He did not.

I beg your pardon. Read his statement.

Read it yourself. I have read it.

I read it and he said that the findings of the milk costings would give them no increase——

——and under the milk costings they would not be entitled to an increase.

Did he say they were getting enough then?

Have a look at it.

He did not say that.

I want to deal with a few matters for the benefit of the Minister when he is here and he can say whether he said those things or not. I will just switch a little now for the benefit of the Deputy since he was kind enough to come back. Deputy Donegan and every other Deputy who has any interest in the country is anxious to see higher production in agriculture. Deputy Donegan said a while ago that we were all in the same boat. I gave him a little bit of the boat in which we were.

His boat is leaking.

Farmers' rates are up this year by between 3/- and 5/6 in the £ all over the country. Let us examine the farmers' position now and see the incentives that are held out to them for higher production by the Minister for Agriculture. I shall quote from the report from the Central Statistics Office. The production of wheat in 1954 was 486,368 acres. In 1955 it was 358,006, a reduction of 128,362 acres or 26.4 per cent. Perhaps Deputy Donegan could tell us the reason.

Read out the figures for barley.

I will give Deputy Donegan all the crops as I come along to them. Farmers in this country grew 358,006 acres of wheat. Deputy Donegan will agree that a fair average crop would be a ton to the statute acre and on that calculation farmers were taxed by the Government and by the Minister for Agriculture to the extent of £1,790,000 for growing wheat. That is the £5 a ton, the 12/6 a barrel that was extracted out of their pockets for growing wheat. That was the help they got to pay the increased rates and the increased cost of production. They grew 128,362 acres less than the previous year. The farmers' income from wheat growing alone was reduced by £3,858,000. Entirely, the farmers' income was reduced last year by £5,458,000 on wheat.

Did they do nothing with the 128,000 they did not use for wheat?

The farmers dropped 128,000 acres of wheat sooner than pay the tax on it.

Why were they foolish enough to pay the tax on what they grew?

Because Jamesy said so.

The Deputy should not refer to the Minister in that fashion.

I am sorry. I withdraw it. The Minister for Agriculture, the Lord between us and all harm.

I am sorry there is nobody in the gallery.

Deputy Donegan was anxious about barley. There was an increase in the acreage of that crop of 150,000 acres and a drop of £4 a ton in the price.

Not true.

A drop of £4 a ton in the price.

Not true.

48/- a barrel. On the 213,223 acres that were grown, the reduction of £4 a ton meant a drop in income of £1,279,000. You can add that to the £5,500,000 and you will see what the farmers in this country were working for and the manner in which the tillage farmers of Louth and East Cork got paid for their work. The next wallop they got was a drop of 6,327 acres of "spuds". You all know what potatoes are making in the market to-day and if you want to know, why just have a look at your figures. Then take your minds back to a famous debate in this House in November, 1948, when the late Deputy Davin stood up and said his constituents had to sell the "spuds" they grew under the orders and on the advice of the Minister for Agriculture at £5 a ton. The moment that the people of this country saw this angel of a Minister coming back, they got out from under and you had a reduction of over 6,000 acres of potatoes. Potatoes are making well over £30 a ton to-day.

The Minister for Agriculture expressed his holy horror of wheat, saying he would not be seen dead in a field of wheat. One cannot expect him now to do anything better than to attach a tax of 12/6 to every bag of wheat produced. The farmer is no fool at the present time. He knows what happened in November and December of 1948 when that Government had to send the Minister for Agriculture over to America and to use the late Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, as Deputy Minister for Agriculture, to put the floor under oats and enable it to be sold. Those are the facts. I am making a very small estimate of the loss on that 6,000 acres of produce at £190,000.

Then we come to beet. That also has gone up the spout after peat and wheat. The moment the unfortunate farmers saw the hero that brought 75,000 tons of sugar into this country the last time he was in office they were finished with the beet and they dropped 19,000 acres of it. That is the return here and I take it that the Central Statistics Office does not give us any untruths.

What has the Minister to do with fixing the price of beet?

Deputy Hughes should know what I read out in this House on one occasion when the Minister was here before and when Deputy Morrissey was Minister for Industry and Commerce. Have a look at their activities in regard to beet and then you need not ask me that foolish question. I do not want to be dragging out old documents and quoting them here. I want to be as brief as I can and I am just giving facts as I know them. The acreage of sugar beet grown in 1954 was 74,017 acres and in 1955 it was 55,238 acres; that is a reduction of 18,779 acres, or 25 per cent. of the crop. One quarter of the acreage of beet went up the spout after the peat and wheat, "God speed the day".

That means a further reduction in the farmers' income of £1,330,000. That means that, in grain and root crops alone, this Minister has been responsible for a reduction in the farmers' income of over £10,000,000 in this year. That is a proud record. The farmers are told to increase production but the total reduction in corn and root crops was 80,495 acres. "Increase production," the farmer is told. He is told to have one more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough and there it is. The Minister has every reason to be proud. He has succeeded in driving at least the wheat and the beet up the spout. If he has the same success with the other side of the farmers' economy he need not worry too much because the next Minister that will come in here will have a fairly tough job in getting the plough dug out of the duke again and put to work.

Deputy Donegan, like myself, comes from what one might call one of the granary areas of this country, and he, as well as I, realises that the majority of the farmers, both in the County Louth and in County Cork, in East Cork anyway, grow more grain than they can walk off the land. That is their farming economy and Deputy Donegan offered certain advice to the Minister. I can go no further than to repeat the advice given by Deputy Donegan in that respect. Further than that I shall not go. I am all at one with Deputy Donegan in his appeal to the Minister as regards grain.

I do not believe, not does Deputy Donegan believe, that the tillage farmer and the working farmer of this country should be skinned for the benefit of anybody and particularly when the amount that is extracted from him is used to cheapen or render more palatable the foreigners' grain that is imported. I have heard a lot about the price of foreign wheat as compared with the price of Irish wheat but I would like to ask the Minister what I consider to be a fair question. The price of Irish wheat for the coming year is roughly £29 a ton. What does the Minister consider should be the price of the offals produced from that wheat? If he is importing cheaper wheat, as he states he is, what should be the price of the skin of the wheat sent in by the foreigner?

Those are fair questions and they are honest questions. Up to recently I had a different opinion of the Minister. I thought he was a man who would stand up here to any other Minister who would endeavour to injure the people he was representing in this House. I had that opinion of him. I never thought he would stoop and crawl and, to use his own words, make a doormat out of himself for Deputy Norton, Minister for Industry and Commerce. I never thought that he would do that, but he did. He ruined the very people in relation to whom he held up his hands in holy horror every time the unfortunate grain-growing farmer, like Deputy Donegan and myself, went to him looking for a price for feeding barley. We were asked: "What about the poor man, the poor small farmer in the West, with the ten acres, the wife and the six children who makes his livelihood out of feeding pigs?"

Did I ever think then that that same Deputy James Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, who wept salt tears when we looked for a couple of pounds a ton on the price of feeding barley, would come along and allow Deputy Norton, Minister for Industry and Commerce, to skin that unfortunate farmer to the tune of £6 a ton on the ration that he had to buy to feed his pigs? I ask the Minister why did he do that? I think that is a fair question. Why did he allow Deputy Norton, Minister for Industry and Commerce, to do that? Has the position changed since the day when Deputy Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, stood over there, shook his finger at these benches and said: "Labour will keep as mute as a mouse?"

Has Deputy Norton, Minister for Industry and Commerce, really silenced the redoubtable Deputy James Dillon, Minister for Agriculture? What has happened the Minister for Agriculture? Is the shoe on the other foot now? Has Deputy Norton, Minister for Industry and Commerce, now told the Minister for Agriculture: "Look, you keep as mute as a mouse and forget all about the small little farmer in the West, with the wife and the six children, who is making his living on feeding pigs." The Minister might like to have his memory refreshed as to what Deputy Norton, Minister for Industry and Commerce, did with him. I will be very happy to refresh it for him. I will not use my own words; I will use the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the first instance, and the Minister for Social Welfare, representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the second instance.

In September, 1954, the price of wheaten offals was £20 per ton. The Minister told us how that price went up. Here is his description:—

"The increase in the price of offals from £20 to £23 a ton in September, 1954, to £24 10s. in December, 1954, and to £26 a ton in January, 1955, accounted for increased receipts by the millers of £170,000."

Would the Deputy give the reference?

The 23rd March, 1955. I raised that matter, first, by question and subsequently on the adjournment of the House. I was anxious to have the full story. In three short months the Minister for Industry and Commerce has extracted out of the pockets of the small farmer with the wife and six children, for whom the Minister for Agriculture was weeping salt tears, no less than £170,000 to pay the subsidy on flour. I put down a question on 15th February of this year as reported at column 336 of Volume 154 of the Official Report:—

"To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state, in respect of the periods (i) 31st August, 1954, to 31st August, 1955, and (ii) 1st September, 1955, to 1st February, 1956, the total increased receipts obtained by millers as a result of the increase in the prices of offals following similar increase in the prices of imported offals."

This is the reply I got:—

"While the accounts furnished to me by flour millers show total receipts from sales of offals, they do not distinguish the amounts received from offal sales at different price levels. I am therefore unable to give the information sought by the Deputy."

I raised the matter again on the adjournment that night and this is the information the Minister was able to procure in the meantime:—

"Adopting the same basis as that used in estimating the probable amount of subsidy payments in the financial year 1954-55 the increased receipts by millers from the sales of wheat and offals from September, 1954 to August, 1955, have been calculated to amount to £431,000; and for the period from September, 1955, to 1st February, 1956, to £186,000."

That is £617,000 paid by the poor small farmer in the West, with the wife and the six children, who had the salt tears of the Minister for Agriculture pouring down! That unfortunate small farmer in the West paid £617,000 of the flour subsidy this year for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government of which he is a member.

Is it any wonder, when we come to look at the statistics again in relation to the number of sows, we find the number has decreased by 20 per cent. and the number of other pigs has decreased by 135,000? The small farmer in the West, then, and the man producing pigs, whether he lives in Cork or Connemara, was sacrificed and his industry was sacrificed because of the anxiety of this Government to find money for the flour subsidy. But the account given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce was that he brought the price of the home offals up to the price of the imported offals and we were all happy then. The Irish farmer was then able to produce the pig on an equal basis with his comrade in England and in the North. He forgot that the farmer in this country is paying a little thing called rates, and that those rates, under the skilful manipulation of all Governments, have a little habit of climbing up. Then, we get a little help from the Minister for Agriculture to pay the extra 5/2 on our backs this year.

Does the Minister honestly think that a game like that, in which he reduces the income of the farmers from grain and roots alone by £10,000,000, is going in increase production? Will the Minister say that the policy of driving out of existence pig producers in this country will tend to increase production? Does he think, for one moment, that he is following in the footsteps of the Minister who first quoted in this House: "One more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough" when he comes and crucifies the small farmers to the extent of £617,000 and, as Minister for Agriculture, remains silent while that injustice is being committed? What does he think he is there for? Those are only a few of the items. This injustice is continuing still because very cleverly, Private Members' time was stopped before the House was given an opportunity of deciding whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce was to be allowed to continue to do that or not.

Yes. It has always been the custom that, whenever the debate on a Private Member's motion was half finished, an opportunity was given to finish it. Deputies over there did not like to be trotting around the Lobby voting against the pig feeders of Cork. They knew what would happen to them the next time the Cork fellows got them.

Did the Deputy approach his Whip with a view to that being put forward?

I heard nothing about it.

Deputy Corry, on the Estimate.

I did not hear anything from the Minister of late years about the Pekinese breed of cattle. Has he given it up? Those are the Pekinese breeds he was talking about here some time ago. I would suggest to the Minister very seriously that he would call to his own agricultural school at Darragh, Clonakilty, and get the results of the experiments carried out there between the Shorthorn dual-purpose bullocks and the Friesian bullocks. They will enlighten him. He will not be so anxious to talk about the Pekinese bull after having a look at them. With other members of the county committee I had the pleasure of visiting the school this year and I heard from the very skilled and experienced gentleman in charge of the school the manner in which he carried out the experiments. When a Shorthorn bull calf is born there they send down to Mitchelstown for a Friesian bull calf on the same day. The two of them are put in together and get the same feeding. They were little over yearlings when we saw them, and the difference was appalling. The Friesian cattle were putting on four pounds to the other's one. Still, the Minister's Department of Agriculture will not yet give a premium for a Friesian bull. They do not want them. Surely, if the Minister takes an interest in the different schools and colleges for which he is responsible, he has seen the results of those experiments and has studied them? If he did so, he has those facts.

There is one other matter I wish to bring up here. That is in regard to the manner in which the grant for ground limestone, given to us by the American Government, is being misused and squandered. I remember the difficulty I had here away back in 1951 in endeavouring to persuade the Minister that the company that brought the lime into the field and spread it for the farmers was doing at least as good a job as the company that came along and heeled it on the main road a couple of miles away and told them to shovel it in the butt and carry it home. For three or four months, the Minister refused to pay the subsidy to the man who was taking it into the field and spreading it, but in the finish the Minister—I think he must have had a death-bed repentance—did give it. What has happened since? If money is given for a definite object in this country by another Government, I suggest that money should be used for the object to which it was allocated, and should not be used for bolstering up any State subsidised company. I think that is fair enough.

Why, in the name of Heaven, if I order 100 tons of ground limestone and it is delivered to my farm by the owner of that ground limestone plant in his own lorry, should somebody else who never saw that limestone get 7½ per cent. commission out of that lorry load? That is more than I can understand. Why is it done? What is the justification for it? Is the Minister prepared to stand over his action if complaints are made to the American Government about the manner in which the money is being expended? It is our duty to see that any money that comes for the use of agriculture in this country is used for that purpose and for that purpose only, and is not used to sponsor inefficiency and incompetence. This state of affairs has been brought very forcibly to my attention. I certainly think it is wrong and unjust to the producers of ground limestone and the farmers of this country.

In my opinion the bulk of that money is now gone. I do not believe that there is sufficient left in the fund to keep the ground limestone subsidy going for another 12 months. I wonder would the Minister be kind enough, when he is concluding, to let us know what exactly is the position in regard to this. How much money has been given to C.I.E. out of the subsidy is another question. Is that money going to be refunded by this State to the farmers from whom it has been taken? There is no justification for the position and no justification for a company stepping in and getting 7½ per cent. commission out of every ton of limestone drawn by the owners of the plants themselves. The situation is a joke and one which, in my opinion, will have to stop and stop quickly. I would ask the Minister when he is concluding —whether it is to-night or after the next general election—to let us know how much of that subsidy is left.

Will he still be Minister after the next general election?

I would not permit my freedom to be used in the way which the Minister for Agriculture described a few years ago in a reference to Deputy Smith. I suggest that he himself is being used now "as a doormat for any executive council". Those are the words the Minister used.

He had three right old doormats there.

We had the pleasure of seeing Deputy Smith's successor in office coming in and introducing the same Bill without even a change of a comma in it, and I had to ask that unfortunate Minister whether he had allowed himself to be used as a doormat for Deputy Dillon. I am suggesting now that Deputy Dillon, during the 20 or 22 months he has been there as Minister, has allowed himself to be used as a doormat for Deputy Norton, Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The Deputy has said that at least four times.

I would like it to sink in. I have no intention of holding up the House.

No, I am just putting forward the facts. There is one matter that I would like to press upon the Minister. I am sorry he was not here when I was dealing with it previously, but I will be very brief on it. I would like to point out to the Minister that beet costings were started in the autumn of 1947. We had to find a neutral chairman, the basis of the costings and everything else, and yet we were paid on the costings in respect of the 1949 crop. Surely, we had as much work to do as the Milk Costings Commission are doing now? In the name of Heaven, will he go to the chairman of that costings commission and tell him that? Or, if he likes, Deputy Hughes and myself along with General Costello, will take it over and will do the milk costings just as quickly as the beet.

You did not get on so well with me over it.

I am making a fair offer. There is no justification for the manner in which the farmers are being treated in regard to milk costings. As I pointed out here, we want to know the date on which the field work stopped. On the costings we have got this year from General Costello, there has been an increase of 3/6 per ton on beet, and that is only in respect of one year. Get the year on which the field work stopped, keep your costs of production right and see what the price of milk is going to be and you will get an eye-opener. I am anxious to impress that particular point on the Minister in the hope that he will go to the costings commission and either make them do their work or get rid of them.

A general view has been expressed that we should look to an increase in agricultural production as a means of getting over our present financial difficulties. One would expect that the Opposition would put forward suggestions which would be of use, but Deputy Corry, as usual, is here to twist the facts.

Take the tax off wheat.

Since he stood up here to-night, he did nothing but misrepresent the facts. He referred to the reduction in the beet acreage last year. The Minister has nothing whatever to do with the fixing of the price of beet. It is fixed under the fixed costing arrangement to which Deputy Corry referred. It is completely out of the Minister's hands. Actually, there was a reduction in the beet acreage last year as a result of the desperately wet harvest season of 1954. Many growers did not succeed in getting the crop out at all. That is quite noticeable down through the year so far as beet production is concerned: you are not able to get a continuously level acreage.

For some years there will be a poor crop and the result is that the acreage will go down but then, when there is a good yield, the reaction is that there is an improvement in the acreage. If there is a bad yield for some years, the reaction immediately is that there will be a reduction in the acreage. When there is a good year the result is, generally, an increased acreage. The 1954 season was a very bad beet harvest season and it had a very serious effect on last year's acreage. Of course, Deputy Corry twisted all that in an effort to blame the present Minister for Agriculture for that situation. The indications so far are that this year there will be an increase in the acreage. I hope that will happen.

There was some discussion to-day on cattle prices. I am completely in agreement with the Minister in his attack on the Irish Press. The position was disgraceful. We were going through a serious time so far as the price of cattle was concerned and the attitude of the Irish Press was anything but helpful. It tried to make the position worse and more difficult for the people in the cattle trade. It published headlines such as “Complete Collapse in the Cattle Trade”. Surely such a headline would have a very serious adverse effect on the cattle business.

On the general question of cattle, I should like to say a few words in regard to prices on the British market and the type of cattle required there now. They are matters that require serious thought and consideration. A change has taken place in the type of beast required on the British market. The big bullock, for which there was such a demand in years gone by on the British market, seems to be gone and gone for ever. As a result, our whole outlook on the production of beef and stores will have to change. Consider how cattle are produced and reared in this country. Generally the beast as a calf, and up to one year, is very well looked after. However, from one year to possibly two years or two and a half years the beast is not as well fed or as well looked after. The average store farmer looks on them as growing during that period. The result is that the beast is up to 12 cwt. before it can be a fat bullock.

As a result of the change in the demand on the British market, we shall have to change our system of producing beef here. The beast will have to be kept in condition all the time, well looked after and well fed. The demand is there now for the 9 cwt. to 10 cwt. beast. We shall have to produce that beast at 10 cwt. by the time it has reached two years. If that is done, there will be as much money in the business for the producer as there was for the 12 to 14 cwt. beast which was sometimes four years old before it reached that weight. That is something that will have to be looked into. Producers generally will have to change their method in order to suit that type of trade.

Reference was made to the reduction in the dead meat trade. The question was asked how it was that there was such a reduction in our dead meat exports this year. It is quite easy to understand. The reduction was brought about as a result of the amount of chilled meat that came on the British market from the Argentine and other meat producing countries. That meat was landed in Britain as low as 1/6. We could not compete at all in the dead meat trade. Naturally, our prices for live cattle are far better. That has always been our advantage in the British market over the Argentine and Australia. The short distance between this country and Britain always gave us the advantage, so far as live cattle are concerned. When we competed in the dead meat trade we competed on the same terms with other countries producing the same type of beast. That might have worked when there was a scarcity on the British market and when we could give the cattle in any form that suited us.

The Minister said to-day we should not lose sight of the fact that the market has changed from a seller's market to a buyer's market. That is the kernel of the situation. Up to now, we were supplying a market where produce was scarce and where we had no serious competitor. To-day, that has changed. Ample stock is going on the British market now to meet the demand. If we are to keep our position there, we shall have to watch that market very closely and produce the type of beast required there. We have the advantage in that we are the only market from which the British farmer can get his stores. That has held down through the years and will continue to hold. With the recent increase in the guaranteed price to the British farmer, our position so far as store cattle are concerned has been strengthened. It is really a very bright spot in the whole cattle trade. There is nothing very dangerous as far as the future of the live-stock industry is concerned.

In his introductory statement, the Minister referred to increased production. I should like to congratulate him on his statement. He gave a very fair account of what was being done and of the future policy in regard to increased production. I am in complete agreement with him that there is a real possibility of increasing our production in the grasslands of this country. Travelling through the country, one will notice that some people have looked after this side of agriculture and one will see the results especially at this time of the year. The results are very clear. You can see the fields that have been reseeded and fertilised in the early spring. They look lovely at present. They are grand and green and they have been like that for the past six weeks. However, 80 per cent. of the land has not started to grow grass yet. It is completely neglected. That is where we could get increased production. If that problem is tackled, I daresay it will take some time. Quite a number of the farmers will require plenty of encouragement and advice to get them going on that type of work. However, I believe that that is where real progress and expansion lie.

The Minister is quite correct in asking for an increased expansion in our live-stock industry. That can only be done by having a greater number of cows and heifers. If you cannot produce the calves you cannot have increased numbers of live stock. I have always held the view that if we could get agriculture out of politics it would be a great thing for increased production. One bright thing that happened this year was that the National Farmer's Union was able to go along and negotiate with the Minister for Agriculture and the Taoiseach and by means of those negotiations get an increase of 2/6 a barrel in the price of wheat. That was a step in the right direction and if that could be continned, if the National Farmers' Union could become the people to speak for the farmers in regard to price fixing and other matters of that nature, I am afraid that Deputy Corry and some of our other friends across the floor would have nothing to fight about, because they could not claim credit or attribute discredit for what was happening. That would be completely the responsibility of the National Farmers' Union and the sooner we arrive at that situation the better it will be for everyone in this House, and it surely will be far better in relation to securing increased production.

There is the matter of the wheat Order that comes along each year and I would like to make a few points in that regard. The price of wheat is based on a bushel weight of 63 lb. and this year the price is 72/6. The next price is 70/- representing a reduction of 3 lb. weight and when the bushel weight drops to 57 lb. the price is 67/6. There is a great deal of objection to that system. The growers think, and I am of the same opinion myself, that the gap is too wide and that there should be a variation for each lb. in bushel weight. If the bushel weight is just under 63, say, 62½ lb., there is a reduction of 2/6 but from the point of view of the value of the wheat to the miller, there is no half crown reduction. It is very unfair and there is no reason why the price should not vary for every lb. —say 10d. less for every lb. — less than 63. I would ask the Minister to look into that and if he could see his way to adopting that suggestion it would overcome a serious grievance from the point of view of the growers.

Another matter is that of moisture content. There is an arrangement in regard to moisture content in wheat whereby on anything over 23 per cent. there is a cut in the price. That is all right but when you come below 23 per cent. there is no increase although it is of more value to the miller. When the percentage is 20, 19 or 18, there is less moisture to be taken out of the wheat and from the miller's point of view it is a far better wheat. I would ask the Minister to examine the position and adopt a sliding scale. There is an arrangement with Messrs. Guinness for a number of years on the basis of a sliding scale both ways according to moisture content and I think the wheat growers are just as much entitled to that; the thing to remember is that wheat is that much more valuable according to the moisture content.

The Minister has referred to feeding barley and he hopes that all our requirements in that line will be produced at home. That is very welcome news. We should be glad to see that happening, but a difficulty arises in this connection. In the part of the country from which I come and which would be more or less a grain-growing district, where there is a minimum of £2 a barrel paid for feeding barley— that is the guaranteed minimum—the difficulty has occurred that when this barley is put on the market, all at the one time, now most of that grain is combined, there is a tendency not to accept the minimum price of £2. After the harvest when the grain is all in the stores, the price hardens and then the growers see this grain in six weeks or two months making 50/- a barrel. That is something which should not be happening. If it is worth 50/- a barrel after that period, it should be worth it to the producer at the time it is harvested. There should be some way of ensuring that the grower gets value for it. That is all he wants. He does not want to put it at a price which would be no good to the producer of the grain or to the pig producer. If the price is too high it is no use because the barley is not wanted at all. There was not so much on the market last year, but some of it was sold earlier on at £2 and shortly afterwards the same grain was worth 50/-. There is no reason why the purchasers should be made a present of 10/- in this way. If anyone is entitled to it it is the grower.

One of our big problems in relation to increased production is the number of small 20-acre holdings in the country. I am not saying I am against the smallholder but he has a greater difficulty than he had some years ago, especially in the grain-growing districts, in the tillage areas. Some years ago the small farmer was on the same footing as the larger farmer but now the larger farmer is mechanised. He has modern methods of sowing and harvesting the crop whereas the small 20-acre or 25-acre farmer cannot afford to mechanise. The capital required to mechanise is not available to him and it would not be economic for him to the extent that it costs £1,000 to £1,500 to mechanise properly. That person is in a difficult position when it comes to increased production. He must still work with a pair of horses whereas his neighbour, the bigger farmer alongside him, can do it with up-to-date machinery. In that way he is falling back and production on a good deal of these small holdings is less than it was ten years ago.

Ten years ago there was industry on the holdings, because the womenfolk reared poultry and fed pigs. That is not happening to-day in most cases, and you have not the same production as you had, even ten or 15 years ago, on the small holdings. The number of the small holdings in the country is a big percentage of the total number of farms we have. I believe that the larger farmers have increased production considerably, especially in the matter of grain-growing. The new methods and techniques in grain-growing, as regards sowing and harvesting, have helped to give increased production. But this is not happening in the case of the small farms and some solution will have to be found to the problem of putting these people in a better position whether through better credit facilities or some form of cooperation in the matter of mechanisation. If these people are to get increased production from more small holdings there will have to be a change in the present system.

We all hope we will succeed in getting increased output in agriculture —the whole nation depends on it—and I think the Minister is tackling this problem in the very best way. One of the most important things is to give our farmers the best technical knowledge available and the Minister has definitely gone a long way in doing that. We have the land reclamation scheme for which he was responsible, the greatest scheme the farmers here ever got from any Government. We have seen the results of the scheme all over the country where we have land, the greater portion of which fromerly produced nothing but which, after being reclaimed, is as good as some of the best land we have now. From the national point of view, that is definitely a great asset towards increased production.

I rise to offer my humble criticism of the agricultural policy of the Government in the hope that some of the criticism will be accepted at least in some form by the Minister and the Government. I do not mind how the Minister may dress or camouflage that criticism, in any shape or from eventually, and, if he does carry out some of the suggestions which we offer, he may ultimately call them "The Dillon Plan" or anything he wishes. So long as they help the agricultural community, we do not mind.

The Minister, in opening the debate, said that the economic future of the country depended on agricultural prosperity. I think these were his words. I heartily agree, but on looking over this document we find that in practically every item of output, there has been a reduction in the last year. We are tempted to ask, why? This afternoon the Minister attempted to throw bouquets and laurels all over himself for all the grills he had brought into the agricultural system of the country. The effect of it all, apparently, is a substantial reduction in practically every item of agricultural production.

What has happened? That is the question that has been asked up and down the country. Has something backfired? Speaking from the point of view of the plain farmer, I would say that the principal reason is that the farmer is not satisfied with the prices paid for his produce. Can we improve the position? I think we can. On every side on which the producing farmer looks, he will find increasing costs and yet if he seeks one halfpenny of a rise for his produce through his own farm organisation, whatever it may call itself, the deputation is very lucky if it can get away without the Minister calling them "Fianna Fáil Party hacks" or something like that. That is not good enough. When a farm organisation approaches the Minister by way of deputation, it does not matter how their number is made up, whether they be Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Clann na Talmhan, when they come on behalf of the farmers, they should be accepted as representing farmers regardless of their Party.

I agree with Deputy Hughes when he says that the N.F.A. were heeded when they approached the Minister and the Taoiseach. I sincerely hope that the N.F.A. representatives were satisfied with the 2/6 increase per barrel of wheat—I do not think they were. Anyhow, it was something and we hope such things will continue. I sincerely hope that the members of the N.F.A. deputation were not told that they were "Fianna Fáil Party hacks" before they left.

The Deputy is spoiling it now.

When the producing farmers look about them to-day they can see that every organised section of the community can demand increases in their incomes for every small rise in the cost of living and get them, but the farmers cannot get any increase whatever for their labours. The farmer can see his son flying to the city to an organised trade; he can even see his workmen leaving the farm and flying into the cities or to England where they can get into organised unions and where, in the words of Deputy Kyne, they can, for every halfpenny increase in the cost of living, demand and get one penny. How can the farmer produce more in such circumstances for less?

If the Minister and the Government take cognisance of these facts, as they should, I think a solution might be found to the whole problem. The farmer is now a businessman and must get paid for his labour to the same extent as the son who flies off the farm or the labourer who goes to England for increased wages. I said before, and I say it again, that if the farmer gets sufficient for his produce he can pay the workers at a rate equal to that which they will get in the cities, and he will do it. But the farmer is not satisfied, and that is why we have a pile of figures here showing a decrease in production down along the line.

It is interesting to note the complete blank in the Labour Benches this evening. Why do members of the Labour Party not sit in this evening and attack the farmers, as they have attacked them on other Estimates? I should like Deputy Kyne to repeat what he said some time ago in this House, that the farmers should be penalised for not producing more.

Deputy Dr. Browne said that.

Deputy Kyne said it some time ago.

What about Deputy Smith?

Deputy Rooney can make his own speech and I will not interrupt him.

I would like to hear one member of the Labour Party repeating what Deputy Kyne said some time ago, that the farmers should be penalised for not producing more. No member of the Labour Party can challenge that Deputy Kyne said that. I should like to know the Minister's attitude to that statement by Deputy Kyne. I suggest that Deputy Kyne was speaking on behalf of the Labour Party when he made that statement. He is one of those who voted, not so long ago, against a motion seeking an increase in the price of wheat to the producers. Now he would like to penalise them because they do not produce more. I am quite sure that Deputy Hughes and all the farmers on the opposite side, irrespective of the Party to which they belong, will condemn Deputy Kyne for such utterances in this House.

In the Minister's White Paper, we find that he proposes to extend the artificial insemination stations. He mentioned South Galway. With that, I am certainly in agreement. Some useful work has been done. The Dairy Disposals Board has moved into my area already and is doing very useful work. I would suggest that the Minister should lose no time in extending that scheme further. I notice, from practical experience, that it is undesirable that the semen should have to be brought over long distances. In a good many instances, the semen is not fertile when it has to be transported over long distances. Therefore, it would be advisable to create more stations, if possible. Artificial insemination of cattle is developing and should be encouraged.

I do not think that distance has any effect on the fertility.

I beg the Minister's pardon, but that is my advice from one of his own veterinary scientists.

I do not think there is any substance in it. It is commonly passed half way round the world.

Perhaps that is so. There have been a number of repeats and there is some reason for it. It is a matter that can be overcome with a little bit of patience.

I would be grateful if the Deputy would give to the Department any information he may have, so that we can look into it.

I have already done so at Clarecastle station. I should like to bring to the Minister's notice a matter in connection with ground limestone. A number of farmers who qualify for ground limestone were not notified as to the time when the limestone would be delivered and, on one occasion, in the depths of winter, when the ground was flooded, the limestone lorries arrived and one could not put a wheelbarrow into the land.

This is limestone under the land project?

Yes. If the farmers knew when the limestone would be delivered, they could notify those who supply the limestone that the land is not in condition to allow it in and would not be faced with the problem involved in the lime being dumped on the side of the road and the rain falling on it, so that after a while it is a heap of massed concrete. That has happened in my area. Something should be done to prevent that happening. There is no use in sending lime to an area that is flooded.

I do not think that rain does limestone in a heap any harm.

It does not spread as easily.

Would the Minister not agree that heavy rain on limestone makes it set?

It makes a kind of skin on it.

It hardens it like concrete.

It is only a kind of skin which can be broken up.

No; it hardens right through.

If if does, in any case in which that happens, I should be glad to have particulars.

I will give them.

I do not see how it could happen, but, if it does, I should like particulars, and we will have it investigated.

I will even give the Minister the name of the contractor who spread it, and, in doing so, broke his machine. He had an automatic loader. It was broken in loading on the side of the public road. I am not complaining about a certain case, but I would like the Minister to take note of the matter, lest it may occur again.

I was glad to note the Minister's statement this evening that he is now in favour of feeding barley as against maize. That is a useful conversion and we hope he will continue in that conversion.

This evening, my colleague, Deputy Beegan, referred to the matter of wool and wool marketing. A big push has been made by the Department in recent years to get the farmers to produce clean wool. Many farmers are doing so, but they find that a neighbour who does not produce clean wool is getting a better price than they are. He gets the same price per lb. but gets more lbs. per fieece, for the simple reason that the wool is not clean. Can anything be done about the marketing of wool? There is no encouragement to the ordinary farmer who does his best to keep the wool in good order. It is a difficult problem, I admit, but something should be done to encourage the farmer who produces clean wool. Some years ago, we lost a very useful contract for wool in America, due to tar in the wool. We cannot get back there without some practical effort being made to compensate the farmer who produces good clean wool as against the farmer who is only concerned about the amount he can make out of the wool. This is a matter that should get some consideration from the Minister and his Department. I hope the Minister and the Government will accept my advice that the farmer is a businessman and that he will produce the goods if he is paid to do so. If farmers get a fair margin of profit they will deliver the goods all right.

I could start in a whole lot of different ways but, when I heard Deputy Corry's irresponsible and venomous speech to-night, I wondered what was Deputy Corry doing in this House for 16 years. This venom did not appear when the Irish farmer was getting the right trouncing, when he was being hounded to pieces by Fianna Fáil. In the most irresponsible way, Deputy Corry charged the Minister with being the cause of the farmers' losses. Of course he made up these figures himself. A good number of his colleagues here to-night have given figures and, when asked to quote, they did not do so. They were quoting themselves and from their imaginations. One of their favourite slogans is that they are the protectors of the small farmer, the man with the six children. Sometimes he has ten children and sometimes 15 but he is always living on ten acres of land and pulling the devil by the tail.

These small farmers were having a wonderful time under Fianna Fáil and Deputy James Dillon, as Minister, has crucified them. I would like to con over a few things that happened in my time and I can quote figures if I am asked. Deputy Corry says that Deputy Dillon put a tax of £6 a ton on wheat to subsidise the barley growers. I wonder if any of them were in the position I was when feeding pigs when war broke out. There were 300,000 tons of maize in store and the price was £6 a ton. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said at the time that the price would remain on the level of August 24th. The price of pigs and the farmers' produce did remain but the price of maize went up to £15 a ton in a fortnight. There was no maize to be had on the 24th August but there was plenty of it a fortnight later. No one spoke for the small farmer then.

The last speaker said something about the conversion of the Minister to barley. Who introduced Ymer barley into this country or was it the fairies brought it in here? Who made barley growing a paying proposition in this country? I think if you took a bit of the politics out of wheat and settled down to balance the country on wheat, oats and barley you would be doing better. Deputy Walsh, one of the wonder boys of Fianna Fáil, said here this evening that the years of prosperity were the Walsh years, 1951 to 1954, due to the policy of Fianna Fáil.

When Deputy Walsh became Minister for Agriculture he carried on the policy of James Dillon. That policy could not be stopped because it was in full momentum. Deputy Kyne was challenged here this evening. I have no doubt he will be able to answer for himself. I never heard Deputy Kyne make that statement and I should know, because Deputy Kyne is Deputy for the constituency I have the honour to represent. The previous speaker mentioned that the Minister for Agriculture spoke of Fianna Fáil Party hacks. The Minister met farmers, and they were not without some Fianna Fáil Party hacks who want to stir up trouble. They do not want anything except to stir up trouble for the Minister. I was on a deputation to a Minister for Agriculture when we were getting 6½d. a gallon for milk. When we arrived at Merrion Street we were met by Broy Harriers with a line of Guards behind them with batons. We met no Minister for Agriculture. He had a toothache that day.

I want to say something to the Minister about pigs and the grading of pigs. The grading of pigs is a Fianna Fáil invention; it was brought into this country by Fianna Fáil and the graders had the qualification of being Fianna Fáil supporters. The majority of the men sent out to grade the pigs had never seen a pig in their lives except Curly Wee in the Irish Independent. The Minister dealt with grading of pigs to-day and I do not agree fully with him. The pigs go to the factories or to the sellers, as we call them in Waterford, and they are graded. If the farmer wants to go in to see the grading he may do so. He can see his pig graded down and he is penalised. That cannot be helped. To identify the grades, the gammons are branded B, C, or X.

The Minister must go farther than that because what the farmer is annoyed about is that the pig, which was graded down and on which he was penalised, reaches the top of the counter and is sold at the top price. Believe it or not, the farmer would be satisfied if he knew the pig on which he was penalised was sold at the reduced price, whatever that reduced price was. A great number of consumers are interested in this matter. I heard consumers asking for Grade C bacon and I have seen them looked blankly at by the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is not to blame. I believe the nigger in the wood pile is the bacon curer and I am not afraid to say it. I have some proof here. I have a piece of bacon here and I will show it if I am permitted. There it is.

That is a very bad practice.

I said I would show it if I were permitted.

Proceedings in this House are by way of debate, not by way of exhibits.

I said I would show it if I were permitted and I will now abide by your ruling. This is a handy piece of bacon and I have the price here before me. This bacon was handed in to the grocer at 360/- per cwt., a fine respectable price. The fat on that bacon measures 1¼ inches. That is 1 and 8/16th of fat and 1 and 3/16th fat is supposed to be bacon first grade. Why did not this man refuse this bacon when the brand should have been on the ham? The ham never reached the shop at all because it is cut off. The majority of the curers are branding their bacon with a needle brand from the shoulder to the ham. I say that, when bacon is graded, the mark should be put down the whole way on it.

I have another thing here to show the Minister and it would be from the pig that is penalised the most. You can be penalised for a thin light pig, as well as for too heavy a pig. Some of them will penalise you to the extent of 50/- a cwt. and others will only take it at their own price. This other piece I have here is from a pig that was penalised by the curer, but that piece could be sold as the most wonderful bacon in the world, because it has under three-quarters of an inch of fat. When the farmer brought that pig in, he was penalised to the tune of 6d. a lb. on it. So much for that.

The Minister mentioned that, after 1st May, there would be no restrictions on the export of live pigs. Well, it was a long time.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Lynch

The people who were in the live pig trade in the city that I come from were penalised by two Acts of this House that were brought in to endeavour to destroy and eliminate them. "Eliminate" was the word used here by two Government Deputies of the day. That Act was brought in here and no sooner was the attempt made to eliminate them than a very large bacon curing concern was hauled before the Prices Commission and it was found that they had made £800,000 in excess profits. Now the survivors of the Irish pig trade are supposed to go to England and pick up threads that were dropped nearly 20 years ago. I have no doubt of the ability of the survivors to do this. They had to survive the law of the jungle and the law of the jungle is the survival of the fittest.

It was mentioned in this House this evening that it is a bad thing to walk out our live stock. The people who say that do not know anything about the live-stock trade at all. The best thing we could do is to kill and cure the best grades of our pigs and endeavour to find a market for the heavy pigs in England. That market was there years ago in the furnace towns of England, but I do not know whether it still survives. It was there in Coventry and Sheffield where men are drinking their sweat at the furnaces all day long. These men need fats, and that is what made them buy the heavy Irish pigs. I hope that the Irish pig buyers will be able to reestablish themselves in this trade.

As far as the meat trade is concerned, I would like to say that we have a fine meat trade in Waterford. The cattle are there, and if the meat men want the cattle, they are there for them to buy, but if they will not pay for them, that is their business. I believe that the most important part of the Irish agricultural industry is the Irish live cattle trade. Last year, when the price of cattle started to soar on the Dublin market, it was not the meat men who put up the price but the dealing men, the men who are sneered at sometimes from the Fianna Fáil Benches. It was they who put up the price. The worst thing that could happen to the Irish farmer is for the live-stock men to be put out of business. When the foot and mouth disease broke out in 1941, a beast could not be sent abroad and had to be sold to the factories. There was no place for it to go but to the factories and they paid £12 10s. each for cattle. When the outbreak was over and when the ports opened again, the same cattle were making £35, £36 and £37 each.

Deputy Corry comes in here whinging about barley and about people fixing the price of barley. I am sorry that he did not stay here. I remember a time when Deputy Corry was a member of the Beet Growers, a body that had something to do with fixing the price of barley. In 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, when the Irish farmer could do with a few bob, he got 35/- a barrel for his barley, and not a bob more. That price was fixed and kept down on the farmer and we had to subsidise Guinness's. At that time, Guinness's were paying 72/- a barrel for barley in England. I have these figures and I will always remember them. They were burned into my heart. I did not hear any of these Deputies ranting and raving about the price of barley at that time.

I have heard the Minister for Agriculture insulted here as if he was the most incompetent man that was ever known. Deputy Walsh spoke here about the ineptitude of the policy of the Department and its Minister. If you could have a measure for ineptitude, you only have to go to the Minister's three predecessors in the Department of Agriculture—Deputy Dr. Ryan, Deputy Smith and Deputy Walsh. Deputy Corry regrets seeing, through the windows of railway carriages, calves sucking cows in the fields. I would rather see the calves sucking the cows than see the skeletons of calves in the fields. When the skeletons of the calves were there in the fields, there was no Deputy Corry ranting and roaring about them.

Everybody in this House is talking about emigration. I do not think that the growing of grain here in this country will stop emigration. The growing of grain will not stop emigration. When the grain is planted, the man who plants it can go off to England and come back in the autumn and harvest it. Actually, he need not come back at all to harvest it, because it can be done by combine, and any girl can get up on a combine and use it. What will keep these men at home is the kind of farming that must be attended to every day, namely, live-stock farming; and, remember, when I talk of live-stock farming, I am not talking about ranching.

Regret has been expressed that farmers' sons are going to England to earn money, to earn more money than they could earn at home. That is not the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture. That is the responsibility of the individual farmer concerned. He should pay his sons, and I say that against a number of neighbours of my own; there is too much of this thing of farmers expecting their sons and daughters to work for nothing. The sooner we become converted to the modern idea—thank God, we are learning—of paying our sons and daughters for the work they do, the better it will be for the agricultural economy of this country. We must get away from that system of the farmer giving his sons a couple of bob to go to the pictures, in return for their slaving day and night on the land. The farmer need not necessarily pay them £10 per week, but he can at least give them £2 or £3, and put £1 or £2 into the bank for them. Now, that is not a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, but I think it is worth while ventilating the position here.

I wish people would take agriculture completely out of politics. I wish the Deputies on the Opposition Benches would not come in here sneering at the Minister and insulting him, because this Minister for Agriculture has served the Irish farmer well. Until he came into office, there was no profit in agriculture. We will go by results now. Did any farmer make money in 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947? He did not. But in 1948, the sunburst came and we found ourselves with a Minister who went and sold our cattle for us, who was not afraid to go over to the other side and stand on his own feet, who was not afraid to go by himself and sell our cattle and sell them well.

The Minister mentioned that it was reported in practically half the English papers, and even in the Irish papers, that 17,000 acres of land had been reclaimed in Denmark. We have reclaimed 700,000 or 800,000 acres of land and we are now going into the million.

Some people are always talking about the Landrace pig. Far away cows again! We have good pigs. The Irish farmer is not such an idiot that he would not have good pigs after all these years. There are some pigs admittedly which are not so good, but, with proper breeding and education and with the young farmers who are showing so much interest, there is every reason to hope.

I am not one of those who believe that Irish farming is sinking. I will give my reasons. Why is our cattle population down? Because we sold our cattle and got a good price for them. What Fianna Fáil wanted us to do was to keep them until they fell down. Did anyone ever hear such nonsense? That is one of the grievances I have against Fianna Fáil, because a lot of people in that Party would have been glad if we had gone out of cattle. Prayers were offered up here thanking God that the market for our cattle was gone.

The thing to watch to-day is that self-same market. We will have to watch it. We will have to put up the quality and we will have to offer the beasts at a price. We will have to encourage the people who go over to sell those beasts and not indulge in the silly recreation of cutting the backs off them here. They are the true adventurers, adventuring with their own money, going across to the other side, standing in the markets and running the hazard of foot and mouth disease. That is something many people here do not appreciate. They would not know what it is to walk out of one's hotel in the morning and be told that the market was closed, that your cattle were impounded and you would have to pay 2/6 a night for them, cattle standing on concrete for maybe three months, and with no compensation.

Another thing we should look after —this does not directly concern the Minister, but, nevertheless, he should take a deep interest in it and so should everybody who exports—is the matter of freights to England. British Railways are the carrying agents for practically everything that goes out of this country. We should have some say there.

When I had spoken here last year, someone on the Fianna Fáil Benches got up and said: "Now we know what kind of people there are on the Fine Gael Benches." It was evidently regarded as a disgraceful thing that I should have spoken on behalf of the dealers. I hope that whenever Irish cattle, Irish pigs, Irish sheep or Irish poultry go to market, there will always be dealers there to buy them, because, if there are no dealers, it will be a bad day's work.

On this Estimate, the Minister is looking for £5,000,000 odd for the services of his Department in the current financial year. In relation to that, he issued a statement and he also made here an introductory statement on the statement issued. It is true to say that agriculture may be described as the bedrock of our economy. At times, people forget that we depend on agriculture for both food and shelter. Remembering that dependency, it behoves all of us, both inside the House and outside it, to do everything in our power, as individuals and as public representatives, to help the farming drive.

I think Deputy Corry this evening, even though he was criticised, made a good speech, because he pointed out the pressure that is being put directly and indirectly on the farming community under the Coalition Government to placate certain other sections. That is what it amounts to. Deputy Corry pointed out the drop in the farmer's actual income and in his potential income last year. Deputy Corry was quite entitled to do that.

I listened to the Minister's speech and I do not think it holds out much hope of seeing the brave slogans he put about in the 1954 election bearing fruit. The Minister for Agriculture is an old practitioner and he takes some of his texts from the old Irish Parliamentary Party. I think he believes that elections can be run and won on slogans. There is something in that; slogans have no doubt been successful in the past, and elections have been won on slogans, sometimes very empty slogans, indeed.

Better times!

A slogan about one more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough——

Is better than: "The British market is gone forever, thanks be to God."

——was held out as a fat carrot before the farmers of this country in the 1954 general election, but the fat carrot inside two years turned into a musty, mouldy carrot and lost its fragrance. In the two years since the Government was elected the Minister for Agriculture knows well that our agricultural exports decreased. He knows they decreased roughly to the value of £18,000,000. He further knows that the acreage under tillage is down. He knows there is a decline in certain other sectors of the farming system. Nevertheless, he comes into this House, with all guns firing together in a feeble sort of attack because he can at times make a fairly formidable attack but he indulged in sarcasm in the attack and usually sarcasm is the refuge of the defeated.

Somehow his attack petered out. He made an attack on the Irish Press and indirectly he paid it a compliment. He referred to it as Pravda. Pravda is a fairly formidable paper. He ascribed to the Irish Press certain motives. He said that they had certain motives in wishing to destroy the cattle trade. None of us believe that for a moment. Not even the simplest farmer down the country will be gulled by that because, with the spread of vocational organisations which have penetrated to every part of the country, the farmers are certainly better up at this stage than to believe that any national newspaper would have designs on our cattle trade.

No later than the night the Minister made the speech in this House, there was announced on the radio the same sort of news which was contained in the Irish Press. I thought that a feeble approach. Having regard to the difficulties with which we are faced, he finds it hard to justify his attitude over the past two years to his own producers. He knows it is vitally necessary that if we are to survive we must not alone guarantee the home market but we must export competitively our primary products abroad. He knows that we sent out of this country £46,000,000 for food for human and animal consumption and that we finished up with an adverse trade balance of £94,000,000.

I say that is a bad start to put into practice the slogan of "one more cow, one more sow, and one more acre under the plough". The Minister can hardly expect the farmers of Ireland to buy one more cow if she does not pay or to put one more acre under the plough if it does not pay or keep one more sow if she does not pay.

Another favourite slogan of the Minister is that a farmer should always leave his holding a little better in the autumn than he found it in the spring. We all agree with that. There is not much hope in the White Paper, which the Minister circulated, to induce the farmers in that direction. Any serious-minded farmer or any man out to farm with profit will certainly agree with the sentiments that he should leave his land a little better in the autumn than he found it in the spring but it is not always easy to do that.

He has not sufficient facilities at the moment for buying artificial manures and if he is not a stall feeder he has not any great quantity of organic manures. There is a credit squeeze enforced by Deputy Sweetman, Minister for Finance, who threatened to break the link with sterling one time. He said that he would keep the rate of interest here relative to the country's needs, and that he would ensure that at least we would be ahead of England in that matter and that we would have lower rates. The farmer finds, despite all that, he is paying a higher rate of interest and that he is very lucky if he gets a penny at all from the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

However, I look forward to the rise of the co-operative movement amongst the farming community from the productive point of view. I think we cannot lay all the blame at the door of any Minister regarding the circulation of money in the farming sector. I believe and hold with the manager of the Sugar Beet Company, General Costello, that eventually if the smaller farmers of Ireland can be persuaded to co-operate with each other in that direction they would indeed be doing a useful day's work for themselves.

I have some little experience of this but not enough, perhaps, to talk at length on the subject. Nevertheless, I have a little knowledge. I suppose a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it could be said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. My experience of trying to promote the spirit of co-operation amongst the farming community is not conducive to anything like jubilation. Not long ago I was speaking to a farmer. We had a certain amount of money in a certain fund and I suggested to him that it might be a good thing if we got the permission of the subscribers to hold the money in a fund and start a small machinery centre which might serve to supply machinery which the farmers would not ordinarily be able to buy. He said to me: "Do you want to become an enemy of the people?" It put me thinking. I thought of Ibsen's play An Enemy of the People, and I thought there was a lot of sense in what he said. So long as you have that kind of casual spirit abroad, I do not think we can expect to make immediate progress in that direction and more is the pity.

I could see the smaller holders making reasonable progress and walking the stock off their own holdings if they could come by sufficient capital at the right price to enable them to do that. There is no use in the Minister suggesting to the small farmers that they should tackle something which they are neither prepared nor fitted to tackle. I am not blaming the Minister for that attitude. He may think that, perhaps, it is good politics. I do not doubt that he is genuine in his desire to see the small man make a profit out of pigs.

At the moment, the small man cannot make a reasonable profit because his costs are too high. Again, we are affected in that direction by our exports abroad. That is what counts. We are not able to export competitively by reason of the fact that our costs of production are too high. One of the great factors in that is the price of money. I think it should not be beyond the ingenuity of this House to give a lead in that direction at any rate. What a Government can do in that direction is limited and that is one of the reasons I would welcome the spread of voluntary organisations which might act as a cementing force and get the small producers, especially, to work together as a unit and produce economically. Then we would get somewhere.

Apart from the tourist industry, the largest portion of the national income is derived from agriculture. Therefore, we should make every effort to see that the costs of the farming community are the lowest possible. Even industry employs fewer people than agriculture, believe it or not, both directly and indirectly. Out of roughly 1,400 factories, I suppose one could say that 1,100 odd are protected by tariffs and quotas of one kind and another. I am not making an attack on industry, but the people engaged in industry should look cheerful when they hear the price of meat or the price of bacon is going up.

We hear a good deal of this carping criticisms in towns and cities and I must say that the present Government had a hand in that because at every election they tried, as an inter-Party Government, to put the towns against the country. No doubt it was easy for them to do so since they are made up of many Parties. The Fine Gael element could say to the farmers: "We stand for the price support system initiated by Fianna Fáil and there will be no change in that policy." It was equally easy and clever for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to go around the city and say: "Prices should be lower, and Labour, being a consumers' Party, are making their best endeavours and we guarantee lower prices." You had all that talk which was more or less at cross-purposes and which, more or less, befogged the issue in the 1954 election and left some of the farmers in a position in which they did not know where they stood. Some of them know where they stand now.

I made some notes on the Minister's statement and I merely want to make some comments upon them. I think he said he took credit for starting all the major schemes—the farm buildings scheme, the land reclamation scheme, the artificial insemination scheme and all the rest of it. We grant him some of the credit for some of the schemes but we are not going to give him all the credit for all the schemes. From 1940 onwards the farm improvements scheme was being worked, as was also the burned lime scheme, although the latter might not have been the success we hoped. It might have been abused. Nevertheless, we must realise that there was a war on at the time and that it would not be easy even then, with the best will in the world, to come by the plant and the machinery necessary to start a ground lime scheme.

The farm buildings scheme was started in 1947 and if anyone wants to find out about that he ought to read the agricultural report of that year. I can give the reference. There is no doubt that each successive Minister expanded on that but there is no necessity for any Minister to come into this House and blow his trumpet about the schemes he initiated. We expect him to do that and that is what the taxpayers and the farmers of the country are paying for. That is why they pay £5,000,000 odd. That is why we are asked to vote that sum to-night in order to run a Department of Agriculture.

It is my hope that, with the spread of vocationalism, the farmers of this country will in time achieve a position whereby they will be able to get rid of the hordes of officials—I do not blame the officials—who are at the present time running their business so that the farmers will be able to run it themselves. I think we should cultivate that idea and move more in that direction. That is where I disagree with the Minister in trying to foist on the farming community a parish plan. Frankly, they do not want it. Everybody to whom I have been speaking— leaving aside the question of politics— says he is not a bit enamoured of the parish plan. People do not want it. They doubt it. I believe it will prove a failure.

One pilot farm would be worth all the parish plans and blueprints that were ever drawn up. You cannot beat the practical idea. Have one pilot farm or two pilot farms in every parish, if you can. I would go as far as to subsidise some of them although I do not like either the word or the system. Certainly, if I were to choose between a parish plan and a pilot farm, give me the pilot farm every time. I believe time will test that, as time tests men and things.

I hope the parish plan will provide a pilot farm in every parish and two or three in some parishes.

I doubt that. That is a hypothetical statement.

I do not think so.

A parish plan would not necessarily put a pilot farm in every parish. I doubt the ability of any parish agent to bring about that sort of a revolution. I believe it can come about far more quickly through vocationalism. If we cultivate that spirit, we shall not have to put back the hands of the clock to take a lesson from the Congested Districts Board. I do not, for a moment, want to belittle the efforts of the Congested Districts Board but, at this stage, surely it is a retrograde step to start talking about that board. It was established to deal with an unhappy chapter in our history.

With the rise of the National Farmers' Association, Macra na Feirme, Muintir na Tíre and the I.C.A., new ideas worthy of consideration will be put forward for the Minister's consideration. I believe these organisations can be of use to the Minister.

I propose to touch briefly on the question of agricultural education. It is noticeable that, in spite of all the talk about agricultural education, we award no travelling scholarships in agriculture, so far as I know. We send no agricultural students abroad in order to get a wider knowledge of agricultural methods, farming mechanics and other educational subjects dealing with agriculture.

We send numbers of agricultural graduates abroad. Practically every officer of the Department has been abroad.

I am talking about agricultural students in the university.

Is it not better to wait for them to get the degree and then send them abroad?

That is debatable. I would be prepared to argue that with the Minister some other time. I think we should have a farm apprentice scheme, as visualised by Dr. O'Connor and Professor Quinlan. Likewise, we should not have a cut-throat war, as sometimes takes place here in the industrial section of our economy, between the farm labourer and the farmer. We should have some system in this respect. Actually, it is not a matter for the Dáil—it would not be a matter even for the Department of Agriculture—but it is an idea which is worth considering. We should have some scheme for those farming lads who would be inclined to go into the service of a farmer at a certain age. I have not had enough time to go into this matter. Actually, this is more or less a Land Commission matter, but nevertheless it has a bearing on agriculture. We have much waste in the present system of land division and this matter is due for a major overhaul.

That is a matter which concerns another Minister.

We used to blame the British—there is no use in being too narrow-minded about this—for treating our problem as a social rather than an economic one. Let us take care lest we treat our problem perhaps as an economic one when we should treat it as a social one. As I see it, in certain parts of the country our problem to-day is as much a social problem from the farming point of view as it is an economic one. In that connection, it is possible that we have too many economists and that we could do with a few philosophers. Somehow or another, our educational system seems to have lost the knack of producing philosophers.

The Minister mentioned sheep farming. It would be a good thing if his advice were acted upon by some of the small farming community. In my view, sheep on the smaller units could, and would be, a much better paying proposition than cattle. At the moment, the pattern is that some small farming units follow the practice adopted on the larger farms. The small farmer has not the means of the larger farmer. That brings me back again to my argument about the pilot farm. It would demonstrate to the community and bring home to every individual farmer the type of farming that would suit him best.

I was glad to hear that the measures taken for the eradication of bovine T.B. are proceeding, shall we say, hopefully, and that Sligo is progressing very well in that direction. I would like at this stage to protest— this does not affect the Department; it could be taken, I suppose, more or less as a reflection on ourselves of the farming community—against the number of heifers in calf which are killed in our abattoirs. There is neither luck nor grace about that kind of thing. The man who lets a heifer go half time or more and sends it to an abattoir could not expect to have luck. Apart from the waste of time and money, it is a shame that it should happen.

Pigs were mentioned and the merits and demerits of our own pigs were discussed as against the landrace. I am glad to see that there is a stand being made in support of our own pigs. Even though the Minister will pay only top price for, shall we say, a pig with a collar and tie, a Grade A pig, nevertheless there is no sense in the attitude of accepting the rags and tatters of every other country. We have a background in farming as good as that of any other country in Europe. Perhaps we do not devote the same time or energy to it, do not adopt the same research methods or put enough money into it early on but I believe, no matter what people say to the contrary, that our own pigs, with proper progeny testing when the progeny testing station is set up and with proper management, will be as good as any produced in any other country. There is no reason why we should copy other countries in this respect.

The same remarks can be applied in regard to our Shorthorn cow. We hear a great deal about fancy breeds coming from England, Holland and other countries but if our Shorthorn cows were as well fed as they are starved we would have the best cows in Europe. If some of the fancy breeds had, for instance, to stand up to the hardship and lack of feeding that some of our own much maligned dual-purpose dairy Shorthorns put up with, I would be inclined to think that we would not have a cow at all at this stage.

I note the provision at the Department's farm at Lucan of facilities for seed propagation in respect of wheat, barley, oats and grassmeal, and that certified seed will be available in the near future. I welcome that trend and hope that the seed will be able to stand on merit alone against any imports of foreign seed.

I wish, so to speak, to end as I began, by saying that I am sure the farming community will not fail us if they are guaranteed a better price for their products on the home market. Secondly, I would say that in order to aid production we should provide, at least until we reach a more advanced stage, a cheaper credit system for the farmer; thirdly, that an improvement should be brought about in the agricultural advisory services and in the research end of it especially. I am confident that in that way we could overcome a lot of our difficulties and £50,000,000 could be readily obtained on our exports abroad, which would help to solve our balance of payments problem. It would also give us a better standard of living and enable the farmer and the citizen to get more for less.

When the Minister resumed the debate on the Estimate, he emphasised the importance of the land and he stated that everything depended upon the land. He made particular reference to the improvement of our grasslands as the solution to our problems. He also referred to the advisability of increasing the number of in-calf heifers. I thoroughly agree with him on the point he made in regard to the improvement of our grasslands, that liming and artificial manuring will bring the quickest and best results of all. Indeed, it is noticeable that the majority of Deputies seem to agree with the Minister on that score, but, like the Minister, I personally am not satisfied that sufficient progress is being made in that direction. One of the main reasons, in my opinion, is that for a long number of years we did not have facilities for soil testing at the disposal of the farmers as we have to-day. Even at the present time, we have not, in my opinion, sufficient facilities for soil testing, particularly in the remote areas. The importance of soil testing cannot be over-stressed.

A couple of nights ago, I had a visit from two local farmers and we got into a discussion on agriculture and on soil testing particularly. One of these men told me that he was the owner of a 16-acre farm which is generally regarded by the Irish people as an uneconomic holding. Some years ago, he had a visit from an agricultural officer, an officer qualified at least to do spot soil tests. He did some spot soil testing and the tests revealed these lands were deficient in lime and other minerals as well. That farmer was rather hard to convince, although he had seen the actual test on the spot. Subsequently, having limed the land in accordance with the advice of the agricultural officer, he had samples sent to Johnstown Castle, as a matter of suspicion, if you like, in the first instance—a test on the accuracy of the first test.

From Johnstown Castle came the report that the lime deficiency was cleared up in that land, and from that time onwards that man was convinced that Johnstown Castle was competent to judge whether soil was lime-deficient or not.

There are many such farmers in this country. They are, if you like "doubting Thomases". They were reared in that tradition. When this country was governed by a foreign power, anything that came from the Government was to be dreaded and feared. Successive generations of our people have been reared in that tradition. They are slow to take advice from these officers. It is, however, heartening that the trend in that regard is much improved, and that our people are more and more inclined to take advice from such experts. At the same time, there is still a great deal to be done to convince our people that it is really of paramount importance that, if land is deficient in lime, phosphates or any other minerals, these conditions should be corrected as early as possible, not alone from the point of view of the prosperity of the individual farmer himself, but from the national point of view.

It has been our experience in Mayo, all down through the years, that there is considerable delay in having soil tests carried out. When a farmer desires in the early spring, to have soil tests carried out, he discovers he is unable to get a report in time to make decisions as to what crop he should put in, whether barley, wheat, beet or anything else. He is so much discouraged that he abandons all hope and it is in that atmosphere and in that frame of mind that many of our farmers still work. I have met them; I have discussed that problem with them. I did so not later than yesterday evening with one organisation. They feel: "We have not a chance. There is month after month of delay. How can you get a field tested to find out whether it is lime or phosphate or what it wants? You have to wait month after month."

Having said all that, I am convinced that the scheme which is proposed and which has now been initiated in some parts of the country, the parish agent plan, will have the effect of bringing home to the farmers the importance of having soil tests carried out so as to determine whether field A, B, C or D is suitable for barley or oats or potatoes, as the case may be. I believe that will have the affect of convincing our people that there are certain deficiencies there; that there is a need in certain cases, as in the case of barley, to have the quantity of lime in the soil corrected, if that crop is to be successful. The only solution is the parish agent.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether the parish agent should operate from Merrion Street or under the county committee of agriculture. I would like to see those differences ironed out. The one very important thing, I repeat, is that there should be brought home to the farmers themselves the importance of knowing the potentialities of their land before they go to the expense of purchasing perhaps costly seed, and of having certified seed sown. They should be able to know whether or not the crop is likely to be successful under normal conditions in a particular field. It is too late to change when two or three months of the spring or summer have elapsed. The crop is in then and will turn out a failure if the soil is deficient. That is one of the reasons why Irish agriculture has not made more progress-because our people have been chancing their arm, so to speak, and working in the dark, without knowing whether their land was suitable or not. In my opinion, it is the main reason why we have to-day the serious balance of payments problem that exists, and that problem can only be corrected by intensifying the effort to bring the best knowledge that can possibly be made available to the farmers on spot.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. Wednesday, 18th April, 1956.
Top
Share